RateItAll: The Opinion Network

I have very mixed feelings. Both of my parents died in degrading pain. Both, I think wanted to die sooner than the natural course of events allowed. Neither did.

Had they wished to, I'm not sure what I would have done, if anything, to help them. It is the individuals right to end their life, but it is a horrific thing to ask someone to assist you with.

On a political tangent, I would express the concern that governments that get enthusiastic about euthanasia are generally not to be trusted. They frequently have a list.

Taking an innocent life is murder and must be punished as such. No one has the right to decide who lives and who dies. By the way, suicide is also murder, self murder, and in its way, it is punished too.

God forbid you actually let families and individuals take control of their own lives and destinies. Can you handle that?

OF COURSE!!!If one is gravely ill and in a lot of pain,who the hell are we to tell her what she can and cannot do?A doctor should spell out all options.Then if the dying person is of sound mind they should proceed as they wnt to.My mother had a brief illness.She suffered a lot in her last few days.She told me not to heroically extend her life.DNR was the order.She died peacefully and painlessly and quickly.what if she had survived but led a life of bed bound suffering?Should she then have been forced to go on against her wishes?The possibility of a nursing home was discussed with my sister.I work 2 jobs,often until late hours.It would have been darn near impossible to take care of her.More importantly,SHE would have been heartbroken over a nursing home.While I love her and miss her,I am happy that I never had to make such a horrible decision.She is resting,at peace and is not suffering any more.Why deny that right to others?I hope my fellow conservatives see the error of their ways here and stop trying to outlaw this and concentrate on what we do best:Less government,lower taxes,strong on defense,Pro a strong America abroad and tough on crime.Do not get into this ancilliary bull manure.

Maybe. But what should absolutely be legally permissible is beating the living sh-- out of religious extremists who terrorize your family and stake out your residence when you are in the throes of deciding whether or not to withdraw life support from a severely impaired family member who has been attached to feeding tubes and/or life support for years.

If a doctor thinks about doing this after the oath to "Do no harm" he took to receive his degree, he either doesn't fully understand what he swore to, or he disregards it when it's convenient to him. Doctors killing their patients, even with the patient's informed consent, still violates the letter of the law and the Hipocratic Oath. And for the government to consider paying them to do this, instead of reminding them of the existing laws is even more disturbing to me.

If you have the freedom to LIVE you life as you chose, short of delerium, you should be able chose how to end it. However, if you need assistance to do it, you are either already delerious, or have been talked into it. I don't think medicare should pay for someone to pull the trigger for you. If you can't do it yourself, your not fully convinced it's the right thing to do.

Only in extreme terminal situations.

To EMJ: YES, doctors have said it IS possible today. Just because YOU think it isn't, doesn't mean you know all the medical advances available! Doctors have said there is NO reason for ANYONE to suffer such pain. NO ONE. To TJGypsy: If you want to kill yourself, there is no constitutional right to demand that others must help you do it. Period. You have no right and are not entitled to have government order others to help murder you for any reason, but especially just because you are depressed and right then find no point to your life and want to die. Nice way to clean out mental hospitals, isn't it? What a stupid notion -it would mean murdering some people if they are depressed would be legal, but only illegal if they are mentally healthy. Suicidal ideation is a mental illness, part of depression which is a treatable condition and you are actually saying help kill the mentally ill. I can already see defense lawyers all claiming murder victims actually wanted to die anyway -especially if they ever saw a psychiatrist. Update: AGAIN people saying yes, if terminal and suffering. How about demanding we first relieve the pain? Society won't insure they get the proper pain relief they need, but will just offer to kill them off even earlier instead and deprive them of even more time? What kind of people are you? Doctors have said repeatedly that because of all the medical advances today, there is absolutely NO reason for anyone to suffer unrelieved debilitating pain anymore -and have also said there is a serious problem in this country because pain is seriously under treated. The result of under treated pain is that people are suffering needlessly! Unrelieved pain makes people want to die, so the proper answer is not to go ahead and kill them -but to relieve the pain so the person enjoys a much better quality of life for his remaining time. How about we address that first, before just bumping them off early and depriving them of even more time, huh? My father-in-law developed debilitating pain from his cancer not too long after being diagnosed as terminal -nearly two full years before he died. Yet because he was properly treated for that pain, he spent the next 23 months, his remaining time, doing what he loved most -going to auctions, farming, taking care of his horses and spending time with family and friends -right up to the end when he died, still painfree. Spending his remaining time doing what he loved most and as he wished -painfree. No needless suffering and lingering in pain and agony even though his cancer had replaced nearly all the bone in his pelvic bones and had invaded several internal organs. Although if he hadn't found a doctor willing to treat his pain, he would have no doubt died even earlier -from the pain. That was time that he ended up cherishing and was glad he didn't miss and didn't want to miss. Yet before his pain was relieved, was unable to enjoy and would rather have been dead than suffer such pain. The answer was to relieve his pain, not go ahead and kill him. Just because you have a disease that will shorten your life and that disease causes you pain, doesn't mean you are somehow less entitled to the full measure of pain relief. People don't choose to off themselves even earlier just because they find out they have a disease that will shorten their lives -and decide to just make it an even shorter life. They consider it when they are experiencing debilitating and unrelieved pain. Sooooo RELIEVE THE PAIN -because it is today possible to do that. We should be demanding an end to needless suffering, not pretending the only thing we can offer someone needlessly suffering is an even earlier death. If people knew they could spend whatever remaining time they have painfree, they wouldn't choose to end that life even earlier, but to spend that time doing what is most important to them. They have the right to that remaining time and to have that remaining time painfree.

