[Vassili Zaitsev]

What does everyone here think of euthanasia? We give mercy killings to animals, so why not to human beings who ask for it? If you're dying of a disease and the person wants to die right now rather then to prolong their life and subject them to a long and painful death, I say "do it".

[CasX]

Me too. As long as there are strict controls to make sure is is voluntary and carried out correctly. If someone is in incredible suffering, it's only a humane thing to allow.

[Deicidus]

But there is something else to it. If the person is in a coma, and nobody knows if people actualy feel pain or anything while in it, sometimes have mercy killing brought on themselves by their families.

Do you think a member of your family has the right to decide for your life ?

[Vassili Zaitsev]

No, I don't think a singal family member has the right to determine your fate if you're in a coma.

But for example if you have a incurable disease or a problem, and you request euthanasia, it should be given to you. I mean we're humane about animals that are suffering. We put them to sleep, I think thats humane, as much as I love my cat right now, if he was suffering terribly, and there was no way to fix him. I would put him to sleep and end his suffering, it would kill me to see him go, but it would be the right humane thing to do. It would be wrong to subject a human or an animal to a needless painful death/life.

[TUC]

What does everyone here think of euthanasia? We give mercy killings to animals, so why not to human beings who ask for it? If you're dying of a disease and the person wants to die right now rather then to prolong their life and subject them to a long and painful death, I say "do it".

Thats a good point I never saw it that way.

[CasX]

What other way is there to see it?

[Umoja]

Only if the person wants it, with a valid reason. If you lost your job, your finance broke up with you and then caught fire, and your house burned down with your self-immolating finance, then there still isn't a reason why Euthanisia should be used on the poor temporarily depressed person.

[Adrien]

Strangely enough, euthanasia tends to be one taboo subject nowadays, at least here, and is also a juridical problem, as there is a huge lack of laws.

I think that the first step would be to allow it if, as Vassili said, "you're dying of a disease and you want to die right now rather then to prolong your life and be subject to a long and painful death." The decision must come from the dying patient. Sometimes patients ask that, but relatives do not accept it, saying that the person doesn't know what she is saying anymore: we all know that losing a relative is hard, but letting him in awful pain just not to lose him is worse.

[Proctor]

I support it, provided it is properly regulated as CasX said.

[C-Kokos]

I believe it should be provided upon request *in the case the person in question is diseased and has no hope of recovering.

There should still be strict regulations however ... As another person pointed out earlier, there are many people who would try to commit suicide by that means and this is not... hmm, desireable.

[Sheep...]

Euthanasia would also be beneficial to the healthcare system. Instead of spending thousands or possibly millions on a terminally ill patient which could all go towards countless others who need it and won't passaway. But I guess if theres no money in the future this wouldn't be a problem.

[Ocker]

Yes, I think euthanasia is good, if controlled.

If someone is in pain, and has no way to escape that pain, who has the right to say they must live on with that pain?

Sure, they can commit suicide, but there are faults in this.
1) If you are sick, or in enough physical pain to die, you are most likely in hospital anyway.
2) People have the right, or should, to die painlessly and quitely.

But also, yes, what if the person is in a coma?
So it is ok to 'unplug' a coma victims life support if the family can not afford it, but it is not ok for the family to decide when?

If there were written standards for it, perhaps where a doctor, and a certain amount of family/ next of kin must agree.

[Adrien]

Ah yes the coma, good question.

The problem with coma is that the doctors are never able to say if one day you will wake up, and if you wake up after a too long time, you won't be anything more than a zombie..

So, wouldn't the best be to institute some kind of pre-declaration? You know, like we have donnor cards, we could have papers saying in which circumstances we should not be waken up, papers that would in all the cases overrun the decision of the family.

Some already do that but only when they suffered comas before, or violent heart attacks and all, they ask not to be waken up.. Unfortunately sometimes, most of the time, the family will say "no" and decide by itself.

I know it can be hard to accept the loss of a loved one, but we should think more about how the loved one suffers.

[Ubermensch]

Who is to regulate it?Man ruins anything he touches and it has been shown that he is susceptable to outside influence.If you want to die do it yourself,as opposed to having someone else do it for you.If you are in a coma or incapacitated then you are out of luck.The longer you are hooked up to machines the more money you are making for the hospital and insurance companies.It is not a moral question as much as a financial one.

