Thread: Euthanasia is wrong!

The mankind rebel against God of the Bible in many ways. One of this kind of rebellion is euthanasia in other words merciful killing or mercy death. On this article, I brought forth why euthanasia is wrong and sin against God.



Euthanasia mercy killing mercy death

Ok, its a link, would you care to bring forth point and discuss them here? Or is your main objective to drive traffic to you own site?

The Finnish medical association holds untimely death as the traditional enemy of medicine science, because the starting point of the physician ethics is serving a man honoring the life.

Finland's patient law (785/1992) and legislation does not accept euthanasia and according to the law a patient doesn't have the right to demand euthanasia. According to Finnish criminal law ending of the life, a patient is a punishable act, which is classified a crime of killing.
The Finnish medical association concerns negatively to initiatives for legalizing of euthanasia. Profession of physicians abstains for operations which primarily intention is hasten the death of a patient. The world medical association advice physicians to abstain assisting of euthanasia, even if it were forbidden according to the law of the country. In America in the state of Oregon and in Europe, Netherland, Belgium and Switzerland have legalized euthanasia.

The world is going on all the time more immoral direction. In some phase, euthanasia shall be accepted as the worldwide as many other sinful matters, which first has risen to general conversation and as the conclusion the matter has accepted.

Science of medicine should protect the life in every possible way and not kill a patient, even a patient wants it. In science of medicine pain relief is nowadays in a very high level by very effective palliative medicines. Science of medicine develops rabidly and patient who struggles with pain, and sufferings can get aid very soon and even cured completely.

God can also heal deadly sick patient, and these kinds of cases are several. Euthanasia is the wrong and sinful decision, because healing can be ahead. We can never know what really happens to a patient, and he can be healed at any time. Euthanasia is sin against God.
Many physicians have seen patients whom the Lord Jesus has healed. Whenever there is life left, so there is hope. Euthanasia is ethically wrong and sin before God.

Not all pain can be relieved. If death is inevitable and pain and suffering the only things that will fill the time between now and that death why do you think it is right to force an individual to endure that? Why do you think God thinks it is right?

I agree with your moral interpretation that euthanasia is wrong. However, it becomes difficult to know where to draw the line in terminal cases.

In modern hospitals, once a patient has "no reasonable chance of recovery", life sustaining measures (ventilator, medications, etc.) may be stopped, and narcotics are given to relieve pain and prevent feelings of suffocation. These narcotics will make a person die sooner. The narcotics are not given in a huge dose so a person dies right away. Rather the narcotics are titrated to a dose where the person is no longer in pain, or thrashing in the bed from air hunger / suffocation.

Do you believe that this practice is wrong?

I am not saying I know the answer to this question.

I will say that I intend to be extremely explicit when I draft documents regarding my own wishes in these circumstances and prevent anyone from prolonging my life beyond the point where there is reasonable chance of recovery. There are people who will for psychological reasons (guilt) try to insist on one invasive procedure after another in a hopeless case (operations, dialysis, tracheostomy, ventilator, feeding tubes). For me, I never want such a person to have any say over my fate.

untimely death

So your moral arguments do? or don't? come into consideration if the patient is 90 or more years old?

I'd like to think that my own moral compass was a little more nuanced than that, and I'd certainly want medical professionals to have thought such things through.

If the considerations do apply to people of advanced years, then we're not talking about 'untimely death' are we. We're talking about end of life decisions. Not quite the same thing.

Will let this ride but warn PetriFB that is thread is on the line for spam and preaching while having only a superficial resemblance to science of religion.

---
Cherry picking scripture in support against Euthanasia which from the same chapters which sanction genocide for all others which practice different religions is damn weak argument.

--
I'm personally against unnecessary suffering for the sake of superstition. There are good reasons for supporting life while there is hope, but honestly in many end-of-life cases there is NO HOPE. If a disease is terminal---you'll die in extreme pain or a morphine haze so deep you can't recognize others around you and in far too many cases bankrupt the family doing so (It is the LEADING cause of bankruptcy in the US). In those conditions euthanasia is not only an acceptable end--it is the most merciful ending done in good and clear conscious by the sufferer, and honestly one with far more dignity for honoring them with their last decision than forcing others shallow, arrogant and often superstitious belief system on another.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Will let this ride but warn PetriFB that is thread is on the line for spam and preaching while having only a superficial resemblance to science of religion.

