>Are you for or against legalising Euthanasia?

>A few sites to help you get your head round the debates as they stand thus far:

  1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml
  2. http://www.world-faiths.com/GCSE%20Short%20course/reasons_for_and_against.htm
  3. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/legal-euthanasia-does-not-increase-rate-says-belgian-expert-20101028-175u8.html
  4. http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Doctor+warns+against+legalizing+euthanasia/3642395/story.html


  • >I am absolutely for legalised euthanasia.Voluntary death should be an option available to those who are suffering & have no hope for a cure.Why should anyone in this position be forced to suffer further, and at huge cost to themselves & the state?A friend of mine who has Non-Hodgekins Lymphoma said to me that she doesn't want to have to go to Switzerland to die, she would like to die at home on her own terms (& can't afford Dignitas anyway!), she also suggested that the gov.t could save a lot of healthcare money by offering the "swiss coctail" & a cardboard coffin for free (& she wasn't joking).

  • >I completely agree! I believe that a ban on Euthanasia is immoral, and largely an example of a religious argument dominating, and suffocating choice. I recently had a conversation with someone on this topic. I've paraphrased below:Person A: "If, like me, people believe in a Creator, they will not want to usurp thar role and will be wary of the precedence of the State deciding who may or may not live, the fact is pain is controlled mostly, if not completely and many die in the process. Those who have decided to ask for euthanasia are doing so for other reasons, understandably. My fear is that who will form these committees deciding what is valid and who might be aided to die more quickly and how are we to guarantee that euthansia is not adopted to limit expenditure and encourage people to be seen as expendable. Everything we saw in the horrors of Nazi Germany with its eugenics programmes or Stalinist Russia, leads me to warn of extreme caution, particularly in these morally relativistic times. Essentially, i feel, that the inviolability of human life, whether we recognise it as Sacred or not, is the essence of human rights and that any dillution, for whatever justification, is potentially dangerous."Person B: " 1. State choosing who should and should not live: This is precisely the point. At present the state does decide who may and may not live by forcing all people to live, even if they, their family, and their doctor all think it would be best if we let them die. If we legalised Euthanasia the state would no longer have the power to have any effect over this. 2. Belief in the Creator: We have no right to force our religious beliefs on others. If I was a terminal patient in the sort of pain I'm talking about, I would probably hate you for forcing me to be in pain because of a belief I think is nonsense. Jesus once said "do unto others as you would have them do to you". If you were suffering, would you not want others to take pity on you? Would a kind God really resent you for ending your life a week earlier than might be the case if you weren't hooked up to a life support machine?3. Pain is mostly controlled: If that was not the case the call for euthanasia would be louder. We're talking about the minorities for whom pain is not controlled. Why would a doctor and the patient, and the patient's family all sanction euthanasia if the patient's pain was already controlled?4. Fears about committees: Who said anything about committees? The choice would only ever come down to three people: patient, doctor and family member5. Eugenics: It would be a very dubious euthanasia programme that permitted eugenics6. Human right to life: Why does a right to life mean that we should take away the right to death? My right to watch a football game on a Saturday afternoon does not mean you have the right to force me to watch it."continued…

  • >After this the debate got more detailed and policy specific to the UK Reform Party's upcoming manifesto. However agreement was possible because it's very hard to argue against giving those in pain the choice, unless on subjective ideological grounds, as long as appropriate safeguards are put into effect. So this is a challenge to anyone who disagrees with euthanasia (or thinks they can argue this point of view): please try to argue against because I have absolutely no doubt that this is a debate James and I will win!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s