Thursday February 16, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

What is your stance on assisted suicide?

Have Your Say Jun. 07, 2009 - 06:03AM JST ( 27 )

Order by Time Order by Popularity

27 Comments

0

cow76Jun. 07, 2009 - 11:57AM JST

It should be a basic human right to take one's own life, with or without a doctor to assist. If people are suffering from terminal disease and live in pain, their lives have less than zero value to them. We put down cats and dogs because we know it's the morally correct thing to do but allow humans to suffer.

And most people who oppose euthanasia do so for religious reasons that have little to do with basic moral principals.
0

IfeelImustJun. 07, 2009 - 12:10PM JST

If we are to allow assisted suicide it must be under medical supervision. After all a vet puts a suffering animal down. The owner would potentially be accused of animal abuse! This is a decision ordinary people are not qualified to make.
0

010101007sJun. 07, 2009 - 01:08PM JST

Of course every one has different vision and its view of thoughts, but generally speaking it should not insist any suicide but in case of inhuman suffering on desperate situation and or may not able to defeat the suffering means by medication it should insist the suicide of course.

As you can view and imagine the event like war zone even without choice it have shot to death for avoiding horific pain, but for the public and rest it should be option to avoid such as pain and suicide assistance.

Life is not in our own judgable and desire, it must be something controlling our conciousness means by its mighty and superior nature rule of law and perhaps the mighty GOD, in such as complexity livelihood it should not be judge by individual sympathetic or avoiding the handicap banning?

Insisting suicide is a sin and not good. Modern World can prevent the pain and horror.

May mighty God resist in another word nature GoD.

Faithfully,
0

smartacusJun. 07, 2009 - 01:08PM JST

I am against it primarily because I don't think it is right to ask another person to kill them. I can certainly empathize with a terminal illness but asking someone to help them is not the way. It puts the caregiver or doctor in a very precarious position, legally, morally and ethically.
0

LamborghiniJun. 07, 2009 - 01:14PM JST

Support Assisted Suicide 100%!... Religious Nutjobs need not apply!
0

flammenwerferJun. 07, 2009 - 01:20PM JST

I don't have a problem with it. If a doctor has problem with it, fine - I don't see him having any obligation, if another doctor isn't bothered then I guess he might have busy workload if were legalized. Besides if you are that ill in the first place, just stop eating and drinking like sick animals do when they want to die. A family friend did that when he was riddled with cancer, he could have fought a bit more but decided his number was up and threw in the towel. He was gone within the week.
0

iraqisurvivalJun. 07, 2009 - 02:34PM JST

I think it is one of our basic rights, we should have the right to live or not. beside, assisted suicide I believe can reduce suicide rates, because counselors can be present to advice the person or give some help .

Also, there would be proper way , the suicide won't be held in public. Right now, people kill themselves in public areas, the current situation suicidal don't get counseling and leave a toll on family, and the public.

Assisted suicide also can give family and friends a chance to see the person and try to give help or at least to understand. and most importantly can help someone suffering with painful disease to stop the suffering.

I hope this however be studied scientifically, socially and psychologically . and proper rules to ensure nobody abuse the system or commit murder under it. Assisted suicide may not fit in the same way in every society at certain time.
0

funkyfreshJun. 07, 2009 - 06:13PM JST

I find it very selfish on their part. its not themselves who will hurt after, its their families/friends who love them, and thats something they have to live for the rest of their lives. pure and simple.

Problems can be solved.
0

HopflyJun. 07, 2009 - 07:30PM JST

For people with terminal illness whose quality of life is significantly reduced, it needs to be an option. It has been used in the US for this very purpose, not without controversy. Mainly from religious groups. These cases were overseen by medical professionals, and the family members were actually relieved as well as saddened. It allows a person to die while maintaining a certain amount of dignity.
0

funkyfreshJun. 07, 2009 - 09:26PM JST

Ohh, didn't see "assisted" suicide.
0

mareo2Jun. 07, 2009 - 09:42PM JST

In the few cases where there is no hope... Why force people to keep suffering when only a miracle can end the pain? Is selfish an unhuman dont allow suicide in these extreme cases.
0

JoeBigsJun. 07, 2009 - 09:57PM JST

You want to die, well who am I to stop you.......
0

AzraelJun. 07, 2009 - 10:21PM JST

Primarily, I do not support suicide under ANY form. What I think would be a gray area where negotiation is possible is, whether a terminally sick person crosses the point where they wouldn't be alive without a machine or specific body-damaging drugs that keep them alive but take away more than 50% of quality of life. More precisely what I mean is, when an ill person faces the point where he would be dead within hours without mechanical treatment - this we could call "extreme" treatment. The person should be able to decide if they want to continue and undergo extreme treatment or not; this at the end of natural life.