---
Cherry picking scripture in support against Euthanasia which from the same chapters which sanction genocide for all others which practice different religions is damn weak argument.

--
I'm personally against unnecessary suffering for the sake of superstition. There are good reasons for supporting life while there is hope, but honestly in many end-of-life cases there is NO HOPE. If a disease is terminal---you'll die in extreme pain or a morphine haze so deep you can't recognize others around you and in far too many cases bankrupt the family doing so (It is the LEADING cause of bankruptcy in the US). In those conditions euthanasia is not only an acceptable end--it is the most merciful ending done in good and clear conscious by the sufferer, and honestly one with far more dignity for honoring them with their last decision than forcing others shallow, arrogant and often superstitious belief system on another.

Do you think that palliative care for terminal patients is euthanasia?

I am not debating, I really don't know where to draw the line in these cases.

I have had to make these decisions, and I tried my best to follow the wishes of the people who entrusted me with making the call.

Nobody knows where to draw this line.

It's one of the reasons why families need to discuss such things long before they're a real issue. And we should never kid ourselves that it will be easy or clear-cut when the time comes. We should do the same thing about organ donation - you need to know a long time in advance what each family member's wishes are.

We should also not kid ourselves that we'll never wonder or question or regret the final decision long after the whole process is over.

Originally Posted by PetriFB

Science of medicine develops rabidly and patient who struggles with pain, and sufferings can get aid very soon and even cured completely.

God can also heal deadly sick patient, and these kinds of cases are several.

It must be very nice for you to live in a world where no one ever suffers or dies because medicine advances so incredibly rapidly but on those rare occasions where it can't come up with a cure in a couple of days, that nice God steps in and solves the problem.

Meanwhile, out here in the real world of suffering, pain and death, I am just very relieved that most people in a position of authority are not as narrow minded and uncaring as you appear to be.

I believe in God. I do not believe that God wants me to stay trapped in a shell, in pain, when there is no chance to bring me back. I have set up my care directives. If I ever become damaged to the point that Machines are all that is keeping me alive then my family will pull the plug and make sure I am doped up on enough Morphine to float my eyeballs. If we are talking about someone who is whining because they "can't live anymore" because they were paralyzed in an accident or they are old... Tough live out your life until it is time to go. Now Pacemakers are ok I mean the big machines that do all your support functions.

I think one of biggest insults you can say at an individual is, "I know what is best for you." Discounting their opinions on what to do with their own bodies and acting otherwise is a violation of their personal property and their freedom. If a person wants to end their life, you can counsel them for better options. The decision still lies with them if they want to terminate their own lives based some standard they have formulated.

I have no problem with euthanasia when life has passed the point of being worth living. There are two things, though, that need to be real, and able to be proved real.
1. The person to be euthanased is still competent to make the decision.
2. The decision to die is made by the patient. No one else.

I've been there. My 90 YO Mother was very ill. I got the call at 4:30 am that she was in a very near death conditon and asked if I wanted to have the EMTs called. My Mothers wishes were to be left alone if she were to that point. My only question to the medical caretaker was, did she think calling the EMTs would improve her live if she were to be revived. The caretaker said she could only advise me that, in her experience, very little would be gained if she were to revive at all. I made the decision to not call the EMTs and before I could make the 25 minute drive to her side she was gone. I fretted over that decision for a long time but I finally settled it by realizing that the decision was made, she passed, and I know she did not suffer any longer. I do not know or will never know what the results would have been if I had had her revivied. But I know she would have suffered for who knows how long and for what reason. She was an exceptionally religious person and my description of her was that she lived her life to serve her God and in reality to be back with him. I allowed her to do that and I can't imagine her being any happier for being with him. I only hope that when my time comes that I have such someone making that same tough decision but having my wishes in mind, not the hospital or some religious fanatic that wants to impart their beliefs on me and my suffering. And, as was said in previous replies, making the medical world richer while draining the wealth of my family.        

Natural selection should be the only thing that takes life away. In the anilmal kindom where they are wild, euthanasia happens very rarly. A hamster may kill its offspring if it senses something wrong with the batch where as even if we know there is something wrong with our babies we will try our hardest to keep them alive until its last breath, all the way up to adulthood.

So does euthanasia stem from birth?

