First I would like to say: Euthanasia and Assisted or Unassisted Suicide are not the same thing.
A person could be in unendurable pain, or completely paralized and ask to be helped to die. This is not euthanasia. If they are helped to end their life, this is assisted suicide. The patient is making the choice.
A person could be in a coma and the doctor says they will never come out of it. He wants to pull the plug. If he is allowed to, this is euthanasia. Someone other than the patient is making the choice.
I wrote this article a few weeks ago. Since then, I have seen on the debate page that nearly 70% of all debaters or readers of the articles in the debate voted in favor of the practice of euthanasia. In this particular debate, one is not allowed to read the articles on either side before they vote and then are directed to the articles that agree with their voting decision.
This then, makes it impossible to perhaps sway, or convince, those with a different mind-set to change their thinking. This having been said, I would like to present some of my reasoning on the subject of euthanasia. You don't have to agree with me to read what I have written, You may leave a comment afterward.
Euthanasia, like many other issues, has supporters. But even supporters must ask and perhaps be forced to answer the question of whether it is ethical or unethical to euthanize. After careful thinking and reasoning and considering the moral question, I must say I am against the practice.
First, there is the 'golden rule' of do to others as we would wish they would do to us. I cannot imagine wanting anyone, at any time, 'putting me to sleep', sending me off to take the big dirt nap. Personally, I don't want to die. I have felt a lot of pain, some of it 'unbearable' which I bore for considerable lengths of time. I certainly didn't enjoy bearing it, but it was much desired to the alternative. So, I choose not to suffer euthanasia. Hopefully, my choice will be honored.
If not for the fact that the tiniest of humans are put to death on a daily basis with the reasons being a 'right to privacy' and 'self-determination', the question of euthanasia might not be considered as a viable alternative to suffering 'unbearable' pain. Abortion is one of the most ruthless of practices. How can a nation or a people who call themselves 'civilized' carry out such an abominable slaughter of the innocent? Euthanasia of those who are old, helpless from disease or infirmity, or in 'unbearable' pain is only a half-step away.
How is it any more terrible to execute the old as it is to execute the very youngest among us? How is it any worse to end the pain of those suffering from incurable illness than it is to cause unbearable pain to the tiny human that is ripped apart, suffocated or stabbed in the brain in the womb? Those people among us who see it as a woman's choice to do this to her baby will also see it as her 'right' to put a needle in the arm of her mother when her mother is unable to ask her not to. After all, the baby she kills is unable to ask her not to and this is why abortion is allowed.
Many anecdotes could be given of those who were declared brain dead who suddenly regained 'life' and resumed living. They escaped death at the hands of those who wanted to put them out of their misery. My question is: who's misery is being considered as paramount when the issue of unbearable pain, incurable illness and euthanasia are raised? Is there not perhaps a measure of selfishness in the suggestion that the sick don't want to suffer, so their lives should be ended 'humanly'?
Money always enters in to the discussion. The cost of keeping someone alive on life-support for an indefinite period is hammered home each time someone is 'brain dead'. The fact that money and economic adversity are even mentioned tells me it is unethical to euthanize anyone.
If you can't keep selfishness out of the discussion of what is best for the patient, then the patient is not the main consideration.
Again, I have to say I choose life over having someone put me out of my, or their, misery. Since I choose life, how could I possibly choose death for my neighbor? It would be unethical and disobedience of the 'golden rule'.
Any comments that attack any other commenter will be deleted. I sincerely hope I do not have to delete any comments as I want everyone to see where this country is headed with it comes to this issue. It may affect anyone at any time.


Comments: 29
Thank you very much for your comment on this serious subject.
The same issues come to the fore, just as you said, when the question is euthanasia. It is just SO expensive to keep some people living -- too expensive for the greedy people in the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen.
When I hear these money/convenience based arguments, it always makes me think of the so-called "final solution." Well, all those in favor of killing the unwanted, unhealthy, and undesirable -- heil Hitler to you.
And even if I chose it for myself, I still wouldn't make that decision for someone else.
I think the person who is who is ill, or suffering the pain or paralyzed, coma or whatever should be allowed that choice. Perhaps being able to state it in writing before hand should some situation come up would help? I used to think I couldn't afford it, but I think I was told once it can be done for free at the hospital in a living will?
I don't know, would like to know more about how to make my own arrangements before that time came.
I don't like people making choices for me and I sure don't want to make someone else's choices, especially not on that situation.
But, I am sorry that I misunderstood what you were saying.
But if they make a decision like that for a PERSON, I'm stating that is Wrong!
Thank you, Liz, for the clarification. If we talk enough, we'll understand each other, I'm sure.
My kids are distracting me!
Again, I see this as assisted suicide, not euthanasia. The operative words: your uncle WANTED it. He made the choice about whether to go on living.