Welcome to InsuranceForums.info!   

Advertisments:


Sponsor Links

Affordable Pet Insurance
Travel Insurance Comparison


Why Should You Be Against Euthanasia?

Insurance & Special Deals for Seniors

Why Should You Be Against Euthanasia?

Postby hezron67 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:19 pm

1. Euthanasia would not only be for people who are "terminally ill." There are two problems here -- the definition of "terminal" and the changes that have already taken place to extend euthanasia to those who aren't "terminally ill." There are many definitions for the word "terminal." For example, when he spoke to the National Press Club in 1992, Jack Kevorkian said that a terminal illness was "any disease that curtails life even for a day." The co-founder of the Hemlock Society often refers to "terminal old age." Some laws define "terminal" condition as one from which death will occur in a "relatively short time." Others state that "terminal" means that death is expected within six months or less.

Even where a specific life expectancy (like six months) is referred to, medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict the life expectancy of a particular patient. Some people diagnosed as terminally ill don't die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition. Increasingly, however, euthanasia activists have dropped references to terminal illness, replacing them with such phrases as "hopelessly ill," "desperately ill," "incurably ill," "hopeless condition," and "meaningless life."

An article in the journal, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, described assisted suicide guidelines for those with a hopeless condition. "Hopeless condition" was defined to include terminal illness, severe physical or psychological pain, physical or mental debilitation or deterioration, or a quality of life that is no longer acceptable to the individual. That means just about anybody who has a suicidal impulse .

2. Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment

"...physician-assisted suicide, if it became widespread, could become a profit-enhancing tool for big HMOs. "

"...drugs used in assisted suicide cost only about $40, but that it could take $40,000 to treat a patient properly so that they don't want the "choice" of assisted suicide..." ... Wesley J. Smith, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Perhaps one of the most important developments in recent years is the increasing emphasis placed on health care providers to contain costs. In such a climate, euthanasia certainly could become a means of cost containment.

In the United States, thousands of people have no medical insurance; studies have shown that the poor and minorities generally are not given access to available pain control, and managed-care facilities are offering physicians cash bonuses if they don't provide care for patients. With greater and greater emphasis being placed on managed care, many doctors are at financial risk when they provide treatment for their patients. Legalized euthanasia raises the potential for a profoundly dangerous situation in which doctors could find themselves far better off financially if a seriously ill or disabled person "chooses" to die rather than receive long-term care.

Savings to the government may also become a consideration. This could take place if governments cut back on paying for treatment and care and replace them with the "treatment" of death. For example, immediately after the passage of Measure 16, Oregon's law permitting assisted suicide, Jean Thorne, the state's Medicaid Director, announced that physician-assisted suicide would be paid for as "comfort care" under the Oregon Health Plan which provides medical coverage for about 345,000 poor Oregonians. Within eighteen months of Measure 16's passage, the State of Oregon announced plans to cut back on health care coverage for poor state residents. In Canada, hospital stays are being shortened while, at the same time, funds have not been made available for home care for the sick and elderly. Registered nurses are being replaced with less expensive practical nurses. Patients are forced to endure long waits for many types of needed surgery. 1

3. Euthanasia will only be voluntary, they say Emotional and psychological pressures could become overpowering for depressed or dependent people. If the choice of euthanasia is considered as good as a decision to receive care, many people will feel guilty for not choosing death. Financial considerations, added to the concern about "being a burden," could serve as powerful forces that would lead a person to "choose" euthanasia or assisted suicide.

People for euthanasia say that voluntary euthanasia will not lead to involuntary euthanasia. They look at things as simply black and white. In real life there would be millions of situations each year where cases would not fall clearly into either category. Here are two:

Example 1: an elderly person in a nursing home, who can barely understand a breakfast menu, is asked to sign a form consenting to be killed. Is this voluntary or involuntary? Will they be protected by the law? How? Right now the overall prohibition on killing stands in the way. Once one signature can sign away a person's life, what can be as strong a protection as the current absolute prohibition on direct killing? Answer: nothing.

Example 2: a woman is suffering from depresssion and asks to be helped to commit suicide. One doctor sets up a practice to "help" such people. She and anyone who wants to die knows he will approve any such request. He does thousands a year for $200 each. How does the law protect people from him? Does it specify that a doctor can only approve 50 requests a year? 100? 150? If you don't think there are such doctors, just look at recent stories of doctors and nurses who are charged with murder for killing dozens or hundreds of patients.

Legalized euthanasia would most likely progress to the stage where people, at a certain point, would be expected to volunteer to be killed. Think about this: What if your veternarian said that your ill dog would be better of "put out of her misery" by being "put to sleep" and you refused to consent. What would the vet and his assistants think? What would your friends think? Ten years from now, if a doctor told you your mother's "quality of life" was not worth living for and asked you, as the closest family member, to approve a "quick, painless ending of her life" and you refused how would doctors, nurses and others, conditioned to accept euthanasia as normal and right, treat you and your mother. Or, what if the approval was sought from your mother, who was depressed by her illness? Would she have the strength to refuse what everyone in the nursing home "expected" from seriously ill elderly people?

