Virginia Ironside on abortion and euthanasia

[KichigaiNeko]

I am thinking that euthanasia SHOULD be an option...for those who want it...(namely me)

Abortion SHOULD be an option (spare me the hypocrytical crap) sometimes it is better to kill a foetus than have a child born into a world of pain and suffering....been there / done that / got the T-shirt

I think Xtians a very cruel and stoopid and should have NO say as to legislation for all.
my 2bits

[The Omnissiunt One]

Involuntary euthanasia is not euthanasia, it's murder...

Legally, yes. Morally, that's debatable. It depends how you define murder. Murder might even be a good thing in some cases, if you just define it as killing without consent.

[theVOID]

I feel victimized.

*Hug*

[Ashendant]

Involuntary euthanasia is not euthanasia, it's murder...

Legally, yes. Morally, that's debatable. It depends how you define murder. Murder might even be a good thing in some cases, if you just define it as killing without consent.

To me murder is the purposely killing of a individual by another, accidents don't count because they aren't on purpose

[The Omnissiunt One]

Involuntary euthanasia is not euthanasia, it's murder...

Legally, yes. Morally, that's debatable. It depends how you define murder. Murder might even be a good thing in some cases, if you just define it as killing without consent.

To me murder is the purposely killing of a individual by another, accidents don't count because they aren't on purpose

In which case, all forms of euthanasia are murder, and murder isn't always wrong, in my view, anyway.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Involuntary euthanasia is not euthanasia, it's murder...

Legally, yes. Morally, that's debatable. It depends how you define murder. Murder might even be a good thing in some cases, if you just define it as killing without consent.

Excellent point. That's how society tends to define define murder,then immediately starts making exceptions ;self defence ,capital punishment, war,human sacrifice, atheist babycues etc,etc. -

Is murder ALWAYS wrong? No.

Is involuntary euthanasia always wrong? Of course not. However,the slippery slope argument rears its head,and the word which comes to mind is 'eugenics'.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Excellent point. That's how society tends to define define murder,then immediately starts making exceptions ;self defence ,capital punishment, war,human sacrifice, atheist babycues etc,etc. -

Is murder ALWAYS wrong? No.

Is involuntary euthanasia always wrong? Of course not. However,the slippery slope argument rears its head,and the word which comes to mind is 'eugenics'.

Fortunately, the slippery slope argument is usually rubbish. It seems to think that we have some kind of legislative incontinence, where, once we legalise some form of euthanasia, we're halfway to legalising genocide. It may be a legitimate point in certain circumstances, but it can't be used as an a priori argument. There has to be evidence that a slippery slope is likely to occur.

[Intimae_Hasta]

I don't participate on here very much, but I read a lot. I just don't have the background knowledge and the ability to express myself that most of you guys have, but this thread grabbed me.
I have recently retired after working as a Registered Nurse for over 40 years, and the suffering I have seen is beyond description. I have had relatives ask if there isn't anything I can do... and I knew what they meant. However, passive euthanasia has gone on for ever. Debates are held with the care team and the family. Quality of life is discussed, the likelihood of successful resuscitation is discussed. What if you partly resus them, then they need an ICU bed to be ventilated? How do you then get them off the ventilator? There are soooo many things to think about, but I can honestly say, hand on heart, I have never seen a decision made that I felt was wrong. In the absence of any family, that would be a factor to take into consideration as in a x for quality of life. Then a DNR form would be issued (do not resuscitate). How in the world can this be wrong? Active euthanasia is not morally far away from this, but frought with ethical arguments I admit.
Something I have never really understood is why human life is held on so high a plane. Presumably because of the presence of the "immortal soul". If humans have a soul, why not dogs? My dog is a far more intelligent and useful member of society than a lot of humans I know. Christians once believed we all descended from Adam & Eve, but had to face the scientific proof that we evolved from simpler life forms. I think most of them accept that now (surely??), so when, doing that process of evolution, and rudimentary humans were on the horizon, did main gain a soul? When he was partly a monkey?
So yes, I do believe euthanasia should be legalised worldwide. Also, it isn't without a cost implication. Tens of thousands of pounds of the British taxpayers money can be spent on one patient with a life-limiting illness usually with co-morbidities and absolutely no QOL. That money could be spent by giving several elderly people a hip replacement to give some painfree pleasure to them in their twilight years.
One final point- which of us, if asked now, would say "NO" to signing a form for it, if we knew we were in for a painful, distressing and protracted end to our lives? If you all could see some of the things I have seen, you would say bring it on, I'll sign it now.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Excellent post, Intimae. I agree with everything you said. Active euthanasia is morally no worse than passive euthanasia. In fact, surely it's better, because it doesn't prolong the death. What's so great about death by starvation or lack of medication, as opposed to a quick injection of barbiturates?

WHOOO! 500th POST!