+70

When a family pet is experiencing serious health troubles and the only solution is to let them live with the condition or to put them down, most people are not bothered and understand it's circumstantial to choose the latter option. We take it upon ourselves to make the best decision in our minds for our pets since it's impossible to know exactly how they feel and what they would like to have done with their life. When it's a human however, and we do know how they feel and what they are going through, this option to relieve the pain and stress is absent. Voluntary euthanasia should be a right for humans with severe health issues, amirite?

Image for post When a family pet is experiencing serious health troubles and the only solution is to let them live with the condition or to put them down, most people are not bothered and understand it's circumstantial to choose the latter option. We take it upon ourselves to make the best decision in our minds for our pets since it's impossible to know exactly how they feel and what they would like to have done with their life. When it's a human however, and we do know how they feel and what they are going through, this option to relieve the pain and stress is absent. Voluntary euthanasia should be a right for humans with severe health issues, amirite?
87%Yeah You Are13%No Way
Tribunes avatar Health, Beauty & Fitness
Share
2 10
The voters have decided that Tribune is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

I can understand that would be hard for the family to lose someone, but it's that person's life and they should be allowed to decide when it ends if they want.

ScottyDs avatar ScottyD Yeah You Are +1Reply

I think you and I understand euthanasia a little differently. There exists paperwork that any independent person can complete, so that in the case of a tragic, life threatening accident, he or she is NOT attached to life support. That is totally legal, and moral, and righteous. If people have not done that paperwork, hospitals have to assume that the patient chose not to, and the hospital staff is therefore compelled to do everything possible to maintain life. I mean, the loss of any and every human life is a tragedy. Hospitals exist to prevent this, not to facilitate it.

But to actually address the topic:
Pets are property. As such, every facet of a pet's life is dictated by the owner (within reason, barring police intervention or other similar, extreme cases).

Humans are not property. As such any and every human is more valuable than any and every piece of property. The Three-Fifths Compromise in 1787 is a really good illustration of the value of humans and the value of property when the property is humans.

It is my feeling that your post is fundamentally comparable to, "We send delicious animals to slaughterhouses all the time with no regard for the animal's opinion, so why not send people to a slaughter house?"
I realize it's an extreme example, and the analogy doesn't quite fit, but the heart of the matter is that people are infinitetly more valuable than animals.

@DanTheMan I think you and I understand euthanasia a little differently. There exists paperwork that any independent person...

Choosing to not be attached to life support only applies to an occurrence that brings you close enough to death. If you're living in incurable pain, but aren't going to just die, you won't be attached to life support. You'll get drugs and the hospital will do what they can to minimize that pain, but nothing is going to get better. Peoples lives shouldn't just be thrown away, but they also don't belong to anyone else so it's no other persons place to decide that the individual should live out their life in continuing misery. Pets are property so we dictate their choices for them. But people aren't owned, and once they reach adulthood they can legally make their own choices. And in extreme cases, if the person is denied the ability to end it, they will do it themselves in a possibly more gruesome manner that will cause loved ones even more pain.

ScottyDs avatar ScottyD Yeah You Are 0Reply
@ScottyD Choosing to not be attached to life support only applies to an occurrence that brings you close enough to death. If...

Really? Learning new things every day. I'm still thinking hospitals have to at least try to preserve life if they can, though. I'll have to look into it more. Obviously, if the hopsital can't save a patient, then that patient will die as comfortably as possible, but in less extreme cases I thought there was an obligation to preserve life. Hmmm....

But here's my hang up: healthy people don't want to end their own life. People with clinical depression, for example, might want to, but clinical depression is a mental disorder. That person has a disordered brain for whatever reason and is in no shape to make decisions about suicide. You can call it voluntary euthanasia, but it's suicide.

In extreme cases, where someone will end his or her own life gruesomely unless permission to do it legally are given, that person doesn't need state mandated approval, that person needs help. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem and it is NEVER the answer.

@DanTheMan Really? Learning new things every day. I'm still thinking hospitals have to at least try to preserve life if they...

