With names like Dr. Jack Kevorkian and Terri Schiavo making international headlines during the past few years, the complicated subject of euthanasia remains on everyone's mind. But when considering the plight of the terminally ill and their potential suffering, is "pulling the plug" a matter of dying with dignity or tragically playing God?
It is my body, if I want to die or live that is up-to me.
I have signed a 'Living Will' which instructs my children and my Dr's to terminate my life in the event that I am being kept 'alive' by artificial means. This is a legal and humane document which enables others to take decisions which are painful and very difficult. I believe it is extremely selfish to talk about the 'sanctity of life' and to keep someone you love, alive against their wishes. If I reach a stage where it is impossible for me to live a normal life, becoming a burden to my family etc. I reserve the right to terminate my own life and this has nothing to do with the church , a deity etc. What others do with theirs' is their own business .
Only an author has "rights" over what they have created. The one who can create the life has the authority to end it. Our laws recognize the rights of the creator by copyright, patent, etc. Who is authorized to end a human life?
Just because I possess life doesn't mean I have authority to end it.
Those who want to intervene must have God's approval to do so; otherwise, as Hippocrates would say: . do no harm. Who has God's authority to end innocent life?
While God does have ultimate authority, the US is not officially a Christian nation because its a republic, not a theocracy, so therefore our laws cannot follow a particular faith.
In accordance with the Constitution, we do have a right to choose whether we live or die. The only thing is that if one doesn't have a will in place and has not explicitly stated whether they want to live or die in a vegetative state, it should be assumed that they still have a right to live.
Concerning "the US is not officially a Christian nation" assertion.. The framers most certainly embodied the will of the Creator in our constitution , realizing His authority over His creation. Murder is condemned by the Creator, hence the law is against it. Murder is defined by the Creator as the taking of innocent life - something no-one has the authority to do. This is not to be confused with killing, which is some cases is justified and required by the Creator.
If one presumes the authority to end innocent life, who gave them that authority? To hide behind the statement "in accordance with the Constitution" is not sufficient. There have always been " legal " things that were wrong , such as segregation. Someone's standard of authority will be enforced, but whose?? Instead of "do we have the right?", we should be discussing "Who gave us the right?" .
Thomas Jefferson was by far and away NOT religious. John Adams was his very best friends, and they were most definitely NOT believers. The constitution was NOT written to follow Christian rules. "All men are created equal", the creator was never identified.
It is historically wrong to say the founders of your country were religious.
You haven't done research . Please spend more time studying before making statements like this.
So, before you posted, I assume you did the research ? If you had done research, you would not be saying this. A little history would do you well. You could even watch the movie John Adams where they talk all about it.
The framers created a freedom of religion to prevent what had happened in England . They didn't want a church -state. Murder isn't just condemned by the Creator, its condemned by everyone, minus a few radical groups.
In the United States, it doesn't matter who gave who what authority, but for the sake of satisfying you, God gave us the authority via something called "free will". If I want to die, who are you to tell me I don't have that right? We're not talking about God's intent, we're talking about legality. The US also gives us the right to die by not saying that we have to live against our will.
The moral standard that is enforced would be that of the majority of Americans . If most Americans believe they have a right to die, then they should be granted that right. That's the purpose of a FREE country. We're free to do what we want with our lives, just as long as it doesn't prevent another from doing what they want.
The question is NOT what moral standard will be enforced.. it's WHOSE moral standard will be enforced! If you believe it is that of the majority of Americans , and they felt that beating their wives was ok, you would say it was legal . Legal things are not always right, like segregation. If you recognize the authority of law , you must also recognize the authority of the One who gave law, unless you are a law unto yourself - and who gives you that right?. Our constitution recognizes certain unalienable rights - who did these come from?
