Fuck no. If you fucking dare to hurt, molest, or do ANYTHING to a fucking CHILD, the incarnation of innocence, then you need be put down because you are one sick ************.Fondant said:
This weeks moral debate- Euthanasia. Right or Wrong
- Thread starter smallharmlesskitten
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Unless you're actually innocent. OOPS!Aries_Split said:
This isn't a gaming forum, this is an off-topic forum.Goenitz said:
Right, before this quickly descends into some sort of quasi-religious debate, I'd like to have my two cents:
I have a Right To Die card.
This means that, if I become brain-dead or incapacitated (or basically can't make my own decisions - either through mental or physical defect) then - after some paperwork by my friends and relatives - the doctors can switch me off without any legal repercussions. Its a morbid thing to think, but I'm certainly planning for that possibility.
Now, as far as I know, this is only a British thing, and only available on a pilot scheme. Still, I'd like to choose when I die and not have it argued about for months in court.
I have a Right To Die card.
This means that, if I become brain-dead or incapacitated (or basically can't make my own decisions - either through mental or physical defect) then - after some paperwork by my friends and relatives - the doctors can switch me off without any legal repercussions. Its a morbid thing to think, but I'm certainly planning for that possibility.
Now, as far as I know, this is only a British thing, and only available on a pilot scheme. Still, I'd like to choose when I die and not have it argued about for months in court.
What if it's not exactly voluntary euthanasia? I read a story this week about a lady in Oregon (state in USA.) Oregon has a state-run health care insurance for the poor, the Oregon Health Plan, supposedly modeled on Canada's and the UK's. This 64 year-old lady had a recurrence of lung cancer, and her oncologist recommended a certain drug that costs $4,000US a month as the best fit for her type and stage of cancer. She received a "Dear John" letter (unsigned, naturally) from the state telling her that her drug and similar drugs designed to "prolong life" (drugs not proved to cure or to provide a 5% 5-year survival rate, which is basically all new cancer drugs) were not provided benefits under the Oregon Health Plan. The letter also pointed out that unlike the (possibly) life-prolonging drug, physician-assisted suicide WAS a provided benefit under the Oregon Health Plan. Nicely played, Oregon.
Here's a link that is very positive about the Oregon system, but gives the basic facts of the case. (The Oregonian's solution is of course to stop paying for the doctor-assisted suicide. They would still help you kill yourself, but they would bill your family for the bullet.)
http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1217289319150190.xml&coll=7
A possibly bright spot, the evil corporation has stepped up and will provide the drug to the woman for free, a notable difference from the good government offering to help her kill herself. (I say "possibly bright spot" because, while this woman has relatively good quality of life at the moment, no one knows if this new drug will maintain some minimum quality of life or simply prolong months of screaming pain and drugged confusion. No guarantees in life, except that none of us get out alive.)
EDIT: I believe the Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Murder". Is it really murder if you intentionally kill yourself? I mean, you're obviously willing. Isn't that better than accidentally killing yourself (i.e. when you're not willing)?
Surely at Judgment you could at least cop to manslaughter...
Here's a link that is very positive about the Oregon system, but gives the basic facts of the case. (The Oregonian's solution is of course to stop paying for the doctor-assisted suicide. They would still help you kill yourself, but they would bill your family for the bullet.)
http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1217289319150190.xml&coll=7
A possibly bright spot, the evil corporation has stepped up and will provide the drug to the woman for free, a notable difference from the good government offering to help her kill herself. (I say "possibly bright spot" because, while this woman has relatively good quality of life at the moment, no one knows if this new drug will maintain some minimum quality of life or simply prolong months of screaming pain and drugged confusion. No guarantees in life, except that none of us get out alive.)
EDIT: I believe the Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Murder". Is it really murder if you intentionally kill yourself? I mean, you're obviously willing. Isn't that better than accidentally killing yourself (i.e. when you're not willing)?
Surely at Judgment you could at least cop to manslaughter...
I think euthanasia must be allowed. an organisation has no right to hold someone against their will as they suffer till they die is a complete breach of human rights. Someone who does not want to live any more terminally ill or not should not be forced to. I think a doctor should only be forced to administer a lethal injection to someone who is capable of killing themselves by them self however. I don't think that being euthanaised should be a method encouraged by a doctor to their patient ether. and pulling the plug on people in a coma should only be allowed if that is what the patient stated they wished before hand.