Topic: Eutanasia? (Read 4473 times)

All about our idiot lawbook and where you were born, the state seems to think they can outlaw thing you do to your own body, look at all state's victim's of the war on drugs....

You are not free, you are caddle....

If I was dying, and had expressed written or verbal consent to Euthanasia, I would expect it to be carried out.

Euthanasia can be a difficult issue, personally If I'm dying or become a vegetable, I'd rather die quickly and painlessly

i see now, but in my opinion, even having the assistance of being supplied poison is euthanasia as there is some assistance being given; suicide i think is characterized by the willingness to go the full distance to one's life, there's no one else to pull the trigger for you, you take it from start to finish. having a legal means to acquire an out of life i think is still assisted suicide, ie euthanasia. that's just me though.

I think it's not a bad idea. It would simply say that this person had gone through all the psychological and other tests to say that there is no doubt that he wants that and he is fine with forfeiting the chances of being healed in the future.

So they could go to a doctor and ask for a poison.

Such certificate should lose it's validity after 6 months or so. Not that someone wears that all the time and when the next time a woman hurt his heart he gets poisened even though a day later he would be fine.

I think only some doctors are ok with doing that anyway. No doctor is getting forced to do that at least. It would be really wrong to force them to do such thing against their hippocratic oath.

I think assisted suicide should be legal for everybody. The Christian nanny state just has to be in everybody's business.

I meant people need to make that choice themselves
Suicide is the technical term for it but that's what I meant by not supporting Euthanasia.
The only area where it might make sense is where there are people in a vegetable state and it's up to someone else to pull the trigger, where a license to well die in those situations or some sort of consent in the case it happens would be useful.
Sort of like opting-in to be a organ donor if you die of unfortunate circumstance.

why would people need a license to kill themselves? that's called suicide and is executed out of free will already. no one else is involved already, why complicate it with a license? i really dont see the point here.

That said back on Euthanasia I'm against people asking others to kill them, a license to self suicide if supported makes more sense.

No problem and the benefit of a license is that people will need to decide for themselves without involving the guilt of others who survive after the person is dead. If they are unwilling to do so then they must live on, in the end it's their ultimate choice and they should be held responsible for their own outcome and not put it into the hands of another.

Basically I'm implying a License to Kill (YOURSELF)

Euthanasia in my opinion forces doctors to do the task, which is against their code of well trying their best to keep people alive.
That said if the doctors want to have the right to do it in some cases that would be acceptable but not for perfectly well and fit individuals like in the OP, more for vegetable state individuals etc.
http://www.macleans.ca/society/health/why-doctors-want-the-right-to-pull-the-plug-2/

even if drugs of all sorts became legalized, im of the opinion that humans will always manage to find something new that will be, in turn, classified as illegal because it id too potent/dangerous. however, even if legalization cannot do away with drug cartels and such, there would be numerous benefits, such as the ability to tax drug sales and to have some commission in place to ensure the purity and safety of these substances for consumption.

that being said, this has gotten rather far from the subject of euthanasia, but good discussions usually tend to do so.

thanks for the clarification, but as for the suggestion for a license for suicide, how would that impact anything? would having such a license permit a holder to a facility that would assist in that person's suicide? if so, how is that any different from euthanasia?

Yes, it surely will hit the organized crime. Though i was surprised to read that the organized crime came first, when these things were allowed. They made a big business with it and government partly disallowed drugs because they made a profit. So the question is if legalization really will have a huge impact. In Portugal maybe the drug lords decided that it would be smart to suppress drugs for some time to have a role model for the worldwide legality of drugs?

I'm not sure if that is possible. Only was surprised that the profits were first and then the permit came.

Opium trade was forced on China historically and they lost the opium wars and ended up with an addiction problem.
That said its true that when governments intervene they tend to go to any extent to contain the threat.
Which can give rise to large organizations to traffic those goods like the rise of the mafia, or mexico drug cartels.
Deregulation does have its benefits as it removes the stigma associated with it and provides more options to resolve problems.

That said back on Euthanasia I'm against people asking others to kill them, a license to self suicide if supported makes more sense.

true, history repeats itself. correct me if im wrong but i believe it was imperial china that was heavily influenced by opiates. that aside, organized crime in drugs exists and is incredibly profitable because it supplies the drugs people want. if those drugs were to be made legal, organized crime would likely turn to stronger drugs that would be classified as illegal, or work to supply drugs cheaper than what would legally be sold to maintain their profits. imo, the drug problem, from a legal standpoint, will never be solved.

