ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

How to talk about Euthanasia, a look at the basic issues, no judgment here, just issues.

Updated on April 9, 2013

We all have a path. Society is kind enough to help us stay on it. If you look at it that way.

We all have fountains and sunsets in our lives
We all have fountains and sunsets in our lives | Source

What makes it euthanasia is the passion. It is a word that by itself is not wrongful.

Euthanasia Right or Wrong. The issues are rather clear.

Euthanasia is not something I ponder on much. Euthanasia is an act of allowing to die or preventing the continuation of the life of a living being . Most think euthanasia is reserved for humans, not true. I have “put down” several animals in my life, damn sad. What makes a euthanasia act different than murder is the why. Why is euthanasia even argued about. Euthanasia is the ending of a life in mercy and to prevent useless suffering. Homocide is the death of a human by another human.

This is as politically and religiously hot as abortion. Say it wrong in your particular group and you are out on your butt. Say it wrong in a mixed group and you are a trouble causer.

Me, I am just called to think and write on the subject. Usually I am a hired gun but in this case I was asked to write something up on it to kind of explain both sides or Pro and Con if you will. It was my decided opinion that the pandering done by speaking heads is more hyperbole to be in the lime light than helpful. So my simple explanations are just that. For it is not the job to convince or defend, but simply to make both sides understandable.

Is this a sunset or sunrise?

Some would say there is no real difference between beginnings and endings.
Some would say there is no real difference between beginnings and endings. | Source

Pros and Cons

So here are a few reasons to support euthanasia:

Prolonging suffering with no chance of recovery is not right.

Coma’s with no chance of recovery serve no purpose.

When someone writes a living will directive, the patients’ desires should be honored.

When one of either the heart or the brain ceases to function permanently keeping a patient alive serves no purpose.

It is a hard truth that finances combined with any of the above are good reason for providers, families and society.

So here are several reasons to deny euthanasia.

Any time a person has a chance of recovery no matter how small, they are still alive and their life should not be taken.

Coma’s are just another form of consciousness and there should be no euthanasia in those cases.

Finances are a hardship but should never be considered in life or death decisions.

No matter what someone writes when they are healthy, it is just a fancy suicide note if they agree to euthanasia.

Taking the life of another is a sin. One man or men have no right to take another innocent life.

Somethings by their very definition are not debatable.

Here is what is cool to know. Eu comes literally from “good death” – think eulogy. And the last part comes from Greek meaning to end pain and suffering. We really should not have a problem with euthanasia. It is a right thing to do by it’s very definition. Wiki wants to talk about involuntary euthanasia. If someone starts down that road it is oxymoronic. If someone still has a will to live, their death would not be euthanasia. There literally is no debate on euthanasia. If someone has to debate over the issue then it is not euthanasia,, by definition.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • christopheranton profile image

      Christopher Antony Meade 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      A very difficult subject. I hope I am never in the position of making such a life or death about myself or others.

    • violetheaven profile image

      Jessica Ellen Holbrook 4 years ago from Newark, DE, USA

      This is a very difficult topic. It begs for me to ask where you stand? My mother says that this topic is one of the questions on her Massachusetts Ballot. While I don't disagree or agree with human euthanasia I see both points. I can't say for certain it would be something I would want to be available. At one point I was given a deadline. (A time I have left spiel). I am healthier and have lived beyond it. Euthanasia is not something I considered. I believe it would be a kin to suicide. Something I consider morally wrong, but can see how it may be an option for some. If we can see its use for our pets that we love and don't want to suffer, one must outline the difference of use in humans.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      violetheaven You hit right on what I found by looking over the subject. There is no debate in a proper case of euthanasia. By clear definition it is only providing for a good death in the case of terminal illness and suffering. All the other issues like removing feeding tubes or cessation of a required medical procedure or process are just a means. Is the cure hopeless, is there suffering? Degrees require consensus, stated desires and family and medical folks. Contrary to current trends, suicide is wrong. Doctor assisted suicide is wrong. If the position is noble, a physician needs no assistance and should do it themselves.

    • violetheaven profile image

      Jessica Ellen Holbrook 4 years ago from Newark, DE, USA

      I think that the actual death should take place in a hospice setting or home with the proper care from a professional. The law they are trying to pass in Massachusetts is too vague. All it takes is getting a prescription for the life ending drugs and a promise not to take them in public. Something that leaves to many loopholes. What if someone who has been given six months to live, doesn't want to see an other person alive, and poisons them with these life ending drugs instead of taking them? It also brings up the method of euthanasia.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      These new concepts being brought in are regarding assisted suicide. I could work on that notion, but it is all wrong. Assisted suicide is murder.

      This is for Mass currently: Condoned in Statutes? Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to constitute, condone, authorize, or approve suicide or mercy killing or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act to end one's own life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

      I guess I must address this more head on. Thank you for the heads up Violetheaven.

    • violetheaven profile image

      Jessica Ellen Holbrook 4 years ago from Newark, DE, USA

      Your welcome Eric. I agree. I shared this on FB and thumbed upped.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Thanks Much Violetheaven,

      Your questions also made me revisit Roe v. Wade. Courts are just not well made to dictate morality. And legislatures are worse. Referendums seem better but imposing majority will on minority is questionable. I see at least 3 hubs coming up on these matters -- before, voting day.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Now that we are post election we must visit this issue again so I made a few changes 11/30/12

    Click to Rate This Article