Thread: Euthanasia
View Single Post
(#7 (permalink))
Old
TheHayleyDoll's Avatar
TheHayleyDoll (Offline)
Forums Moderator
 
Posts: 55,266
Join Date: Mar 2007
Zodiac Sign: Taurus
Rating: 46 Votes / 4.30 Average
Default 11-10-2009, 06:43 PM

I heard about that Terri Schiavo case. Really, it's all a matter of how one defines the word "alive". I agree with Miranda, if it's to the point where they're no longer thinking/breathing/doing anything on their own, is that really life? In my opinion, that's just torture and terribly selfish to keep them on that kind of support - especially if there is no hope of recovery. If anything were to happen to me like that, I wouldn't want to only be clinging on to life with the help of machines.

That was a problem with it that my coworker and I were talking about. Well, what if the patient can't think for themselves, and can't tell anyone what they want? Who should it be up to - the parents, or the spouse?

And money is a factor. As far as I know, they still have to pay for health care directly in America, right? So for the family deciding to keep this family member alive... it must cost thousands and thousands of dollars. In Canada it's paid through by our taxes and health insurance, so yeah. Technically, all us citizens are paying to keep some people alive that will never get better.

As for Kitty's question, I've talked to a lot of religious people (I'm not religious myself), and apparently, God has our lives all mapped out, so he's the real person in control. If that were true, he should already know what's going to happen either way or something. Besides, isn't death a good thing for religious people? They get to go to heaven, and what not. Though, like I said, why live on machines? That doesn't seem like much of a life, so may as well take the chance.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote