I believe those who are terminally ill, or have a serious change in their quality of life have the right to die if they so wish. I think it would be better stated in a living will so there's no argument as to the condition of their mind should it come into question.
Many times, the only people who have trouble letting go are the families who aren't ready to deal with the mourning. Personally, I would rather see a family member die with dignity and of choice than live in pain constantly waiting for the day it finally takes over completely and leaving them helpless the whole time.
I'm not a big believer in the three fold law in the first place. Insofar as euthanasia goes, I think that if an animal can wander off into the woods to determine the nature of its own death as it grows old (as several old pets of mine did) then why then cannot a man or woman?
Been then my view of suicide is somewhat askew, as well. I see it as much the same thing as that proverbial walk into the woods when one grows old. Selfish? Maybe. But then so are we who cry outrage when somebody hurts so much they only way they see out is to end life. "How dare they?" we say, but are we not just speaking from our own pain? And that is equally selfish.
If it comes to it and I find myself back in diapers, just aware enough to realize that I cannot think like I used to, I would choose an end to this life. That being the case, I cannot deny that to somebody else.
It is not so much ending one's own life when it becomes intolerable.It is whether it is "assisted" by others. That can lead the way, not to ending one's own life, but by having that life taken away by "interested" parties. There are countries which allow people to end their own lives. But, in my opinion, it has to be by a witnessed "living will", before the time comes when the person no longer wants to live. The problem is that it can easily lead to people wanting to be rid of another person in order to inherit. We have to be very careful that it is the absolute wish of the person wishing to end their life, and not by somebody wishing to gain by it.
I think most of the time when people want to kill themselves they feel like that for a while and then if they get counseling, it may take a while for them to come to this point but their life becomes so good that they can't imagine not being there. I don't think anyone should take there own life because they might miss out on something majestic they could have experienced later in life. I have a quote from the movie, The Crucible that sums it all up "Life is a gift and nothing no matter how righteous may justify the taking of it" I think I got the quote right, correct me if I'm wrong. I know I feel sorry for that lady magiwoman01 spoke about who has been on life support for decades, but everyone is here for a reason and maybe she just hasn't found hers yet. Who knows she may be there to impact someone else's life. I'm not saying fate is involved in everything, but she obviously needs to be there or she wouldn't be alive. No offense.
Birdlover, I think you may not fully understand the first story.
You can be kept alive biologically on life support. You are technically alive, but your brain does not function. You have no thoughts, you have no responses. You are not there, but your body is kept alive by machines.
This case isn't a case of the woman needing to find her reason because she is not there any more.
Ok thanks for explaining it to me. All I'm saying is that the women could be almost completely dead but it could impact someone else's life outside the community or in the hospital. Who knows, that person who she has impacted by just laying there could end up campaigning for those rights when they get older.
Just a kind of useless tidbt, but the terms euthenasia and mercy killing were both popularized, if not coined, during WWII several years before the "final solution". They were used essentially as euphemisms in reports where the sick, weak, old, etc. of the German and Austrian (the constituencies of Hitler, not the ones he persecuted later) populations were killed, basically as 'test subjects'.
I'd have to say it's very much based on circumstance now, partly because even the smallest chance of recovery is still a chance, partly because, as Brysing brought up, there is very likely someone who benefits from expediting the death, and partly because the person who is being kept alive mostly by machines might not have wished to be sustained in that way.
The type of "living Will" that I mean is such as "Do not resuscitate" after,say, a severe heart attack,or severe brain injury. Or even,perhaps,when the person gets so old and infirm that life is not worth living.
