asc_26
Quote:
- Euthanasia is the process of painlessly helping a terminally ill person to die. Known also as assisted suicide or mercy killing, euthanasia is illegal for humans in some countries and legal to some.
What's your stand? Discussion starts..
bushra21
Euthanasia - physician assisted suicide - mercy killing
Religiously speaking it is wrong, and I hold the same opinion.
Allah has forbidden us from harming ourselves and our bodies, which belong to Him and are not really ours. He has clearly told us in the Quran to not harm our bodies, and to not kill ourself; suicide. That is what Euthanasia is...suicide.
It is not permissable for anyone to decide on suicide, or killing themselves. Not the patient nor the doctor, and both will be sinned and punished by Allah accordingly.
Also, it is still considered illegal in most parts of the world...and if I am not mistaken goes against the oath every practicing physician takes.
shafique
Against - religious and personal moral grounds. Bushra summed up my views very well in her post.
Allowing euthenasia is the thin edge of the wedge. How are you going to differentiate a 'mercy' killing from a killing to ease the discomfort/cost of the family who has to look after a long term sick relative?
I don't believe in keeping someone artificially alive on a life-support system if there is no hope of them recovering or living independently, but to kill someone out of 'mercy' is not right.
A person who wishes to commit suicide is in extreme mental pain/anguish - yet most people would not condone suicide. Assisted suicide, by extension, cannot be justified on the grounds that it stops extreme mental or physical pain.
Cheers,
Shafique
asc_26
Additional Informations regarding the subject: Yahoo website
Quote:
- In April 2002, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia. If a physician in the Netherlands follows the strict legal requirements for committing voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide, the doctor will not be prosecuted.
The basics requirements are as follows:
The patient must have already been in the doctor's care for a period of time.
The patient's suffering is unbearable, and she or he has no hope of recovery.
The patient makes a deliberate and voluntary request that she or he has discussed thoroughly with the doctor.
The doctor consults a colleague who agrees that these criteria have been met.
Belgium became the second country to legalize euthanasia in September 2002. The Belgian law also lays out specific requirements for the doctor and patient, similar to the Dutch law.
But euthanasia is only one option available to terminally ill patients. Voluntary euthanasia means a person ends his or her life through lethal injection administered by a doctor. Assisted suicide is considered to be death by oral ingestion of lethal drugs, usually prescribed by a doctor. Passive euthanasia is when life-support systems are disconnected from a terminally ill patient.
Switzerland allows suicide assisted by doctors and those without medical training, but euthanasia is not legal in the country. Since 1937, the Swiss criminal code has stated that suicide is not a crime, and it may be assisted for altruistic reasons. It's only a crime if someone assists the suicide out of negative motivation or for financial gain.
The U.S. state of Oregon enacted a physician-assisted suicide law in November 1994. This allows doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to terminally ill patients who meet certain requirements, including state residency. The U.S. government has tried to challenge this law but has been unsuccessful so far.
Some other countries are still debating on the bills whether to make it legal or not.
Nick81
Being against and citing a bunch of religious stuff (not to say something else out of respect for everyone here) is easy. You can't possibly put yourself in someone else's shoes. Someone who's suffering from a terminal disease and is in constant pain.
EDIT: Note that I didn't even state what my position is. I just can't for the very reason I mentioned above. How can I possibly write what I think about something so extreme? To know you have no chance of recovery, feeling intense pain day and night...
P.S: As tolerant as I can be, the 1st one that writes that miracle do happen, will be bit. You have been warned. :P
asc_26
- Nick81 wrote:
Being against and citing a bunch of religious stuff (not to say something else out of respect for everyone here) is easy. You can't possibly put yourself in someone else's shoes. Someone who's suffering from a terminal disease and is in constant pain.
EDIT: Note that I didn't even state what my position is. I just can't for the very reason I mentioned above. How can I possibly write what I think about something so extreme? To know you have no chance of recovery, feeling intense pain day and night...
P.S: As tolerant as I can be, the 1st one that writes that miracle do happen, will be bit. You have been warned. :P
If the person who's terminally ill gives you the permission to do so to end his/her suffering, would you do it?
Nick81
- asc_26 wrote:
- Nick81 wrote:
Being against and citing a bunch of religious stuff (not to say something else out of respect for everyone here) is easy. You can't possibly put yourself in someone else's shoes. Someone who's suffering from a terminal disease and is in constant pain.
EDIT: Note that I didn't even state what my position is. I just can't for the very reason I mentioned above. How can I possibly write what I think about something so extreme? To know you have no chance of recovery, feeling intense pain day and night...
P.S: As tolerant as I can be, the 1st one that writes that miracle do happen, will be bit. You have been warned. :P
If the person who's terminally ill gives you the permission to do so to end his/her suffering, would you do it?
