Is Euthanasia the Future of End-of-Life Choices?

[JaredJames]

I have been talking about euthanasia, not assisted suicide. Read my posts before you get angry at them.

And as my previous posts, you have not clarified what type of euthanasia. I assume it's voluntary?

 

[Gokul43201]

Over a hundred posts in, and no one knows what anyone else is talking about, except that they disagree with each other!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And as my previous posts, you have not clarified what type of euthanasia. I assume it's voluntary?

I mean when one person kills another. Clear?

 

[Gokul43201]

I mean when one person kills another. Clear?

I'm still a little unclear what exactly that means. I think it would help if you could say which of the following three things (copied - modulo some formatting - from an earlier post) you would say involves one person killing another (and why):

If I ask someone to stick a lethal injection into me and he does it, is that euthanasia or assisted suicide?

If I ask him to prepare the dose for me, and I stick myself, what is it?

If I prepare the injection, and ask him to fetch it from my medicine cabinet, following which I stick myself with a fatal dose what is it then?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If I ask someone to stick a lethal injection into me and he does it, is that euthanasia or assisted suicide?

If I ask him to prepare the dose for me, and I stick myself, what is it?

If I prepare the injection, and ask him to fetch it from my medicine cabinet, following which I stick myself with a fatal dose what is it then?

From a moral point of view, the first one is euthanasia, I don't see how it could be anything less. But it might be more. It depends on his compentency to determine your state of body and mind. From a legal point of view, the difference wouldn't matter. It would bring a charge of murder. Kervorkian never engaged in such a practice.

From a moral point of view, the next two are assisted suicide (assuming you die) because he can't be sure that you will actually take the dose. I don't know the law in this case, and I continue to avoid expressing my opinion on the morality of assisted suicide. I think Kervorkian's MO was along these lines except that he proposed the method of suicide, not the client.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm still waiting for a good reason why people should be made to suffer longer than they have to.

You can die today on your own terms, or you can lay in bed for a few months in excruciating pain and then die anyway.

It just doesn't make sense why anyone thinks forcing the latter is acceptable.

 

[Evo]

I'm still waiting for a good reason why people should be made to suffer longer than they have to.

You can die today on your own terms, or you can lay in bed for a few months in excruciating pain and then die anyway.

It just doesn't make sense why anyone thinks forcing the latter is acceptable.

I think a good question is, if your pet was terminally ill and in horrible unending pain, would you do the humane thing and put them to sleep, or make them suffer because *you* can't let them go.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm still waiting for a good reason why people should be made to suffer longer than they have to.

You can die today on your own terms, or you can lay in bed for a few months in excruciating pain and then die anyway.

It just doesn't make sense why anyone thinks forcing the latter is acceptable.

So you wanted me to specify the distinction just so you could blur it.

 

[Jack21222]

I have been talking about euthanasia, not assisted suicide. Read my posts before you get angry at them.

Morally, euthanasia = assisted suicide. Whether my grandma presses the plunger on the needle in her vein or I do it at her direction is 100% irrelevant. And neither situation involves you, who probably live a quarter of the way across the globe.

One person killing another is not always wrong. You act as if it is.

 

[Gokul43201]

From a moral point of view, the next two are assisted suicide (assuming you die) because he can't be sure that you will actually take the dose.

To clarify, I should have specified that the 'someone' was acting with explicit communication between the two of us, wherein I made it clear exactly what I intended to do with the injection. I'm not saying this negates your basis for differentiation (though I think it might - I'd have to give it more thought), but if you believe it does, it would be good to know that.

 

[JaredJames]

So you wanted me to specify the distinction just so you could blur it.

With all due respect Jimmy, I've asked you a similar question previously and you dodged it.

I asked about the whole "relative in pain" thing and you said it was too complicated to answer, despite it being a real scenario faced by many people everyday.

So far, you've simply said euthanasia is wrong, however, you haven't justified why you think making a person suffer under the circumstances I've given over and over is right.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Morally, euthanasia = assisted suicide.