For secular society, life is a commodity that can be ended when it is no longer useful. That is starkly dehumanizing. Even as I think the point where a person should be able to decide if they want to prolong their life beyond the threshold of natural death, I think laws should not give that power to relatives, partners or guardians. That would only open the door to abuse and murder (think life insurance, inheritance and such). Also, what about those crazies on JT news who said after killing someone, "he was suffering so I killed him," or "I was tired of caring after him." Legislation should give the ill one the ultimate power to decide - and because of all this I oppose the term "assisted suicide" because it gives too much power to a third party. Suicide plain and simple would be more legally transparent. However, "suicide" as traditionally understood is a sin to many and should not be legally enforceable.

Currently in my religion (Catholic) all forms of suicide are sin, but life beyond the threshold or point of natural death (where it would have happened without extreme treatment) is generally considered life nonetheless, hence keeping yourself alive by all means possible that do not take another human's life is your duty. This is why Pope John Paul II endured to the very last instance, because he was aware he was the highest example and he would never take his own life (which in our belief is not his but God's property). However extreme treatment beyond the point of natural death is not mentioned specifically in any canonical text I have come across. I think this may be a point of negotiation but that is only my own opinion.
0

seesawJun. 07, 2009 - 10:46PM JST

Why can't the word be changed to assisted death or assisted passing away....I think it sounds less brutal.
0

LIBERTASJun. 08, 2009 - 04:24AM JST

I refer the readers to Hans Kung's "Dying With Dignity" for an intelligent debate on this topic. Suffice it to say, I support it.
0

nisegaijinJun. 08, 2009 - 10:07AM JST

The more the better.
0

cleoJun. 08, 2009 - 10:21AM JST

Ambivalent.

I can understand and sympathise with the desire of a person with a painful terminal illness to want to die with the least amount of suffering - it's the least we can do for our beloved pets, and it would be strange for animals to get better treatment than humans.

But 'If you're old and/or sick you have the right to die with dignity' is, I fear, the first step on the slippery path to 'It's your duty to die before you become a burden on society and/or your family or when you hit 70, whichever comes first'. Humans aren't very good at distinguishing between rights and duties. I think I would be more than a little concerned if assisted suicide became the norm rather than the exception.
0

timorborderJun. 08, 2009 - 12:00PM JST

Big believer in living things enjoying a sense of dignity in their lives, whether those living things happen to be humans or animals. As such, it sometimes breaks my heart to see levels of suffering that go so far as to extinguish any sense of dignity. You know the thing, people with serious illnesses who are hooked up to life support (and dribbling like babies) or dogs whose ability to stand has left them due to old age or illness. In both cases, I would prefer to remember the patients as they were in happier times. As such, from this perspective I am not against the idea of assisting in their passing (and I hope somebody would help me if it ever comes to that).

On the other hand, I am a cynic when it comes to human nature. As such, I believe that a relaxing of assisted suicide laws would make some of the less honest of those among us to think about murder under the guise of assisted suicide.
0

randomenigmaJun. 08, 2009 - 01:43PM JST

Humans would happily kill a dog just because it looks like the dog is in pain, yet they wouldn't kill a human even if the human in question asks them to. I find this weird, so yes, I would support it.

Murder under the guise of assisted suicide... maybe it would happen, who knows. You would have to assume that to prove it is assisted suicide, some party would need to be there to witness it, otherwise you would just presume it's murder. Of course, the witness could be corrupt too, but I'm sure once it gets to the point where you have corrupted authority figures, you can pretty much get away with murder without jumping through those kind of hoops.
0

cleoJun. 08, 2009 - 02:52PM JST

Humans would happily kill a dog just because it looks like the dog is in pain

Speak for yourself. When I took my old, blind, epileptic dog to be humanely euthanised I can assure you there was nothing in the least 'happy' about it. But the dog was my responsibility.

Moderator: Readers, back on topic please. Pets are not relevant to this discussion.
0

cow76Jun. 08, 2009 - 07:45PM JST

Haha, no analogies please. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Everyone anti-euthansia who has replied has stated their religion. Separation of church and state? Not likely.
0

fairyprinceJun. 08, 2009 - 08:02PM JST

For it only under dire conditions.
0

OneForAllJun. 08, 2009 - 08:08PM JST

Everyone has an opinion. We need certainty in direction. Please read the link below. It should help. ".... Although in these cases the guilt of the individual may be reduced or completely absent, nevertheless the error of judgment into which the conscience falls, perhaps in good faith, does not change the nature of this act of killing, which will always be in itself something to be rejected..." http://www.euthanasia.com/vatican.html

Very much depends on the situation. As a society we must not induce this behavior through our structures. However, we must prepare for it through living wills etc. Very complex and decisions are made differently for each case. Flexibility and compassion is the key which should be allowed by law. Actively taking life I think should be discouraged.
0

moonbeamsJun. 08, 2009 - 10:11PM JST

I think Dr. Kevorkian is a hero.

Seesaw, there is a word for it called, "euthanasia."

We shouldn't force people who are suffering with each breath, each beat of the heart, things we take for granted, to continued a prolonged existence of pain. That is inhumane, I think.