Law: Killing someone who is terminally ill under their request

[Te Je'karta Mand'alor]

While I respect your religious convictions, I believe that if someone is determined to end their own life, and have been judged to be of sound mind, then that's between them and whatever beliefs they hold.

 

I'm still not entirely sure about assisted suicide, but if someone decides to end their life on their own, instead of prolonging their own suffering (and I do accept Jae's point that you can avoid pain through the use of painkillers and other medication), then that's their decision.

 

In my views wanting to KILL yourself is suicide even if if your not the one "pulling the trigger".

[Web Rider]

In my views wanting to KILL yourself is suicide even if if your not the one "pulling the trigger".

 

But is a person really alive if they are stuck in a bed, attached to massive machines that are doing the functions of their bodies for them? In which case, if they are, or are not, do they, in your opinion, have the right to turn off those machines? And if they do, should doctors be allowed to make their death(which IS what will happen), as comfortable as possible?

[Q]

@Mand'alor: While it is fine that you believe what you believe, not everyone likes being forced to live according to another's belief system.

 

My belief is that people should be allowed to do as they please as long as they are not harming another.

[Te Je'karta Mand'alor]

@The Jekk'Jekk Tarr Mandalore: While it is fine that you believe what you believe, not everyone likes being forced to live according to another's belief system.

 

My belief is that people should be allowed to do as they please as long as they are not harming another.

 

and they shouldn't be able to harm themselves.

 

@everyone: Wanting to die by contract is the same as suicide. So contract or no contract, by gun or by medicine killing is killing!

[Astor]

and they shouldn't be able to harm themselves.

 

Why not? You claim that God gave people free will, so surely they can use that free will to harm (and even kill) themselves?

 

And why should it concern others if that is what the person wants?

[mur'phon]

Why shouldn't someone be able to harm themselves? Who are the state to determine what its citzens can do of their own free will to their own body?

I'm genuinly curious here.

[Te Je'karta Mand'alor]

@The Jekk'Jekk Tarr Mandalore: While it is fine that you believe what you believe, not everyone likes being forced to live according to another's belief system.

 

My belief is that people should be allowed to do as they please as long as they are not harming another.

 

Why not? You claim that God gave people free will, so surely they can use that free will to harm (and even kill) themselves?

 

And why should it concern others if that is what the person wants?

 

Why shouldn't someone be able to harm themselves? Who are the state to determine what its citzens can do of their own free will to their own body?

I'm genuinly curious here.

 

yes God gave them free will, but he also gave them the ten commandments. the commandment "do not kill" (or harm) also goes for yourself

[mur'phon]

The commandments are fine enough reason for those who choose to folow them. However we are now talking about what the law should say, and the law should not be grounded merely in a spesific religious belief.

[Q]

yes God gave them free will' date=' but he also gave them the ten commandments. the commandment "do not kill" (or harm) also goes for yourself[/quote']

Is it really necessary to explain that the majority of the earth's population is not Judeo-Christian and does not share your world-view?

[Litofsky]

Is it really necessary to explain that the majority of the earth's population is not Judeo-Christian and does not share your world-view?

 

I do believe so.

 

With all possible respect, Jekk, a large percentage of the world does not hold to the values/beliefs of the Bible, and, especially in country that claims to be tolerant in all senses of the word, it does an injustice to all of us to pass laws that are based off of religious views.

 

Thus, creating laws based off of a religious idea would be doing a disservice to those who fought and died to help preserve our nation and it's ideals (clicky to learn about religious freedom in the United States).

[Web Rider]

and they shouldn't be able to harm themselves.

 

@everyone: Wanting to die by contract is the same as suicide. So contract or no contract, by gun or by medicine killing is killing!

 

Which only further proves you're NOT listening. I keep asking and you keep ignoring the question of: Should we try to keep a dying person alive well beyond when they would have naturally died? Or should we allow the dying to die when their time has come, and if so, should we be allowed to make it comfortable.

 

I'm not talking about killing anyone, I'm not talking about harming anyone, i'm asking if people have the right to die when their body is no longer capable of living?

[jonathan7]

yes God gave them free will' date=' but he also gave them the ten commandments. the commandment "do not kill" (or harm) also goes for yourself[/quote']

 

Firstly, you do seem to be ignoring the bits of the Bible where God orders people to kill others, read the book of Joshua - they killed all the people who occupied the land already.

 

I don't wish to incur the wrath of DI here, as he is far more qualified than I to comment on Catholicism and its associated doctrines and history. However your argument would at least to me fall down for several reasons; because the Roman Catholic Church, and Pope Urban II ordered the First Crusade et al; in which an awful lot of people were murdered.

 

It's not that I agree with euthanasia, but you haven't put up a convincing argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed; you've posted material which hasn't read others points, and seems to lack sensitivity in a most sensitive of topics. Quite a few of us have had to watch loved ones die excruciating deaths.

 

For an example on this topic, my dad is a Doctor (a GP) - he will never give an abortion because of his religious inclinations (he passes them onto other doctors) - but with regards euthanasia while he disagrees with it, someone for instance suffering from Cystic Fibrosis they die a horrible death; and even my dad is torn on what the patient should be allowed to decide for themselves.

