Euthanasia - Your Views?
-
The moral issues are very complicated... I typed a few para jus now... GOt confused and befuddled by all teh mess of it and i deleted them all.... This is such a hard thing to decide... In what conditions that u can deem it is consent? what if the patient is delirious or he is incapable of making a decision due to his conditions?
-
You suffer from cancer. After treatment, your cancer is in remission but there's not much money left in the bank account.
You couldn't find a job because of your medical history. You find that some friends and relatives are avoiding you.
No job, no money, no friends. What then? And your cancer returns. Don't you feel that you are better off dead.
In hindsight, wouldn't you opt for euthanasia and free up the money to help others?
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
and no matter what opinions they give, there is very little facts to it, they are much richer than us, religious leaders drove jaguar and merc lor.
the govt policy are human policies, how can the divine challenge it, what the govt can do is to wears a pair of velvet gloves beneath a pair of evil hands. That is to say, a smart Dirty politician can alway use religion upfront to harmonise peoples but on the hindsight, he is sucking them dry.
Relax lah woman
That is my point lah. Religious representatives can say all they want but make no difference to the actual policy that is or will be in place.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
so for the sake of religion, it is all right to suicide for the cause of destroying the other religion which is deemed as evil hor..
You have any scripture proof to back this statement of yours up? -
Originally posted by ArtBoon:
I find it difficult to understand suicide for a "cause", unless you are using suicide to mean giving up your life voluntarily. Suicide, the way I understand it, is to kill myself so that I could escape from something.
The only 'cause' I could think of is to say, a car is about to hit someone I love, and I jumped him to push him/her away out of that altruistic love that I have for him/her, therefore resulting in the lost of my life.Any other 'cause' that I think are along that line.
-
Unless the government is willingly to pay for a person on life support and in a coma for the rest of his life, or else, the government has to give people the option of Euthanasia, and allow mercy killings.
No point forcing families to be forced to pay for the expenses, just because some religion oppose it. After all, we are supposed to be a secular state, not a religious state.
-
It has to start somewhere.
First the terminally ill. This make it easier to lay the foundations...
for the time when recycling develops to the Soylent Green level.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
no problem aunty, but first dun mind to sign yr change of beneficiary to Angel Lin S8923876D. I will make sure there will be no pain and full of smile when you go. And i can also arrange the funeral for you.
S8923876E, you mean?S8923876D is an invalid NRIC number
Cheers.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
no problem aunty, but first dun mind to sign yr change of beneficiary to Angel Lin S8923876D. I will make sure there will be no pain and full of smile when you go. And i can also arrange the funeral for you.LOL, you are S89? Don't bluff... =D
Euthanasia is only for cases where doctors agree there is no hope for recovery, and only pain and suffering for trying to live on. Its not like one happy happy can go get euthanized.
-
I see. That in my view is sacrifcing my life for somebody I love. I don't think that is suicide (based on my definition, which is killing myself to escape from something).
In life there is pain and suffering, just like there will be joy and comfort.
I think I will try to avoid pain and suffering, just like I will try to get as much joy and comfort as possible.
However, I will try not to kill myself just to avoid pain and suffering.
Yes, some time the pain and suffering may come with financial consequences.
However, I will still not try to kill myself (or to kill someone else) just because money gets into the picture.
====
The only 'cause' I could think of is to say, a car is about to hit someone I love, and I jumped him to push him/her away out of that altruistic love that I have for him/her, therefore resulting in the lost of my life.
Any other 'cause' that I think are along that line.
-
In a multi-religion society, the law is for the majority to follow. Religion teachings are for minority to follow. Let those do what they believe.
There is no use in debating uncertainty.
-
Originally posted by ArtBoon:
I see. That in my view is sacrifcing my life for somebody I love. I don't think that is suicide (based on my definition, which is killing myself to escape from something).
In life there is pain and suffering, just like there will be joy and comfort.
I think I will try to avoid pain and suffering, just like I will try to get as much joy and comfort as possible.
However, I will try not to kill myself just to avoid pain and suffering.
Yes, some time the pain and suffering may come with financial consequences.
However, I will still not try to kill myself (or to kill someone else) just because money gets into the picture.
====
The only 'cause' I could think of is to say, a car is about to hit someone I love, and I jumped him to push him/her away out of that altruistic love that I have for him/her, therefore resulting in the lost of my life.
Any other 'cause' that I think are along that line.
We all know how WW2 German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel died. He was implicated in a plot to assassinate Hitler and was offered a choice; kill himself and his family will be spared, or face a trial that will mean persecution of his whole family. Rommel opted to kill himself.
