The Australian bill that allows doctors to hasten death without having to worry about criminal liability. The opposition worries that the argument citing "care for patients" abandons the duty to protect the patients life as well as destroys the role in medicine played by the doctors relationship with the patient. In your response, take up a position defending either side of the argument.
Noel Bigley
10/5/2014 05:11:55 am
I believe euthanasia should be permitted in some cases. Rachel's points out that to kill babies rather than to let them wither away would be a more dignified dealth, as well as the throat cancer patient. The throat cancer patient would just be merely existing in a dying state awaiting dealth which is worst then ending suffering, where they would instead face the eneviable and get it over with. Rachel also justifies "killing" by twisting Marquis analogy that killing is wrong because it is denying a person of their future. If one does not want their future than it is morally expectable. A doctors job is to save, cure, and elevate one'a pain. If a doctor can not do this through treatment and medication other measures are necessary. Like Brock suggested if a patient is sure in their decision to end their life they should be presented with a formal document of their options and the granting of permission. My stance is why spent time and effort on one's life who does not value it or have a promising future and instead invest the effort in patient who want the care and have potential to get better. My argument does not apply to the mentally ill or for those who are not in a terminally ill state. As for protecting the integratiry for the practice of medice. The way I see doctors already have the power to kill and we still trust our doctors knowing this. We already agree to treatment with potentional to kill us with side affects which we do not desire. What would be the difference if the patient gave permission like any other treatment with as the potential to kill.
Noel Bigley
10/7/2014 10:08:36 am
I think the Australian bill should be passed. In the video Mike Saxon that in some cases there is nothing more that can be done for a patient. Roger Hunt, care specialist also states that suffering can be very hard to control and the only way to end the suffering is to hasten death.
In recent polling it is shown that the vast majority wishes to have some form of dignity legislation. In Brocks article listed in the potential good consequences he adds that the legalization of voluntary euthanasia would benefit a large group of people and respect self-determination of the patient.
In response to patients current wishes, Stephen King states that this practice is already taking place. In this case I believe doctors should be protected against criminalization for following their duty of care for the patients. I do not agree that if doctor's perform euthanasia they will began to abandon the duty to protect the patient's life or that it will destroy the role of medicine played by the doctor's relationship with the patient. Francis Coombe points out that doctors currently view euthanasia as a duty of care in the face of unrelievable suffering. Brock also argues "that it is not at odds with a proper understanding of aims of medicine, and so need not undermine patients' trust in their physicians." He also adds that if euthanasia were to be legalized that a patient is well-informed of their condition and all possible treatment have been presented to the patient before proceeding. As well as limiting those who can perform euthanasia and "holding those accountable for their exercise of authority" to protect against abuse. With these additions to the bill to protect the patients' rights as well as the doctors', I do not see why the Australian bill should not be passed.
Laura Alexander
10/5/2014 06:19:26 am
I think that the Australian bill is really good for their doctors. It will protect them so that they don’t have to worry about going against the Hippocratic Oath. I think euthanasia should be allowed in many cases. People have the right to define their own conception of a good life at least to the degree that is affects them (self-determination). According to Brock, we need to look at the doctor’s motives in euthanizing a patient. We should be guided by a concern for their personal well-being, not greed or laziness to take care of the patient. I think if any similar bill were pasted in the US, there would need to be a lot of regulations on it making sure that there is no abuse of the law of any kind. We would need to make sure that the patient was protected and never pushed into making a decision that wasn’t completely independent or voluntary.