I don't want to ever have to answer this question. But I know damn well that I won't cite some Bible lines to justify my choice. No offense to everyone else here again... Just stating my opinion.
P.S: You didn't formulate it correctly too... It's not a matter of giving permission, it's a matter of making the most difficult request someone might ever have to do. You're being asked to do something, not given the permission.
asc_26
But you need the person's permission - synonyms to consent, go signal, authorization and agreement powerful than a "request" - before doing what he/she would want you to do.
shafique
For me, the religious viewpoint is in total accordance with my logic.
Suicide is something I would not condone - and by extension I would not take another person's life either. Suicide is committed when a person is in so much anguish they do not wish to go on. Euthenasia is assisted suicide (or so those in favour of it would propose).
Another problem with Euthenasia is that in some circumstances it will be committed AGAINST the will of the suffering patient.
One should not prolong any suffering, but neither should one deliberately cause a person to die. By all means make them comfortable, but kill them as a primary objective - no.
Difficult questions definitely - but it is to answer difficult questions that we have a set of rules called religion.
Cheers,
Shafique
zam
I am amazed with others opinion on this, specially those who are against Euthenasia but pro-abortion. Shouldnt it stand on the same grounds? How can you condone this act and support the other :?:
For instance, some cases abortion is necessary bec the life of the mother/child will be endangered if the pregnancy is push thru. But then again euthenasia would only be used for severe cases, wherein life almost does not exisit any longer.
1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
asc_26
- zam wrote:
I am amazed with others opinion on this, specially those who are against Euthenasia but pro-abortion. Shouldnt it stand on the same grounds? How can you condone this act and support the other :?:
For instance, some cases abortion is necessary bec the life of the mother/child will be endangered if the pregnancy is push thru. But then again euthenasia would only be used for severe cases, wherein life almost does not exisit any longer.
Exactly! Excellent point ZAM! This is why I made this thread. They're inconsistent right? 8)
Nick81
- shafique wrote:
For me, the religious viewpoint is in total accordance with my logic.
Suicide is something I would not condone - and by extension I would not take another person's life either. Suicide is committed when a person is in so much anguish they do not wish to go on. Euthenasia is assisted suicide (or so those in favour of it would propose).
Another problem with Euthenasia is that in some circumstances it will be committed AGAINST the will of the suffering patient.
One should not prolong any suffering, but neither should one deliberately cause a person to die. By all means make them comfortable, but kill them as a primary objective - no.
Difficult questions definitely - but it is to answer difficult questions that we have a set of rules called religion.
Cheers,
Shafique
This is one of the main reasons I chose to be agnostic. People have reduced religion to " a set of rules" whereas its purpose was to be something much much greater. Mind you my post isn't really for you Shafique, but I just mean, in general.
Chocoholic
I have to agree with Nick on this one, I think all the religious reasons are just an easy way to say things. You can't ever know what you'd do unless you were put in that situation, and I hope that no-one ever is in that situation.
Personally people should have the right to end their suffering if they choose too. I know I'd rather have a quick and painless death, rather than spend days, weeks, months in pain and suffering and being a burden on others.
It's a persons body, a persons life, and if they choose to end their own suffering with the aid of medical professionals, then that should be their decision. But I reiterate it should be with the aid of medical professionals, I don't think anyone should ask a family member or friend to aid in their death, as I think it's unfair.
shafique
- zam wrote:
I am amazed with others opinion on this, specially those who are against Euthenasia but pro-abortion. Shouldnt it stand on the same grounds? How can you condone this act and support the other :?:
For instance, some cases abortion is necessary bec the life of the mother/child will be endangered if the pregnancy is push thru. But then again euthenasia would only be used for severe cases, wherein life almost does not exisit any longer.
I am not surprised at your amazement.
Aborting of a bundle of cells with no chance of self-sustaining independent life, and no self-awarenes or conciousness is not the same as the willful termination of a self-sustaining human being.
I do not have a moral objection against turning off a life-support system of a person with no hope of recovery, on medical advice. This could be viewed as analogous severing a foetus from the mother.
If I do not see a foetus as being fully alive, then it's abortion cannot be equated to euthenasia. Simple logic really. You can disagree with the first 'If', but I can't see how anyone can fault the logic if the 'if' holds true.
Cheers,
Shafique
asc_26
Chocs, the attending physician will definitely ask the members of the family, as they've to sign some pertitent documents before removing any medical aids to the patient. Now, the question is what you will do? Allow it or not?
Chocoholic
This is why people have living wills, to take the responsibility away from their loved ones, and to express their wishes.
