Is Euthanasia Immoral?

[zombieharlot]

Zombieharlot, for the sake of clarity and that we don't derail the topic a clear definition is nice.

Euthanasia
is something we do or fail to do that causes, or is intended to cause, death, in order to remove a person from suffering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

Hope this is what you had in mind.

This is the definition as I see it. Do you want me to put it in the OP?

 

[Quiddity]

*nods* Yuppers.

Actually, I hadn't really considered any other situation.

I suppose I took suffering in whatever form it comes in. With Euthanasia, it's most likely physical, but I don't know how one would stop it from going further. Do you?

 

[Quiddity]

This is the definition as I see it. Do you want me to put it in the OP?

Your confirmation is good enough...

 

[Faint]

You speak of physical suffering only, right?

I think mental and physical suffering tend to go hand in hand in these situations...but for most cases where I imagine euthanasia being necessary, physical suffering is the biggest problem (and also a problem that naturally causes mental suffering as well).

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I suppose I took suffering in whatever form it comes in. With Euthanasia, it's most likely physical, but I don't know how one would stop it from going further. Do you?

Do you mean something starting out with physical suffering and then that escalating to mental suffering or 'going further' as in the definition of the phrased 'law' above being stretched further to include other types of suffering? (I'm sorry- my lack of Dr. Pepper is negatively affecting my reading skills.)

 

[Quiddity]

Do you mean something starting out with physical suffering and then that escalating to mental suffering or 'going further' as in the definition of the phrased 'law' above being stretched further to include other types of suffering? (I'm sorry- my lack of Dr. Pepper is negatively affecting my reading skills.)

I'm talking about both people who have no physical pain and only psychological pain (in whatever form) and people with physical pain and no psychological pain (although they come hand in hand for most). Or mixture of both.


In otherwords a person in deep psychological pain may want that right extended to them. How would counter arguments work any different in such a request? The arguments seem almost identical.

 

[Quiddity]

I think mental and physical suffering tend to go hand in hand in these situations...but for most cases where I imagine euthanasia being necessary, physical suffering is the biggest problem (and also a problem that naturally causes mental suffering as well).

Would you support it being extended to deep mental suffering as well?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I'm talking about both people who have no physical pain and only psychological pain (in whatever form) and people with physical pain and no psychological pain (although they come hand in hand for most). Or mixture of both.


In otherwords a person in deep psychological pain may want that right extended to them. How would counter arguments work any different in such a request? The arguments seem almost identical.

Ah, okies. I guess when I think of "let", I think of "they're on the road to dying naturally and only the actions of others prevent it." Because people in severe psychological pain are still able to eat, breathe and survive without the intervention of another, unless they are starving themselves or attempting to commit suicide, the intervention of others would not be the thing that keeps the person in question alive- it would simply be that person's beating heart that would keep them alive. Was that the kind of situation that you were talking about?

 

[Quiddity]

Ah, okies. I guess when I think of "let", I think of "they're on the road to dying naturally and only the actions of others prevent it."

I think you'll find that very few people actually object to this. It is only when the person was not dying or the death is rushed that people (count me in that) object to it. I have always seen Euthanasia as "they are not dying naturally".

Because people in severe psychological pain are still able to eat, breathe and survive without the intervention of another, unless they are starving themselves or attempting to commit suicide, the intervention of others would not be the thing that keeps the person in question alive- it would simply be that person's beating heart that would keep them alive. Was that the kind of situation that you were talking about?

Yes, exactly.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

And I agree with your accessment on the topic as it relates to those who are not dying or when the conclusion is 'jumped to'. I think you phrased it better, though!

 

[Flappycat]

I think legalising euthanasia is opening a can of worms....

It's already been opened. The question now is what to do with it. I think that the circumstances that I listed are perfectly acceptable.

Victor: severe depression actually does often cause physical pain, so the "mental" aspect isn't the half of it. Yes, it's a difficult ethical question, which is why it hasn't been sufficiently answered yet.

 

[darkpenguin]

from my point of view euthanasia is moral, when somebody is suffering and there is no chance of recovery then why would anybody want to let them suffer?
my grandad died last year and as much as it hurt i'm glad that he wasn't kept alive with machines and drugs for the sake of selfish people, at the end of the day thats harldly living now is it? think the only thing about him being let go was the fact that i never got chance to say goodbye! but i think he knew it was time to go when my auntie said for no specific reason 'it's ok uncle jimmy(his brother) is waiting for you'. she has no reason why she said it lol. since then my mind has been put to rest about the after life and when that time does finally come for me i won't be afraid!