Do you support physician-assisted suicide?

[TDAS04]

Yes (D)

[Goldwater]

Yes (R)

[Consciously Unconscious]

No (R)

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes (I/O)

[Franzl]

Eh... yes in practice, but I've got a bad feeling about it deep down.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, but I would be willing to have some form of assisted suicide that does not involve physicians.

[DC Al Fine]

No, but I would be willing to have some form of assisted suicide that does not involve physicians.

Why?

[morgieb]

Yes. If a person doesn't want to live/suffer anymore, they really shouldn't have to.

[TNF]

Yes (I/O) - not an awful person

[HagridOfTheDeep]

No. The state should never play an institutional role in administering or abetting the death of its citizens. I have all the sympathy in the world for people who are suffering, and this is actually a position that pains me to hold, but I think this principle is one that needs to endure. When we are dealing with something as serious as a person's life, there is no room for error. A state cannot be responsible for killing its people. It's just too fishy any other way.

[afleitch]

No. The state should never play an institutional role in administering or abetting the death of its citizens. I have all the sympathy in the world for people who are suffering, and this is actually a position that pains me to hold, but I think this principle is one that needs to endure. When we are dealing with something as serious as a person's life, there is no room for error. A state cannot be responsible for killing its people. It's just too fishy any other way.

Since when is a physician, 'the state?' Can an individual not enter into a private and personal agreement with their doctor over the options available to them should they no longer wish to live free from state interference?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, but I would be willing to have some form of assisted suicide that does not involve physicians.

Why?

Whose life is it?  The person's or the government's?   I believe the former, therefore as a general rule I see no justification for the state to place impediments on someone seeking assistance on ending their life.  However, physicians are supposed to preserve and enhance life.  For a physician to actively assist someone in ending their life (by which I do not mean the removal of life support equipment or the like) is to me a betrayal of the role of a physician.  Really, the only reason to have physicians involved now is that the methods for committing suicide in a painless and mess-free manner generally involve the use of controlled substances we allow physicians to use in non-lethal quantities for specific medical uses.  But there is no reason we could not allow thanatosians access to those substances.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

No. The state should never play an institutional role in administering or abetting the death of its citizens. I have all the sympathy in the world for people who are suffering, and this is actually a position that pains me to hold, but I think this principle is one that needs to endure. When we are dealing with something as serious as a person's life, there is no room for error. A state cannot be responsible for killing its people. It's just too fishy any other way.

Since when is a physician, 'the state?' Can an individual not enter into a private and personal agreement with their doctor over the options available to them should they no longer wish to live free from state interference?

I guess Canadian single-payer health care has partly conditioned my thoughts on the topic. Here, hospitals are synonymous with government. I did say though that I don't think the state should abet death either. To permit "murder" (and I hate to use that word so crudely, because I know the moral differences are huge—maybe "the taking of life" is a better term), to me, opens too many doors. If, ultimately, the state says it's okay and then something goes wrong in the "private agreement" you mentioned, surely some blame must fall on the government for allowing individuals to be in the business of taking lives in the first place.

[tmthforu94]

This is an extremely difficult issue for me, one that I need to do more research on. Part of me leans towards it, yet the other part just gets a sick feeling when thinking about it.

[PJ]

Yes. Stated simply, the state doesn't have the right to tell someone with a terminal illness that they must wait to die. I'm surprised by how mixed the forum is on this issue.

[Flake]

This is one of the most difficult issues one can think of. On one side, there are patients who have terminal illnesses and will not recover from it, and they may just want to end all the pain and to not go on with life, but on the other side, you are killing another human being. What if the person recovers, or if they decide against it during euthanasia? In good conscience, I wouldn't want someone's life taken away by a needle, not if they can recover, not if they end the years of relationships with family, friends, not if they regret it when it's too late, not with the life that God gave them. I don't want these people, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, to end it. Not if there's a fighting chance.

[Ebowed]

Yep, I've also voted to legalize it (WA, 2008).