Yes, God gave us free will to ignore His authority and suffer the consequences. The framers of our consistitution did NOT do so. They imposed His morality, not our own, on us with law. Btw, murder is not condemned by everyone - not if you define it correctly: taking of innocent life. This question is not about religion , it's about morality. What is right and wrong . That is what all law deals with. Again, someone's morality will be imposed; WHOSE??
Beating your wives WAS ok and legal. Segragation was ok and legal. These are illegal now.. Why? Because it is morally wrong and INHUMANE, as is keeping somone alive when they are terminally ill, WANTING to die.. NEEDING to die. Do you honestly believe that one who is past the point of saving and is in excruciating pain should have to get permission from HIM to die?
So who changed, God laws or man's laws? When you have excruciating pain, do you really want to end it all? God may have some plans for you if you will tough it out. Read what happened to Job and then how much he was restored at the end of the book. I can appreciate "wanting" to die, but only God determines when you "need" to die since He authored life! I know it seems like we create life by having babies, but He is the author, not us.
Job 2:7-10 So went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown. And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down
among the ashes. Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
God never approved wife beating or segregation - read 1Pe 3:7 and Gal 3:27, 28
The secular outlook. Not the left-wing, anti- religion , nutjob secular. I'm talking about a secular that uses pure common sense. The kind without the bias of a particular faith or lack of faith. The secular that puts literal translation into peoples' "rights". Yeah, it sucks for the family of the person that kills themselves, but, in a free country, that is his right. If we take others opinions into account on that, we have to take them into account on everything, namely things like cosmetic surgery . If a guy wants a bigger part, then he would have to consult his family. If a woman wanted bigger breasts, she would have to do the same. Its nonsense to have to do that because a person should be able to do what they want with their own body and not have to worry about someone across the country crying foul and deciding that whatever should be illegal just because THEY are against it.
You want "them" in charge because "they" might be crazy?? That's the best thing I've read here so far.
That is the problem when you don't answer the question about whose morality will be imposed - No one is qualified to impose their morality!! Only the Giver of life has that authority. Men just argue about it. Wake up and realize - we are creatures of a Creator and He has given His Will for us. If our laws reflect His morality - we will be just fine. Righteousness exalts and nation but sin is a reproach Pro 14:34. If God is the author of life, only He can decide when it ends, not man.
Come on people - wake up. We don't have to live like this.
No, we don't have to live like this. That's why we leave it to choice. Just because a majority of Americans are some sort of Christian, it isn't fair to force the non-believers to obey Christian morals. There is a common sense secular way that lets Christians live how they want and lets others live how they want. Get it in your head, the US was designed to be a melting pot for all religions and cultures. I agree.. if our laws reflect His morality, we would be fine.. at least until someone cried foul because we're forcing Christianity down their throats. If the country was designed the way I would like it, I would be against the right to die because I'd like a theocracy. America is a republic, though, so when it comes to morals, you have to be open-minded. Would I make America a theocracy given the chance? No. I didn't found the country, so I have no business taking it off the path it had been on in the beginning. I'm not a big fan of the whole "separation of church and state " thing, but I know where to draw the line. If you make a law based on the beliefs of one religion , then it's not fair to those who don't believe in that. You cannot say that granting people the right to take their own life is infringing on your freedom of religion. Someone else taking their own life is no one's business but their own. That's the thing I can't stand about the religious right is that they believe all laws should be based off Christianity. It would be nice, but not in America.
