|
|
Post by Moonlight on Mar 11, 2011 18:16:05 GMT -5
This topic came from a discussion I had last night with my Mom, comparing how domesticated animals (and to lesser extent, natural selection of wild ones) are oft treated to human treatment. For an example:
If a litter of puppies were delivered and one was pitifully impaired at birth (little to no mental reach or severely impaired intelligence to the point of resembling a vegetable), it would be considered cruel to let it live. Yet on the other hand, if the subject in question were a human ... It would be cruel to put it out of its misery. Even if it is merely existence, rather than a life. The double-standards are quite honestly polar opposites. If there was no hope, whatsoever, that the person could ever have a normal life ... What is there to call it "living"?
Do you believe it is humane to halt a mere existence, or is it humane to let someone live their life in a drifting stupor?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sabaku No Akaiame on Mar 11, 2011 18:24:49 GMT -5
I still think that euthanasia and problems like that should be acceptable to a person's demands. If someone can't go on living like this, they should have the right to ask for a peaceful, painless death.
Still, if a child is born and is predicted to have deformities, mental handicaps or whatnot, he/she should not be killed. It's like the weather: you never actually know when the predictions are right.
I've heard a bunch of stories of moms who took drugs, smoked and drank, have birth defects and DNA problems, and whose children were bound to be handicapped, but came out perfectly fine in the end.
As opposed to a situation where a person has grown up and it can be told that something is missing and it will never come back.
Killing someone because they can't respond to the world very well isn't an option unless the child is unable to complete studies, unable to find a job, has major social problems, causing grave financial problems to the parents, has grave health problems and his/her life is basically just going downhill.
Even then, just the thought of having the person's body by your side, even if their mind isn't there with you, is sometimes all you need to feel happy.
I kinda have a mixed opinion about this. If someone asked me this question, I would honestly say it's up to the person to choose. And if the person isn't in the right state to choose, consider it as a negative answer since it was never confirmed. Everyone has the right to live, no exceptions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2011 19:31:24 GMT -5
Hmm, I'm not sure, I mean, putting dogs to sleep is one thing, but people to sleep?I don't know.
|
|
Zorayda
Guardian
Ride the Storm
Posts: 1,298
|
Post by Zorayda on Mar 19, 2011 9:11:16 GMT -5
Thinking about euthanasia and doing it are two totally different things.
Take it from me, I have seen suffering. People in medical facilities, especially nursing homes, suffer. Much of it is needless, keeping older, confused people in pain or hungry or unable to interact with the rest of the world, and in the meantime the family is in stress, their grieving for the loss of that loved one never ends because he or she is still alive but not alive, if you get what I mean. Not to mention the financial stress it puts upon the family even after that person's death.
People are living for far too long. Quality of life is extremely important and I urge you and everyone I know to get advance directives and official documents saying what you do and don't want to be done to you, as well as a power of attorney.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moonlight on Mar 19, 2011 10:06:06 GMT -5
Zorayda presents a series of valid points here. And in reality, Rowen, we people put animals to sleep to keep them from "living" in an endless drift of pain. It is mercy. Is it not cruel to not offer mercy to those that have no hope of returning to how they once were, if they knew? The needless suffering, or worse - When a person is even born all but a vegetable with no hope whatsoever of even learning to function - is cruel in itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2011 21:13:46 GMT -5
I see your point Moon, and it's a very valid one. If they knew, then yes it would be very cruel. But that's the issue: they usually don't know.
I just don't think we as humans should have the right to decides who lives, even if it is merciful. We're not God. I just think that those decisions about who should live and who should die should be left alone, but that's just my personal thoughts.
This might be a question that has no 'real' yes or no. Everything's not black and white. This is more of a 'gray' area.
|
|