Originally Posted by andythomasthekey

Natural selection should be the only thing that takes life away. In the anilmal kindom where they are wild, euthanasia happens very rarly. A hamster may kill its offspring if it senses something wrong with the batch where as even if we know there is something wrong with our babies we will try our hardest to keep them alive until its last breath, all the way up to adulthood.

It is not hard to find human cultures, (including most likely the rest of our hominid ancestors) which is part of our natural selective evolution, that practiced senocide (e.g, Inuit) or infanticide (e.g. Sparta)-- it was probably quite common among nomadic peoples as well.

So does euthanasia stem from birth?

huh?

Originally Posted by andythomasthekey

Natural selection should be the only thing that takes life away.

Would this rule apply in enhancing or prolonging life as well? Should we discount advances in medical science which provide favorable health that goes against natural selection? I'm concerned that you are only using "Natural Selection" as an excuse to avoid a difficult decision about death, where "Natural Selection" isn't a criteria in evaluating medical care that improves\ enhances life.

But although we are derived from animals, we are not "animals". Natural selection?? Thankfully we don't eat the neighbors young to insure that our genes dominate. With natural selection you quite possibly would not be alive right now to even express your views. The bully down the street would likely have killed you years ago. We need to change some views to allow the person afflicted to make those decisions. It's easy to say you're against a certain process until you have to deal with or suffer because of a situation. If you are of such strong conviction that you would rather suffer up to your last breath then I really do admire you. But once reality hits, wouldn't it be nice for you, the sufferer to be able to make that decision, not a political or religious based group or individual? Just as you are now using your right to chose what you are so willing to wish on others, all individuals should have the right to their wishes. As long as it does not imping on the rights of others or causes the suffering of others.
I am a realist however, and I do understand that there is great difficulty in fullfilling everyones wishes and views. It is not a simple task and no single answer. An answer that I certainly do not possess.

Being a diabetic my self I am fully aware of the advancements in medcine for prolonging life. At what cost does it come though to keep a life living in the long run? Should ten die across the world just so I can shoot up (me the diabetic). To get my insulin from Point A to B takes man power. In the long run my life is not worth the life of maybe 10 others who will in one way of another suffer for me to get my life saving insulin, butterfly effcet.

Originally Posted by Schrodingersothercat

But although we are derived from animals, we are not "animals". Natural selection?? Thankfully we don't eat the neighbors young to insure that our genes dominate. With natural selection you quite possibly would not be alive right now to even express your views. The bully down the street would likely have killed you years ago. We need to change some views to allow the person afflicted to make those decisions. It's easy to say you're against a certain process until you have to deal with or suffer because of a situation. If you are of such strong conviction that you would rather suffer up to your last breath then I really do admire you. But once reality hits, wouldn't it be nice for you, the sufferer to be able to make that decision, not a political or religious based group or individual? Just as a you are now using your right to chose what you are so willing to wish on others, all individuals should have the right to their wishes. As long as it does not imping on the rights of others or causes the suffering of others.
I am a realist however, and I do understand that there is great difficulty in fullfilling everyones wishes and views. It is not a simple task and no single answer. An answer that I certainly do not possess.

Natural selection still applies to us the same as it does to the animal kingdom, we are all made of the same stuff. Problem is we think we are above all of that because we build and create massive structures, have more social attributes etc etc.

Man made this 'wonderful' world we live in and man will take us out.

So does euthanasia stem from birth?

huh?[/QUOTE]

Find a chink in the amour from the day it is made and its either fixed or melted down again....

Originally Posted by skeptic

I have no problem with euthanasia when life has passed the point of being worth living. There are two things, though, that need to be real, and able to be proved real.
1. The person to be euthanased is still competent to make the decision.
2. The decision to die is made by the patient. No one else.

I thought about that aswell, If (without medcine) the subject has enough brain power to realise its going down the path of no return it will find somewhere nice to die. If the mind has completely gone another might be kind enough to slay it or it might even wander off a cliff! We look for a solution to prevent that and whilst man still thinks there is a chance of beating a cancer or terminal diesease he will do his best to treat it and stay alive. If the mind and body are still partially at one the subjust will always answer "yes keep me alive". When the mind has gone the subject is just an unconcious body of moving mass with a large ammount of love and other human emotions attached to it and someone else close to them will have to make the decision and it would be clouded.

Natural selection is the only normal way.