Now you've circled back to the beginning of our discussion. You say we leave it to choice - what choice? Whose choice is it to end a life? Maybe you think we should make incest and a host of other abominations likewise a matter of choice. Maybe we should have made the distinction between the ability and the right to take one's life. Certainly, we each have the ability to end our life, but do we have the right? This discussion is about rights, not ability. WHO gives you the right to end your life? America was founded on God given rights. Our constitution extends and protects those rights given by God. The right to life does NOT mean you have a right to take it away - neither your own or some other. Sorry you feel different, but that's what it's like to live under law . You obey the law because it is based on the authority of the Lawgiver. It's not based on what "they" or "them" feel at a particular time in history . Our founding fathers did a great job crafting our laws from divine authority. We need to get back to the constitution. Roe v Wade set new precedent and was a travesty which put us on a path opposed to Godly principles. This current discussion likewise is taking us away from God's plan for His creation. Yes, I know it feels right to be able to end the life of your baby or a suffering human just like we would do for a dog, but check your owner's manual - you don't have the right to do it. Genesis 9:6 You don't have the right to destroy what God made in His image, though you have the ability. If we recognize and realize our origin, we could all agree on this. (funny how so many discussion end up at creation vs evolution )
In reference to incest.. if both parties are legal and willing, then go ahead. I'm not saying it's morally right, but who am I to judge ? Yes, America was founded on God-given rights, but you can't force everyone to conform to your standards as a Christian, that's why they put in that little clause about the freedom of religion . The rights aren't limited to the ones given by God, but rather the right to any and all things, moral or immoral. I obey a law because I believe it is necessary, not because I respect authority. You can't interpret the Constitution from a religious point of view because your faith skews your perception. I agree Roe v Wade was an abomination. Abortion is a totally different subject, though, because it involves taking the life of an unborn child . Whether you look at that from a Christian or non-Christian outlook, it's wrong because abortion is murder , and there's no doubting that. I'm strictly talking about what you do with your body. If you start telling people they can't do certain things with their own body, you might as well say they can't get piercings or tattoos because you believe they're an abomination. Don't get me wrong though.. I am by no means anti-religion or anti-God. I'm Catholic and proud of it, but in American law, the Constitution comes before my faith when deciding the law of this land. If I had my own land, I would enjoy a Christian government . It's just not feasible in America, though, because of the vast freedoms granted.
You ask who you are to judge , then you go ahead and do it anyway. you judge incest is not morally right, you judge Roe v Wade an abomination, you judge all things to be rights, moral and immoral, you judge it to be necessary to obey a law , you judge authority as unworthy of respect, you judge murder to be wrong (even though immoral things are rights), you judge the constitution as higher priority than your faith in determining right and wrong.. Whose standard are you using to make all these judgments? You rightly say "who am I to judge", then you go right ahead. Can't you see you don't have the authority to make all these judgments? Only Someone Who created us can do all that. When you remove God, you have nothing. You've removed God from law, you have nothing but law of the jungle = might makes right. God gave us government for our good and it does not bear the sword in vain - that's why you obey the law . You DO respect authority, that's why you don't murder - you'd go to jail. It's a good law based on what God said. You should quit judging.
It's common sense. Your rights stop where it physically affects others. That's why I don't murder . I wouldn't murder if it was legal . I don't murder because someone else's life is not mine to take. Going by the whole judging speech , everything in life is a judgment. Moral or immoral applies to actions that do not physically affect others. If two people, who happen to be blood-related, want to do whatever, then fine. It doesn't really affect anyone but them, and so long as they're perfectly willing, it's fine. Murder brings someone unwilling in to the equation. That's why I am against it. I don't always see it necessary to obey a law . If a law is unfair and totally bogus, I ignore it and do as I please. I just do it to where I won't get caught. My basis for any law in America is the Constitution. I don't bring faith in because it's not fair to force atheists to abide by Christian laws . That's the standard in America. The founders didn't want a theocracy, that's why all their ancestors left England to begin with. The Bible may be your supreme authority, and that's fine, but don't force non- Christians to obey the same standard. If you want a moral standard enforced, then find a theocracy. If allowing something doesn't violate the Constitution, then let it be. That's the way it was supposed to be.