How can that possibly be true? The manufacturer of morphine assists too. The driver of the delivery truck that brought the morphine assists too. There has to be a distinction between doing something and helping someone else do something. Life is too intertwined for that not to be the case.

 

[Gokul43201]

How can that possibly be true? The manufacturer of morphine assists too. The driver of the delivery truck that brought the morphine assists too. There has to be a distinction between doing something and helping someone else do something. Life is too intertwined for that not to be the case.

I think the difference is in the knowledge that each of the participants has of the act. The manufacturer does not make the morphine for the explicit purpose of me injecting myself with a lethal dose. He has no knowledge of my plans. Neither does the truck driver. But the person that prepares the dose and hands me the injection is acting with the explicitly communicated knowledge that I intend to use that injection to kill myself.

The same kind of distinction is made in charging people with aiding and abetting a criminal.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I asked about the whole "relative in pain" thing and you said it was too complicated to answer, despite it being a real scenario faced by many people everyday.

I'm pretty sure you have me confused with someone else.

So far, you've simply said euthanasia is wrong, however, you haven't justified why you think making a person suffer under the circumstances I've given over and over is right.

You go too far. I don't accept any blame for making anyone suffer. I have not spoken about all the options available to end the suffering. I have only reduced your options by one. But you take make it sound like I have taken away all of your options. That is blurring the distinction that you asked me to make.

 

[Gokul43201]

I have only reduced your options by one. But you take make it sound like I have taken away all of your options.

What if number of options available = 1? Or do you believe that is never true?

 

[JaredJames]

I'm pretty sure you have me confused with someone else.

Post number 71, is your response to a question I directly posed you regarding relatives being in pain, where you claimed my scenario was too complicated. Like I have said previously, it is a realistic scenario many people are faced with daily.

You go too far. I don't accept any blame for making anyone suffer. I have not spoken about all the options available to end the suffering. I have only reduced your options by one. But you take make it sound like I have taken away all of your options. That is blurring the distinction that you asked me to make.

In the case of the terminally ill patient given above (the same conditions under which post 71 was responded to), what other options are there to relieve the pain and prevent the suffering?

I'm still waiting on why my scenario is too complicated? Once again, it is realistic and I'm very interested in hearing the alternative options available to help people in that situation that don't involve them being allowed to terminate their lives. As per the above post, what are the other options that give you more than one to choose from?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I didn't say the scenario was complicated, I said the question was complicated. It is an either/or type question but the two choices are not complements of each other, the first choice is a negative and the second a possitive. I asked you to simplify the question, not the scenario, you did not do so.

I would like you to answer this question, don't add to it, don't change it, just answer for the scenario laid out:
You have a family member who is a terminally ill, they are in terrible pain and don't want to suffer for the next three months, after which they will die. Do you think they shouldn't have a choice and should be made to endure it until their coming death or do you think they should be allowed to commit suicide?

What on Earth does any part of the question have to do with euthanasia?

 

[JaredJames]

What on Earth does any part of the question have to do with euthanasia?

I'm trying to understand your reasoning. I get your "killing is bad" stance, but I don't understand why you think people should suffer under those conditions. They go together.

Again, please tell me what other options there are? You either have the person suffer until they die, or you let them end their life on their terms and not have to suffer. Euthanasia is simply a means by which to allow them to end their life. If I am deemed in sound mind and give instructions that I don't want to suffer any more and wish to end my life now instead of waiting a few more months in excruciating pain to die because of my terminal illness, why shouldn't someone be allowed to carry it out if I am incapable of doing it myself? Or should I be made to suffer for no reason other than you don't think someone should be allowed to help me?

 

[JaredJames]

I find it amazing that the death penalty is supposed to be as humane as possible, and yet we allow people to suffer so badly in cases such as the one I described above. A criminal can't be allowed to suffer, but it's perfectly fine to allow an innocent person to do so.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What if number of options available = 1? Or do you believe that is never true?

I hope we're not talking about Terry Sciavo here. She gave no instructions and was not killed.