[Boondock Saint]

My head hurts ...

I agree completly with Cas X ...

[Proctor]

The longer you are hooked up to machines the more money you are making for the hospital and insurance companies.

You know, when I'm dying, I'll probably have more on my mind than "Damn those greedy capitalists stealing my money!"

[Noone9]

In my view, euthanasia should be legal in all means because unambiguously from any debate that could be exposed the individual is entirely responsible for his life and has the 'right' to decide his outcome. The state should therefore provide means for individuals to terminate their lives painlessly since it's absurd to let people unwillingly agonize in pain if they are terminately-ill.

But beyond that I am more liberal in the sense that I believe euthanasia should not be restricted for dying people alone, but available to anyone who desires. Obviously only the person himself can decide whether or not he wants to die. For the economical debate, then people wishing to die using an euthanasia program should pay a couple of hundred dollars (or the worth in the country being applied) to cover the medical life termination expenses, or possibly a little bit more, so the state can actually get at least small profits from this.

Why? Because these people are most likely to commit suicide anyhow and it would be even a stronger waste of resources, an investigation (to see if it was murder or suicide), forensic expenses, funerary expenses, etc. for the state. Also some of these people don't have the guts to commit suicide because they are afraid of the pain and they eventually end up being losers and social parasites like junkies, bums, alcoholics, etc.

Of course they can also grow out from the 'depression' and become successful individuals? It's rather unlikely, plus if they are stupid or weak enough (from a life-advocation view) to give up on life then it's probably the best if they end their miserable lives at the worst expense and contribute something to the state.

-------------------
On the COMA state debate, well if I was in coma for a couple of weeks and doctors gave me no sign of recuperation. I would more than gladly have a family member intervene and tell them to pull the plugs.

[Adrien]

Euthanasia is back on the news again, and the debate came back with it..

Let me explain you what happened: three years ago, a young man called Vincent Humber had a terrible accident which left him in the end tetraplegic, unable to speak and almost blind.

When he had his accident, he went into a deep coma, and the doctors told his mother that if he ever woke up, he would be like a zombie. The mother asked the doctors to stop doing everything to reanimate him, but there was a problem: the kid was 19, and consequently the advice of the mother did not count.

So they went on bringing him back to the real world, but at what price.. For three years now, the poor chap has been asking his mother to help him stop suffer and leave this world, he even wrote a book about his desire to die in peace.

A few days ago, the mother appeared in the name of her son on TF1 (our most important channel) to denounce the situation and the laws, and to say that she would, whatever the legal cost may be, help her son, with the support of her husband, and of her other son.

And that's why yesterday, she tried to make her son die. First arrested, she was soon released to see her son: the try had failed, and the doctors were once again, blinded in their desire to win, trying to bring him back to life. The other members of the family denouncing this attitude.

And this morning Vincent finally died. His brother declared: "We have what we want, he has what he wanted, that's all that matters" - "I am more than happy to see my brother free at last, we are all extremely relieved."

This will of course bring back the debate on the front again, and i think it's a good thing. Even if legalizing euthanasia could lead to abuses, the system is suffering from multiple flaws and must be changed!

[Nox]

I have read the posts so far and I will muddy the water a little bit.

I am for euthanasia ... I understand the need for control (I've seen the movie COMA and the concept is indeed frightening), but I think it should be available for circumstances other than extreme medical.

Example: We've all heard of cases where healthy people decide that it's time to 'check out'. They do ... and now someone has to clean up the mess. Not just the blood and gore, but the plethora of other items ... legal and personal that arise ... next of kin, the great 'why', et al.

This sounds cold, but if you have euthanasia 'on demand' you can have appropriate counselling and paperwork. The great 'why' goes away (some people won't like the 'why', but there will at least be the answer). I am not of the opinion that everyone that wants to 'check out' is in some way mentally deranged. I am of the belief that some folks say enough is enough. Doesn't make any difference if I agree with their decision ... it is THEIR decision, not mine.

And in case you've missed it on another topic, yes, I am in favor of a WOMAN'S right to choose.

Nox

[Adrien]

The Prime Minister said he was "not for a law about euthanasia", so the debate will be closed again until the next disaster.

Anyway like you Nox i'm for controlled euthanasia, just like we control abortion. Creating a legislation about it should not be that difficult, it's the concrete application of it which can cause problems, but even that should be feasible.