Is euthanasia preferable to the withdrawal of life support? |
I think euthanasia would be more humane and eliminate the possibility of suffering.
Euthanasia seems like the more humane conduct, while withdrawing life support could allow the patient to experience suffering. For instance, if life support consisted of a feeding or breathing tube, removing it could cause discomfort. Euthanasia is more like an anesthetic used to usher in a painless death.
Posted by: Th4FireEuthanasia is preferable to the withdrawal of life support, because the patient should have a right to choose.
Euthanasia should be available to people on life support if they, or their family, so choose. People should be allowed to die with dignity. If we can euthanize animals to end their suffering, why shouldn't we allow people that same courtesy? People should be treated as humanely, if not more than, animals.
Posted by: RandallSNot right to allow someone to suffer.
A person in a vegetable and painful state does not need to suffer the rest of their lives, with the inability to enjoy happiness. If granted permission from the family, I believe euthanasia to be a completely moral practice. Help take someone out of misery.
Posted by: StripperHaleiYes, and for most people.
I think that most people would rather go the euthanasia route than the life support one. Euthanasia leaves the dying person with some dignity because they have control over when their, and their family's, suffering ends. Most individuals don't want to hang around in a vegetated state waiting for a family member to make the tremendously hard decision to pull the plug. Where religion is concerned, some might not feel right with euthanasia as a possible option. But, deep down, I think when it's time for us to go, most of just want to go - without being a burden to anyone.
Posted by: MohaI0v35FOR ending human suffering-
Euthanasia is a means to end a person's suffering whether it be physical or mentally. No one should have to suffer and be in unbearable pain, over medicated, and feel as if they are merely a live corpse. Life should be about quality not quantity. Plus it is the patient's right to have a say in how they should die. Insted of being found in an uncompromising position if they commit suicide with out assistance compromises their dignity, with euthanasia this will not be an issue. Again this is about the patient's right and dignity, not about religion or politics. For the ones who think people will take advantage of this, people take advantage of everything, for every good something does their is a negative, but that does not mean you do a way with it.
Posted by: JustMeCDYes, euthanasia ensures that there is no suffering.
Euthanasia is more preferable than just removing someone from life support. If someone is brain dead, they can be removed from life support i.e. feeding tubes, and slowly starve to death. Although experts say this isn't a painful way to die, can they really know for sure? No, they cannot. Removing life support doesn't mean a painless transition into death, euthanasia does.
Posted by: PinkMychEuthanasia is preferable to the withdrawal of life support because it is more humane.
Euthanasia is preferable to the withdrawal of life support because it is more humane. When life support is withdrawn, despite efforts to make the patient comfortable he may suffer or otherwise be in distress, for example from breathing difficulties. This can go on for some time. If the patient or the patient's family has decided that the right thing to do is allow the patient's life to end, it should be done as humanely as possible.
Posted by: R0xHartWithdrawing life support can cause a slow painful death, whereas euthanasia is humane.
When it comes to the end of a person's life, there are a lot of variables to consider and emotions to sort out, from religious beliefs to unresolved relationships. This is particularly true for some one being kept alive by machines. A majority of the time they are unable to choose for themselves, but I would say it is worse for those who can. Being taken off a ventilator is relatively quick compared to having a feeding tube removed. Where the patient can take up to two weeks to die from starvation.
Posted by: R0II4IcyEuthanasia is preferable to the withdrawal of life support because it is supposedly harmless for the patient.
If euthanasia is required or allowed, it would be better than withdrawing life support. It's unfair to cause a person unnecessary pain, when they could feasibly exit life without it. It should be considered, however, that euthanasia should not be done if it's not the patient's wishes. Since we don't always know exactly how withdrawing life support affects a person's body, it's not wise to go this route.
Posted by: R4yCherYes, because euthanasia is much more humane than the withdrawal of life support.
It is easy to see why euthanasia is much more humane than the withdrawal of life support. Ending a life quickly and painlessly has to be preferable to withdrawing life support and letting someone suffocate or starve to death. People in certain situations, or family members of these people, should be allowed to make the decision to make use of euthanasia.
Posted by: M0r3FireEuthanasia is better than withdrawing life support.
Euthanasia is better than withdrawing life support because withdrawal of life support can lead to a long, agonizing death of dehydration and starvation. Some people who are in a vegetative state have enough brain activity to stay alive with a feeding tube but are able to do nothing else but breathe. Those patients should have access to an alternative way to do such as euthanasia.
Posted by: NatBIabEuthanasia provides a way to relieve patients and families from years of medical bills and useless treatments.