In response to the opposition’s side in the video, I actually think that this will strengthen the doctor’s relationship with the patient. Making a decision for voluntary euthanasia is not an easy one. If the doctor is doing his/her job in doing everything that they can to help a patient heal, get better, relieve pain, or survive, I am sure that they have spent enough time with this patient to develop a relationship with them. The doctor has seen them become frail and wither away. I think this is extremely hard on the doctor and they hate seeing people like that. The more they treat them the more emotionally invested they become. In the video, it said that the majority of people want the right to die with dignity. This ties in with what Rachels says in her article that active euthanasia is more humane than passive euthanasia in some cases. I think having the patient make a voluntary decision of euthanasia once they truly feel like their life is no longer worth living means that they want to end their pain and die with dignity. Letting someone die by stopping treatment is causing them more pain and suffering and not respecting what the patient wants (to die with dignity).
Christopher Giles
10/5/2014 09:20:47 am
I believe the Australian bill is right for the doctors and their patients. Since there are so many laws in place that don’t always support the choice of euthanasia, this bill will allow the doctor to make a choice that can not only benefit the patient, but also their loved ones. There are many different cases that allow euthanasia to be ethical and moral. In the video the commentator explains that sometimes during surgery there is only so much that can be done, and that the reality is that people nearing the end of their lives that can't be cured and are suffering. Roger Hunt states that the only way to supply these kind of patients with relief is to use the drugs that hasten death. Since the laws in place allow for the prosecution of the doctors using this kind of relief treatment, the Australian bill counter acts this allowing for a moral decision to be made in the fairness of the patient as long as the consent from this patient is fully documented and recorded in the benefit of the law. This is why I believe euthanasia is beneficial as long as it is used in the proper ways. Another look at the acceptance of euthanasia would be for a baby who is dying from terminally undeveloped intestines or some other case in which the baby cannot live. The baby dies slowly, suffering from the pain of infection, disease, and even if provide treatment would only continue on the process of dying. I believe in these cases as well that euthanasia should be completely acceptable, legal, moral, and ethical. I know that if I were a patient suffering from something I knew was going to kill me, and the treatment was not anything that could cure me, then I would choose to euthanasia myself. As long as the choice is voluntarily decided from the patient and the doctor accepts that it is the right choice then it should be accepted as moral and this allows for a patient/doctor relationship to grow because the doctor has already tried to carry his duty in curing the patient, but as said earlier there are cases that technology sometimes does not allow for a cure to treat a patient and the only outcome will be terminal death.
Elizabeth Ketchum
10/5/2014 09:34:54 am
I think the bill that Australia is trying to pass has the potential to be of benefit to their society. I believe that physicians carry too much of the weight of this debate upon their shoulders. Those opposing voluntary euthanasia are very quick to point fingers at the physician, claiming he/she is immoral and has killed a person. While this is technically true, it would have been the patient requesting to hasten the end of their life. A physician would therefore just be complying with the patient’s wishes; after all, their only means to euthanasia is through a physician. A physician must either write a prescription or give the patient the lethal injection; without them, a patient would not have a way to end their suffering. At this point in the patient’s illness, all treatments must have been tried, or it should be the case that the patient sees no value in living the remainder of their life. Only then should the choice of euthanasia be available to the patient. Likewise, in cases where the patient is unable to answer, euthanasia should not be permitted unless the patient has explicitly made this wish known in a legal document prior to being unable to answer for themselves. To protect the physicians even further, I believe that the bill should reserve the right for physicians to refuse to euthanize a patient. Whether the physician believes that euthanasia would be an inappropriate response for a particular patient, or if euthanasia conflicts with his/her personal morals and beliefs, the physician has a right to refrain from administering a lethal injection. The patient would, of course, be able to see another physician if they so choose. This goes along with Brock’s argument that no one is obligated to choose euthanasia for themselves or their families. Personal views and religious objections are of value; however, the views of these people should not prevent others from making the decision to end their own suffering. Overall, as long as Australia is careful when finalizing the bill and include specific guidelines for patients and physicians to follow, legalizing voluntary euthanasia has the potential to improve their society.