Shaf, you see I have a bigger problem with your comment about turning off someone's life support, than a person who is making a conscious decision to end their life and suffering. There is not enough research done on people in comas and on life support to suggest that they may never make a recovery, unless they are clinically brain dead of course. Recently a person woke up after being in a coma for over 10 years, as their brain managed to rewire itself around the damaged areas, which caused the coma.
So many people come out of comas saying they were fully aware of everything that was happening around them, and they were screaming inside hoping someone would hear them. There are still too many unknowns with coma patients.
shafique
- Chocoholic wrote:
This is why people have living wills, to take the responsibility away from their loved ones, and to express their wishes.
Shaf, you see I have a bigger problem with your comment about turning off someone's life support, than a person who is making a conscious decision to end their life and suffering. There is not enough research done on people in comas and on life support to suggest that they may never make a recovery, unless they are clinically brain dead of course. Recently a person woke up after being in a coma for over 10 years, as their brain managed to rewire itself around the damaged areas, which caused the coma.
So many people come out of comas saying they were fully aware of everything that was happening around them, and they were screaming inside hoping someone would hear them. There are still too many unknowns with coma patients.
Chocs - I agree with you, that is why I qualified my comment about turning off a life-support machine with 'a medical advice'.
Also I was implicitly making a distinction between life support and just feeding - life support to me is breathing and sometimes helping the heart to beat.
A person in a coma is self-sustaining (i.e. does not need a machine to sustain life) and thus can (and should) be fed, I would not agree to stopping feeding a person - that is tantamount to euthenasia in my mind - but stopping life-support and letting a person live or die is what I was referring to.
Living wills for 'do not ressuscitate' (DNRs in ER) are ok with me as well. But asking someone to kill you when you would otherwise have lived is what I do not agree with.
Cheers,
Shafique
Chocoholic
Not necessarily true however, and some people require full life support, aid with breathing etc until they're strong enough to breath once again on their own. Being on life support, does not mean a person is brain dead, only when no electrical brain activity is detected is that the case. But some people might have been in an accident and have damaged lungs, facial cavities etc which requires them to be intubated to breath using the aid of a machine, until those injuries have healed.
shafique
- Chocoholic wrote:
Not necessarily true however, and some people require full life support, aid with breathing etc until they're strong enough to breath once again on their own. Being on life support, does not mean a person is brain dead, only when no electrical brain activity is detected is that the case. But some people might have been in an accident and have damaged lungs, facial cavities etc which requires them to be intubated to breath using the aid of a machine, until those injuries have healed.
Thanks for the clarification - my position still remains, I would take medical advice and in principle would not object to life support being stopped if there is no reasonable chance of recovery.
Let us hope this is not a decision we ever have to take.
Cheers,
Shafique
zam
- shafique wrote:
Thanks for the clarification - my position still remains, I would take medical advice and in principle would not object to life support being stopped if there is no reasonable chance of recovery.
Let us hope this is not a decision we ever have to take.
Cheers,
Shafique
Amen to that. :wink:
asc_26
- shafique wrote:
Thanks for the clarification - my position still remains, I would take medical advice and in principle would not object to life support being stopped if there is no reasonable chance of recovery.
Let us hope this is not a decision we ever have to take.
Cheers,
Shafique
:shock: My heart stops beating. :angel13: I'll be in heaven right now.
valkyrie
- shafique wrote:
For me, the religious viewpoint is in total accordance with my logic.
Do you believe that the Koran is the "word of God"?
shafique
- valkyrie wrote:
Do you believe that the Koran is the "word of God"?
Yes.
The Quran claims to be the literal word of God - not an interpretation or translation - but a verbatim record of an oral revelation.
The emphasis is on Oral, it was revealed in Arabic and primarily recorded by memorisation by multiple people. This remains the primary safeguard for the Quran - incredibly there are more mistakes in written/printed Qurans than there are from the memories of the millions of people who have memorised the Quran.
The Quran is also the only holy book which claims to be the literal word of God in this way and also the only holy book which contains the promise/prophecy that it will be protected/guaranteed not to change. This fulfilment of this prophecy is one of the many miracles (as we see it) of the Quran.
Sorry, that was the long answer - the short answer was the 'yes' I started with :)
Cheers,
Shafique
valkyrie
What is your position on the politicaly controversial statements of your "holy text"?
Do you feel that homos.e.xuality is "sickening", or in the words of "Allah", "abomination"?
Do you think that women are "weaker" and "more easily fooled"?
Do you think that stoning is a just punnishment for "lewd thoughts"?
shafique
- valkyrie wrote:
What is your position on the politicaly controversial statements of your "holy text"?
Do you feel that homos.e.xuality is "sickening", or in the words of "Allah", "abomination"?
Do you think that women are "weaker" and "more easily fooled"?
Do you think that stoning is a just punnishment for "lewd thoughts"?
I'll start a new thread and answer these questions.
cheers,
Shafique