that is a great question. i thought of that too when i heard about it and how everyone thinks its the right idea...even if theyre against euthanasia. it pissed me off. Thank you for posting this... the hubbub about the horse really annoyed me. there is so much human suffering that goes unnoticed by even the modestly priveleged among us. The news was that even though he couldn't race they wanted to save him for breeding... if I were breeding horses I wouldn't pick a stud with break away legs. We must treat our humans with the same compassion we treat our beloved animals. Of course, only when a patient is in such intractable pain, or living a quality of life that is no longer tolerable according to the patient, should euthanasia be employed. But no one should be forced, against their will, to live in misery, and agony because of some religiously based ideological point-of-view. I strongly agree. It should be a personal choice and the government and religious organizations should stay out of it. Forcing people to live in agony is intolerable. It is nothing short of condoning and perpetuating torture. As a `disabled' person, I am the odd one out wrt my support for the right to euthanasia, though I grant the seriousness of the `slippery slope' concerns expressed by the disabled generally. I suspect that only some `euthansia' makes the news. There are many people in the US today who are enduring pain, sometimes rising to agonizing levels, that COULD be treated but they cannot access health or dental care. I am suggesting that a heck of a lot of `suicides' may really be lesser recognized, but `legitimate', euthanasia'or self deliverance. My own disability for instance, could have been avoided or greatly mitigated but for lack of access to appropriate health care. I have much company in thi... Finally, I think religious beliefs (even when not recognized as the origin of law) are exactly what we are talking about with all of these issues.So true of so much. Euthanasia of people would seem the right thing to do, if for the reason of ending perpetual suffering. What I fear is, who gets to decide when and if? What if rich Aunt Susan is left a 'vegetable' after a car accident? Should the relatives be allowed to decide and how can one be sure of their motives? I also fear, that some handicapped people or people who need constant care at some 'expensive' facility or the elderly for example could choose euthanasia just for the sole reason, of not wanting to be a burden on their families. I dunno... the motives for euthanizing a sick pet are rarely, if ever, for monetary reasons, but can we sure the same non-selfish motives would apply when it comes to... |
|||
|
|
|||