Originally Posted by skeptic

I have no problem with euthanasia when life has passed the point of being worth living. There are two things, though, that need to be real, and able to be proved real.
1. The person to be euthanased is still competent to make the decision.
2. The decision to die is made by the patient. No one else.

I agree with these guidelines, but what if a measure of competence cannot be made accurately? People who ask to die would seem to me to be the kind of people who are most likely to be labeled as insane or delusional. I think this is an area of the subject of euthanasia in which a line can never be drawn accurately.

I believe that the best result of any decision is achieved through a careful and meticulous analysis of the "good" that is achieved when you do one thing or another, but basing decisions on things like competence which is usually detected through a gut feeling or a first impression is a hairy area of the subject of euthanasia which would need much more attention from a highly credible and accurate source.

What criteria do you use to say the 10 must die or suffer so you can get your insulin??? I'm at a total loss on how you arrive at that statement. Again, as I said previously about you being killed by a bully as natural selection. If it was not for the life giving insulin, you would be dead. So you are using the very process that you distain to stay alive. That should be against your wishes then, right. Oh, but you don't have a choice in the matter. You have to take the medicine (costing you money), report periodically to a doctor (costing you money), and maintain your health against natural selection. Doesn't that bother you that you do not have the right to control your own life??? If not then you are hypocritical.

Originally Posted by andythomasthekey

If (without medcine) the subject has enough brain power to realise its going down the path of no return it will find somewhere nice to die.

The common illness that some people might say requires euthanasia, but without a person competent to decide for themselves, is Alzheimers. The problem with deciding for an Alzheimers patient is that there is a lot of personal agenda that might be involved. If a person close to you has Alzheimers, then there may be other reasons for you to ask for them to be euthanased. Such as
they are a bother
you stand to inherit
it is costing you money

it would be sad, indeed, if sick people were killed for the convenience and financial benefit of others.

Agreed skeptic. Not an easy discussion nor solution and in no way do I have solutions, only my opinion. As are many, many human situations. On paper it can be simple but human emotion changes everything.

Dear hercat. Even if someone informs everyone around themselves that, if the Quality of Life no longer applies to them ie; no quality of life, as advised by competent Medical Practitioners, then please turn off all Life support Systems, you would suggest that their life must go on? Isn't it the right of every individual to nominate the conditions under which their life may be terminated?

I'm sorry, hercat, but I'm a supporter of Euthenasia. Better to end a persons suffering at the risk of cutting a life off too soon for whatever reason, then to let countless people suffer the indignity of being a human vegetable. Are your views on Euthenasia influenced by external sources? Or is it something that you personally feel would be a bad thing to happen? westwind.

@PetriFB
I have read your post and find it quite contradicting, If ONLY God has to right toGIVE and take away life then stick to that idea but dont contradict it you said and I quote "Science of medicine should protect the life in every possible way and not kill a patient, even a patient wants it." Yet you also said "1 Sam 2:6 The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up."

So is it not true that the Ill should not be on life support because you have said only God has to power to Killeth AND MAKETH ALIVE!


Therefor medicine should not protect life in every possible way because then man is playing the role of God and trying to make someone who would pass on alive. So its a sin to put someone on life-support. Shouldn't you let nature take it's course. For man should not have the power to Maketh alive.

You also said God has the power to heal so if God wants someone healed why are they even on life support once again medicine is playing the role of God.

If you are going to use those verses and quotes then you should not support medicine because it is a "sin" ( according to the sources you provide) It very much contradicts.

Originally Posted by PetriFB

The mankind rebel against God of the Bible in many ways. One of this kind of rebellion is euthanasia in other words merciful killing or mercy death. On this article, I brought forth why euthanasia is wrong and sin against God.

You seem to be a man of God, an adherent to biblical text. So you probably favor the dashing of babies against the rocks.

Originally Posted by PetriFB

The mankind rebel against God of the Bible in many ways. One of this kind of rebellion is euthanasia in other words merciful killing or mercy death. On this article, I brought forth why euthanasia is wrong and sin against God.



Euthanasia mercy killing mercy death

What kind of god would demand that people suffer just for the bare sake of suffering? If the soul truly is immortal, and life on Earth just a speed bump on the longer voyage of immortality, then the only benefit it will have been to us later on in that voyage is in the memories we take away.

What good would the memory of a tortured death do for you other than just to traumatize you? It seems to me that your soul would need a lot of post-mortem counseling on the other side, so it could retain its sanity.