 

Furthermore, even if what you believe is a universal absolute, why are you expecting others who do not believe what you believe to act as you do? It would seem to me, at least if you accept the Biblical portrait of Jesus, he chose love over force as a means of communicating with others. The loving thing to do is to adequately explain why you hold a position and why that is the best course of action – and to do that sensitively something you have failed to do on epic proportions.

[Te Je'karta Mand'alor]

I do believe so.

 

With all possible respect, Jekk, a large percentage of the world does not hold to the values/beliefs of the Bible, and, especially in country that claims to be tolerant in all senses of the word, it does an injustice to all of us to pass laws that are based off of religious views.

 

Thus, creating laws based off of a religious idea would be doing a disservice to those who fought and died to help preserve our nation and it's ideals (clicky to learn about religious freedom in the United States).

 

it doesn't matter. I say it should still be consiered suicide. ugh.... i think too much

BTW just call me Scav

 

 

Which only further proves you're NOT listening. I keep asking and you keep ignoring the question of: Should we try to keep a dying person alive well beyond when they would have naturally died? Or should we allow the dying to die when their time has come, and if so, should we be allowed to make it comfortable.

 

I'm not talking about killing anyone, I'm not talking about harming anyone, i'm asking if people have the right to die when their body is no longer capable of living?

 

i don't think they should. if God wishes them to die then i say let them die naturaly. i say there should be NO say in it for ANYONE. sure you should give them medicines to help them live, but you shouldn't KILL them. Being pro-life isn't just being against abortion.

 

Firstly, you do seem to be ignoring the bits of the Bible where God orders people to kill others, read the book of Joshua - they killed all the people who occupied the land already.

 

I don't wish to incur the wrath of DI here, as he is far more qualified than I to comment on Catholicism and its associated doctrines and history. However your argument would at least to me fall down for several reasons; because the Roman Catholic Church, and Pope Urban II ordered the First Crusade et al; in which an awful lot of people were murdered.

 

It's not that I agree with euthanasia, but you haven't put up a convincing argument as to why it shouldn't be allowed; you've posted material which hasn't read others points, and seems to lack sensitivity in a most sensitive of topics. Quite a few of us have had to watch loved ones die excruciating deaths.

 

For an example on this topic, my dad is a Doctor (a GP) - he will never give an abortion because of his religious inclinations (he passes them onto other doctors) - but with regards euthanasia while he disagrees with it, someone for instance suffering from Cystic Fibrosis they die a horrible death; and even my dad is torn on what the patient should be allowed to decide for themselves.

 

Furthermore, even if what you believe is a universal absolute, why are you expecting others who do not believe what you believe to act as you do? It would seem to me, at least if you accept the Biblical portrait of Jesus, he chose love over force as a means of communicating with others. The loving thing to do is to adequately explain why you hold a position and why that is the best course of action – and to do that sensitively something you have failed to do on epic proportions.

 

you make a good point. But God orders people to fight their ENEMEYS. not EACH OTHER. Suicide is suicide even if it's legal. and onece again i think too much... thats what i get for being homeschooled

[Mono_Giganto]

it doesn't matter. I say it should still be consiered suicide. ugh.... i think too much

BTW just call me Scav

 

Personally I'd say that, at least with regards to this topic, you're thinking too little. You're clinging to a single black-and-white statement without really providing any support for it.

 

i don't think they should. if God wishes them to die then i say let them die naturaly. i say there should be NO say in it for ANYONE. sure you should give them medicines to help them live' date=' but you shouldn't KILL them. Being pro-life isn't just being against abortion.[/quote']

 

Here, you contradict yourself. "Let them die if God wants them to die, but still try and help them live." You're flip-flopping sides.

 

you make a good point. But God orders people to fight their ENEMEYS. not EACH OTHER. Suicide is suicide even if it's legal. and onece again i think too much... thats what i get for being homeschooled

 

Are we not all human? By fighting our enemies, are we not fighting each other as well? I fail to see how that justifies J7's point.

[jonathan7]

you make a good point. But God orders people to fight their ENEMEYS. not EACH OTHER. Suicide is suicide even if it's legal. and onece again i think too much... thats what i get for being homeschooled

 

Interestingly the Bible actually neglects to mention suicide; Click Me. So why exactly are individuals not allowed to commit suicide? And your post contradicts Jesus himself and the 10 commandments (Thou Shalt not Kill and Love your enemies). Please could you provide the Biblical basis for your position?

 

Furthermore I'm not entirely sure why you think your thinking too much, or what correlation thinking and being home schooled has? Your thinking seems to have neglected the central point of my last post.

[Te Je'karta Mand'alor]

Interestingly the Bible actually neglects to mention suicide; Click Me. So why exactly are individuals not allowed to commit suicide? And your post contradicts Jesus himself and the 10 commandments (Thou Shalt not Kill and Love your enemies). Please could you provide the Biblical basis for your position?