It would be not unlikely. I mean there were certain drugs in the history and some of them were very commonly used while in the same time letting the work power or health of the society drop. That governments intervened, and at some pointe overreacted, is somewhat understandable. And i now have read that the governments forbid drugs because of the organized crime taking advantage of it. If that is true then legalizing might not bring the effect they wish.

In itself being gay, beside it's unnormal aspect, has nothing "dangerous". It is only that if you allow this, you have to allow things likes pregnant interuption, transsexual... And this two things CAN'T BE ALLOWED.

on that same note, a film that came out quite recently touched on that subject a little bit: narcopolis (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1957938/) is set ~20 years in the future where hard drugs are legal, namely narcotics. it also depicts most of the population as being under the influence for a great portion of their time as well. the movie itself was sort of meh though, huge parts of the plot that were completely unnecessary and some unexplainable plot holes here and there. what it did however, was present a dystopian society that could possibly be a realistic society some decades in the future.

You are right, hard drugs are discussed too. Though like you state, with the younger generation growing up, there is a problem with that getting to the edge of at least being possible to achieve. I mean many people will be convinced with marijuana but hard drugs are an argumentation that most not can follow.

Maybe it would need a small scale test to convince people. But even that sounds impossible at the moment.

And yes, it would be interesting to see the results.

but its not just marijuana, take portugal for instance, when they decriminalized all drugs 14 years ago:
https://www.thefix.com/content/decrim-nation-portugal-ten-years-later

"Time: “Judging by every metric, drug decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success. It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country.""

decriminalizing in the US as portugal has done would solve many problems, including the ongoing problem of overcrowding in prisons. but we all know prisons make way too much money for that to be brought up politics anyways.

another article: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

as for the religion issue, the current generation is currently seen as the least religious generation in a long time, and i expect the trend to continue over the next few decades, as the next generation's children will likely lack a religious influence in their lives with the current, non-religious generation as their parents. as the trend continues, we can logically expect the influence of religion to dwindle in the future society.

http://newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscenter/news_story.aspx?sid=75623

I don't think so. Legalization of drugs only gets discussed seriously because marijuana has certain positive effects on health and probably less negative effects than alcohol. I think the harder drugs are not really discussed by normal people in the majority.

Next thing is the religious people that see it as a sin to commit suicide. They are influential and that can have a big impact too.

getting a bit slippery slope there, but regardless, i think that a topic as controversial as euthanasia will come to be more or less accepted in the future, as with many controversial things. take drugs for example, we're sitting here having  discussions on having drugs be legalized, wouldnt surprise me if euthanasia were to become accepted in the next few decades (likely on the basis of free will to do what one wishes with their life).

Next thing would be we hear about relatives deciding to kill their grandma because she got dementia and can't decide that anymore. Well, that would be eutanasia really. Reminds me on hitler on his "ending unworthy lives".

Though i think it's not about the mercy to give someone a fast painless death. It's more about deaths that might end a life that in fact could be a rich life when death would not have been chosen.

Well, i think, if a person went through a thouroughly psychological examination where several doctors agree that this person will not change his mind or so. If there really is no hope. Then it might make sense. But otherwise society would be at fault ending lives out of a whim.

It's not that i not believe in god. I think it's logical that the total amount of life existing has a conscious of itself, which could be named god. You know, even the citizens of a country work like neurons like in a brain and they form a kind of big will of the masses. So it's not hard to imagine god exists.

Though i don't trust religions, books about religions and so on. They are all written by man and even those interpreting are man. There is no religion that directly has god speaking to you. That would be an interesting religion indeed.

I don't think it is against nature. It's part of life and only humans allow themselfes to mark some things as bad and some as right. Mostly they mark those things bad that hurt others. Gay persons don't hurt anybody. They don't have a problem with that besides that that others might have a problem with it. Sexuality is made bad in many religions or restricted. Though it is a perfectly natural thing to do. And surely sexuality is not only for having childs. Even some monkeys have a very rich sexual live and it is not for having childs all the time. It's because they enjoy Sex. So besides gay man not getting children, it still would be fine. I mean otherwise you would need to mark everyone wrong and sick who decides that he doesn't want kids. So that is no reason to blame someone being sick.

