|
Debate 7: The Right to Life / Euthanasia
|
| ninja |
Posted on 02/21/2012 07:41:22
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4174
Joined: 15.11.10
|
[Edited from questions about lots of human rights, this is just about the right to life. Again, you don't have to answer all the questions.]
Do we have the right to LIFE?
Do rights entail DUTIES? In other words, does someone's right to life, for example, give us a duty to ensure they live?
One very interesting case where "the right to life" is put to the test is EUTHANASIA.
If someone is terminally ill, and wants to be put to death because they are in a lot of pain, is it morally acceptable for the doctor to oblige?
Sometimes the person is too ill to decide. Should the doctor decide? Their relatives? The Court?
What if the person didn't have a terminal disease - but was still in a lot of pain?
What is the moral difference between killing somebody and letting them die?
Is deciding other people's lives in this way an act of "playing God"? Or even murder?
Is there any different between euthanasia and (assisted) suicide?
In the United Kingdom, voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide are against the law and can lead to imprisonment of up to 14 years.
Does this violate our right to FREEDOM of CHOICE?
Should euthanasia be LEGAL or ILLEGAL?
Should suicide be LEGAL or ILLEGAL? Assisted suicide?
If we have a right to our life, does that give us the right to take it?
Are you PRO-EUTHANASIA or ANTI-EUTHANASIA? Why?
Edited by ninja on 02/22/2012 06:38:31
My brain is open.
- Paul Erdős |
| |
|
|
| za heystarface |
Posted on 02/21/2012 18:08:10
|
Admin
Posts: 6130
Joined: 20.11.10
|
I think we have a lack of responses on this debate thread because the question covers such a large range of topics. Each of those questions could be its own Debate Thread. Maybe edit OP and condense it into a more workable debate?
 |
| |
|
|
| RazNinjaMike |
Posted on 02/21/2012 18:36:20
|
Moderator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 20.11.10
|
deleted for disrepect and spam
Edited by za heystarface on 02/21/2012 19:03:15 |
| |
|
|
| ZA lemonzandcandy |
Posted on 02/21/2012 18:52:11
|
Numpty
Posts: 1209
Joined: 18.12.10
|
deleted for disrespect and spam
Edited by za heystarface on 02/21/2012 19:03:49
-cod md- - terraria md?- |
| |
|
|
| za heystarface |
Posted on 02/21/2012 19:02:36
|
Admin
Posts: 6130
Joined: 20.11.10
|
COMMENTS DELETED FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES
quoted from debate rules:
No bullying, name calling, slurs, or offensive language will be permitted during debates.
These debates are NOT personal, so no personal attacks will be permitted.
Forum Mods reserve the right to delete any comments that do not meet the standards set forth above.
|
| |
|
|
| Drkinferno |
Posted on 02/21/2012 19:09:48
|
Wanker
Posts: 908
Joined: 11.05.11
|
no rights for anyone except my oligarchy. there are always groups clamoring for rights that its just impossible to please everyone, but if you disenfranchise everyone, then you no longer have hundreds of groups against you  |
| |
|
|
| ZA Buckshot |
Posted on 02/21/2012 19:52:04
|
I got a big blue star for posting. i must be special
Posts: 1778
Joined: 15.11.10
|
I think we shouldn't have more than one or two open debates going at any one time. Just my opinion.
 
 
 |
| |
|
|
| iloveboobies |
Posted on 02/21/2012 20:07:11
|
Senior Member
Posts: 313
Joined: 21.01.12
|
deleted for awesomeness
- staff
 |
| |
|
|
| ninja |
Posted on 02/22/2012 06:42:23
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4174
Joined: 15.11.10
|
za heystarface wrote:
I think we have a lack of responses on this debate thread because the question covers such a large range of topics. Each of those questions could be its own Debate Thread. Maybe edit OP and condense it into a more workable debate?
The idea was that people just started debating about what most interested them, not wrote an essay covering everything, but never mind.
Edited OP and debate title - debate now just about the right to life and euthanasia: should be more approachable.
I think it's fine to have lots of debates open.
My brain is open.
- Paul Erdős |
| |
|
|
| Dudeman |
Posted on 02/22/2012 16:17:23
|
Super Admin
Posts: 1277
Joined: 03.01.12
|
Okay for I think that people should be able to decide when they want to die. I'm guessing (I was too lazy to get on google) That Euthanasia is when they pull the cord? When you are terminally ill, and on life support? Meh anyways I think they should have a choice to decide. Now for suicide, that is a tricky one. People I think should have there right to do it (It's there life), But as long as it doesn't interfere with other laws.