kory kubicki
10/5/2014 09:41:59 am
After viewing the video regarding Euthanasia, I agree with Noel Bigley. Implementing Euthanasia in certain cases should be seen as morally okay and just because the entire purpose is to end the suffering of the patient involved. With that being said however, it should be made clear that this should only be implemented in a situation where it is the last resort. i feel as if all extreme measures should be taken in order to save a life to a certain extend because the human body can only put up with so much. I also think that this with very much so strengthen the relationship between doctors and their patients because these two parties are brought together in such a unique way. The patient obviously looking for answers and help and a doctor that exerts all of their efforts to meet and surpass the needs of a patient. although a doctor is by no means God, they do have the ability to enhance/alter a persons life on earth. It may not always add decades to a patients life, but any bit of time is taken and cherished. in our health system, there does come a point where options run out and having voluntary- euthanasia available can greatly ease the suffering of someone that doesn't have any other options. it is obvious that a doctor has the utmost intentions of saving lives but there does come a time where a doctor can only do so much. Im sure it would be difficult for a doctor to induce euthanasia on a patient but in the end, the suffering becomes nonexistent due to that doctor which in turn can be seen as a success in some way. By just stopping treatment, a patient still has the potential to experience a tremendous amount of pain so implementing voluntary- euthanasia would eliminate that pain factor for good.
Miranda Trepanier
10/6/2014 03:02:10 am
I believe that the passing of this bill is definitely more helpful than harmful. Paul Russell is worried about people being taken advantage of by doctors, such as "the vulnerable, the disabled, and the voiceless." However, as Noel stated, "a doctor's job is to save, cure, and elevate one's pain." I don't believe doctors have any ill intentions--they want to help with suffering, and if suffering is inevitable, the only option they may have to END that suffering is by euthanasia. I try to look at it from my own perspective. What if I were the one in tremendous pain? If I knew the only escape from it was death, I would be thankful that a doctor was there to put me out of my misery quickly, instead of basically waiting it out and having life be practically unbearable. What kind of life is that? Not one that I'd be forced to suffer with.
Michele Wagner
10/6/2014 10:18:56 am
When watching the video, I felt as if it may have been a little biased on defending the Australian Euthanasia bill as a positive outcome. I do think the concept of active euthanasia is a great idea, the fact they are helping people who are suffering and allowing the doctors to take place in voluntary euthanasia without worrying about criminal liability is a great. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have euthanasia at all however the Australian bill needs to be rewritten. There are some obvious flaws with the current Australian bill that could potentially lead to bigger problems down the road. As Paul Russell states that the bill throws up a red flag, that it offers protection for doctors but nothing for patients. I feel like this could have immoral situations are for those who are the aged, vulnerable, disabled and voiceless. I think that the concept of legalizing euthanasia is a great idea but the law making processes is where the concept falls apart. Brock writes about potentially good and bad and while the good outweigh the bad in most cases there’s still bad that needs to be addressed. I think that Euthanasia is hard to form a set law over or restrictions towards, because of words like unbearable or suffering. I think that this is something that could lead to a slippery slope to non-voluntary euthanasia. I don’t think that the current standing bill that Australian’s have on euthanasia is a solid bill to pass until they fix the holes within that bill which will lead to future problems.
Morgan Costello
10/6/2014 11:50:37 am
I feel as if the Australian law to allow voluntary euthanasia is a direct reflection of what is allowed in only a few states here in the United States. The law is extremely specific, and as Roger Hunt stated in the video, is for patients who have unrelievable suffering. Personally I believe that Doctors are to provide care, and the care can also be translated into a relief of suffering by the act of euthanasia. Patients have the ability to choose if they want medical care, or if they want to receive a risky procedure to prolong their life, and I believe they also have the right to choose an active euthanasia over a prolonged death that could cause great suffering. Performing a voluntary active euthanasia not only provides a relief of suffering for a terminally ill patient, but to the family who is suffering as well. Roger Hunt also brought up the very important possibility of prosecution for the doctors who would be technically performing an act of killing. I do believe that the doctors should be protected as it is not them who are suggesting the euthanasia, nor are they performing it against a patients will. In addition, I believe that if the law to allow euthanasia stays as specific as it is, then there will be a very limited possibility for it to transpire into a law that will be abused and possibly taken advantage of, like in the action of homicide. Although I may agree with active voluntary euthanasia, I do believe that there will need to be action to assist doctors who perform the euthanasia. For example, Philip Nitschke stated in the video that counseling services will need to be provided to some of the physicians. Overall, I believe that active euthanasia is beneficial to those who have unrelievable suffering, but it should stay specific to prevent the law from being abused.
