Kevorkian relased

[gc1765]

"LANSING, Mich. - Jack Kevorkian, the retired pathologist dubbed “Dr. Death” after claiming he had participated in at least 130 assisted suicides, left prison after eight years Friday still believing people have the right to die."

Link

As long as there is consent, which I believe there was in this case, I don't see the problem with it. To each his own.

[geoffrey]

There is too much room for abuse to be so permissive on assisted suicide.

Here is a little something to think about... no rational person wishes for themself to die. Suicide is an inherently irrational thought. Through pain and depression, people can be lead to believe it's a reasonable choice, but it's always in your worst interest (you end up dead, there can be no more of a negative interest). So if people are acting irrationality when they ask for assistance in terminating their existence, we really can't be ok with that.

So here is my standard for being 'ok' with euthanasia. You (or anyone) would have to explain to me how killing yourself is a rational activity to partcipate in. If you can show that someone can rationally think that death is in their positive best interest, then I suppose it must be permitted.

Until then, I have to stand behid my belief that suicide is always irrational and should never be encouraged.

[BC_chick]

You (or anyone) would have to explain to me how killing yourself is a rational activity to partcipate in.

Um, the people in question are terminally ill and will inevitably die in the near future. The desire to avoid a painful death doesn't tickle your fancy as rational?

[geoffrey]

Um, the people in question are terminally ill and will inevitably die in the near future. The desire to avoid a painful death doesn't tickle your fancy as rational?

I struggle with the definition of terminally ill. I actually know two people that were terminally ill and now are expected to live out a full life.

Perhaps I have too much hope? Too much faith in medicine?

But realistically, I think we'll find more cure to more illnesses over the next few decades. If we're talking a week or so, then ya, I see where your coming from. What of diseases like MS? That used to be a death sentence, not anymore. People make miraculous recoveries from cancers, infections, ect. ect..

[cybercoma]

no rational person wishes for themself to die

This is wrong, for exactly what BC_chick said. We jack people full of medication so they're barely sentient anymore to avoid the pain of death when they are terminally ill.

I struggle with the definition of terminally ill. I actually know two people that were terminally ill and now are expected to live out a full life.

Anecdotal evidence aside (of all the people who are diagnosed as being terminally ill, statistically a small number of them will recover. By chance, you've come across two. Let's take a poll of everyone on this forum and see how many terminally ill people they know who've recovered), If an educated doctor diagnoses someone as being terminally ill and a second opinion says the same and a third opinion says the same... chances are you're terminally ill.

But realistically, I think we'll find more cure to more illnesses over the next few decades. If we're talking a week or so, then ya, I see where your coming from.

So, we'll find more cures to more illnesses over the next few decades, but if someone is going to die in a month, they shouldn't be allowed to end their suffering? When you say a week or so, what do you mean? One week? Two weeks? Should they be kept alive for a month? Six months? A year? Five years?

If doctors and researchers are on the verge of a breakthrough, then the patient, as a last ditch effort, would usually have the option of trying an experimental cure. But forget all that, the period of time you suggest is what's intriguing. You accept euthanasia, but on a time restriction. The cases Jack Kevorkian took on, the people had already been suffering horrible painful deaths over a length of time. It is very highly improbable that a cure would have been found before they would die from the disease.

So, instead of letting their death drag on and allow them to suffer horribly before going, Dr. Kevorkian offered them the option to alleviate their suffering through something that was going to happen in the not-so-distant future anyway.

Dr. Kevorkian was offering a humane choice for these patients instead of letting their painful horrible deaths drag on.

I just want to know why, aside from assuming that a cure might be found, or the patient may possibly recover (since doctors declared the patient terminal, which means these options are highly improbable), why shouldn't patients be allowed to alleviate their suffering by speeding up their death?

[Remiel]

I was wavering in between being for euthanasia, and against euthanasia, until I saw a statistic while researching the topic in high school, for my law class, I believe. They did do a study on people who wanted assisted suicide. They found that of all the people that would of done it if they could of, that 90% were later glad that they didn't. That one fact changed me irrevocably to being against euthanasia. The lives of the 90% are worth more than the pain of the 10%, especially when you consider the potential for abuse.

[BC_chick]

I was wavering in between being for euthanasia, and against euthanasia, until I saw a statistic while researching the topic in high school, for my law class, I believe. They did do a study on people who wanted assisted suicide. They found that of all the people that would of done it if they could of, that 90% were later glad that they didn't. That one fact changed me irrevocably to being against euthanasia. The lives of the 90% are worth more than the pain of the 10%, especially when you consider the potential for abuse.

Remiel, I have always felt the same way about capital punishment - I do believe it's worth incarcerating 9 out of 10 guilty for life just to save that one innocent person. I am interested in hearing more about this study. What were the conditions surrounding the case, were all the people terminally ill? If so, were these all the survivors who later changed their mind?

[newbie]

What of diseases like MS? That used to be a death sentence, not anymore. People make miraculous recoveries from cancers, infections, ect. ect..

MS was never a death sentence. Even today, people don't die from MS, what they die from are complications from MS. And there are still teminal illnesses from which there is no cure.

[betsy]

What exactly is assisted suicide?

Someone who is in a vegetative state and on life support.....the life support is pulled out. That, to me is not assisted suicide. That is letting nature takes its course. I am in favor of this.

But someone who is terminally ill, and deliberately injected with drugs to kill him, or deliberately murdered with the consent of the victim....that to me, is assisted suicide. I do not support this.

This leaves a lot of room for abuse. I'll tend to believe that 99%, it is never to the best interest of the victim.

With the kind of "ME" society we live in now....and the kind of moral relativism pervading society....handicapped people who inconvenience anyone are at great risk of getting snuffed.

No matter how Latimer claims he murdered his daughter out of love....there is always at the back of my mind this nagging thought: he found the task of caring for her was just too much. he wanted to be free of her.

[geoffrey]

No matter how Latimer claims he murdered his daughter out of love....there is always at the back of my mind this nagging thought: he found the task of caring for her was just too much. he wanted to be free of her.

And that's the other big problem. How do we know the person is in their right mind to consent to being terminated?

Everyone here MUST agree that there needs to be clear consent before you take someone's life.

Is someone under a massive amount of pain clear headed enough to choose death? Generally a court won't allow someone in the situation to sell property or sign a will. And some want these people to be able to choose to die?

[gc1765]

Everyone here MUST agree that there needs to be clear consent before you take someone's life.

Absolutely

Is someone under a massive amount of pain clear headed enough to choose death? Generally a court won't allow someone in the situation to sell property or sign a will. And some want these people to be able to choose to die?

What if they consent to suicide and come back a month later. If they still consent to it, it's done. If they change their mind, that's their choice. Would you be opposed to that? Or you could even have them come back every month for a year if that's a better assurance.