My mother just died in May. She went very quickly. The doctor gave her 2 weeks to a month. Her reaction on hearing this was "Can it be hurried up?" Should I have pulled a knife on her? Her intentions were clear enough and her reasons obvious. Perhaps not. I guess you mean to put some safeguards in place. I don't suppose you will ever satisfy me with them.

 

[Digitalism]

I think that people killing themselves and "giving up on life" makes people uncomfortable because it begs the question, "Why shouldn't I give up to?" If you have never truly dealt with meaning of life issues this can be very scary. Also, for myself the meaning of life is love and for people who are of that persuasion this can be very difficult because death seems to be an unchangeable event that separates you from the ones you care about and who care about you.

 

[Gokul43201]

I hope we're not talking about Terry Sciavo here.

We're not. But you have me totally confused about what your answer is to the questions I raised.

 

[Our choice]

Please explain.

Ok it states that people in hospital or have suffered a heartattack or car accident and they have signed a guardian declaration stating Not to be Ressus is ok, but because they were in their own residence it has no meaning what so ever. This just happened a couple of months ago to my parents... it sucks fancy bringing back people in their 80's.

 

[Our choice]

I'm still waiting for a good reason why people should be made to suffer longer than they have to.

You can die today on your own terms, or you can lay in bed for a few months in excruciating pain and then die anyway.

It just doesn't make sense why anyone thinks forcing the latter is acceptable.

Totally Agree

 

[Evo]

Ok it states that people in hospital or have suffered a heartattack or car accident and they have signed a guardian declaration stating Not to be Ressus is ok, but because they were in their own residence it has no meaning what so ever. This just happened a couple of months ago to my parents... it sucks fancy bringing back people in their 80's.

You should report them. The paramedic that posts here went to the home of an elderly man, the paramdics where then advised that the man had a DNR, so they left, nothing they could at that point, he would have required heroic means to try to resucitate him, and that was not his wish.

 

[Jack21222]

The doctor gave her 2 weeks to a month. Her reaction on hearing this was "Can it be hurried up?" Should I have pulled a knife on her?

No, that would be murder. You're intentionally setting up straw men, false dichotomies, and the like, and I'm not sure that's allowed here. Dicing up your mother with a knife because she asked if her death could be hurried up is in no way analogous to a doctor explaining her options and offering a peaceful way out.

If you actually believe those two scenarios to be analogous, you're a sociopath. Since I don't believe you're actually a sociopath, I can only assume you're being dishonest by knowingly using logical fallacies.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

No, that would be murder. You're intentionally setting up straw men, false dichotomies, and the like, and I'm not sure that's allowed here. Dicing up your mother with a knife because she asked if her death could be hurried up is in no way analogous to a doctor explaining her options and offering a peaceful way out.

If you actually believe those two scenarios to be analogous, you're a sociopath. Since I don't believe you're actually a sociopath, I can only assume you're being dishonest by knowingly using logical fallacies.

It was a joke.

 

[Jasongreat]

No, that would be murder. You're intentionally setting up straw men, false dichotomies, and the like, and I'm not sure that's allowed here. Dicing up your mother with a knife because she asked if her death could be hurried up is in no way analogous to a doctor explaining her options and offering a peaceful way out.

If you actually believe those two scenarios to be analogous, you're a sociopath. Since I don't believe you're actually a sociopath, I can only assume you're being dishonest by knowingly using logical fallacies.

Even though jimmy said he was joking, can you tell me the difference? If someone wants to die and I inject them with a fatal dose of heroin, or if I slice their jugular with a knife what is the difference? A separate person caused their death, both ways would be fairly painless, both ways would be quick, and both ways would cause death, which the subject asked for, so is there a difference? I don't think jimmy ever was thinking to stab his grandma 142 times to kill her.

Imo, this whole thread has been full of logical fallacies, and is emotionally charged. It has been assumed throughout this thread that the pain couldn't be mitigated, that death was guaranteed, and that there was no other way out. Like there has never been any doctor who has given a wrong diagnosis, a person who said the pain was unbearable when it was or that someone has never assumed they were doing right by killing another.