[Mordecai]

No. The state should never play an institutional role in administering or abetting the death of its citizens. I have all the sympathy in the world for people who are suffering, and this is actually a position that pains me to hold, but I think this principle is one that needs to endure. When we are dealing with something as serious as a person's life, there is no room for error. A state cannot be responsible for killing its people. It's just too fishy any other way.

To turn that situation on its head, is a state responsible for keeping people alive through intervention, if they would otherwise die of natural causes?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes indeed.

[afleitch]

This is one of the most difficult issues one can think of. On one side, there are patients who have terminal illnesses and will not recover from it, and they may just want to end all the pain and to not go on with life, but on the other side, you are killing another human being. What if the person recovers, or if they decide against it during euthanasia? In good conscience, I wouldn't want someone's life taken away by a needle, not if they can recover, not if they end the years of relationships with family, friends, not if they regret it when it's too late, not with the life that God gave them. I don't want these people, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, to end it. Not if there's a fighting chance.

What if they don't believe in God? Why should your opinion on the existance of a deity deprive someone of the opportunity to make a conscious decision to be assisted in ending their own life? You aren't feeling their pain; they alone are the ones who are feeling it. They are living with it and being forced to live with it purely because other people feel uncomfortable with allowing them to die. They feel comfortable about making the choice and simply want that to be respected.

Imagine you crushed your leg and needed to get it amputated and all around you people said 'I know you're in pain, but its your leg, you can't just simply get rid of it', even though you are in pain and will always be in pain because of your leg. You'd probably seek to amputate it yourself but wouldn't it be much nicer if you could simply be assisted, without people who currently aren't experiencing a crushed leg saying that you can't get help for it? You might say it's a weak argument and in some ways it is, but only because the lifetime of physical and emotional pain that people suffer is far far worse than the physical agony of a crushed leg.

You don't know better than these people; you aren't experiencing what they experience. What individual would place greater value on their own 'uncomfortableness' over someone's actual pain and distress?

[dead0man]

I don't see how this is a hard choice.  You either want people to have the option to end what they feel is a horrible life or you're selfish jackass.

[Flake]

This is one of the most difficult issues one can think of. On one side, there are patients who have terminal illnesses and will not recover from it, and they may just want to end all the pain and to not go on with life, but on the other side, you are killing another human being. What if the person recovers, or if they decide against it during euthanasia? In good conscience, I wouldn't want someone's life taken away by a needle, not if they can recover, not if they end the years of relationships with family, friends, not if they regret it when it's too late, not with the life that God gave them. I don't want these people, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, to end it. Not if there's a fighting chance.

What if they don't believe in God? Why should your opinion on the existance of a deity deprive someone of the opportunity to make a conscious decision to be assisted in ending their own life? You aren't feeling their pain; they alone are the ones who are feeling it. They are living with it and being forced to live with it purely because other people feel uncomfortable with allowing them to die. They feel comfortable about making the choice and simply want that to be respected.

Imagine you crushed your leg and needed to get it amputated and all around you people said 'I know you're in pain, but its your leg, you can't just simply get rid of it', even though you are in pain and will always be in pain because of your leg. You'd probably seek to amputate it yourself but wouldn't it be much nicer if you could simply be assisted, without people who currently aren't experiencing a crushed leg saying that you can't get help for it? You might say it's a weak argument and in some ways it is, but only because the lifetime of physical and emotional pain that people suffer is far far worse than the physical agony of a crushed leg.

You don't know better than these people; you aren't experiencing what they experience. What individual would place greater value on their own 'uncomfortableness' over someone's actual pain and distress?

I would vote to legalize it, viewing the pros and the cons of it. However, I would much rather them not to do it.

[LeBron]

I would support it in the case that their family members deem it's appropriate. It's a serious decision and shouldn't be made alone.

[Cory]

I don't see how this is a hard choice.  You either want people to have the option to end what they feel is a horrible life or you're selfish jackass.

[Hatman 🍁]

No right is more inherent than to do what they want with their body, including taking their own life.