Vote
30 Total Votes
1

Allow it for anyone

10 votes
2 comments
2

Only allowed for people with no chance of survival

8 votes
1 comment
3

Ban it completely!

8 votes
4 comments
4

Only ages 18 and up

4 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
TBR says2015-07-20T17:18:51.5914628-05:00
I could be behind a few more restrictions, but "adult" is a reasonable start.
Rust_Cohle says2015-07-20T17:26:52.3087953-05:00
In my line of work Dead Bodies is all I see...All right there are broader ideas at work, mainly what is owed between us as a society for our mutual illusions. Fourteen straight hours of staring at DB's, these are the things you think of. You ever done that? You look in their eyes, even in a picture, doesn't matter if they're dead or alive, you can still read them. You know what you see? They welcomed it... Not at first, but... Right there in the last instant. It's an unmistakable relief. See, cause they were afraid, and now they saw for the very first time how easy it was to just... Let go. Yeah They saw, in that last nanosecond, they saw... What they were. You, yourself, this whole big drama, it was never more than a jerry-rig of presumption and dumb will, and you could just let go. To finally know that you didn't have to hold on so tight.
Thegreatdebate98 says2015-07-20T18:13:17.4629496-05:00
If you allow it for anyone, then there's no point, why can't they do it themselves? If someone else takes your life, even with your consent, that is murder by definition. If someone is too afraid to do so, then it proves they shouldn't do it.
TBR says2015-07-20T18:15:21.5085007-05:00
@Thegreatdebate98 - It is soooo not the definition of murder. If it is legal, it can't be murder.
TBR says2015-07-20T18:38:35.9970234-05:00
@reece - How is that reasonable limit refined? Terminal illnesses may be 6 months, or years. Where is the line, and why set it?
reece says2015-07-21T01:59:40.4270591-05:00
@TBR There wouldn't be a line. They should be exposed to as much information as possible for their illness.
TBR says2015-07-21T10:14:13.3308355-05:00
I'm not trying to pick at the idea, only say there is no way to superimpose personal morality, just like we have now. That is, Society - "well the success rate for this cancer treatment is 40%. That's GOOD enough right?" Patient - "I don't want the treatment at all". This is a decision for individual (and family) not some set of laws or guideline.
reece says2015-07-21T15:02:22.1189502-05:00
@TBR you've picked a required age and I've picked a required diagnosis done professionally. For both it comes down to when you would like to be assisted. If at all.
TBR says2015-07-21T15:04:56.8231585-05:00
@reece - That is true. Minors, usually, are not allowed to make medical decisions. There are other restrictions I could get behind too. Prognosis just isn't one of them.
reece says2015-07-21T15:15:24.4226980-05:00
@TBR Yeah, i would require them to at least be about 23. So 21-25. 18 is too young i would think. But it depends on the country.
TBR says2015-07-21T15:18:30.4923582-05:00
I would be fine with a mental screening. That is NOT to say that any diagnosis would bar them from making their choice, but would allow for some counter-balance.
reece says2015-07-21T15:28:20.7020344-05:00
@TBR Just because i think depression is still frequent in 18 year old's. Waiting a few more years would help flush out the drama young minds go through. If their still depressed up until 23 years of age, so be it.
TBR says2015-07-21T15:34:23.8078266-05:00
Yes. I wouldn't have included depression as a valid reason until that recent case (wherever it was/is). Seems very legit to me

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.