Is this a 'suicide'? If it is, is this form of 'suicide' 'permissible' by the main stream religions? How does this suicide differ from the case of a terminally ill patient opting to end his life to save his family from the financial burdens of incurring medical expenses in a (futile) effort to keep him alive?
-
If we assume that history recorded this event correctly, then my view is Rommel was "forced" to kill himself. When someone is "forced", then I think this is not a suicide. This is simply an execution.
In my view, this is different from a situation when the terminally ill patient consiously chooses to kill himself to spare his family from financial burden (by focusing on money).
==
We all know how WW2 German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel died. He was implicated in a plot to assassinate Hitler and was offered a choice; kill himself and his family will be spared, or face a trial that will mean persecution of his whole family. Rommel opted to kill himself.
Is this a 'suicide'? If it is, is this form of 'suicide' 'permissible' by the main stream religions? How does this suicide differ from the case of a terminally ill patient opting to end his life to save his family from the financial burdens of incurring medical expenses in a (futile) effort to keep him alive?
-
Yes, the law is enacted for the majority to follow.
Hence, we need to debate whether I want this type of law.
I would not want to have a law where my son can choose to kill me just because his pocket is being hurt.
=====
In a multi-religion society, the law is for the majority to follow. Religion teachings are for minority to follow. Let those do what they believe.
There is no use in debating uncertainty.
-
If i feel that furthur treatment will only increase my lifespan and how much i'm suffering at the same time (terminal stage for cancer for example), i rather opt for euthanasia.
I don't see the benefit of paying thousands for treatments and drugs just so i can breath a little more and let my loved ones see how much i'm suffering. I can leave more for the next generation anyway.
Frankly, i think people who try to say euthanasia is a bad thing never had a loved one slowly rotting away.
-
Yes, you are entitled to your view.
My view is that I will not deliberately choose to kill myself or another person, no matter for what reason.
Also, I cannot assume that people who choose my view have not seen their loved one slowly rotting away.
-
Oh well at least the goverment didn't put religion first when considering this act.
It's a financial issue and that's all that counts, no money dun fall sick.
-
Granted, it was a harsh view. For that i apologize for offending anyone.
However, i'm not optimistic enough in human nature to believe that thought never crossed a person's mind in that stituation.
-
Government better NOT put financial consideration in this and try to enact a law that will allow my son to kill me just because he thinks his pocket will get hurt.
=============
Oh well at least the goverment didn't put religion first when considering this act.
It's a financial issue and that's all that counts, no money dun fall sick.
-
You make it sound like we actually get a choice in the matter.
I think the idea of euthanasia is exactly to avoid forcing our children to make the decision for us.
-
i think people like my boss should be euthanised to put us out of our misery
-
Originally posted by ArtBoon:
Yes, the law is enacted for the majority to follow.
Hence, we need to debate whether I want this type of law.
I would not want to have a law where my son can choose to kill me just because his pocket is being hurt.
=====
In a multi-religion society, the law is for the majority to follow. Religion teachings are for minority to follow. Let those do what they believe.
There is no use in debating uncertainty.
Currently, the law bans all euthanasia. If the ban is lifted, people is able to not opt for euthanasia when they are well living. And their love ones will have to legally respect their decision.
Lifting the ban gives people a choice to choose on how they want to live in such situation comes. A total ban makes no sense for those who believe in euthanasia. Likewise, a compulsory on all euthanasia makes no sense for those who dont believe in euthanasia.
-
Whether we have choice or not, is up to whether we want to make a choice or not. If I see a law being enacted and I sit there and do nothing, of course nothing will be done.
If Government intends to put financial consideration in this and try to enact a law that will allow my son to kill me just because he thinks his pocket will get hurt, it is unlikely that I will not do anything.
-
I think they already made that law for the stituation when you're in a coma and confirmed to be braindead.
The idea of euthanasia however, is that you can actually chose to kill yourself if you feel you do not want to suffer anymore. A legal suicide. Don't think your son can decide for you in this stituation.
-
I am not expert of the law.
http://www.singaporelawreview.org/2007/01/re-scoping-s377a-a-juxtaposition-of-views/
From above, it appears that "private act" such as enthanasia is currently criminalised.
Does that mean that government intend NOT to criminalise enthanasia?
When that happens, does that mean that it will not be a crime if my son chooses to kill me if he perceives that his pocket is being hurt?
===
Currently, the law bans all euthanasia. If the ban is lifted, people is able to not opt for euthanasia when they are well living. And your love ones will have to legally respect your decision.
Lifting the ban gives people a choice to choose on how they want to live in such situation comes. A total ban makes no sense for those who believe in euthanasia. Likewise, a compulsory on all euthanasia makes no sense for those who dont believe in euthanasia.