• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Euthanasia

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Humans have no qualms about euthanizing a pet or an animal that is terminally ill or suffering. We say it's because they cannot communicate their will to us. Because of this, humans feel they have the right and the moral obligation make the decision to terminate a pet's or animal's life.

However, when a human is terminally ill or suffering, it is socially considered immoral to end his/her life, regardless of his/her suffering. Sure, a human can communicate better than an animal whether or not s/he wants to live or die, but that point appears to be moot, because whether the person wishes to die or s/he cannot communicate these wishes, we have laws against assisted suicide and/or euthanasia (unless there are laws that I am unaware of in different parts of the world - check local listings).

What are your thoughts on euthanasia/physician assisted suicide?

Do other humans have the moral license to tell another what s/he is allowed to do with regard to his/her suffering?

Does a human have the right to tell another that s/he is not allowed to die until whatever is killing her/him takes her/him naturally?

What are the spiritual/religious implications of such a decision?
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Humans have no qualms about euthanizing a pet or an animal that is terminally ill or suffering. We say it's because they cannot communicate their will to us. Because of this, humans feel they have the right and the moral obligation make the decision to terminate a pet's or animal's life.

However, when a human is terminally ill or suffering, it is socially considered immoral to end his/her life, regardless of his/her suffering. Sure, a human can communicate better than an animal whether or not s/he wants to live or die, but that point appears to be moot, because whether the person wishes to die or s/he cannot communicate these wishes, we have laws against assisted suicide and/or euthanasia (unless there are laws that I am unaware of in different parts of the world - check local listings).

What are your thoughts on euthanasia/physician assisted suicide?

Do other humans have the moral license to tell another what s/he is allowed to do with regard to his/her suffering?

Does a human have the right to tell another that s/he is not allowed to die until whatever is killing her/him takes her/him naturally?

What are the spiritual/religious implications of such a decision?

In the US anyway Veterinarians are pushing back on euthanizing pets. It is becoming a moral obligation to try and keep you pet alive and not in pain anymore. There is a simple reason why. Veterinarians make lots of money off of sick pets and I believe this translates to why it is illegal in the US for adults, hospitals, doctors, nurses and everyone involved in long term health care makes tons of money keeping the sick alive. It has nothing to do with moral values.
 

Tmac

Active Member
Humans have no qualms about euthanizing a pet or an animal that is terminally ill or suffering. We say it's because they cannot communicate their will to us. Because of this, humans feel they have the right and the moral obligation make the decision to terminate a pet's or animal's life.

However, when a human is terminally ill or suffering, it is socially considered immoral to end his/her life, regardless of his/her suffering. Sure, a human can communicate better than an animal whether or not s/he wants to live or die, but that point appears to be moot, because whether the person wishes to die or s/he cannot communicate these wishes, we have laws against assisted suicide and/or euthanasia (unless there are laws that I am unaware of in different parts of the world - check local listings).

What are your thoughts on euthanasia/physician assisted suicide?

Do other humans have the moral license to tell another what s/he is allowed to do with regard to his/her suffering?

Does a human have the right to tell another that s/he is not allowed to die until whatever is killing her/him takes her/him naturally?

What are the spiritual/religious implications of such a decision?

Oregon allows you to kill yourself. You can buy it at the drug store.
 

Tmac

Active Member
In the US anyway Veterinarians are pushing back on euthanizing pets. It is becoming a moral obligation to try and keep you pet alive and not in pain anymore. There is a simple reason why. Veterinarians make lots of money off of sick pets and I believe this translates to why it is illegal in the US for adults, hospitals, doctors, nurses and everyone involved in long term health care makes tons of money keeping the sick alive. It has nothing to do with moral values.

Way too simple.
 

SabahTheLoner

Master of the Art of Couch Potato Cuddles
Terminal patients, in my opinion, should have the choice to end their lives less painfully if they do wish. I would imagine some of them would want to “wait it out”, but if it were me I’d just want it to be over. I don’t know why life becomes more precious the moment it’s human life. A sick body is a sick body and it doesn’t matter if you’re a human or dog, sometimes it’s better to spare them of pain.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Humans have no qualms about euthanizing a pet or an animal that is terminally ill or suffering. We say it's because they cannot communicate their will to us. Because of this, humans feel they have the right and the moral obligation make the decision to terminate a pet's or animal's life.

However, when a human is terminally ill or suffering, it is socially considered immoral to end his/her life, regardless of his/her suffering. Sure, a human can communicate better than an animal whether or not s/he wants to live or die, but that point appears to be moot, because whether the person wishes to die or s/he cannot communicate these wishes, we have laws against assisted suicide and/or euthanasia (unless there are laws that I am unaware of in different parts of the world - check local listings).

