Murder is murder whether it's killing a human, embryo, a suffering or suicidal human it's still murder.
God said: Thou shalt NOT Kill.
It is really more like, "Thou shalt not MURDER." There are quite a few cases in the Old Testament where specific types of killings were not "murder," including self-defense. They even had a variation on Castle Doctrine for home defense: if you killed an unarmed intruder in your home in broad daylight then you could be charged with murder, but if the intruder entered your home at night then it was to be considered self defense (you cannot be expected to determine whether the intruder is armed or dangerous when woken up in the middle of the night and in the dark).
But regardless, taking a life is always a serious undertaking with grave consequences. God says in Genesis that "There will be an accounting..." of all blood that is spilled. I consider this even when killing livestock for meat: we share the same breath of life and that life must be treated with great respect.
As far as "mercy killing" goes specifically, there is evil to be weighed on both sides: if we act and end a life which God created for WHATEVER REASON, we take that blood on our own hands and it is much more than a question of mere legality or what the State can do to you. But, if we really "love our neighbor", then sometimes love might require acting in ways that risk not only our lives but our very souls. We have to keep in mind that we will stand for that in the end and let God judge our actions--- and that we might just be in the wrong.
So, to me, it is pointless to make euthanasia legal. If the act is really necessary and it is really done for the right reasons, then someone (the doctor, the family, a friend) will act regardless of what the law says and the earthly consequences will mean little or nothing to them. The jury may hear the case and decide to acquit or the judge may suspend sentence if they believe this to be true and the act to be just, but everyone considering euthanasia should be prepared to face consequences. Fear of those consequences may stop the people who may act for the wrong reasons and NO ONE should ever act to end life without careful thought and total commitment.
If there were a law (as in England) against using violence to defend a victim of a crime, say someone being raped, the law would not stop me from doing what is right. I would hope that the judge or jury would act appropriately and take exception to the law, but I would not count on it. In the US, it is generally legal to defend yourself or someone else facing a real threat of physical harm, and it should be, but self (or other) defense is typically a much more clear-cut issue than euthanasia where every case is unique. Even if there are rare cases where it might be moral, I do not think it should ever be legal and the State should never get in the habit of deciding who it is OK to euthanize and who it is not: madness lies that way.
That is one of the reasons I am leery of current health "reform" proposals. The proposals do not explicitly say: "We are going to euthanize the elderly (or the permanently disabled, such as myself) because they don't contribute to society," but they give very broad discretion to the government to decide "standards of care" and "end-of-life" procedures. There is no way to word such powers in a way which does not allow, effectively, selective euthanasia or even bureaucratic murder by simply withholding critical treatment at a critical time. Such murder could easily be covered in mounds of paperwork as "bureaucratic error" or "processing delays". We have that possibility now with Medicaid/Medicare, but it is currently still possible for individuals to sidestep these bureaucracies by seeking private treatment and charity contributions toward those treatments. As we get closer to some people's goal of a "single-payer" system, those outlets become harder to find. US politics is dirty in ways which seem unique to our nation. We have some of the best and worst aspects of government in one people. And, yes, I believe we have bureaucrats who are just petty enough to take advantage of any power given them to strike out at enemies or even those who just irritate them. Look at how government power (FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, etc.) was misused against Martin Luther King, Jr. (among many other activists) and tell me it would not happen here. Events in the 60's are WHY we had very strict laws put into place to reign in the authorities from targeting people politically. We have mostly stripped those laws in the past few years and are now preparing to give them even more ammunition to use against Americans. I think this is a very bad idea.euthanasiaEuthanasia Or Mercy Killing: Should It Be Legalized?
what is euthanasia?
it is a deliberate medical effort to give moksha or peaceful death in which the person encounter a horrifying health conditions can be relieve by means of mercy killing or simply means by euthanasia.
it is a practice of medicine that deals with ending once life in a painless manner.
it is the hardest decision that the patient , doctor and the loved one will do.
it would be inhuman and unfair to make them endure the unbearable pain, and it would be the doctor who will give the final decision in which if the patient have no longer capable to live.
it comes from the two greek words "eu" and "thanatos", eu means good and thanatos means death, or simply means a good death.
-reply by jhayvee adriano
Well my opinion is that the euthanasia is illegal because anybody can kill you only for the reason that you maybe never will raise up. The euthanasia is the worst invention in the medicine field because in medicine the proposal is save lifes but with this invention you only are killing to somebody that can´t decide if wanna die or not. Mercy killing that word doesn´t exists and anybody can kill to other person. I am agree with the death penalty. But it´s different the death penalty try to reduce the crimes with the menace that the goverment will kill you... But with the euthanasia we are only killing to people that don´t deserve to die and can´t decide.Everybody that is christian must think more about this because this is a murder not mercy.