I wolud just like to say that I am a 9th grader and for my english class, I'm doing a report on physician assisted suicide . I've found several reasons why people are for it, but I need reasons besides the Hippocratic Oath, and religious reasons. So please get back to me really soon!!!! Thanks
Most on this site are familiar with the Terry Schiavo case. However, I doubt that many of you are familiar with the story of Karen Ann Quinlan. Recently while researching this matter more, I came across this true, tragic story. In 1975, 21 year old Karen Ann Quinlan had been found unconscious after consuming lethal amounts of alcohol and drugs. Once she had arrived at the hospital, Quinlan had not had a pulse for about 15 minutes. She was revived and put on a respirator right away, however massive brain damage had already occurred. For over a year, the doctors tried desperately to save her. While she was still “alive”, Quinlan had dropped to about 70 pounds and remained in comatose. She would not speak, hear, or see ever again the doctors had said. Quinlan’s parents visited her every day and realized the hope for a meaningful life had vanished. The family went to court to have their daughter taken off the machines. The family was denied by the NJ Superior Court, so they appealed to the NJ Supreme Court. The court upheld their request and further said that neither the family nor the doctors could be held criminally responsible for Karen Ann Quinlan’s death. The physicians at St Clare’s Hospital were legally forced to remove her from the respirator, but they placed her in a special 24 hour care unit. She received numerous drugs, feeding tube supplements, and massages. Quinlan never emerged from the coma, but did not die either. The family of Karen Ann Quinlan could not bear seeing their daughter’s pain prolonged so they moved her to another facility where the suffering would not be prolonged. She survived another 9 torturous years in which she never once awoke from the coma. Her family had to watch her lie motionless in the fetal position for about ten years. She never once smiled, responded or heard anything her parents said to her. Is this really how you think Karen Ann Quinlan wished to spend 1/3 of her short life? I certainly don’t believe so. All of the machines should have been turned off or Karen Ann Quinlan should have been given one lethal injection to end her terrible suffering and also her family’s. This is a true story and not merely speculative. For this reason it is more valid and easier to see what the consequences of the prolonging of the terminally ill are. Picture a loved one or friend in this case. What would you do? This story can be found in The Right to Die by Elaine Landau.
Can the amount of suffering and torment be justified in a terminally ill patient just because we have the means to keep a dying human being alive? I certainly don’t think so. The controversy has been raging for quite some time. The Supreme Court decided in 1997 that a person does not have the legal right to die. However, what should one do when his or her agony is endless and there is no chance for improvement, and only the slow diminishing state of illness? In 1991 an author named Derek Humphrey penned a manual, entitled Final Exit on how to commit suicide through suffocation to self starvation. This manual became a best seller and demonstrated the fact that many people agree that the terminally ill should have the right to die. With medical assisted suicide, the patient would be given one lethal injection and the suffering would be relieved in minutes. Is this humane end to constant, prolonged agony preferable to the horrendous suicide through suffocation in a plastic bag? The medically aided suicide ensures an end to torment and the suicide techniques described in Final Exit are certainly ways to end a life. However, they may fail or be extremely painful. Perhaps an analogy can provide more insight into what the situation is like to the patient. A terminal illness can be likened to living in a shell, where the organism continually grows larger, yet the shell does not. The pain slowly becomes worse until the organism dies in sheer agony.
Another careful consideration should be directed towards the family of the terminally ill patient. These loved ones also endure the misery that the patient is enduring. The family understand the helpless situation their loved in is in and that death is certain after a prolonged, ceaseless, and unendurable suffering. In the Netherlands, the right to die with medical assistance came into legislation in 1981. The terminally ill patient must meet these 5 requirements.
1. The patient must repeatedly request a doctor’s help in dying after a careful, voluntary consideration.
2. The suffering must be intolerable and there must be no prospect of improvement.
3. The patient and doctor must discuss alternatives.
4. The suicide must follow medical procedure exactly.
5. The doctor must confer with an acquaintance of the patient who has access to his or her medical records.
I think it is time for the US to reverse the decision of the 1997 case. Do the terminally ill have the right to die? I believe so.
If I was lying in a hospital bed with no chance of recovery, I would say "LET ME DIE!" Why should someone have to suffer if they do not have a chance at recovery? We euthanize animals that are sick. People are animals, even though we like to put ourselves into our own kingdom.
