ah yes...government makes everything more complex. Personally, I think that in the case of terminal illness, it is the patient's or executor-of-will's decision.
Religion has no place in a secular government, and therefore, should be ignored. If someone is highly religious, then they do not have to get euthanized. They do not have the right to take that option away from everyone else.
That being said, Connecticut currently has the "right to die" concept, as well as "living will". With right to die, you can give a do not recessitate order. In this case, NO steps (including CPR, which is how this could effect you) can be made to rescue this person. Living will is a legal document that basicly says "If I am in a persistant coma, unplug me".
My personal belief is that the government (federal and state) has no right to dictate civil liberties (amendment 10, 14), except for where they pose a direct threat to someone elses rights. This pretty much dictates my ideas on euthanasia, gay marriage, drug laws (some drugs, whole nother issue there tho), abortion, etc. You don't like something, no one is making you do it. However, you don't have the right to stop others. The government does not dictate values...the people decide that individually.
right, the living will ties in with the idea of death with dignity. arguments have been made in the supreme court law discussing the ability for individuals to choose to die if anything were to happen... but this is only after they are rendered unconscious. this leads to the concept of equal rights, meaning terminally ill individuals should be able to determine the time and way in which they die. The judges have discussed the meaning of death, but clearly it is different for each individual, the concept being extreemely spiritual. They've also brought up the idea of one wishing for death, waiting and realizing that they are happy that they did not go through with it. would the government therefore be helping by refusing these individuals of death? The constitution says that no state shall deny any person the right to life, liberty or property... but does death apply? suicide is illegal. should it be? ahhh. see.
i agree with your ideas on gay marriage... not so much on euthanasia or abortion though. especially since abortion may be direct threat the the fetus's rights.. if in fact they have rights at that time. it's still being determined, argued... etc.
ahh, now my tummy hurts.
im glad some one has something to say about this, though. thanks for your comments, brucie.
haha...well, you've found one of the most opinionated (yet not close minded) people ever...
I haven't heard much, if anything about this case, as I only get the pleasure of hearing Fox news in my room and I'd rather die than watch only that...
anyway...I would say that euthanasia should be reserved only for the terminally ill...As such, the chances of them hoping for death and then being glad they didnt is pretty much nil. Cancer, terminal Tuberculosis, etc. are horribly painful diseases, even with current opiates. Not to mention that while under these opiates, they are not really human, but a drug induced version of themselves. Additionally, terminal means what it says, and therefore, the person is going to die (usually in a very short time) anyway. (And for those playing along at home, new medications take on average 7-10 years, if not more, to be approved for use, so the idea that within a terminal patients life [generally only a few months from the declaration of terminal] is unrealistic)
Suicide being illegal is very ironic, as if you succeed, then you can't be arrested, and if you fail, you haven't comitted a crime. The constitution also says the pursuit of happiness. What if happiness is only achievable by death? I dont know the answers to that. I think that it really should not be dictated by the government. As you said, death is very individual. Because of this very factor, the decision should be left to being personal. Should you discuss your thoughts with family and friends? probably. I know my parents wishes, as does my sister. If I had to, I would state their wishes and do what I could to see them carried out properly. That, I think, is the best solution. The government has no right to tell me my values are wrong, and as such should not pass a law that prevents me from acting on these values (of course, I am going with the assumption that these values do not harm others)
Also, the idea that the constitution guarentees life...isn't death part of life?
As for abortion, I will never have to make that call, as I will never be pregnant (creepy mental image there). However, I don't know everyones situation. Is it worse to abort a child, have them raised in a house where they know they are unwanted and a burden, or put up for adoption and live in a foster home (fewer and fewer american babies are being adopted because a legal precedent has been set up where the bio. parents can reclaim the child at any time). Additionally, there are cases of rape that need to be contended with. While I don't know if I agree with the idea of abortion (I personally do not think I would ever use it as a first option), I would much rather have the right to chose an abortion and have it done by a medical professional instead of in a back alley by some guy with a knife or coat hanger.
debating ideas is good...it teaches you new ideas and view points, and lets you really get a firm understanding of what you believe. And makes your head hurt.
Anyway, much love. and kitties and puppies and bunnies and flowers and liquor and other non-sad things
Religion has no place in a secular government, and therefore, should be ignored. If someone is highly religious, then they do not have to get euthanized. They do not have the right to take that option away from everyone else.
That being said, Connecticut currently has the "right to die" concept, as well as "living will". With right to die, you can give a do not recessitate order. In this case, NO steps (including CPR, which is how this could effect you) can be made to rescue this person. Living will is a legal document that basicly says "If I am in a persistant coma, unplug me".
My personal belief is that the government (federal and state) has no right to dictate civil liberties (amendment 10, 14), except for where they pose a direct threat to someone elses rights. This pretty much dictates my ideas on euthanasia, gay marriage, drug laws (some drugs, whole nother issue there tho), abortion, etc. You don't like something, no one is making you do it. However, you don't have the right to stop others. The government does not dictate values...the people decide that individually.
Anyway, thats my thoughts.
Reply
i agree with your ideas on gay marriage...
not so much on euthanasia or abortion though.
especially since abortion may be direct threat the the fetus's rights.. if in fact they have rights at that time. it's still being determined, argued... etc.
ahh, now my tummy hurts.
im glad some one has something to say about this, though.
thanks for your comments, brucie.
Reply
I haven't heard much, if anything about this case, as I only get the pleasure of hearing Fox news in my room and I'd rather die than watch only that...
anyway...I would say that euthanasia should be reserved only for the terminally ill...As such, the chances of them hoping for death and then being glad they didnt is pretty much nil. Cancer, terminal Tuberculosis, etc. are horribly painful diseases, even with current opiates. Not to mention that while under these opiates, they are not really human, but a drug induced version of themselves. Additionally, terminal means what it says, and therefore, the person is going to die (usually in a very short time) anyway. (And for those playing along at home, new medications take on average 7-10 years, if not more, to be approved for use, so the idea that within a terminal patients life [generally only a few months from the declaration of terminal] is unrealistic)
Suicide being illegal is very ironic, as if you succeed, then you can't be arrested, and if you fail, you haven't comitted a crime. The constitution also says the pursuit of happiness. What if happiness is only achievable by death? I dont know the answers to that. I think that it really should not be dictated by the government. As you said, death is very individual. Because of this very factor, the decision should be left to being personal. Should you discuss your thoughts with family and friends? probably. I know my parents wishes, as does my sister. If I had to, I would state their wishes and do what I could to see them carried out properly. That, I think, is the best solution. The government has no right to tell me my values are wrong, and as such should not pass a law that prevents me from acting on these values (of course, I am going with the assumption that these values do not harm others)
Also, the idea that the constitution guarentees life...isn't death part of life?
As for abortion, I will never have to make that call, as I will never be pregnant (creepy mental image there). However, I don't know everyones situation. Is it worse to abort a child, have them raised in a house where they know they are unwanted and a burden, or put up for adoption and live in a foster home (fewer and fewer american babies are being adopted because a legal precedent has been set up where the bio. parents can reclaim the child at any time). Additionally, there are cases of rape that need to be contended with. While I don't know if I agree with the idea of abortion (I personally do not think I would ever use it as a first option), I would much rather have the right to chose an abortion and have it done by a medical professional instead of in a back alley by some guy with a knife or coat hanger.
debating ideas is good...it teaches you new ideas and view points, and lets you really get a firm understanding of what you believe. And makes your head hurt.
Anyway, much love. and kitties and puppies and bunnies and flowers and liquor and other non-sad things
Reply
Leave a comment