Okay I am going to give my lengthy views on what I think about for the topic of Euthanasia and whether or not I think the person itself should be allowed to decide or whether the family of the person who is under the scrutiny of euthanasia should decide upon it.First of all, I agree with one poster when he said it is in our own free will whether to keep living or take our life. If one is suffering from an incurable disease and that it is causing him great pain, then it is only rightful and merciful if he is allowed to end his agony by means of euthanasia, but of course, only if he wanted to.To add to that, I think this is only reasonable if that person has in his/her will that if they were ever in a position where they were suffering that they would WANT to be put to death. In that case, I think their wish should be commanded. In the instance where there is NO will set outside, then I think it is up the parents to decide whether or not their son/daughter or relative should be allowed to stay alive or no.
why does religion have to be brought into science and technology. even in the UK i think they are discussing plans to make euthanaisa legal the thing is if you look at in relgions point of view. It is a case of choosing the lesser evil. what i mean by this is that would you have someone die a long and painful death, or would you give them a nice painless peaceful death its simple you go for the last option. in my opinion euthanasia is ok as long it is done by the free will of the person who wants to die. also they should be reviewed by at least two doctors first to make sure that they are in soo much pain that euthanasia is the last resort. also weather their isn't a cure thats is about to come out for that illness. i believe that will make it ok.Be practical guysEuthanasia Or Mercy Killing: Should It Be Legalized?
hey frnds don't go so emotional on this topic because there is noneed of that.And if a person is diagnosed frm a incurable diseaseand the pain is intolerable for him than its better to adopt option of mercy killing rather than feeding him medicine and hope that one day he will get his health.As u know that india is a poor country where person didn hv so much money for the health.And if doctors and other medical person already declares that there is no hope so its better to free him from the life its would save the money, resources like money,a doctor time and the tension to his family.So in my opinion there is no harm to legalise the Euthanasia but with a strict rules & provision-reply by ghanendra
opinionEuthanasia Or Mercy Killing: Should It Be Legalized?
in my opinion euthanesia should never be legalised...It's not in the hands of our doctor to kill us..They are there to save us and not kill us..In some situations maybe the person is undergoing a painfull phase..Suffering from an uncurable disease..BUT you never know maybe one day he will be fine.Since,our childhood we have been taught to keep hope,life is the most prestigious gift to us by God
and our PARENTS one must never leave hope.There are cases when the doctors are wrong --after all they are also human prone to mistakes.THEN imagine a person's death in the name of euthanasia. NOBODY can give a final verdict on someone's death..Death is a natural procedure --should be natural...-reply by purvi
EuthanasiaEuthanasia Or Mercy Killing: Should It Be Legalized?
I guess I'm not surprised that I see very little information or opinion from someone who actually is facing the reality of bearing the unbearable, I have to say my first response to this is, how dare you. I know we live in a supposedly free society and everyone is entitled to their own stupid opinion, but to read these comments and postings from people who will probably never have to face a set of circumstances where a decision of this magnitude will have to be made, I'm sorry, but I feel offended. I don't feel that you could possibly have a valid opinion on the subject. To think that you do goes right to the heart of the matter, that choosing to voluntarily end a life that is no longer bearable to the individual in question is a completely and uniquely personal one. The only consideration that should possibly be given is whether or not the individual in question is capable of making a rational decision. Who am I to say? someone who's already made their decision. 24 hours from now my life will be over. I have chosen to voluntarily end my physical existence because of the unbearable burden of an untreatable condition that has completely taken every other part of my life away. I love my life, I love my beautiful wife, I love Jesus and I KNOW he loves me. This choice pains Him as much as it does me, but he has given me the grace to make my own decision in this matter. Of that I am certain. Consider this, mankind was never my judge, I could give a damn what most of you would think about this, you lack the capability to even be honest with yourselves, of what value then is your opinion? The bible does NOT say Thou shalt not kill as the world would have you believe, but, Thou shalt do no murder. A very subtle but very important distinction. It grieves me to the core to have to lay my life down, but not as much as it grieves me to consider the unrelenting, unbearable reality of living every day in this condition. What is my condition you say? None of your damn business. Suffice it to say God weighs our hearts and motivation in the light of truth and reason and His own morality which is absolute. It disturbs me when I think of all the doctors and medical people I talked to, how rabidly fanatic they became over the subject of keeping the meat (my flesh) alive and completely unconcerned they were about the quality of the life I would have to continue to endure. My life should be about much more than keeping the meat alive and I'll prove it to you.-reply by chronic sufferer
well i view volunterary euthanasia as okay but i do not like the idea of where someone else puts you up for it if you can't make the decision yourself. there is also the consideration that whatever deasease someone has might have a cure in the near future so then they are already dead so they can't recieve the cure. sure if someone is really old and maybe age is preventing them from actually living a live (like being hooked up to a machine to keep them alive) then i would call that acceptable, because that is not really a live.although if it is legalised then the fact is that you should need the approval of a certain number of doctors, because if a population suddenly dropped sharply simply because someone who doesn't want to live anymore say if they lost their job was allowed to be euthanised. there is also the problem of ethics of doing this since relgions and even normal people have a opinion on it. in any contry for it to be immplemented then it should be voted in that way the people defiently want it. its like how governments can pass laws that normal people don't like but politicians brought into power vote for it and they generally have a totally different opinion to people.euthanasiaEuthanasia Or Mercy Killing: Should It Be Legalized?