The movement from voluntary to involuntary euthanasia would be like the movement of abortion from "only for the life or health of the mother" as was proclaimed by advocates 30 years ago to today's "abortion on demand even if the baby is half born". Euthanasia people state that abortion is something people choose - it is not forced on them and that voluntary euthanasia will not be forced on them either. They are missing the main point - it is not an issue of force - it is an issue of the way laws against an action can be broadened and expanded once something is declared legal. You don't need to be against abortion to appreciate the way the laws on abortion have changed and to see how it could well happen the same way with euthanasia/assisted suicide as soon as the door is opened to make it legal.

4. Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. People who support euthanasia often say that it is already considered permissable to take human life under some circumstances such as self defense - but they miss the point that when one kills for self defense they are saving innocent life - either their own or someone else's. With euthanasia no one's life is being saved - life is only taken.

History has taught us the dangers of euthanasia and that is why there are only two countries in the world today where it is legal. That is why almost all societies - even non-religious ones - for thousands of years have made euthanasia a crime. It is remarkable that euthanasia advocates today think they know better than the billions of people throughout history who have outlawed euthanasia - what makes the 50 year old euthanasia supporters in 2005 so wise that they think they can discard the accumulated wisdom of almost all societies of all time and open the door to the killing of innocent people? Have things changed? If they have, they are changes that should logically reduce the call for euthanasia - pain control medicines and procedure are far better than they have ever been any time in history.
hezron67
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:36 pm

Why Should You Be Against Euthanasia?

Postby Dalwin » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:49 am

I am for. Euthanasia is natural. Anybody dies.
Dalwin
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 6:12 pm

Why Should You Be Against Euthanasia?

Postby duval » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:57 pm

Euthanasia, sometimes called ?mercy killing,? can be a difficult issue. On one hand, we do not want to take a person?s life into our own hands and end it prematurely. On the other hand, we do not want to prolong the process of dying more than necessary?that is, we want to preserve life, but not prolong death. At what point do we simply allow a person to die and take no further action to extend his or her life?

A related issue is that of assisted suicide. Essentially, a person seeking assisted suicide is seeking to euthanize himself, with the aid of another person to ensure that death is quick and painless. The person assisting the suicide facilitates death by making preparations and furnishing the needed equipment; but the person seeking death is the one who actually initiates the process. By taking a ?hands-off? approach to the death itself, the facilitator seeks to avoid charges of murder. Proponents of assisted suicide try for a positive spin by using terms like ?death with dignity.? But ?death with dignity? is still death, ?assisted suicide? is still suicide, and suicide is wrong.

We live in what is sometimes described as a ?culture of death.? Abortion on demand has been practiced for decades. Now some are seriously proposing infanticide. And euthanasia is promoted as a viable means of solving various social and financial problems. This focus on death as an answer to the world?s problems is a total reversal of the biblical model. Death is an enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26). Life is a sacred gift from God (Genesis 2:7). When given the choice between life and death, God told Israel to ?choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19). Euthanasia spurns the gift and embraces the curse.

The overriding truth that God is sovereign drives us to the conclusion that euthanasia and assisted suicide are wrong. We know that physical death is inevitable for us mortals (Psalm 89:48; Hebrews 9:27). However, God alone is sovereign over when and how a person?s death occurs. Job testifies in Job 30:23, ?I know you will bring me down to death, to the place appointed for all the living.? Ecclesiastes 8:8 declares, ?No man has power over the wind to contain it; so no one has power over the day of his death.? God has the final say over death (see 1 Corinthians 15:26, 54?56; Hebrews 2:9, 14?15; Revelation 21:4). Euthanasia and assisted suicide are man?s attempts to usurp that authority from God.

Death is a natural occurrence. Sometimes God allows a person to suffer for a long time before death occurs; other times, a person?s suffering is cut short. No one enjoys suffering, but that does not make it right to determine that a person should die. Often, God?s purposes are made known through suffering. ?When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other? (Ecclesiastes 7:14). Romans 5:3 teaches that tribulations bring about perseverance. God cares about those who cry out for death and wish to end their suffering. God gives purpose in life even to the end. Only God knows what is best, and His timing, even in the matter of one?s death, is perfect.

We should never seek to prematurely end a life, but neither must we go to extraordinary means to preserve a life. To actively hasten death is wrong; to passively withhold treatment can also be wrong; but to allow death to occur naturally in a terminally ill person is not necessarily wrong. Anyone facing this issue should pray to God for wisdom (James 1:5). And we should all remember the words of former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who warned that the practice of medicine ?cannot be both our healer and our killer? (from KOOP, The Memoirs of America?s Family Doctor by C. Everett Koop, M.D., Random House, 1991). http://www.gotquestions.org/euthanasia.h...
duval
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:53 am

Why Should You Be Against Euthanasia?

Postby Jeren » Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:07 pm

First, think about reasons why euthanasia could be a bad thing.
What if the person was coerced into it, or the doctor didn't interpret their wishes correctly, or someone else had to make the decision for the sick person, or????

There are lots of reasons both for and against - the teacher just wants to know what YOUR reasons are, and see how logically you can argue for those reasons.
Jeren
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:04 pm

Why Should You Be Against Euthanasia?

Postby Amram » Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:05 am

This is the way I see it; When a person is on a ventilator and in a coma and are not showing any signs of recovering, we are allowed to pull the plug so to speak.
With a DNR order and left to slowly pass away.
I finally realized what this was really about.
The patient is made comfortable but just left basically to starve to death.
Why is this ok?

When a dog, cat or animal are terminal or showing signs that they are never going to get better, it is ok...they are euthanized! Why are they different than humans?
Amram
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:08 pm


Return to Seniors Insurance

cron