I think that I am a compassionate person, and if anyone ever asked, and had valid reason to back up said request, I would most definitely help them kill themselves since I consider myself an individualistic libertarian. However I would never have the gual to say what I did was the only solution, or that it wasnt murder.

Evo made a point a few pages back that her life shouldn't depend on others beliefs, I agree, however as long as we think of ourselves as a democratic society, how can that not be so? If we feel that as a majority we can make assisted suicide legal, how can we not agree that if the majority feel that assisted suicide is wrong it is? She also made the point that if she was in pain she should be able to hook us up to the same pain until we allow her to die. What if she hooks us up to that pain and we think its not so bad, would she consider staying alive until we felt it was overwhelming? My thought is that if you are a self sufficient individual you will not have to depend on having someone else do your dirty work for you. If you want to control when you die, you will have made arrangements before that time comes, and not have to depend on society to heed your wishes. How can society punish someone who commits suicide?

 

[pallidin]

Prolonged suffering, if you have yourself experienced it, is brutal.
Much like a torture scenario.

Death becomes most welcome to end that constant suffering, even though you have no "life" to perceive the relief.

Curiously, certain pharmacological interventions substantially reduce physical and emotional pain prior to actual death. One goes into an emotional euphoria and then a relaxing sleep prior to death.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Even though jimmy said he was joking, can you tell me the difference?

This is a very strong point and I missed it. The issue isn't grannie's pain after all. It's their own pain. It pains them to see the aged relative moan and that's why they want to erase if from their sight. Sorry old thing, I'd do anything to reduce your suffering, but you know how squeemish I am about needles. And look at the difference in pain levels, her agony to his delicate sensibilities.

 

[JaredJames]

This is a very strong point and I missed it. The issue isn't grannie's pain after all. It's their own pain. It pains them to see the aged relative moan and that's why they want to erase if from their sight. Sorry old thing, I'd do anything to reduce your suffering, but you know how squeemish I am about needles. And look at the difference in pain levels, her agony to his delicate sensibilities.

Well I can't speak for the others, but my own view is in regards to a person specifically asking to die because of the pain and suffering (and eventual death).

I have absolutely no say in whether or not someone else should die because I don't like seeing them in pain. For me, the decision must be made by the person affected.

This is an important distinction for myself. I see a person in pain (e.g. terminally ill in agony) and I have no right to "end their suffering" for my own benefit / reasons. They must, in sound mind, make the choice.

Once again, I feel people here aren't identifying differences such as these when posting. Me making the choice for someone else is non-voluntary euthanasia and I do not accept that as a valid option. You have no right to decide for someone else. The dying person making the choice is voluntary and they should have that right and option.

If they are capable, the act should be performed by them - making it suicide / assisted suicide. If they are incapable, but as above have been proven to be in sound mind, someone else can perform it - making it voluntary euthanasia.

However, I would argue that for a large number of cases, where the person is at least capable of communicating, there is no reason there cannot be system in place allowing them to administer a lethal dose themselves. Therefore eliminating the need for someone else performing the act, removing the whole euthanasia issue.

As an example, take Stephen Hawking. If he was in this situation, he is stable able to activate a system in the same way he communicates now (press an on screen button).

Would this help with the problem people have with euthanasia? Would people here accept making it legal for a person in this situation to take their own life (by administering the dose themselves in some way) and leaving euthanasia out of it?

We need to make this distinction between should euthanasia be allowed and should suicide.

Jimmy, it seems you are against euthanasia but I'm not sure how you feel about the person committing suicide. Perhaps you could elaborate?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jimmy, it seems you are against euthanasia but I'm not sure how you feel about the person committing suicide. Perhaps you could elaborate?

I have made it clear that I do not intend to do so. I feel that by arguing against allowing people to kill each other I am pursuing low-hanging fruit. I feel that such an allowance would bring consequences to society far worse than the prolonged pain of a few individuals. What about the insane? Is their life really worth living? What about the disabled, the despondant, the sad? What about the Jews?