Examples: Jumping off Bridge Naked (Public Indecency), Crashing Car on Purpose (Reckless Endangerment), Popping Pills (Illegal without Prescription).
What was your take on it btw ninja? You never said.
 |
| |
|
|
| FC_SlimJim |
Posted on 02/22/2012 18:26:02
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4725
Joined: 14.11.10
|
100% pro
100% support for a person to make that choice. if the choice wouldnt exist then we have no reason fora debate. but since a choice exisits that harms none but themselves, then it is allowable. |
| |
|
|
| ZA Buckshot |
Posted on 02/22/2012 19:00:20
|
I got a big blue star for posting. i must be special
Posts: 1778
Joined: 15.11.10
|
I'm all for people making decisions about continuing their lives. After all, they are not hurting anyone but themselves. So honestly, can anybody tell me what the problem would be?
|
| |
|
|
| ZA Luna |
Posted on 02/22/2012 19:34:35
|
I got a big blue star for posting. i must be special
Posts: 1723
Joined: 16.11.10
|
The problem arises when the person is too sick to decide. Do you let them die? Do you put them out of their misery? Who does have the right to decide for that person?
Edited by ZA Luna on 02/22/2012 19:35:20
 |
| |
|
|
| iloveboobies |
Posted on 02/22/2012 21:50:48
|
Senior Member
Posts: 313
Joined: 21.01.12
|
let them die if they want to. It's too much money spending on the mentally sick yearly when all they want to do it die and end there misery, yet people don't let them.
Also isn't' it legal of a person who was about to commit suicide and someone saves them , but in the process the saver breaks the almost suiciders arm, and the suicider is allowed to sue him?
|
| |
|
|
| ZA Buckshot |
Posted on 02/22/2012 22:07:43
|
I got a big blue star for posting. i must be special
Posts: 1778
Joined: 15.11.10
|
@Luna: When a person is too sick to decide for themselves, they have what's called a Medical Power of Attorney, usually a spouse or other closest living relative who has the legal right in the form of documentation signed by both parties to decide for the person what happens to them. A person selects their MPA carefully, knowing that their life may one day be literally in that person's hands. They choose somebody who they know they can trust to do the right thing. The other option they have is to create what's called a Living Will, which is a legal document signed by that person while they are in a state of sound mind, body, and spirit, usually along with several witnesses, which leaves specific instructions on what to do should a person find themselves in various medical states and unable to decide or otherwise relay their wishes. For example, a person's living will could say things like don't keep them on life support, if it comes to that, just let them die, do not resuscitate if they are in the hospital and die, things of that nature.
|
| |
|
|
| ZA Luna |
Posted on 02/22/2012 22:35:32
|
I got a big blue star for posting. i must be special
Posts: 1723
Joined: 16.11.10
|
Then why is this an argument? Why are people so nosy about other peoples lives...
|
| |
|
|
| za heystarface |
Posted on 02/22/2012 22:47:09
|
Admin
Posts: 6130
Joined: 20.11.10
|
We consider killing terminally wounded or sick animals an act of mercy - the same it should be for people. I think there should be a waiting period and counseling plus a display of alternatives, and if after all that - they decide they still want to die - it should be allowed.
As for families deciding for someone that is unable to make the choice for themselves... there should be the same criteria, waiting period, counseling, plus display of alternatives. There are people that wake up after 20 years in a coma, but would I want Kevin and Tyler waiting everyday to find out if i woke up yet for TWENTY YEARS? No, I would want them to move on with their lives, and if I didn't have it in my will to do so, I would want them to let me go.
|
| |
|
|
| iloveboobies |
Posted on 02/22/2012 23:31:07
|
Senior Member
Posts: 313
Joined: 21.01.12
|
it's like movie with that guy i think channing tatum or something where his wife get's a comma and he has to convince her, he is her husband xD
|
| |
|
|
| ninja |
Posted on 02/23/2012 08:29:24
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4174
Joined: 15.11.10
|
dudeman1130 wrote:
What was your take on it btw ninja? You never said.
Okay, I'll try answer my original questions and then respond to issues other people have raised.
I think we do have a right to life. Once you've been brought into this world, no one has a right to remove you!
In my opinion, rights do entail duties, but only to a certain extent. Somebody's right to life, for example gives us a duty not to directly contradict that right, by murder for example. However, we do not have to go completely out of our way in order to ensure they live.
I myself support euthanasia because I think it's important to give people freedom of choice. However, like Star said, I think it is important to make sure that they are making a reasoned decision. Matters of life and death shouldn't just be decided on the spur of the moment.
I don't think that other people should be able to choose the fate of an individual. Only the people who have been in a situation seeking euthanasia would know what it feels like and what the right decision would be, therefore only they should be allowed to choose.
