How Do You View Euthanasia?

[ritu 1]

Though I am a great movie buff, I wasn't quite interested in watching one of the movies made by a very well known director, the reason was that I had heard it to be slow in the pace of the progression of its plot, and had not gone through the review myself which I normally do. A few days back I happened to see the film, and it was so engrossing! It dealt with the delicate issue of "Euthanasia" , it has in it a protagonist who is a celebrated magician, a friend envies him and conspires to cause damage to him and his reputation. The magician falls prey to the conspiracy and gets his body paralysed. The whole course takes us through the journey of his sufferings and his plea to end his traumatic life through Euthanasia. He pleads before the courts of law to grant him death but is turned down. One point that raised my curiosity was that if the person no longer desires to live, what's the harm in ending his life. He was just trying to do it lawfully, though he couldn't take his life all by himself as he was bed-ridden. So, the point lies whether Euthanasia should be allowed, what I feel is that a person's life is worth only if he loves it or has got some objective in it,when none of this is present, the very meaning of life ceases to exist, you will agree when you view the issue from the seeker's point, at least he is not a case who commits suicide which is unlawful in many countries, he is asking for help in relieving his pain.The courts of law of in many cases, do not permit this concept on the grounds of the logic that it is of suicidal nature and death under any circumstances is not desirable or relieving. There was another movie , probably a Japanese one where I had seen that any person who had covered 80 or something years of life would be pushed from an altitude by his /her son or daughter, pertaining to the custom of that place, can't say by the age of 80, how much a person would really like to live, but if anyone from any age gets repulsed over life, specially when it is out of some disease or painful event, then what is he supposed to do? Its not about taking God's place but about helping a fellow human being.

[sheepdog 10]

This is one area where animals have it better than humans. If an animal is suffering from illness, disease, or old age, it is acceptable social behaviour to have them euthanized. In some instances we are even considered immoral or cruel or selfish if we allow an animal to suffer past the end of their normal healthy lives. Yet humans are expected to live out their entire lives, even if every breath is agony, and suffering. I personally see no point in laying on your death bed suffering untold agony until you die on your own. If you have no chance of recovery, it should be left up to each and every individual to have their suffering ended in a human manner. As long as it is their choise of course. If grandma is bed ridden, or comotose, the grand kids shouldn't be allowed to put her out of her misery so they can get their inheritance quicker.

[ritu 1]

Yes, the process of Euthanasia, if declared legal,should be carried out after sufficient evidence is found that the individual in question wants and probably requires it. Nobody should be a victim to conspiracy just because Euthanasia gets the sanction of law. For anything that is forced in this regard, strict provisions for punishment should be included.

[Bikerman 2]

I think you need to be very careful with terms here. Euthanasia and assisted dying are very different. Euthanasia can be voluntary or not - it can, for example, be forced. Assisted suicide (I prefer assisted dying) is, I think, what you mean here - where one person helps another to end their life.

[ritu 1]

Thanks a lot for the enlightenment! what I wish to actually convey is the process should involve the consent of the, lets call it the sufferer, for the very design of the activity should be used to be of at least some help to the mankind, good that it is banned in most of the nations for cases which fail to get the person's will or agreement

[Bikerman 2]

The only argument I have seen deployed against it is the 'slippery slope' argument and that is, and has been shown to be, a fallacy. It is actually quite outrageous, when you think about it, that the state would seek to interfere in the agreed business of private individuals who are doing nothing that can or could harm society generally or other individuals specifically. Unfortunately it is within living memory that states enjoyed many powers in these private areas, but we have, quite rightly, been revoking and repealing those powers over my lifetime - such as the power to imprison someone FOR LIFE for having homosexual sex, or the power to insist that all heterosexuals stick to certain methods of lovemaking and do not indulge in others.

To most right-thinking people, it is actually quite shocking that the state once took this role, and as someone who has seen such things be torn down, I find the state's role here to be equally outrageous and archaic.

Let's be honest - the vast majority of opposition is from religion - yet another example of the harm religion does, even to those who don't believe. Most of the spokespeople I have seen on the media have been either affiliated with, or linked to, pro-life groups or evangelical Christian groups.Just like the current drama here in the UK over gay marriage, where the Church has used vile bigotted lies and insults routinely, and yet gone completely unchallenged because they hide behind 'faith' which, they oddly seem to believe, turns bigotry - a generally agreed bad thing - into a 'position of faith' which we are told is a good thing.

 

I do not see how this can be justified, as I hope a quick analogy will demonstrate:

 

Is a racist who's parents beat him until he agreed that black people were evil, somehow not really a racist ? Can we say that the coercion used by the parents mean that his actions are not 'freely' chosen and therefore not properly the actions of a free person? Perhaps we might try. Can we say that his actions (in, say, hurling racist abuse) were not actually racist? Of course we bloody can't, and the notion is obvious bollox. Of course the racist is still a racist. It may be that, as individuals, or even as a society, we decide that in that particular case the racist should be educated and helped, rather than jailed or fined, but if he screams abuse at Black people it is still racism, and when men in frocks say that homosexuals are deviant sinners then that is bigotry for ALL their supposed 'faith'.

 

So, in short, of course we should be able to seek help from people if we want to die but cannot do the deed ourselves. It is OUR body and OUR life. I find any notion that the state has a 'higher' right to our body/life to be a worryingly totalitarian idea, and I find the idea that any church has a similar 'right' to be infuriating, laughable and ironic in its arrogance - in just about equal measure.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Bikerman (see edit history)