I would feel terrible watching a loved one suffer, and would feel equally as terrible if my family had to watch me suffer. That does no good for anyone. If you let someone go, everyone has their good memories instead of a lasting impression of the person's demise.
Think economically. A day in a hospital costs thousands; even with insurance, the cost of keeping someone on life support or treated with medication can be astronomical. Some people just do not have that money. Plus, the bed that is being occupied could be used for someone else that may have a better chance at life.
If the ill person is an organ donor, they could possibly save the lives of numerous people. If they want to do that, shouldn't we let them? That would not only make a difference in the lives of the people who get a second chance, but it would make a difference to their families and loved ones.
Ultimately, we are supposed to have control of our bodies, so death should be included in that.
Dying is not a “right.” There is no miracle drug that will give ‘us’ eternal life on Earth, everyone will die at some point, it’s just a matter of when, and in this case, why? The debatable question is, “Are the terminally ill being murdered if their life support is taken away from them?” The decision to “pull the plug” should be relied on the condition of the “ill” and how “ill” they truly are. If the “ill” are in a vegetative state and could donate organs to save someone else, then they should, even if it means “killing” the “ill.”
What if there was a little boy, 6 years old, he hasn’t even begun to live his life. Since he was two, he has been in and out of children’s hospitals, doctors operating on him, scratching their heads in confusion on what could possibly make this boy so sick. On the boy’s last trip to the hospital, one of his many doctors tells him he has only three days left to live…unless…he gets a heart transplant. With the boy’s rare blood type, it will be one difficult task to find an appropriate donor. Meanwhile, a man, eighty-seven years of age, is in the same hospital as the boy. The man is in a coma and has been for several weeks. His family is too attached to let go of the man and wants to keep him “living” as long as possible. It turns out that the “ill” man and the desperate boy have the exact same rare blood type. This man’s heart could save the boy’s life, and allow the boy to actually live his life. The man has been living a long and happy life until now. The boy is “living” what appears to be a short and miserable life. The man will probably never waken from this coma but the family doesn’t want to give up. The boy will die in less than 72 hours. Wouldn’t you say the boy should have a chance at life? The man’s life was great. I believe the coma is God’s way of saying it’s time for him to go. In other words, by killing this old man who lived his wonderful life, you are saving this young child who hasn’t had a life yet.
This situation mentioned about a dying 6 year old in need of a heart transplant and an old man who has already lived a full life raises an excellent point, one that I had not previously thought of. People who are opposed to the right of a terminally ill patient to die are likely not realizing that a person's choice to end their life could in fact save another's life, someone who has not yet had a chance to live. In the scenario mentioned by Keri, the old man will inevitably die fairly soon anyway.. but is simply being kept alive on life support in order to prolong his time alive. By making him wait to die, essentially, two people's lives are ending very soon. Why not preserve one, and cut the amount of pain and suffering in half for all involved?
I do not believe that anyone can tell another person what to do with their body. Only the person suffering through the illness knows what kind of pain they are in. Who would I be to say that their pain is not significant enough for them to wish to die? That is not my judgement to make. While I am a Christian and I do personally believe that God gives life and has the authority to take it away, I also do not believe that it is MY right to tell someone else that they can not die. If the patient has religious convictions that causes him or her to feel that they should NOT just give up and allow themselves to die then that should be for the individual to decide as well.
As far as the issue of euthanasia is concerned, I do not condone a doctor helping a patient die. I have a hard time getting my mind around the idea of "assisted suicide," because to me it looks a lot like murder. I can not see why a moral person would try to help someone else die. However, if a patient wants to refuse treatment and be sent home to die a natural death, then I believe that is acceptable.
