BEASTIALITY

[Clueless Morgan]

You can euthanize a pet without their consent if they are in failing health, because you are effectively their legal guardian.  If a doctor says that a mentally ill patient who cannot give consent is terminally ill, with no chance of recovery, and is suffering (much like a pet) then I think a legal guardian should have the right to give the doctor authorization to euthanize the patient to end their suffering.

Exactly.  

The fact that 47 states in the US will let a suffering animal be put to death and not a suffering human is despicable to me.  In this regard, we treat animals better than we treat people.

In cases where death is imminent and it's very clear that the person is suffering, I think euthanasia should be an available option.  I went through an extremely traumatic experience the night a family cat died (we basically rushed to the vet for emergency euthanizing), I cannot imagine that it would be preferable to put a human through what my cat went through.  In the case of my cat, my family had to make a judgement call about whether a slow, painful, natural death was preferable to putting him down immediately, and we determined the more humane way to end his life was the immediate route.

Before this experience, I watched my grandfather die, and suffer all the way up until his last breath.  If I could have done for my grandfather what my family was able to do for my cat I would have.  100% absolutely.

In the case of mentally handicapped individuals, or people in positions to not give consent (due to dementia, coma, or other factors), who have been diagnosed with terminal illnesses or conditions and who are clearly suffering and have no chance of recovery, the family would need to decide how much suffering is acceptable before deciding to intervene and end the life and that's, unfortunately, a judgement call because we don't have a good way to judge pain levels in others.  The more humane action to take, IMO, is to alleviate suffering and end the life rather than let the person persist in a prolonged state of suffering and pain.

Now should there be a strict review of the third parties decision for euthanasia?  Sure.  But should someone have to suffer until they finally die if they have no chance for recovery?  I don't think so.

Third party review would not only need to happen to confirm a terminal diagnosis, but also as a way of preventing rogue individuals from taking advantage of such an option for personal gain.

Well I think taking someone who is essentially brain dead off of a machine is not the same as euthanize a terminally ill mentally handicapped person without their consent... which is what we do to our pets. We are comparing apples to oranges here when we refer to a brain dead person who we pull the plug on, verses euthanize someone who can't give consent due to their handicap.

I rather agree that these are apples and oranges here.

I guess I don't really understand how it's ok to kill/eat an animal without their consent, but not ok to put peanut butter on your junk and have them lick it off without "consent." It isn't making much sense to me.

It makes sense to me in the sense that the person is going to die no matter but the animal isn't going to be fucked no matter what.  In the case of the person, the action you're taking is deciding whether to let that person persist in a prolonged period of suffering before dying or whether to end that suffering by ending the life, whereas with the animal you are actively taking action that very well might be harming the animal.  You're attempting to alleviate known suffering in the one case, and potentially causing suffering in the other.