Eat him maybe? 
There is many ways a person which can use to end his life including suicide, euthanasia... The only difference is that you get killed by someone else in euthanasia.
Never will support or encourage someone to end his life instead I will refer him to a psychiatric to treat him (talking about the OP case).
If he has an end stage cancer, painkillers even knowing that they aren't helping a lot, can reduce his pain.
For dementia & schizophrenia they need someone who help them. (not to get ride of them, this only will make the retirement assurance happy).

Finally, should we end a life of a young girl because she suffers during her periods? Someone who has a chronic headaches? ... Next years i think we will hear about theses cases!

when you shoot a dear and it still breath... do you watch it die helpless or you do what's necessary? what would a lion do?

It should be made legal. Sometimes human have no choice but to consider ending their lives. After all everyone has to die one day, some early some later, but everyone deserves to die with dignity.

who said that it would be doctor... I feel power ($) grab... pff pff. ahh russia...

the issue is,  theres no foolproof way of telling if that pain is temporary or not; people can feel depressed at times, and have strongly negative emotions, but they wouldnt be diagnosed with clinical depression for that. this is more so an ethical debate than anything else. i too think that if someone wants to die and has justifiable reasons, receiving aid in ending their life should be a right to them. however, theres no telling if that pain will never go away, and if indeed it would have, a human life could have been saved.

You seem to be a non-religious guy and that's not a problem for me. I think that homosexuality is bad because it's against Nature (or God's law if you prefer), because it stops some people to have child and because they're simply not men anymore.

i'm fine with euthanasia because if someone really wants to take their life due to insufferable pain then it should be okay for them to do it

you're going to die and you are in pain

you don't want to suffer

Simply because you will not reach more than pushing some persons into feelings of feeling bad and wrong about their sexuality. You can't do anything if someone does not get attracted by the other sex. You won't change it. The only thing you can do is make him or her feel bad and wrong. For a thing that surely is not an illness. There is no bad harm to the body or anything that would meet the description of aan illness. It is love in another way. Nothing more or less. The only problem coming from it is the problem some religious people have with it. And religion was often enough very bad in deciding what is correct and what not. Since even though religious books were claimed coming from god all the time... at the end they are books written by people that believed doing what god wants.

Surely that is no base to justify that homosexuality is bad or an illness. Though religions achieved to turn sex into something bad, sinfull and thing to avoid anyway. That alone shoul show that religions really can't be taken as a guideline of what is right or wrong. Religions simply were created by persons, these persons usually had a very antique view of the world. We would still throw rocks at people having free sex when we surely would believe that these books were written by god. Well, some believe so and join isis. But the sane part of the world knows that this can't be the way.

So if it can't be healed, this is an incurably ill like AIDS. The solution to such a problem is teaching at school that it is bad and unnatural. Unfortunately, most of the time they teach the inverse  ...

I know that mindset and you can be sure that there were a lot of religious groups that tried to heal that "sickness". The simply result is that it is no sickness. It can't be healed. It is what it is.

I think you do not born gay. That's why, like every mental illness it's not God creation but an ill that you catch, like Alzheimer's or schizophrenia.

This is a taboo subject but it really should and needs to be legalised, it would cut a lot of problems. Maybe i would do it cause I dont think I have the guts to top myself. If it did get legalized the rules would have to be more lenient, anyone who doesnt want to live anymore regardless of their sex, age etc should be granted it even if they are perfectly healthy and it should be free, I don't have to tell you the appalling treatment the elderly have been getting and this would solve the problem, although it is sad but when you've got severe alzheimers or whatever, who wouldn't wanna be 10ft under?

No, i did not say that you are homosexual. Some of the persons that go against homosexuals are faggots too, though they hate it. But i know that practically every heterosexual man fears being seen as homosexual. That's something you simply don't want to be. Though that goes away at some point.

So you come from a religious side? Well, stories written by people in the past should not decide how reality is. Reality shows that homosexuality is there by animals as well as with humans. And i came to the conclusion that it is a perfectly fine type of love. It's not that they decided to be that way. So if they were born that way, then, as a religious person, you might need to think that god created them that way. No problem.

In spain we have currently a case where a girl, i thinks she is minor, i really dont remember, she is tired of figthing with some kind of disease, and his family is agree with her on givin up and try euthanasia, but authorities doesnt want..

I think should be something personal, otherwise you are forcing the suicide on somobody.

You're taking the problem by the wrong side... I do not hate them because I am too. I just know how things have to be. In sexuality, it's male and female, not male and male ! That's this way world has been created ! If I follow how you think, I hate niggers because I am ? Be sure not !

