Topic: what do you think about mercy-killing? - page 2. (Read 345 times)

no killing and euthanasia. It is necessary to be above this

I also accept that but the reason should be tough to be considered doing it. A person who is in coma for a very long time or he's in a vegetative state and the machine is what keeps him alive. These can be considered to make it happen.

Agreed. If there is zero-chance of survival, then what is the point in forcing that individual to go through all the pain? Rather than that, he can be allowed to have a peaceful death. This will also save the relatives from getting financially ruined as a result of the medical expenses.

on my opinion i cannot accept such thing because its against the bible, by doing that we are committing a sins already to up above

Mercy killing is a mercy. This choice should be made by the patient and be honored by the doctor or the family. In my opinion a life is determined by the quality one has to live with and the descision of the patient. If a person will lie in bed for the rest of their lives, eat through a straw and have someone to help you relieve yourself the patient could opt to have an assisted suicide for him. If a patient is brain dead for three weeks, then have the family descide if they still want to go on.

Mercy killing or Euthanasia for a better word is a very sensitive and highly controversial topic. It deals with life and
the decision of ending it. In the medical field it is quite common to see and handle cases like this. At some
point I would sympathized and agree with such a decision. I believe there are cases that the relatives
are the ones to decide and rarely patients themselves instruct them to resort to such a point to
end the pain and suffering. But nowadays it's likely common to hear mercy-killing in methods of
waiting or the patient to pass away without the need for life support intervention. It is a very
hard situation but sometimes it is an inevitable terminal last resort.
 

According to me, Mercy-killing is pretty necessary in some terminal illnesses . Rather than a person's suffering a lot, Mercy-killing would be better for him or her. In some serious cases, Mercy-killing can be inevitable. For that reason, this idea must be legal in every country for the sake of terminally ill people.

I am not much worried about what the religion say about it. In my opinion, it should be left to the individual. If some individual is suffering from a slow and painful death (for example, from terminal-stage cancer), then what is the point in forcing him to going through all that suffering?

Yes there are but there is a need for a specialist to tell if there is a treatment or not and him with the pacient can get to a decision but still it is not a mercy kill. Let's say my teeth  hurt and you fell mercy for me, what then?? Yes, the felling is human but the way we put the question is the problem. So yes for mercy, no for killing.

There are numerous chronical ailments that cause continuous pain and suffering that can not be healed.

I don't believe in such thing, i believe in the measure that can be to help a suffering soul, but it is not the same ar mercy killing because in your scenario it is a personality thing and not a medical one.

If a person is suffering and that person wants to die, but physically is not able to end it. And a 2nd person understands this, and is not a killer and is getting no pleasure from doing it, then that person is doing a compassionate thing.

Heroin overdoses are administered by injection, but I get your point. I'm not really sure if I'd want to go that way though.

You apparently only get to die once, so I'd like to see what it's like in as sober a state as possible.

Its a good question, and my heart and mind struggle back and forth on which is more appropriate.. I think I'm for it in very extreme circumstances, but the problem for me is in the interpretation of what and when is appropriate.. and usually things because of interpretation end up all or nothing.

It is not acceptable for me the mercy killing. Even you did that for good it is still a murder. Taking the life of other people is a sin and we dont have the right to take others life. Only God has the power and he knew whats the best for us.

Not sure what I think about mercy killing. But if I wanted to die (due to a terminal disease etc) I wouldn't want to die from an injection, but from a drug.
A heroin overdose, more precisely.

A person who dies from that would feel the most amazing and intense high a man can ever achieve. He would not die sober and in fear, but high and...high.

Mercy killing actually seems fair to me now.  If the patient, his family and the medical staff agree, there shall start the procedures of an intentional overdose (obviously only in the case of terminally ill patients)

In extreme cases such as incurable diseases that cause continuous and unbearable pain that would be perfectly acceptable. Why force people to suffer needlessly?

Sometimes mercy killing is the only humane thing to do especially when the person is really suffering, I wouldn't recommend euthanasia when the person has been in a coma for a very long time because we know that sometimes miracle do happen.

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. (Mercy killing)
There are different euthanasia laws in each country.
American Law states that "a 'mercy killing' or euthanasia is generally considered to be a criminal homicide" and is normally used as a synonym of homicide committed at a request made by the patient.
IF MERCY KILLING BECOMES LEGAL
Many people support the right of a terminally ill patient to die - but what if the right becomes an obligation??? And what of the potential for abuse by impatient heirs???

Should dying patients have the right to order their doctors not to start or continue medical treatment? Should doctors be protected from prosecution if they shorten a patient's life expectancy with pain-killing drugs?

Most of us would answer yes to both questions. But does this mean we need a "right to die" law? Or is there more to the issue than first meets the eye?

Public discussion of the treatment of dying patients often confuses two separate issues. First, is the right of the terminally ill person to be allowed to die without being subjected to invasive medical procedures? Second, is the question of whether a dying person should also have the right to hasten his or her own death, and require the help of doctors and nurses to do so.

Religions are strongly go against this idea but there are some members on this sector are not supporting on their formulated doctrine or theology. While doctors are suggesting it as the best choice for the family and for the patient because they know the real situation and giving no false hope.

In my personal  view, mercy killing is not bad but an acceptable and can be considered as the best solution offered coming from a doctor. Also what is the point for letting a person alive but in a present situation which is more worst than death.An extreme belief cause by a religion is not good although having a religion can help to a person's life to be better but if it leads you to foolishness that would be the moment that you should learn to realise the foolishness side of religion. I am not a religious person nor an anti, neither an atheist or agnostic.

I also consider the I also consider the emotion of a person as the very reason why he/she refuse to accept the fact and to make such kind of decision. But in reality we need sometimes to neglect our emotion for the fact.

What is your personal opinion with this?