I just don't agree with that so-called euthanasia .. Let them feel the happiness while they are still alive .. As the saying goes .. "laughter is the best medicine" but then it is really not working either yet they laugh and smile for the very last time of their life .. That's it ! I hope that they will not legalize euthanasia for a painless death ..
<3-reply by 10bhaby04
I m in favour of mercy killing.The name depicts that it is a killing process due to mercy.But how can a killing method can be merciful?Yes,this is done due to mercy and hence it can't be considered as general murder at all.I m giving two example below to explain it
1)Oneday a lady saw that a cat is playing badly with a bird by taking it in it's mouth.The bird is half-dead due to the torture of cat.The cat is not fully killing the bird but enjoying playing with the half-dead bird.The bird's death is definite after few hours.There is no question of survive.But it became so pathetic for that bird to tolerate the horrible pain in half-dead condition for few more hours.So that lady requested her husband to kill the bird to give it relief to get more torchered by the cat.Hence that lady's husband killed the half-dead bird with his knife.The bird dead quickly but got relief for suffering from horrible pain for few more hours.
2)Many people may say that as it breaks natural rule of God---so we shouldn't legalize mercy killing.But if we see that our very loveable relative is suffering from tremendous and intolerable cancer-pain and if doctor declares that ---death is obviousWithin few days.If the patient is praying God for quick death and suffering from immense pain----in such a case everyone will forget religious logic and all of that patient's well-wisher will pray to God for that patient's quick death.It happens in world.Otherwise human being is inhumanic.Such a moment is also come in life when the well-wisher request doctor to kill his/her beloved relative who is suffering due to horrible pain and there is no chance of life anymore but the patient is suffering unnecessarily.If anybody goes trough such a situation for once----he/she will automatically forget religious rules and will start to request the doctor to do mercy,to kill the patient by implementing euthanasia so that the patient will get rid of that horrible pain.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But mercy killing is not being legalized only for the reason that people may misuse ths.Family persons may try to kill the eldest person on the name of mercy killing to get the property of the family.---To prevent misuse of mercy killing,it is not being legalized.But it is legalized in Newzealand and Belzium in few particular cases and it is running there successfully.I think there should be certain rules/standard measures only when merci killing can be implemented.If it is implemented only in genuine real cases,it is really for good only but not for harm.
-reply by Ishan
Even though mercy killing seems a good way to stop the suffering for some people, the only thing I am afraid for it to be legalized is abuse, I think a lot of whom will start abusing the system. Usually it's done illegally somehow.In the future, there is a possibility that suicide machines will be functional, whenever you will want to die, you may go to the suicide machine and end your live? Especially if people in the future will live much longer.
It may sound like science fiction now, but in the future it's fully possible.
I think it is advisable to proceed from a practical point of view, there are chances certainly that if mercy killing is legalised, people are likely to take undue advantage of it. like someone who could be cured is killed in the name of mercy instead to grab his/her property, on the other hand, when a person is found to be suffering immensely, and the medical reports do not show scope for improvement, it should be legal if the doctor or someone who is entitled to do that decides to go for it rather than merely watching a patient experience unbearable pain. There should be absolutely limited interference of religion or social norms in this matter, as pain and suffering is entirely individual.
According to my point of view mercy killing should be legalized because I have read about Aruna's case . she is suffering with vegetative state can't eat,speak and hear, she is on the bed from last 37 years.she can not enjoy the life and she is so weak at the moment so do u think it is good if she will going through this life more years.so in this case euthanasia should apply on her.
The subject of euthanasia has been on my mind a lot over the last year. My grandmother had been of declining health for about a year and had made a conscience decision to forgo a pace maker batter replacement. Over the following months her health quickly deteriorated and she went from a senior housing apartment to a hospice residence. At the end she was kept alive only with life support systems.I have read a lot on the subject and have seen and heard arguments based on religion, personal beliefs, and social reasons. Socially the arguments usually revolve around letting nature take it course and we shouldn't interfere with the natural passing of a person and that there is always the possibility that there might be a medical breakthrough that might cure the illness. If we were to stand by and let nature take its course we should stop all medical treatment across the board and stop playing with genetics and stop extending life.On the subject of religious arguments they almost always fall back on the "thou shalt not kill" argument or similar depending on the religion. If we are to go by this one then there should be no capital punishment or standing army as well as no euthanasia. How can one have a total and blatant double standard of no euthanasia yet support a standing army who's only reason to exist is to take life, whether its in the name of peace keeping or defense.Now the hardest one to argue against is personal beliefs. Here I have to say that to each his/her own personal beliefs and I will leave it at that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, and only they can decide those.As for my personal belief on the subject, I believe it should be allowed. The reason for this is that if a person is suffering and there is no immediate way of eliminating the pain and allowing for a decent standard of living. One without pain, clear cognitive ability, and the ability to live without bulky life support equipment. If this cannot happen and the patient can make a clear and sound decision to end their life with honor and dignity then I think they should be allowed to if they can find someone that can help them in a nearly painless way.To live in pain, without dignity, is no life at all. To keep people alive in such a state is torture in the truest definition.
|VIEW DESKTOP VERSION||REGISTER||GET FREE HOSTING|