Oh well... a nice dose of homophobia was what was needed in here ... somehow i know you will beat around when someone asks you if you are homosexual. All this fear...

Maybe in some years you become sexually stable so that you don't feel the need to show that you are not homosexual, by attacking homosexuals that way.

If there is a group of person which should have the right to end their life with doctor-assistance, it is the faggots  . Less of this shot can just benefit  !

I think its good. If someone wants to die (because of illness) they should have the right to die with dignity and not have to suffer more pain because the government says so, why the hell should they get to choose when your life ends instead of yourself?

But yet some doctors let people die simply because they don't have insurance or enough money to cover the procedure.  That sounds like crime to me.

Doctors are here to save people life, treat them and relieve their pain. Not to end their life!
And why we have psychiatric, pain killers then!!!
I see a crime not an euthanasia here. 

I would never do it.   I would administer it if someone was in pain and suffering.  But to myself I could not.  Someone healthy I couldn't do it either.

To each is their own.  I'm for it yet against it.  I guess it would depend on situation.  But then again I wouldn't want my brother sister to have it done or friends for that matter.  Maybe only if they wee suffering from a disease or in extreme pain that they were unable to get rid of.

Up in the air really.  But if someone wants it done to themselves it should be there choice.  I'm not up for telling someone how to live or how there life should end.

Just my thoughts.  Sensitive subject really.

Not long and we will have suicide cells like in futurama. Maybe not exactly the same but it seems it's not so hard to predict what the future brings.

https://youtu.be/4-vRpQ0YyYo

Eutanasia for perfectly healthy people who have suicidal-thoughts?? It's really bad things the doctors do. Doctors' job is to cure people illness not to kill healthy people eventhough it's their own wish to die.  If they have suicidal thoughts they should go to psychiatrists or pychologist to erase that crazy thought instead of going to doctors who have eutanasia for them. Both sides are stupid 

Eutanasia is a bad thing. No one except God has the right to make people die, and the doctors who are doing this will suffer in Hell for the eternity the same way as those who are performing pregnancy interuption. The worst of the two is the pregnancy interuption because the child who are killed didn't wanted it while the stupids ones who die thanks to eutanasia have chosen it.

The only way a man can kill another man is for death penalty against a criminal or a soldier who kill another soldier, but not a bitch that "don't want anymore of the life  " !

Peoples' free will that doesn't victimize others is either respected or it isn't.

Forced administration of medicine that lowers your quality of life is indefensible enough, but when that in some cases turns off your moral compass and in some of those cases results in you becoming a mass murderer, is the epitome of evil.

Well, when i read what you wrote then it sounds a bit like you make a general problem of caring for others. Since yes, it is considered good habits to care about others and protect them.

Maybe it's hell with suicidal thoughts, but they have a reason. May it be a sickness, an imbalance in the brain or something, that can be treated with medicines.

And you sound like those thougths are not very alien to you. Then you should know that it is a phase most of the time.

I think you really shouldn't complain about people caring for others. We all need help at one time or another.

Lol it boggles my mind how this could even remotely be considered a problem, especially by people who have absolutely nothing to do with the woman in question    I mean seriously, it is after all her life you're talking about not your own, what is it to you if she chooses to end her life??  Not that it even matters but would you even know what it might be like to be plagued by suicidal thoughts because everyday life is hell   When people start thinking they know what's best for a complete stranger without knowing the first thing about that person, that's when you know the shit's about to hit the fan 

I think there is a reason why this is not allowed in many countries, the same why there is a reason for protecting childs from sexual acts. The reason for the latter is that they can't see what they would do, what it means and so on. Molesters often claim it should be ok when the child wants it. But the child is not ready yet to decide things like this.

The same is for people being in a mental state that can be changed. People that decide to die and are in such a state should be protected from themselves. Of course if someone is sick without chance and he went through through a reasonable psychatric treatment and there is no chance anymore, then society can say it's ok.

But in many cases society would need to protect these people against their own mental status. Which can go over very often. But then it's done if youre dead.

Same goes for the death sentence. Too many innocent people died. Death simply is something you can't undone once you realize you made a wrong decision.

IMO, if someone want to commit suicide, then psychiatric counselling and other forms of help should be given to that person. However, if the individual is still adamant with his decision, then he should be allowed to do what he want. Every year, more than a million individuals commit suicide. It is not possible to save all of them.

I think one reasonable argument against euthanasia is that it might pressure some people into dying before they are ready.