 

[JaredJames]

I have made it clear that I do not intend to do so. I feel that by arguing against allowing people to kill each other I am pursuing low-hanging fruit. I feel that such an allowance would bring consequences to society far worse than the prolonged pain of a few individuals. What about the insane? Is their life really worth living? What about the disabled, the despondant, the sad? What about the Jews?

Ok Jimmy, I think you are deliberately being flippant in your responses.

I have made it perfectly clear what conditions would need to be satisfied to allow something such as suicide and you constantly make such ridiculous statements that have nothing to do with what has been said.

By ensuring the conditions are satisfied, you remove any of your above possibilities for 'exploitation'.

Insane - Person is not of sound mind and as such cannot make the choice (legally) to end their life.
Disabled/Jews - What about them? They are not terminally ill for one thing and if they are then it's their choice.
Despondant/Sad - Again, what about them? I'd also add that these people can't be considered of sound mind (as per current suicide laws).

We aren't discussing whether or not someone's life is worth living. It is an irrelevant point. Again you are viewing the situation as a person on the outside making a judgement on someone - in this case, do I believe their life is worth living? In the previous case, do I believe they are suffering?

As per my previous post, I'm asking if a person who is terminally ill and in sound mind should be allowed to end their own life (suicide) on their own terms - before the suffering begins / gets too severe. There is no decision made by anyone other than the person who wants to die. No one is killed non-voluntarily via euthanasia.

Once again I find myself asking you to stop confusing voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. And to also differentiate between allowing someone to commit suicide (as per conditions satisfied) and euthanising someone.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jarednjames, there is simply no way you could have read my posts and written what you did in response. I have said over and over again that I am not talking about suicide, I am talking about euthanasia. In the past few posts I even stopped using that word and used the phrase one person killing another. When it's voluntary, it's one person killing another. When it's involuntary it's one person killing another. When it's suicide it's not one person killing another. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

 

[Jack21222]

Even though jimmy said he was joking, can you tell me the difference? If someone wants to die and I inject them with a fatal dose of heroin, or if I slice their jugular with a knife what is the difference?

For one, Jimmy's not a medical doctor. There is a huge difference between a medical doctor doing something and a random guy off the street doing the same thing.

Two, an overdose of morphine is less painful than getting cut by a knife. Have you ever been cut by a knife before? It hurts.

Three, in Jimmy's scenario, there was no discussion, no going over her options, no explanation of the method, nothing in writing, no witness, etc.

This is a very strong point and I missed it. The issue isn't grannie's pain after all. It's their own pain. It pains them to see the aged relative moan and that's why they want to erase if from their sight. Sorry old thing, I'd do anything to reduce your suffering, but you know how squeemish I am about needles. And look at the difference in pain levels, her agony to his delicate sensibilities.

This is 100% wrong. There is not a single word in there that is correct. There are two reasons why I support physician-assisted suicide.

1) I believe in the individual right to contract. I believe that if somebody wants to die, and they are of sound mind, they should be able to contract a trained physician to either help them, or to actually complete the transaction. There should be many restrictions on this, and I've outlined them in this thread, but if I want somebody to put me out of my misery, I should have that right.

2) I'm concerned about my own pain and suffering in the future. If I'm in terrible shape near the end of my life, and I'm physically unable to kill myself, I want the right to tell a doctor to kill me.

In the past few posts I even stopped using that word and used the phrase one person killing another. When it's voluntary, it's one person killing another. When it's involuntary it's one person killing another. When it's suicide it's not one person killing another. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Can you explain to me why one person killing another is a bad thing in all cases? You throw out that phrase and you don't elaborate. I want you to explain why one person killing another is a bad thing in general. I know my answer, but before I give it, I want to hear yours.

