Euthanasia, commonly called “mercy killing”, is a debated subject in many cultures in several countries across the world. I recently read in the about this lady, who has been on life support systems for the past three decades due to the charitable nature of the hospital. Her family has disowned her, apparently because there’s no hope. Her sister’s words, “I can’t see her pain and suffering anymore”. She is alive today, but she has no idea about her existence.
And then there is the case of Ramón Sampedro, who was a ship fisherman from Galicia, Spain. He became a quadriplegic in a diving accident at the age of 25 and fought for his right to an assisted suicide for the next 29 years. His argument hinged on the fact that he was sure of his decision to die. However, owing to his paralysis, he was physically unable to commit suicide without help. He argued that suicide was a right that he was being denied, and he sought legal advice concerning his right to receive assistance to end his life, first in the courts of Spain, where his case attracted country-wide attention. Eventually, his fight became known worldwide. Sampedro died on Monday 12 January 1998 in Boiro, Spain, from potassium cyanide poisoning. He divided the tasks required for his suicide into small enough pieces that no single person could be convicted of assisted suicide. Several days later, a close friend of Ramón, Ramona Maneiro, was arrested and charged with assisting his suicide but was released due to lack of evidence. No further charges were ever filed in connection with Ramón's death. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram%C3%B3n_Sampedro)
One side of the debate says that mercy killing is killing, and it’s wrong—that we have no right to take a life, even if it’s our own, and taking someone’s life is intervening in their karmic journey. Many are opposed to it. If it’s legalized, it will be abused and become a weapon in the hands of many. And in my opinion they are absolutely right.
The other side, however, claims that a person has the right to die in dignity, especially if he has been suffering relentlessly for an extended period of time, and there’s no hope, but to let that person rot away. In such a case, stopping that person would be interfering with his “free will”. And I can understand the pain and agony that goes behind this argument, even though by principle, it’s wrong.
I was wondering what people in the world of magic thought about Euthanasia. What if someone like Ramón Sampedro got in touch with you, asking for a death spell… someone who’s stuck between worlds (just like a ghost who’s been in limbo because he hasn’t seen the light)—neither dead, nor alive. What if all healing spells fail? What if he begs you to find a solution to release him from this life….what would you do?
How would the three-fold law function then? Would your deeds return in a negative way because you killed a life? Or would your deeds come back to haunt you because you let someone suffer?
These questions have been doing the rounds in my head for a while. So I thought I’d ask you guys about how you felt about it. Me?… I’m all mixed up.
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.