I say go for it. It's your life and you should get to decide if you want to live or not. I would make it mandatory to have a psych evaluation first though.

The thing might be that poison might hurt very much, jumping from bridge is the same and shooting yourself is something not everyone can do because no weapon is available.

I think in reality it is an act of cowardice to let this others do. Hurting yourself surely will be harder to do.

Maybe spelling the title of the thread subject matter is a good idea...

https://youtu.be/K6qGwmXZtsE?t=77

by adding the word "proper" in there to cover yourself you're kind of admitting you know very well that the average pensioner hasn't paid into the system anything close to what he wants to take out. old people are the #1 reason healthcare and welfare spending is exploding across the western world and its going to keep getting worse until someone acknowledges it.

factories farms offices and shops are productive. taking an able bodied person out of the workforce to look after old people and robing the rest of us via taxes to pay for it is not productive.

the sister of this somalian guy i know is paid by the british government to be their father's full time carer. i kid you not. they came over here 20 years ago, got free government housing and now the government pays them to take care of their own family who have never paid a penny into the system. if we took their free money away you might be surprised at how many families in this situation decide to take up the kind offer of voluntary euthanasia for their relatives.

With the proper pension system, those 80-90yo pensioners accumulated more than enough in pension-contributions to pay for their new hips and Alzheimer treatment.

If you slaughter all the pensioners (don't confuse it with euthanasia) you're taking away many jobs for the young and productive (ie care-takers and hip-surgeons) making many of them young and un-productive. Not to mention that morale of those Y&Ps will likely be very low if they now they're going 6 ft under as soon as they stop being productive.

those unfortunates with lifelong mental illnesses whose conditions render them incapable of gainful employment along with people in their 80s and 90s with their pensions and endless hip replacements and alzheimers disease needing around the clock care are threats to those around them because they suck up resources that should be focused on improving the prospects of the young and productive

i think it should be reviewed on a case by case basis, there's too many possible factors to consider when it comes to something like this (ex mental illness, chance of recovery, terminal illness, is the individual a threat to those around them, etc).

state sanctioned euthanasia should be reserved for the elderly and feeble minded

If we have the right to live why do we not have the right to die? Laura made her decison, we need to respect that. Maybe it`s crazy, but nothing more then billion other things in this world.

there's a big (and i mean really big) gap between having suicidal thoughts (i think the majority of people have been here) and attempting suicide, and yet another to repeating attempts. iirc there are pretty stringent requirements for euthanasia to be given the green light (mental illness, terminal illness, etc, not looking it up right now).

i hope so too, but i would suspect there was some money involved for this case to be given the green light.

These doctors have lost their sense for the Hippocratic Oath they once vowed. It says they should never harm a human. Clearly they don't fix a human by doing this.

The problem with that is that it is mostly a temporary status these persons are in. Nearly every person had though about suicide already, a few even attempt it. But those who don't succeed are happy years later that they still live.

It should be mandatory to go to a lengthy therapy with doctors that don't earn from killing. That might be the only solution.

These doctors have lost it. I would also blame the laws that allow the doctors to give the go ahead.
I hope the woman recognizes her folly and change her mind.

The problem is that for some people with depression, At the end of the day its their life. I fully support the right to choose. But that young woman is a sad story.

Pretty much my opinion as well I consider Euthenasia to be purely for people who are in that much pain they can't physically do anything themselves, in regards to this healthy person, they should have been helped for depression, when it comes to pro-lifers it always amazes me how much they're willing to let other people suffer just so they can pat themselves on the back and feel good about themselves.

Cleaning up the gene pool. Honestly, what a load of junk.

This is a very sensitive and difficult subject of which should be carried out professional and serious discussion.
Who can actually decide on euthanasia?
Each of us individually?
Doctor?
The Court?
Who has the right to decide on life and death?
If someone is depressed and thinking about suicide, he/she can also change mind and give up from the suicide, isn't it?
Such serious and irreversible decision should not be made too easy and without professional control.

That's not even euthanasia in the classic meaning, that's either assisted suicide (if the girl takes the final action herself) or just murder with the victim's consent.

It's just sickening. If she's suicidal, then she's probably suffering from depression, which in turn, make her incapable of making rational decisions.

There's massive disproportion between failed and successful suicide attempts, between males and females, so hopefully it's just a form of attention seeking on her part.