 

[JaredJames]

Jarednjames, there is simply no way you could have read my posts and written what you did in response. I have said over and over again that I am not talking about suicide, I am talking about euthanasia. In the past few posts I even stopped using that word and used the phrase one person killing another. When it's voluntary, it's one person killing another. When it's involuntary it's one person killing another. When it's suicide it's not one person killing another. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I completely understand your views on euthanasia. However, I asked about suicide and instead of stopping at "I have nothing to say on it", you gave a paragraph on "what about the..." regarding whether someone's life is worth living, which has no relevance to either euthanasia or suicide.

I understand the initial points in your posts, but you seem to degrade into random, fallacious / ridiculous statements such as granny killing which I find degrade your arguments because they aren't rational in any way. As per Jack's post above, your whole post relating to killing your gran just doesn't fit in with the concept of assisted suicide, euthanasia or suicide and isn't relevant.
Also within these 'finishers', you seem to constantly imply you are the one making the choice to terminate the life, which is not the case with the three above options, rendering your arguments even more irrelevant.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

After I have said over and over again that I am only talking about one person taking the life of another, any post that twists my words to mean suicide is no longer going to get any response from me. For those who want my approval to kill someone else, you're not getting it. I don't trust you no matter how many times you smile and tell me how trustworthy you are and will only do it when it's really really convenient.

 

[DaveC426913]

For those who want my approval to kill someone else, you're not getting it.

OK.

What if it is the person in the hospital bed wanting your approval to kill themselves?

 

[thorium1010]

After I have said over and over again that I am only talking about one person taking the life of another, any post that twists my words to mean suicide is no longer going to get any response from me. For those who want my approval to kill someone else, you're not getting it. I don't trust you no matter how many times you smile and tell me how trustworthy you are and will only do it when it's really really convenient.

I get i that you see it as one person taking life of another. Unless, there is a lot of advancement in medical science to address terminally ill patients (especially terminal cancer patients) euthanasia is still an option and it should be voluntary (patient should give consent).It is not the same as pulling the plug (one who is on life support).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Unless, there is a lot of advancement in medical science to address terminally ill patients (especially terminal cancer patients) euthanasia is still an option and it should be voluntary (patient should give consent).

I don't think you are correct. As far as I know, euthanasia is illegal everywhere. It is not an option and never was. The 'and it should be voluntary' comment is precious.

 

[Jack21222]

After I have said over and over again that I am only talking about one person taking the life of another, any post that twists my words to mean suicide is no longer going to get any response from me. For those who want my approval to kill someone else, you're not getting it. I don't trust you no matter how many times you smile and tell me how trustworthy you are and will only do it when it's really really convenient.

So you're going to ignore my question?

Why is one person taking the life of another person wrong generally? I have an answer in mind, but I want to hear your answer first.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Why is one person taking the life of another person wrong generally?

When someone tells you they want to kill someone else, make no mistake about it, they want to kill you. Put a knife in my hands and I will solve your problems they say. Don't trust them, you are the problem that is going to be solved. They will cut you down in the prime of life, not when you are sick. They will do it for power, for money, for the apple you are carrying, for the sheer pleasure of watching you die. From where do you prefer to take this lesson? From history, or from current events? Killing is wrong because there is no such thing as killing without killing you and killing you is wrong.

 

[Evo]

I don't think you are correct. As far as I know, euthanasia is illegal everywhere. It is not an option and never was. The 'and it should be voluntary' comment is precious.

Voluntary euthanasia (assisted suicide) is legal in three US states. I'm hoping it will be legal in all states soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide#United_States

jimmy apparently believes that anything except death by natural causes is wrong, so let's move on. No need to beat a dead horse.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

jimmy apparently believes that anything except death by natural causes is wrong, so let's move on. No need to beat a dead horse.

When I wrote the word euthanasia, I was quoting someone else. Yet even so, as I was writing it, I knew that someone would take advantage and blur my meaning. I mean one person killing another, I do not mean suicide. I can't believe how many times I have said that. I can't believe how many people have tried to read their own meaning into what I say and then blame me for being unclear. But Evo, after the fuss you put up about people putting words in your mouth, I'm shocked to see you put words in mine.
This is from your link. It doesn't sound like voluntary euthanasia to me.