A healthy person wouldn't be in this position though. Say I was in the military and got injured. I can still live out the other 50+ years of my life without the assistance of life support, but it will be in constant pain and even medication won't be able to fix it. I am not suffering from depression or any other mental disorder. I am simply going to have suffer through physical pain for the rest of my life. No one else should be able to tell me "Well dying is sad for everyone else, so you're going to have to suck it up and suffer through it." If I make the conscious decision that I would rather not live my life in misery, I should be allowed to end it as peacefully as possibly.

ScottyDs avatar ScottyD Yeah You Are +1Reply
@ScottyD A healthy person wouldn't be in this position though. Say I was in the military and got injured. I can still live...

Definitely not. Too many servicemen and women die already.

In your example, choosing suicide is immature, short-sighted, petty, foolish, pathetic, and weak.
Maybe you've noticed, but life is difficult for everyone:
sixth graders think they have a lot of homework, and high schoolers think they have a lot of homework and college kids think they have no free time, and when employment hits they still think they have no free time and then maybe a family, and there's even less free time and it's all so hard! But that's the point. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy. Nothing easy is ever worthwhile. So to throw a life away because it's a difficult life is admitting that it is worthwhile.

Why do you want more death? Isn't there enough already?

@DanTheMan Definitely not. Too many servicemen and women die already. In your example, choosing suicide is immature...

How is children complaining about homework comparable to someone spending the rest of their life in pain that will never go away? I'm not suggesting just any random person should be able to walk in to a hospital and ask to be put down. My argument pertains to a very small group.

I also have never understood peoples quick reaction to insult those whose have committed suicide or are considering it. That it one of the hardest decisions you can ever make. You have to overcome every survival instinct and a lifetime of people telling you that it makes you pathetic and weak. It is also one of the most damaging things you can say to someone who suffers from depression and suicidal thoughts. It is another voice telling them how weak they are and convinces them that people see them as inferior. I have many friends who have clinical depression and I don't even want to imagine what they would do if someone said that to them.

ScottyDs avatar ScottyD Yeah You Are 0Reply
@ScottyD How is children complaining about homework comparable to someone spending the rest of their life in pain that will...

My point is that life is supposed to be difficult, so choosing to end it because it's difficult is a terrible decision.

The reason that suicide is so difficult, the reason every survival instinct wants you to live, the reason that people say suicide is weak, it's because suicide is wrong.

The bottom line is that no one who is healthy wants to die early. Life is too good to throw away on an uninformed whim.

I'll leave you with the same thought as last time: isn't there enough death already?

@DanTheMan My point is that life is supposed to be difficult, so choosing to end it because it's difficult is a terrible...

Eventually there won't be. If the human life span keeps increasing, and the birth rate keeps rising, we will reach a point where the death rate can't even out the population and it could hurt the survival of the species.

(That is only in regards to your question about there being enough death. It isn't meant to be a part of my other argument. I'm not saying we should kill people to keep the population under control.)

ScottyDs avatar ScottyD Yeah You Are 0Reply
@ScottyD Eventually there won't be. If the human life span keeps increasing, and the birth rate keeps rising, we will reach...

Life expectancies are dropping in America, and globally, too (but the global trend can be attributed to poor resources in the third world. Those countries [and infant mortality] also keep the global life expectancy lower than you might think). As for the birth rates, those too are dropping globally. Some governments, like Italy and Japan are implementing federal incentives for making lots of babies.
The point is that people have been worried about the Earth filling to capacity for a very, very long time. For example, Thomas Malthus was afraid the earth couldn't handle one billion back in 1800. Currently we're over 7 billion, and so far so good. People who think the Earth will fill to capacity are seriously underestimating the resiliency of both the Earth and the people on it.
Right now, every single human being n the planet could fit inside the state of Texas comfortably. With a big spacious house, a decent yard, and plenty of space between people. That wouldn't even fill up 3/4 of Texas. A lot, and I mean A LOT more people will fit on our planet. But they've gotta be fed, right? Science has a way of revolutionizing farming, and every time it happens, the population spikes. It will happen again, and when it does, I think we'll find ourselves doing alright on a planet that by some accounts should be overflowing.

Anonymous