in response to sfalconer a person of sound mind would want to kill themselves because they are in incredible pain. No one should be forced by the goverment to live their finals years/months/days in extreme misery. *update, quite frankly i don't care if there is no biblical right to kill someone. if i am in serious pain and have made the decision i do not want to suffer any longer that is my choice, the bible does not govern this country and our laws. why why must people keep fighting the seperation of church and state. *update, you said who are we to say who lives and who dies. and that is basically my point. we are in no position to, it should be the decision of the individual. I'm not saying docters should tell patients I think you would be better off if i helped you commmit suicide, I'm saying that the person suffering makes the decision.*UPDATE to kate, I don't think anyone should be forced to assist it should definitely not be required. I just don't think anyone should be penalized for it. and while you say we should focus on relieving the pain, obviously, but its simply not possible to relieve pain for every single physical thing someone is suffering through. It's not realistic to think it works for everyone.

Yes i endorse assisted suicide if one is suffering and terminal. So by virtue of that i give it 5 stars. I'm responding because quite frankly, i found TJGypsy2's post very disturbing and i honestly think you need to talk to somebody, and I'm not saying that in a condescending way, but with total sincerity.

I'm thinking no on the Euthanasia for all the reasons mentioned here, including the potential for abuse. But I have to vote yes for assisted suicide provided the person is in a mental state sound enough to request it, and that they can find a doctor willing to do it. I would go a step further than most on here, though, and not make terminal illness or extreme pain a pre-requisite. I disagree with Adios completely, it is my body, and my life, and I feel that I should have control of the decision about what's to happen to it. If I decide I no longer wish to live, why should I have to? Someone on here said that if you wish to commit suicide you can just go out and do it, the state shouldn't be involved. I would submit that doing it through assisted suicide would be much cleaner, and cause much less stress on those left behind. I mean, which is worse, to know that I went to a clinic somewhere, took a few pills, and died in my sleep, or to come home and find me sitting in an easy chair with my brains covering a wall?

So how would it work, would doctors have to change the oath they take. Maybe something like if my patient is very ill and wants to die then I will help them do it and put a side the oath to preserve life. So what I am saying doctors should never knowingly help people die it is totally against what they are about. If a person is of a sound mind why would they want to kill themselves? Update: emj5697, The problem as I see it is if you make suicide legal, and that is really what we are talking about here, who determines how severe and what kind of pain justifies death. How do you determine some ones pain and who are we to say who lives and who dies. I understand what pain is and it is living hell but amazing things happen and it does not matter what you believe in,

Yes. If you are suffering with cancer or any other terminal disease and are in such great pain that life is miserable and wretched, I dont see the point of living. I also dont see the point of making someone live throught this torment when they are going to eventually die anyway of the disease. Saying that this shouldnt be legal because the bible says so? Yeah, the bible also says that you can sell your daughter into slavery.

Yep! Check-out time should be up to the shopper, not the store manager. When the cost/benefit ratio can no longer be justified, I'LL make the call (through legal wranglings, or on my own). Photo-chemical engram imprinting and nanotechnology will make these issues moot, but that's a good 100 years off. For now, just back away and I'll be the only one who gets hurt.