For instance, Oregon requires a physician to prescribe medication but it must be self-administered.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm still waiting for a good reason why people should be made to suffer longer than they have to.

You can die today on your own terms, or you can lay in bed for a few months in excruciating pain and then die anyway.

It just doesn't make sense why anyone thinks forcing the latter is acceptable.

Well I'd still like an answer on this one from people who oppose suicide and voluntary euthanasia.

Can some provide a rational argument?

I do agree with Evo's point regarding 'us' not being able to let go of someone / something, but that can't be the only reason people defend keeping this illegal and it certainly isn't a rational argument for doing so.

 

[JaredJames]

I'd like to add that voluntary euthanasia is not assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide is to help someone commit suicide in some way, such as providing the means to do so (a lethal dose) but you do not cause the death directly.

Voluntary euthanasia (as I've hammered out on numerous occasions in this thread) is a person terminating another persons life, with their permission.

Both (under the topic of discussion so far as assisted suicide goes, but always for euthanasia) with the specific purpose to relieve the pain and suffering of the person wishing to die.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'd like to add that voluntary euthanasia is not assisted suicide.

I would too. What confusion of mind would cause a person not to recognize the difference?

 

[Evo]

When I wrote the word euthanasia, I was quoting someone else. Yet even so, as I was writing it, I knew that someone would take advantage and blur my meaning. I mean one person killing another, I do not mean suicide. I can't believe how many times I have said that. I can't believe how many people have tried to read their own meaning into what I say and then blame me for being unclear. But Evo, after the fuss you put up about people putting words in your mouth, I'm shocked to see you put words in mine.
This is from your link. It doesn't sound like voluntary euthanasia to me.

From my link.

Assisted suicide is the common term for controversial actions by which an individual helps another person die upon their wanting to do so—a concept almost always reserved for people who are terminally ill. "Assistance" may mean providing one with the means (drugs or equipment) to end their own lives, but may extend to other actions. The current waves of global public debate have been ongoing for decades, centering on legal, religious, and moral conceptions of "suicide" and a personal "right to death". Legally speaking, the practice may be legal, illegal, or undecided depending on the culture or jurisdiction.

The terminology "assisted suicide" is itself controversial due to the connotations of self-destruction and despair associated with the term "suicide." Some proponents prefer the term "voluntary euthanasia" for assisted suicides made in good faith with both moral and spiritual beliefs, and reserve the term "suicide" for acts committed out of more self-destructive impulse.[citation needed] In some cases, the terms aid in dying or death with dignity are preferred.[1]

I apologize you didn't oppose suicide as per your post #134, my mistake. So, I will assume that assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia (see above wiki) fall into that category since in neither case is another person actually killing the person, they have just given the person the means to do it.

When it's suicide it's not one person killing another

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3034991&postcount=134

Perhaps we all need to agree on definitions of terms.

 

[JaredJames]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/

This is a very interesting link describing everything about Euthanasia.

It makes a good point in that euthanasia can be active or passive:

Active - deliberately performing an action, such as administering a drug, to terminate a life.
Passive - deliberately not performing an action, such as withdrawing treatment, to terminate a life.

It is a good read and I'd recommend everyone has a look at it.

I'd note that passive euthanasia and more importantly involuntary euthanasia are actually legal (at least in the UK). As an example, if the doctors feel there it isn't fair to constantly revive a child that is dying, they can make the decision (generally with the parents) not to provide further treatment and not to revive them.

Involuntary is also described as killing someone who wants to live. It gives a good example involving a soldier.

 

[pallidin]

This is directly related to the discussion, though perhaps not intended as such:

I recall reading about several incidences in the Vietnam war, whereas a soldier was caught in a "man-trap".
Being in sever pain and facing certain, agonizing death the soldier screams to his fellow soldiers "kill me, please, kill me"
Or, if unable to speak, yet clearly perceived to be in agonizing injury leading to certain death, he is shot dead by his team mates out of mercy, or quickly injected with a lethal dose of morphine.