What if..? What about..? Are they..? Are we..? [Discussions of all Life's Questions] discussion

Is it our human right to decide whether or not we can live? If so, then should Euthanasia be a human right?

Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient who is suffering from a coma they will never wake from or immense incurable pain.

It is also frowned upon by many.

If they are a patient is there not a chance the doctor's could save them?

Don't doctor's get things wrong quite a lot, what if they woke up tomorrow?

How would their families feel?

How can we put safeguards down so we don't end the life of someone who could get better?

What if they are highly depressive and/or suicidal - should it then be allowed anyway?

...

If Euthanasia became common practise what would be the safeguards for it, do you think it would need any? Anything has the possibility at being abused, and if that possibility fell, just once to Euthanasia the results would be devastating!

I support it.

The government as well as so many international organizations spend MILLIONS in medically treating those who hardly have a few days to live and even if they do, they would any way suffer in pain. (like those who have reached the final stage of their disease or say the old ones in final years of their life)
Would their family ever be able to be happy seeing them in such gross pain?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial if we spend this money in development programs and poverty alleviation?

If we have the right to live, we DESERVE the right to die...

Yes, but as SD said if that person is suffering would the family be happy? If they love them, should they be happy to allow them to suffer if they have a way out which they most desperately want?

I do also agree that money could be portioned off elsewhere. Especially into vaccines and young healthcare, poverty and living standards as well as health education. As it is all these factors which contribute to a less healthy society. However, I heartily disagree that all of it should go to only poverty. There must be still a large portion of that money going towards the patient.

@ Krishna, yes you are both right there, families and governments can pay for the patient. If the family cannot afford it in some countries the government will under their country's health service (National Health Service: NHS, in England). However, in some country's, such as America, only private health care is available. Meaning you must pay or you get no treatment.

That brings me back to my previous point about Euthanasia being abused. If you had to pay to get that treatment that could lead to further gross negligence if someone wished to die and were refused so had to find a way to do it on their own in a possibly more painful manner. Also, could families not slip some money to the hospital to kill off an ill or elderly relative to collect their heritage?

@Isabella Yes of course I am not denying the fact that spending money on helthcare is essential. Or that W.H.O. is useless. I am simply stating the fact that instead of spending time and capital on repairing something which is anyway so damaged, why cant we spend money on construction of something more benefiting? the same money can go into research work for prevention of various other diseases also.

I think what Krishna is trying to say here is that even if we support this "practical theory", we would still do our best to save old grand ma from dying.

But at the same time, would it not be mean of us to let her go through all that pain just so that we have the "assurance" that she is alive...?

Yes I totally agree but isn't it better to have the "assurance" that at least SHE is happy? At least SHE is not going through the pain?

My agreement here is torn. On one hand I agree with SD that however much the family understands the pain and is going through so much themselves (emotional/psychological) they are not experiencing the absolute agony, let's say, the granny is going through.

On the other hand they can understand it and are going through immense pain themselves. Psychological and emotional, in my opinion, can be the worst pain to experience; which is why people take to physical pain to hide from it. If they did let her die the pain they would ALL have to deal with would be immense. With some people maybe not recovering.

This brings us back to the debate: one sacrifice to save many.

They may not be suffering as she is but they are still suffering, and let's say if it was a mother with a partner and children could you imagine the emotional and psychological toll that would take on her family that she was dead.

And again, maybe it should be to do with whether or not they ever can be cured or if their pain will just continue/increase..?