Ok mr-shawn raised a good controversial point in the taking lives thread.

if we can end an animals life to stop it suffering, was just wondering what every ones views are on euthanasia in humans?

do we have the right to end a humans suffering? and if so , what are the implications for both parties upon death? by that i mean the one who is killed, and the one who sanctions pulling the plug so to speak?

i trust this thread will prove a controversial and interesting one.

Hi Wolf,

I hope you will see my brief post on your "taking a life" thread regarding the vision I had during meditation last night.

I have watched relatives suffer at the end of life.  Modern medicine can prolong suffering for no real purpose.  I strongly believe relieving discomfort to humans, even to the point of death, is not a sin and NOT taking a life.  In fact, I believe it can be ethical.  However, I believe the individual should have control over medical treatment and make these choices ahead of time if at all possible.  I do not consider such choices to be "suicide" or "taking a life."  I do not think people should recklessly go around "putting people out of their misery" but this is a serious issue in our day of modern medical technology and should be addressed in legally in a realistic way.  

love, blink

True, this subject is always proven to be very contraversal. I beleive that prolonging life in a suffering state is a horrible torturous thing for that person, such as the Terri Schaloveo case (may of spelled wrong) what a cruel thing. It seems most of people espeacially in the US and espeacially my president George Bush, who I have no use for supports pointless suffering to no end, these people are crazy they should be the ones suffering maybe there veiws would change. I have seen a couple family members suffer like this with no hopes of exit because of the misunderstood veiws society holds on keeping one in this world forever, it is like the are against letting a person go on to the other side where they will be free from all the suffering. The goverment has too much power in this area and are fools for excersising there power on these issues.

I am ready to go on this, and if a ballot proposition came up here
in California, I would vote for it. I think that Alzheimer's should
definitely be cause for release. I would like to be able to fill
out and sign a form, with witnesses, that would provide me an exit,
provided by the state, when a certain point is reached.
You would have to have a number of opinions on the diagnosis, but
after that, the procedure should be set in motion. The patient
should be able to fully authorize it while still lucid.

But I would think that this would not pass until there was a shift
in belief. But I think a lot of even conventional Christians would
go for it.

I am certainly not looking forward to consuming the family money in
a hospital. Our houses are paid for, and I don't want any new
mortgages on my behalf! When my body gives out, I want OUT! I am
very mindful of completing what I must before the body begins to
go. I want to leave my house to my people, financially intact. The
filthy disgusting property tax is already bad enough.

As far as pulling the plug, I've told everyone in my family that if I'm ever THAT sick, don't even plug me in. They all feel the same way. Let me go, have a party instead of a funeral and move on.

I have a friend who is being stressed to death by two Alzheimer's parents. I definitely want to avoid doing this to my wife!

There seems to me to be a Big Difference between deciding that "Joe is inferior" or "Joe is defective" and then imposing a rapid termination, a compared to ending a useless existence in which I am doing nothing but consuming those whom I love. Not only is this not suicide, in the sense of "Stop the world, I want off," but it's a forward looking choice, "This body and mind have worn out, and I'd like to get new ones."  

On the other hand, there have been some politicians that we might have usefully euthanized, but that's not my department.

wrote on May 22^nd, 2005 at 12:54pm:

I would like to be able to fill out and sign a form, with witnesses, that would provide me an exit, provided by the state, when a certain point is reached. You would have to have a number of opinions on the diagnosis, but after that, the procedure should be set in motion. The patient should be able to fully authorize it while still lucid.

I'd like to sign up for that, Boris.

I can't imagine anything more horrible than to be stuck in a non-functioning container that is being artificially sustained.  Trapped in one incarnation, and unable to leave it for the next one, how can anyone think that keeping people alive indefinitely just because we have the technology to do so is humane? Or ethical? Or (for those who partake of it) Christian?

part of the problem is that health has turned into big business but by and large it's another problem called emotional attachment to the one who is leaving, or trying to leave. doctors took an oath to save lives, so they just do what they think it is they should do, and behind closed doors they will ask the family members what they want to do, hoping they don't get sued in the process of making the wrong decision prematurely by pulling the plug. people have woken up from comas after years and years, so u can see the delimmia.
add to the problem that the family may not even believe that their loved one does continue on in another form.
I have interesting vision of futuristic death houses for the terminally ill, only for those of sound mind who choose to terminate themselves with much counsel, it will all be perfectly legal and have nothing to do with making a moral choice for another but will be an enlightened age where people do not have fear around death which is only rebirth. to view people walking into these house will act only to make life all the more a thing to celebrate and cause a major shift in consciousness throughout the world as people find out what's important here and what's not.
love, alysia