This is a very important issue as it strikes at the core of who we are as a free people. Free civilizations are in a constant quest for what can only be described as the good life. Through assiduous deliberation we discuss the relationships between our positive institutions and the ethical paradigms upon which principles they should naturally rest for the betterment of society on a whole. This is the essence of democracy. When glaring, sometimes horrific (slavery, abortion, genocide, assisted suicide, etc) , inconsistencies call to test the applications upon which our positivism is exercised reexaminations of the procedures and the paradigms themselves are necessary. Terri Shiavo severely mentally handicapped after suffering a massive heart attack lies living in a Florida hospital bed, eyes wide open, breathing, smiling and reacting to the world in which we live. At the request of her legal guardian- her husband-who has a vested interest in her death- her feeding tube is going to be removed. Her death by dehydration is going to take 10- 14 days. See will experience nose bleeds, cracked lips, spasms, possible seizures and vomitting until she expires after weeks of starvation. Her husband claims this was her wish should she ever be afflicted with such a condition. But was she in any positon to lay claim to that desire without presently residing in that particular condition? Have you never wished something but changed your mind later when in a different position? Is our society actually better off directly terminating the lives of individuals who have other love ones who would eagerly care for them? Are not Floridas present procedures inadequet in dealing with such a horrible yet naturally complex situation? What about her poor family who wants custody of her and in an attempt to nurture her back to health? Do we not feel for them? Shouldn't they have a say? Is a just society one that forces them to sit by while their daughter and sister dies of dehydration? Think about it. There are justifiable claims that mass murders shouldnt be put to death through a much more efficient state procedure yet we are going to put to death by starvation an innocent girl for having a heart attack? We are a society that understands children cannot make up their minds for themselves as they are not familiarized with the complexities of the real world- our laws protect them in such a manner. Is our society better served by starving a girl to death who laid claim to a position with which she was not familiar? In the end we need to determine if our society is better off procedurally respecting any claim-even death or promoting a culture of life and structures its institutions upon its preservation. I pray it is the latter.

Thank you, Lance, for pointing out the heinous hypocrisy of those who protest the state the carrying out the execution of a guilty man (death penalty) after deliberation by a jury of his peers, but won't lift a finger to prevent the same state from ending the life of someone who has committed no crime, but whose existence has become an inconvenience. Well said.

I demand that they become legal in all 50 states. Too many patients have to endure this eternal pain which could take months and years. I remember my dying grandpa 5 years ago. He was in so much pain that it shook me. I say we end the suffering. AND free my hero Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He's a pioneer!

i could say it any better than Djahuti did, except to agree. if of sound mind you should have the right to control your own final destiny.

If the person who wants to die is of sound mind,I don't see why we should force them to suffer while their families take on the huge financial burdon of paying for the torture of prolonging their slow and inevitable death.

i think if you haven't suffered non ending pain,you would not understand the need for this option.There are situations where one might wish they were dead and later glad they didn't die.There is also a terminal pain where euthanasia would be a blessing.Yes,it should be up to the person,a plan,not spur of the moment.

This one is fraught with all manner of variables. Basically, I feel that euthanasia might be abused (who decides who should be euthanized I'm assuming that the person is non compo mentis, so they really don't have a say in what they want). Assisted suicide, also, I'm basicallly against, but I understand the arguments for acceding to a person's wishes if they are in extreme pain. I don't see much of a parallel to the abortion issue here, however.

No, if people want to commit suicide they can do it without the endorsement of the country. There is no need to legalize this.

it should be legal if youre in pain you should be able to end it

I don't think so. It will just open up a can of worms. It is unfortunate to see a loved one suffer but they will ultimately die and it is for eternity. If assisted suicide is legal, where do you draw the line? You may have a younger person with an disease like AIDS who is suffering horribly, and he wants to die so why can't he? The problem arises when they find a cure for AIDS - now this person never had to die. What if you have someone who is suffering from severe lifelong depression, and no therapy or medication has ever worked? Shouldn't they have the same right to die, even though they are otherwise healthy? It would be too difficult to draw the line here.

I'm all over the map on this one but the greater part of me shies away from giving anyone the legal right to kill. Yes yes yes, there are valid reasons for thinking about euthanasia--no one wants to suffer or watch their loved ones in pain. My mother suffered before she died and it nearly killed me to experience that. But isn't life about suffering? Joy and happiness, yes, but much suffering as well. Where is the line drawn and who gets to draw it? Aren't we really talking about removing the taboos against suicide--making it an acceptable option for anyone, anytime? Is that a wise thing to do? I don't know but it makes me very uncomfortable that we might take such a step. A good friend of mine was in mental agony for a long time. I found her in her bed with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to her temple. She ended her suffering, I suppose, but had she seen beforehand the violent obscenity she committed against herself she might have reconsidered. Emotional reasons, I've learned the hard way, don't necessarily make a right action. I'm afraid of legalized killing in any form.

