Euthanasia and DNRs

[Jason Tandro]

There are two issues I want to address in this forum.

1. Is it ethical, moral, etc. to be euthanized and/or sign a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate)?

2. Do you think that DNRs are the same (morally, ethically, etc.) as euthanasia?

I am personally against euthanasia, and yes it is a religious thing. I also am against DNRs because I believe they are effectually the same thing. That covers my opinion on both sides.

I would like to qualify my argument by saying I don't believe that if you are living in constant, horrible pain that the Almighty will smite you for wanting it to end, but I still think he wants us to endure.

[tay120n64]

That's an even touchier subject than Abortion.

As a Christian, I'm against anything that could classify as suicide. However, that reflects on my conscience and mine alone. I will never at any point choose to die. I will humbly accept death as an inevitability, but never will I choose it.

However, I will never allow myself to judge another for his/her choice. And if you are a Christian, a decision like that is between you and God anyway. Either way, it's not my business.

[psychokind]

1. it's neither ethical nor moral to euthanasize, only to kill somebody off who wants to be killed because of a handicap. but it's one of our last options left for selection, if we don't want a war between classes sometime or stop evolving.
it's ethical and morally correct to allow DNR. even if you're hardcore christian, this is not a question of religion, only of human society. if somebody doesn't want to be resuscitated, you have no right to keep him alive. it's everyones right to end his life.

2. as stated before, DNR is the opposite of euthanasia. the first forbids you to keep somebody alive, the second one allows you to forbid somebody to live.

[Freedan]

Euthanasia only in the case of suffering with a terminal illness. If our pet dog is suffering, is in constant pain, can barely walk, can barely breathe, we put them down because it's 'cruel' to let them suffer. Why should it be different for humans?

If someone is of sound mind, I see no reason why they can't choose euthanasia in those circumstances.

[psychokind]

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote:

Euthanasia only in the case of suffering with a terminal illness. If our pet dog is suffering, is in constant pain, can barely walk, can barely breathe, we put them down because it's 'cruel' to let them suffer. Why should it be different for humans? If someone is of sound mind, I see no reason why they can't choose euthanasia in those circumstances.

you propably mean voluntary euthanasia. otherwise it's just murder, I'd say. not that it's not part of human nature, killing the weak is still part of us.

[tay120n64]

As an afterthought, I am going to add that I do believe things like Euthanasia and DNR are a right that people should have. If that's the decision you want to make, you have every right to do so.

[Freedan]

psychokind wrote:

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote: Euthanasia only in the case of suffering with a terminal illness. If our pet dog is suffering, is in constant pain, can barely walk, can barely breathe, we put them down because it's 'cruel' to let them suffer. Why should it be different for humans? If someone is of sound mind, I see no reason why they can't choose euthanasia in those circumstances. you propably mean voluntary euthanasia. otherwise it's just murder, I'd say. not that it's not part of human nature, killing the weak is still part of us.

That is what I meant.

I don't consider voluntary euthanasia under those circumstances and suicide to be the same thing (I generally find suicide in most cases to be deplorable).

[Jason Tandro]

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote:

psychokind wrote: Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote: Euthanasia only in the case of suffering with a terminal illness. If our pet dog is suffering, is in constant pain, can barely walk, can barely breathe, we put them down because it's 'cruel' to let them suffer. Why should it be different for humans? If someone is of sound mind, I see no reason why they can't choose euthanasia in those circumstances. you propably mean voluntary euthanasia. otherwise it's just murder, I'd say. not that it's not part of human nature, killing the weak is still part of us. That is what I meant. I don't consider voluntary euthanasia under those circumstances and suicide to be the same thing (I generally find suicide in most cases to be deplorable).

At the risk of breaking my own suggestion, I will say that my belief structure is based in religion. Speaking secularly, I will agree that it seems to be a reasonable decision. But then the complications arise from the Terry Schiavo's of the world.

[EverPhoenix]

im in agreement with freedan on this one. i think it should be allowed if the person in question is suffering a terminal illness, or if doctors have announced that their chances of surviving are either null, or that they will be permanently and critically handicapped. for example, either a cancerous tumour close to a vital area of the body, accident that may result in quadriplegia, loss of two or more senses...

if its just the person feeling a lot of physical pain, after which they will be fine, they should endure it. ending ones life just because of some temporary suffering is selfish and no better (imo) than suicide).

as for DNR, i believe it should be the case if the above applies. if the person in question has not given the explicit request to not be brought back, i think the person should try to be revived. there are exceptions, if the person would end up heavily disabled (i hesitate to use the word vegetable, but its about what im talking about)