In forming my opinion on this issue I tried to put myself in the place of a terminally ill patient. If I was lying in a hospital waiting to die, running up medical bills for my loved ones to have to struggle to pay after my death, then I would more than likely make the decision to halt treatment and go home to spend the remainder of my time with my family and friends. If being in the hospital was only prolonging the inevitable, what quality of life would that be? To me, it would only make sense to use what life I had left to MAKE the rest of my time "quality" time.
Or else you might not receive your "right to die" that so belongs to you. That's the part of the problem with modern medicine.
I have specified in my advanced directive (aka "living will") that I'm not to receive CPR, Life Support, Blood Transfusion, Feeding Tubes, Breathing Machines, etc.
In a nutshell..if something happens to me that will result in my death or result in a low quality of life afterward, my living will ensures my right to die to prevent prolonged suffering.
Accidents happen.
Are you saying that if you.lets say.start drowning at the city pool. that you do not want to be rescued? You taking in so much water would enable some one to perform CPR on you. If someone saved your life by doing this I don't think you will "result in a low quality life" afterwards. What are you going to do? Sue them for saving you? Are you going to go to court and say [in my "living will" I specifically said not to give me CPR therefore arrest this person, I should be dead right now.] (To me this just doesn't make since)
All it takes is 4 minutes of being oxygen deprived for the brain to become damaged. Life with any degree of brain damage would not be worth living. If I was rescued, survived, and had even the slightest bit of brain damage, would I sue? No. That wouldn't be worth it. I'd just blow my brains out. Same result as if I had died in the pool.
Simply Stated..Miracles Happen
there's still a chance you can survive no matter how long you've been hooked up to the machine
but also.
-you are taking up a hospital bed that may be needed to save someone elses life
and
-you are not "living" if machines are keeping you alive.your just.there
If I was in a vegetative state in the hospital..I would understand if they "pulled the plug." If someone else needed my organs to keep them alive and I was not using them for anything but to lay in bed unconscience I would want to give them up. There are people out there that have a greater chance of survival if they just had some sort of a transplant than those who are in a vegetative state, therefore saving the ones who CAN be saved..just makes since.
There are situations in which there is no possible way to minimize suffering from a terminal illness, no matter what you do. We euthanize animals who have no quality of life all the time, and as much as I know humans hate to be called this, they are indeed animals (e.g. belonging to the animal kingdom).
If I have a terminal illness, and am unable to care for myself, I should have the right to choose to end my life. Saying someone does not have the right to die is selfish.
I am 18 years old. I lost my father to cancer in the liver, lungs and pancreas. He was barely 40. I spent only three weeks in a hospital before my father passed away. Those three weeks were the hardest three weeks of both of our lives. He was in so much pain. But never once did he say kill me.
I used the last three weeks of his life to help me, so that i could go on with mine. Keeping my father alive was not selfish, it was selfless of him. Not all patients who are terminally ill are 72. Some leave lives behind. I was left behind. Although he was in pain i would not trade that time for anything. Him going through his pain is the only thing that is allowing me to continue on today. I'm not selfish, i'm human.
I do agree that we need control over our bodies, but when someone else is prescribing/administering a drug, it is someone else ending your life. There should be no room in places meant to save people for killing people.
I have personally experienced the pain of someone suffering that did not wish to remain alive. All hope was gone and there was no chance of survival. That individual was obviously not given the choice to terminate his life. He had to suffer until death claimed him. There was no reason for him to continue suffering as he did. He could have went more comfortably. He was 22. He was my brother.
I'm terribly sorry for your loss and I agree that he should have been given the right to choose. Your personal experience in dealing with this issue helps those of us who can only speculate as to what this situaiton is like. The last two lines are very powerful and compelling. Your experience will certainly help those of us who can merely speculate to understand the enormity of the situation. Thank you for sharing and once again, I'm terribly sorry.
In cases like you have just mentioned, I agree that there should have been the option of "terminating his life." The pain, the suffering, and the torture that he and your family had to go through I'm sure were unbearable.