There is no need to prolong the life of someone that has no chance of ever living a productive life again. This is especially true for those that have expressed their desire to be taken off of life support, if the situation was ever to arise.
Posted by: N_FarleyI am for Euthanasia because it allows the chance to escape from a tedious life, suffering, and financial problems.
People living on life support must be restricted to a bed until the end usually. Especially patients' in the ICU cannot even move without possibly pulling a tube out of their body that is keeping alive. Euthanasia also allows people to get away from the extreme agony some are faced with. This is a way to make an extended painful death into a quick painless one. Patients on life support feel bad for their families who are paying 2-3 thousand dollars a day to keep life support going. They do not like to see their family members in stressful situations like sending themselves bankrupt to keep a child, parent or sibling alive for a more extended amount of time than their illness prescribes.
Posted by: AnonymousEuthanasia can be preferable to the withdraw of life support.
There are many who would say that euthanasia is immoral and there are many who would say it is more humane. I guess to me it would depend on the situation. It is very hard for me to imagine one of my loved ones suffering from a debilitating disease to the point where pain medication could not make them comfortable. If it is absolute that there is nothing that can be done to save their life then I would have to opt for euthanasia as apposed to letting them suffer the for the life they have left. After all...we do it for our pets so the suffering is halted and we call it humane why can we not do it for our human loved ones. Euthanasia as opposed to the withdraw of life support is immediate, the suffering is ended. There is no doubt in my mind that any human being, as opposed to suffering, would like to have a quick painless death if there is no other option.
Posted by: w00tboycomicI prefer to choose when and how I go, painless and peaceful and I leave no guilt on a family member.
Why would I want to use medication to endure the pain and whittle away with ongoing and unforgivable pain? Why would I want my family member to feel guilty for the rest of their life because they had to make the decision to pull me off life support? And why would I want to seize to death in pain when I could fall into a peaceful rest?
Posted by: Anonymous
No, because euthanasia is actually killing someone or someone killing themselves and withdrawal of life support is natural death.
For one thing, euthanasia is illegal here in America so therefore it is not preferable on that standpoint alone. But withdrawal of life support is actually the natural way to die and the only way if you believe in God.
Posted by: BratzkyWithdrawal from life support will allow a natural death.
Euthanasia is a highly-charged moral dilemma. Removal from life support is more clear cut, since it allows a natural death and allows the person to live, if possible.
Posted by: ExclusiveIsrael68I'm Against Euthanasia.
Almost all religions are against euthanasia and people should always have hope that this person that might be in a coma might have 0.01% in coming back to life so they should always have hope even though the percentage of him coming to life again is so little, it is a hard decision to take but it's a matter of life and death and only God makes this decision not humans and you would never know what could happen.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, because euthanasia or the death of someone sometimes comes from a doctor without even consulting the patient.
A doctor has the right to give a patient more drugs or to even inject them with extra of a medicine which will result in killing them without consoling them. This happens when a doctor decides that his/her patient is not capable of making a right decision. So he comes and injects the innocent patient that was not even given the right to keep his life, or choose his fate causing his/her death. Plus, Islam dos not allow the death of human lives if their brain is still working, because a person does not own this soul, no one owns this soul, to kill it or take it away but god. And no one ever knows what is going to happen to this patient, nothing is impossible, and Islam motivates patience.
Posted by: AnonymousEuthanasia and withdrawal of life support are not that different.
Euthanasia and withdrawal of life support are both tough decisions and should both be handled with the utmost sensitivity. Withdrawal of life support can be either a decision made by the family or made by the person themselves before the illness or accident. Euthanasia is generally decided upon by the person themselves. Nether option should be considered better or easier.
Posted by: babydoll93I am against euthanasia, because the withdrawal of life support is more humane.
Euthanasia is giving aid to the death of another in a controlled hospital environment. It is usually by request of the patient. This is seen as a crime in our community, because it is aiding in another's demise. Medications can be given to ease the discomfort of the dying. Withdrawal of life support also results in death. However, this is usually only done with a person who is so significantly injured, with most likely no chance of recovery, and usually on a machine to keep their heart beating.
Posted by: ChillyShelton83No, because euthanasia is directly killing someone; withdrawing life support just removes equipment keeping someone alive artificially.
Withdrawing life support is not murder because it is just equipment acting as the person's organs. The person's own organs are unable to sustain life, therefore they are kept going by artificial means. Euthanasia however, is the direct killing of a human being and is therefore wrong. Withdrawing life support is not immoral, but directly causing the death of another is.
Posted by: NettN355