an almost four. I say yes for me. If I get to the end of my life and i am in horrible pain and have suffered, I would want the right to decide for myself if I want to have an assisted suicide. Or if a relative has specific instructions for their ownself and can not longer have a say[because they are too sick} toward the end if it were their wishes for euthanasia for certain circumstances, they should have the right. the scary part is if this law gets passed and it gets way out of hand and others take it upon themselves to decide if someone else should die for bad reasons, like if someone has emotional or mental problems. or physical disabilities. or if others would consider someone no longer viable, they could end another persons life. If this law passed, there would have to be some strict laws where assisted suicide, euthanasia was concerned.

Euthanasia is a tough issue to deal with. Seeing my grandfather die a slow, painful death because of terminal cancer has really changed my views on this. It's a very painful experience to see someone you love go through the utter pain of having to undergo brutal treatments for an ultimately terminal disorder. I feel that people should have the right to end their lives on their own terms. Mercy sometimes requires mercy killing; it sounds harsh, but it's reality. When you have a dog or a cat that is old and sick, you take it to the vet or to the pound to have it injected. The pain is certainly the same for humans. Why should we leave this Earth by way of a horrible, painful and certain death? You can hope all you want for a miracle cure, but that is rare. There are many cases where death is imminent; at least in these cases, people should be allowed to leave on their own terms. We ultimately have free will to make decisions that will affect our lives. I think that it should be up to the individual to choose life or death. The government shouldn't waste it's time and resources trying to regulate this. At the end of the day death is a very personal issue, one that everyone will have to face at one time or another; it might as well be on our own terms.

It really depends on the situation. I mean, Look at Terry Schiavo. That woman has become an extremely retarded vegatable who no longer has life in her. I don't think she'd want to continue if she knew her current state.

Absolutely. I don't think there is any reason not to afford this option to people. If you want to regulate it, run psychological tests, assess emotional stability, fine. But don't make it illegal based on fear or personal moral values. There are instances in which this is a viable and merciful option. Painless and efficient, its certainly safer than its current home-made counterpart. And the outcome is much more predictable.

It's seems terribly wrong to let a person who is in extreme pain suffer. I can't even imagine watching a loved one waste away, day after endless day fighting something inside them that won't let go. But then it brings up another issue, as well: depression is sometimes an endless pain and for some it is truly incurable. So do we treat physical pain the same as we would treat emotional pain? Do we let a person with terminal, painful cancer die peacefully while we make a person with consistent feelings of hopelessness and self-hatred live until they see it fit to kill themselves? It's a tricky subject, but we need to know where to draw the line.

Absolutely must be legal. Then, depending on the situation, at least the choice is available. What right is more basic, more absolute, more utterly personal, than the right to your own life? That right should never be taken from the individual.

This is a terribly touchy, complex, situation-by-situation subject. We debated this in a moral problems class I had last year. This was the only issue we discussed in there that I never could really get a firm opinion on. Like I said, it's different with every situation. But legalizing something like this is just asking for potential abuse. I mean as humans we shouldn't try meddle in something like this. Just let nature run its course.

Yes. Although I think people do themselves a great disservice by ending their own life, making it illegal seems like a collossal waste of time.

Three words: NOT AT ALL! This is just another example of the pessimism and cynicsm that is plaging American society today. People should be kept alive at all costs, because a cure could be just around the corner!

We don't get to chose when we enter this world so we should at least be able to chose when we want to leave it. It just seems cruel to leave cancer patients alone with their pain.

Tough call, but in the end, I'd have to say if they honestly feel that they would rather die in their own terms rather than live/die in pain, then I'm not one to stop them.

I agree with twinmom here. I work in a Nursing Home, and people die all the time. There was one lady, Nancy, who had some kind of diabetes attack on a Friday at a cook out. The whole family was there. She slowly died in pain all night and into Saturday morning. If people are going to die anyway, and want to go with no pain, then I would let them.

Yes. Have any of you ever watched someone day in and day out die a painful, agonizing death from terminal cancer? Reduced to a bony mass of bed sores unable to eat or even wipe their own behind? I have. I got to listen to this woman writh in agony and beg God to let her die for two months when I worked in a nursing home one summer. She was 62 with a broken hip and just full of cancer. I'll never forget it...how she would lie there even with a morphine drip and make these horrible groaning noises from the pain. Scared me to death and made me cry on more than one occasion.