However, if you make a statement such as "If in enough pain, killing should be an option," then how is it different from suicide?
..
This was one factor in my recent move to the state of Oregon. Assisted suicide is legal here in cases of terminal illness. I'm very happy with that. Don't keep me around sucking up money, treatments and time if I can go peacefully and be done with it.
Without a personal right to die, there can be no right to live. It is the fact of one's life that give one any rights at all. The basic right to live, to be happy, necessarily includes the right to take one's own life.
I own my life, or I do not. If I do, I do fully. If I do not, this question is rather academic.
Even if I'm in a coma, my wishes should be known to my loved ones. Just because they now have the legal authority to make decisions on my behalf, they are still making them on my behalf. If it's clear that they're making a decision that I would not have wanted, that decision can be challenged.
It is effectively impossible to prevent someone from killing one's self. We have to presume that someone desiring suicide simply needs help, but when it's clear that, despite all of the help we can give them, life is still not worth living, why should we doom them to live it out in misery? The lucky ones here are the ones that had the sense not to tell anyone they were planning on suicide, because they'll be the ones that can do it without short-sighted, selfish intervention.
When my pet is in a state of terminal suffering, I would want them to be euthanized. Why do we treat people we love worse?
You say that people control their own destiny, thereby they can pull the plug. But, the idea of terminal illness means one is in a coma, not able to make decisions for his/herself. So, I truly see your point on "I can do what I want with my body", but let's take a step back: legally, is the person's body even belong to them when he/she is terminally ill? Apparently not, according to some legal sites. Furthermore, how do we know this person who is terminally ill truly wants to give up life? Hey, Tony Soprano came out of his coma. All kidding aside, it is time that the supreme court take a stand for or against this. And who determines if the person should live or die? The state? The physician? The loved ones? If I actually had a loved one in this state of being, it would be excruciatingly hard for me to see her like that. But, who would I be to pull the plug? It's not my decision, and it's not truly her decision either, as that would be suicide. A very complicated issue. Glad its on here
I think that you have been mislead in your definition of "terminally ill". A terminal illness is one that is without cure or adequate treatment and that will inevitably lead to death. This isn't about being in a coma: much of the time, this is about insufferable extreme amounts of pain. Lasting through this pain until you die on your own doesn't make this stage of living any more valuable. Knowing that for sure, this individual is NOT going to come out of this pain and suffer a horrible excruciating death, who has the right to say that they should be forced to endure this?
"one is in a coma..legally, is[sic] the person's body even blong to them..?"
Since we do not recognize the ability of another individual or society to own a person and assigning ownership to some possibly non-existent deity that does not manifest themselves to us to whom would ownership transfer? Since the answer must be either "no-one" or "them" then in both cases the action to end the life would be justified since in the former case no own would be present to object or be affected and in the later "them" has requested such action to be taken.
When it comes down to it, no one else should be able to tell me when I should be alive or dead. If I am terminal and life gets to the point where it is not worth living, or if I am a in a vegetative state, I don't want people keeping me alive against my wishes. Look, I understand why religious groups argue the "sanctity of life", but what those people don't understand is there are others out there who don't share their beliefs, who would rather not see people live through excruciating pain to an inevitable death if given the choice.
Anyone who is terminally ill should get a say in if they live or die. Keeping someone alive against their wishes just isn't fair to the patient. If a man is dying of cancer and is in serious pain with no hope or chance of living, why make him suffer for the next few months just because you don't want them to go. I lost my great-uncle to lung cancer about 7 years ago. Sure it was hard to accept the reality of his death, but I don't think he would want me to cry over it for the rest of my life.
Exactly.
A person should have the right to decide what they want to do with their own lives. Not only does it satisfy what certain people want, but it is an alternative that would also help ease the economic situation as well (life-stabilizing machines are so expensive). An individual should be allowed to have input in how they live (or choose not to live) their own life. Watching someone suffer and not fulfilling their wishes should be illegal.