What are your thoughts on euthanasia/physician assisted suicide?

Do other humans have the moral license to tell another what s/he is allowed to do with regard to his/her suffering?

Does a human have the right to tell another that s/he is not allowed to die until whatever is killing her/him takes her/him naturally?

What are the spiritual/religious implications of such a decision?
Reiterating @SabahTheLoner 's point. This topic should definitely be addressed in terms of a consensual act by the person wishing to, not a euthansia. I agree that the law should allow physicians (and others) to assist persons who clearly want to die.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
What are your thoughts on euthanasia/physician assisted suicide?
I'm in favour of it.

Do other humans have the moral license to tell another what s/he is allowed to do with regard to his/her suffering?

Does a human have the right to tell another that s/he is not allowed to die until whatever is killing her/him takes her/him naturally?
I think it's monstrous to force someone into a prolonged death of pain or indignity when an alternative is available. How this translates to rights... I'm not sure.

What are the spiritual/religious implications of such a decision?
They're a personal matter that an individual should consider when deciding on euthanasia for themselves or when deciding whether to pursue a career in health care.

And on that second point: I don't support so-called "consience" exemptions for health care workers who don't want to take part in physician assisted suicide. The needs of the patient come first, and if a physician or nurse's conscience conflicts with the needs of the patient, then they need to find a job in a discipline where that conflict doesn't happen (or in a completely different profession). Especially when a patient is dying in hospice or a hospital bed and an ambulance ride to another facility would cause the patient to suffer, the facility should be prepared to provide euthanasia services without undue delay where the patient happens to be.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
As one who has cared for hospice patients, there is absolutely nothing done to keep these patients alive, they and their families are encouraged to 'let go'. Pain can be relieved to the degree the patient wishes. Some choose to be 'out of it' completely, others want to retain some communication with life and family.

As for euthanasia there are dangers involved. Especially to an older person who might be made to feel a burden. It should never be a rush to judgment without seriously considering the alternatives which one might not even be familiar with. As to the extent possible, it ought to be discussed with mental or spiritual advisors. As for 'physician assisted' there is little or no assist from the doctor beyond giving you a script you take on your own when ready. Having stated all that I do believe in euthanasia when it concerns one who does not and has no promise of any quality of life due to brain injury and kept alive through feeding tube as in the case of Terry Schiavo.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
As one who has cared for hospice patients, there is absolutely nothing done to keep these patients alive, they and their families are encouraged to 'let go'. Pain can be relieved to the degree the patient wishes. Some choose to be 'out of it' completely, others want to retain some communication with life and family.

The voice of experience is always welcome to balance things out.

As for euthanasia there are dangers involved. Especially to an older person who might be made to feel a burden. It should never be a rush to judgment without seriously considering the alternatives which one might not even be familiar with.

As one who was a daily visitor to a loved one in a nursing home, believe me, death is often preferable to that kind of "living". The "care" that frail or incapacitated ones receive in some of those places, you would not subject a family pet to such treatment. Infrequent visitors may not see what goes on or be able to speak with the residents in those places, but those who work there or who visit frequently, see way more than they want to. The church run "care" facilities are often the most heartless penny-pinchers. (in my experience)

As to the extent possible, it ought to be discussed with mental or spiritual advisors. As for 'physician assisted' there is little or no assist from the doctor beyond giving you a script you take on your own when ready. Having stated all that I do believe in euthanasia when it concerns one who does not and has no promise of any quality of life due to brain injury and kept alive through feeding tube as in the case of Terry Schiavo.

The decision should definitely be a joint one. The person concerned should, whilst still 'compos mentis' make a legal declaration as to their wishes, which cannot be overridden by well meaning family members. It is selfish to keep someone alive only to endure more suffering. Physicians should be able to review each case on its merits, taking into consideration the patients stated wishes, and their physical and mental state.

Personally, I see two kinds of euthanasia.....the "active" kind....which involves hastening death by artificial means (such as using Nembutal which is administered to pets by a vet) and there is "passive" euthanasia, which simply involves withdrawing all life preserving measures and allowing nature to take its course....keeping the patient as "comfortable" as possible.

The latter is already available and breaks no laws of man or God.
The "active" one is what is sought through the making of new laws.

If you ask someone who is suffering, which one they would prefer......the answer is a no-brainer.

If we can be charged with cruelty for keeping a sick or suffering animal alive, then why is it OK to do that to humans? Surely we should be able to choose (with safeguards in place) when to end a life that is not worth living. :(

Religion should not enter into a decision made for someone who is not religious. We have a conscience for ourselves and for our own actions, but we should not impose that on someone else who is capable of making their own decisions.
 
Top