 

Furthermore I'm not entirely sure why you think your thinking too much, or what correlation thinking and being home schooled has? Your thinking seems to have neglected the central point of my last post.

 

the 5th commandment goes for harming YOURSELF as well as others. The Pope has said it him self. and the pope is infalable when taching of the catholic faith.

[Astor]

the 5th commandment goes for harming YOURSELF as well as others. The Pope has said it him self. and the pope is infalable when taching of the catholic faith.

 

That's the Catholic faith, though. Not everybody is a Catholic, so the Pope's word isn't likely to prevent them seeking an end to their suffering if they choose to.

[jonathan7]

Ok, Rule 5 of Kavars Rules is being inacted. It says thus;

 

5. Repeatedly posting the same thing: This refers specifically to repeating the same point over and over in a way that becomes irritating, without an attempt to clarify a point or to contribute to the conversation. This should not be construed to mean that you are required to answer someone else's questions. If it's the same argument and doesn't contribute to the discussion, the post may be edited or deleted, and the poster may receive an infraction.

 

You are all also politely reminded that proper grammer is appreciated and in the Rules of both SW:K generally and Kavars specifically.

 

-- j7

[Te Je'karta Mand'alor]

That's the Catholic faith, though. Not everybody is a Catholic, so the Pope's word isn't likely to prevent them seeking an end to their suffering if they choose to.

 

Yes but every religion and government I know of is against suicide and assisted suicide... My youthful mind needs a break

[Astor]

yes but every religion and government i know of is against suicide and assisted suicide... my youthful mind needs a break

 

Not so.

 

Active Euthanasia is ilegal in China and Hong Kong but has seen growing support recently, and there is legislation allowing a terminally ill person to end their life in the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland & Japan.

 

I may be wrong, but I also believe it is legal in several US States.

 

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that Hinduism sees the ending of anothers suffering as a good deed, even though ending a life is a bad thing to do, but conversely, keeping a person alive on machinery is also seen as a bad deed.

 

So, I guess it's pretty much a grey area, but I don't think that Hinduism is 'against' it as vehemently as other religions.

 

Also, passive Euthanasia has some support in Shinto (the religion of Japan).

[Te Je'karta Mand'alor]

Well it would seem it's hard for a 13 year old to post his beliefs... Well my view of it is that it shouldn't be legal and with that I retire from this thread.

[Sabretooth]

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that Hinduism sees the ending of anothers suffering as a good deed, even though ending a life is a bad thing to do, but conversely, keeping a person alive on machinery is also seen as a bad deed.

 

While largely accurate, I'm not quite sure how much I'd agree with Hinduism's stance that keeping a person alive on machinery would be a bad deed.

 

It is understood that Hinduism construes a system of birth/rebirth, such that birth and death are events assigned to specific times and events, and they are disrupted by humans, by murder, suicide and so on.

 

Yet at the same time, Hinduism does not take this as a necessarily punishable thing, as war is quite clearly sanctioned in Hindu works. The "time" for a person to die therefore, need not be necessarily considered the time they would naturally die, but more accurately, the time that fate has set forth for them to die on.

 

This is necessary to sanction the invention of medicine, as applying specific medicine, especially artificially synthesised ones that would have been naturally available otherwise, prolong life just as any machine would. Seeing the Ayurveda, the ancient Hindu tome of medicine, as well as the many references to medicine in Hindu texts, it is fairly clear that medicine is never an issue, even if it is used to prolong life beyond its natural limits (see increasing lifespan over historical reference).

 

I do not see therefore, how using a machine to prolong life would be incompatible with Hindu beliefs. As for whether Euthanasia may be sanctioned, I'd think not. The good and bad things a person experiences are a result of their Karma, both in the current life and the ones before it. Suicide being a bad deed, only adds to the bad Karma and will only make your future lives miserable (not mention you might be reincarnated as a rat or a krill).

 

As stated before, a complex issue that I don't believe Hinduism addresses directly.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Well it would seem it's hard for a 13 year old to post his beliefs... Well my view of it is that it shouldn't be legal and with that I retire from this thread.

 

the idea is to post your opinion, allow others to respond, then try to find inconsistencies in their logic or information, then rinse and repeat. you've kinda sorta done the first step (i refuse to give you the whole step until you post your opinion and not the opinions of government and religious officials), then the second step, then gone back to the first step.

 

kindly stop whining about how you can't express your views just because others want to debate the subject at hand, and perhaps even expand their views on the subject and not just regurgitate the views of others or simply blog about their opinions on a forum tia

[Delta 62]

Personaly,i think it depends on the seriousness of the illness....if they have the cold or flu then no....if they are terminally ill then yes

[mur'phon]

Well it is not as if any government vould get away with having flu be reason enough to do waste medical staffs time with killing them.Not that it would matter anyway as a person with the flu would be perfectly capable of taking a dive from the sixth floor. The least serious illness AFAIK that someone who requested the procedure had was a young fanaticall sportsman (rugby I think) who got paralyzed from his neck down, though again, afaik he is pretty much alone when it comes to making the choice without a terminal ilness.