I believe that there IS a moral difference between killing somebody and letting them die. I'll use an example to demonstrate this.
Imagine you're a doctor and you have 3 patients. 1 of them is very ill, and would require your full attention to save so you would have to forget the other 2. The other 2 are less ill, and if you focussed on just them, you could save both but the other very ill patient would die. Most people would choose to save the 2, and let 1 die. That is a reasonable decision.
Now, imagine you're still a doctor, but this time 2 patients come in who are both in desperate need of an organ transplant. 1 needs a lung, the other a heart. Without a transplant, they would both die within a day. Unfortunately, there is a great lack of organ donors, so there is not much you can do. However, a perfectly healthy man comes in at that very moment for a check up. You could easily transplant a lung and a heart from this man, killing him but saving the other two. The same outcome as the other, but most people wouldn't kill the man.
I'm not religious so I wouldn't call it an "act of God" to decide someone's fate, but it could well be murder. Like I've said, we can't know for sure whether the person wants to die, so you could be murdering them. Involuntary euthanasia is definitely murder.
I would say that (voluntary) euthanasia is a form of suicide, so no there isn't much of a difference between the two.
I think euthanasia should be legal because it does violate our right to freedom of choice. But it should only be legal for the person who will die to choose.
Suicide should be legal, assisted suicide not. Our right to life gives us the right to take it, but not for somebody else to take it.
For these reasons, I am pro-euthanasia.
Now, onto what other people have said...
ZA Buckshot wrote:
I'm all for people making decisions about continuing their lives. After all, they are not hurting anyone but themselves. So honestly, can anybody tell me what the problem would be?
I think that one of the problems is that they could be hurting other people. It can be absolutely devastating to lose a loved one, so it that way it could emotionally hurt others, especially if they know that someone close to them wasn't happy with their life.
Euthanasia can also result in pressure for people to ask to die. They might feel that they are a burden on their friends and family, and pressure themselves into asking for euthanasia when really they want to live. Or, others might pressurise them into asking for euthanasia because they don't want to have to look after them. There could also be financial pressure involved, where people are pressurised into asking for euthanasia because they, or relatives, don't want to pay for treatment. To me, that seems immoral.
church wrote:
let them die if they want to. It's too much money spending on the mentally sick yearly when all they want to do it die and end there misery, yet people don't let them.
This is one of the problems with euthanasia - it could lead to worse care for the elderly and the terminally ill. It could undermine the efforts of the health care system to save people's lives by providing an often cheaper alternative, namely killing them off. It could also discourage research into cures for terminal illnesses which means that lives which could potentially be saved won't be.
ZA Buckshot wrote:
@Luna: When a person is too sick to decide for themselves, they have what's called a Medical Power of Attorney, usually a spouse or other closest living relative who has the legal right in the form of documentation signed by both parties to decide for the person what happens to them. A person selects their MPA carefully, knowing that their life may one day be literally in that person's hands. They choose somebody who they know they can trust to do the right thing. The other option they have is to create what's called a Living Will, which is a legal document signed by that person while they are in a state of sound mind, body, and spirit, usually along with several witnesses, which leaves specific instructions on what to do should a person find themselves in various medical states and unable to decide or otherwise relay their wishes. For example, a person's living will could say things like don't keep them on life support, if it comes to that, just let them die, do not resuscitate if they are in the hospital and die, things of that nature.
I haven't heard of this system before. It sounds reasonable, but I wouldn't personally approve of someone else making that decision for me. What happens if a person don't provide a Medical Power of Attorney, or a Living Will? Then, should anyone else be qualified to make the decision?
za heystarface wrote:
We consider killing terminally wounded or sick animals an act of mercy - the same it should be for people. I think there should be a waiting period and counseling plus a display of alternatives, and if after all that - they decide they still want to die - it should be allowed.
Do you value human lives the same as those of animals? Most people don't, as we can see with the slaughter of animals for meat. You wouldn't dream of killing humans in this way, so I don't think that a comparison can be made between the two.
My brain is open.
- Paul Erdős |
| |
|
|
| Carnage |
Posted on 02/25/2012 03:59:12
|
Super Admin
Posts: 4245
Joined: 28.09.11
|
I wrote a 10 page persuasive essay for my college english class on this topic. I wont go into super detail but will sum it up by saying I think people should be allowed to practice euthanasia for much the same reasons as abortion is legal. If we could only comprehend the agony that some people go through towards the end of their lives then we might be able to appreciate more their desire to be out of their misery.
"Hey guys, I just bought this thing called a sight ward...so it's GG." - MasterA in League of Legends
 |
| |
|