If she really wanted to die she would probably find some way to kill herself withouther doctors´ help. I´m not agonst eutanasia if it regards people terminally ill who´re suffering much, under the condition they accept to be euthanized, but not something like that.

Suicide without harming* innocent third-parties is just as much of a human right as self-defense without harming* innocent third-parties. Because of suicide being ostensibly illegal, too many suicides fail and/or end up harming* innocent third-parties.

*physically, economically only, no right to not be made to experience mere emotions

I've met some disturbed people along the lines of my life and I can tell you one thing. No one was broken beyond repair.
Usually they lack something basic to be fully happy, they haven't met someone special for them or they can't understand something.
Death is final. That is the end, there won't be second chance for us. Usually suicidal people who live through near death experience are cured and never ever again trying to attempt suicide.
For me Euthanasia of perfectly fine human is just suicide. That is not fine and should not be done. Ever.

Agreed...but even if diagnosed with illness, does it make sense for the government to have the right to make that decision?  If we can't make that choice, then we are living life on someone elses terms, and that would likely only increase the drive to commit suicide.

Of course there should be some questioning and perhaps a lag between requesting euthanasia and having it done, to allow the person to seriously think about whether or not that is what they really want.  But at the end of the day, if someone wants to end their life, they shouldn't have to require permission from a stranger.

The other part is that we always have the option to commit suicide, if euthanasia is not an option.

The big problem with legalization isn't the suicide part. It is the legalization part. If it is legal to do anything, then it is one step further towards it being legal to have it done to you. And when that happens, we are close to having it done to us without our permission. Legalization of anything is a step away from freedom into slavery.

Of course, in the United States we are way closer to this than most people think. Here's what I mean.

Over the whole of the 1900s, governments and government people of the world executed about 200,000,000 of their own citizens. In the United States, the common people executed about 50,000,000 of their own fellow citizens through abortion.

I'm very much for the right of everyone to die with dignity, but this could prove very problematic in the case of patients with diagnosed mental illnesses (such as depression or bipolar disorder) in their medical history.

She should go to a therapy talk to someone. I don't think the government or doctors should be helping healthy people die. I can understand euthanasia when the patient's brain is dead, but this is going the wrong way.

If she was so depressed and suicidal then she would just kill herself. Not sure why people need doctors involved unless they're paralyzed or something. I agree with assisted suicide if you're unable to take your own life but not for depressed people. If they really was so depressed they wouldn't be waiting for a go ahead from doctors they'd just do it themselves asap.

I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but i do think it's a good thing to legalise euthanasia... Even for children..

You have the choice: non legalized euthanasia will result in people being in pain for a long time without hope for recovery because they have no legal way to end their pain PLUS an illegal circuit where MD's will euthanise people illegaly without any rules or controll mechanisms (plus some people that commit suicide, leaving a mess behind for their family members)...

On the other side you have legailised euthanasia: at least every step in the process is controlled by multiple doctors and ethical commitees, and the MD that performs the euthanasia is legally protected...

Ofcourse their will be individual cases that are debatable, but that doesn't mean that the general idear of legal euthanasia is wrong...

Is this even normal? How do you feel about this, people?


In 2003 Belgium was the second country in the world to legalise euthanasia after Holland liberalised the law a year earlier, becoming the first country since Nazi Germany to permit the practice.

Over the past decade the numbers of Belgians dying by euthanasia has crept up incrementally.

There was a 25 per cent increase in the number of euthanasia deaths from 2011 to 2012, soaring from 1,133 to 1,432, a figure representing about two per cent of all deaths in the country.

In February Belgium extended euthanasia to children who are terminally-ill and in a state of unrelieved suffering.

Belgian doctors give healthy woman, 24, green light to die by euthanasia because of 'suicidal thoughts'

    Laura, 24, does not suffer from any terminal disease or physical illness
    She told doctors who assessed her condition that 'life, that's not for me'
    Five people a day currently die with the assistance of medics in Belgium
    New figures show that euthanasia numbers have jumped by a third 

Belgian doctors are planning to kill a perfectly healthy 24-year-old woman by euthanasia because she is suffering from 'suicidal thoughts'.

It is estimated that five people a day in Belgium die with the assistance of doctors, ranging from those with terminal illness to others with chronic, but not life threatening ailments.

Now, a woman, known only as the fictitious name Laura, has been told she qualifies for euthanasia, despite not having a terminal disease.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141564/Belgian-doctors-healthy-woman-green-light-die-euthanasia-suicidal-thoughts.html