Catherine Young
10/6/2014 12:58:30 pm
This video starts off with a doctor stating that he feels it is ok to hasten a patient’s death if they have exhausted all other resources. I do not agree with this. I feel that passive euthanasia is alright if all other options have run out and the patient is terminally ill, and it is in the best interest of the patient, but I do not agree with voluntarily killing someone to end their suffering. If they are in pain then they should be given something to help control that pain, but I don’t feel that it is morally or ethically acceptable to kill the patient to end their suffering. Russell states that the proposed legislation for voluntary euthanasia offers protection for doctors but nothing for the patients. It protects the doctors from being sued or getting them in trouble with the law, but nothing is there to protect the patient. If the patient was in a vegetative state, they have no way of conveying whether they want to be euthanized or not. In that case it would not be voluntary for the patient. He also states that killing people is not what doctors are trying to do. If this law gets passed it could change the image of the doctor. Instead of being seen as someone who heals, they could also be seen as someone who kills. It changes the way patients view medical professionals. In Daniel Chapman’s article he states that “euthanasia would add a whole new category of killing to a society that already has too many excuses to indulge itself in that way.” We are trying to control gun usage, abolish capital punishment, and have better control of warfare, but we want to add a new way of killing into the mix. Another point that Callahan brings up is self- determination. People call upon the medical community to help them get better so they can pursue a good life. Euthanasia goes against that. He states “this works against the idea that the meaning and scope of our own right to lead our own lives must be conditioned by, and compatible with, the good of the community, which is more than an aggregate of self-directing individuals.”
Here is an article around Facebook about a 29-year old woman with terminal brain cancer who has decided to euthanize herself
Kiara Canty
10/6/2014 01:58:20 pm
As stated in the video Euthanasia is a process that is a choice given to patients as a form of relief that is induced by the patients say so. I personally feel that the the Australian bill is right for the doctors and their patients. Since there are so many laws in place that don’t always support the choice of euthanasia, this bill will allow the doctor to make a choice that can not only benefit the patient, but also their loved ones. There are many different cases that allow euthanasia to be ethical and moral which is why sites/clinics should be established for such a process just as they are for abortions. Its also something that will require specialists and doctors to have a form of counseling. I believe also that it should be a certification for such process beyond just being a doctor, simply because not all doctors might not feel comfortable with such actions. Nonetheless, I feel it is important for their to be ample time for a patient to make a final decision ( 7 days ) on pursuing this method alongside paper work signing off to move forward
Emily Christensen
10/6/2014 10:59:59 pm
I think this Australian law is a good enforcement. This law makes it so the doctors will be protected and not have to go against their Oath. I believe that euthanasia should be permitted in some cases, and whether the patient is allowed to decide that should be from a consensus with a patient and their doctor. I believe that the patient questioning euthanasia should go to several other doctors just to make sure the opinions are the same about the patients outlook on life. Some people are afraid this would change medicine and make people fear doctors. Instead of just going to the doctors to get better, we would also go to the doctors to die. This act may install fear in people. My counter argument for this is about the doctors of the Veterinary field, they are doctors, and they have the right to euthanize a patient when it seems the best outlook of the situation and we aren't afraid to bring our animals to them. Yes, I know there is a difference between animals and humans, but if we allow doctors of human medicine this option of euthanasia it may better people's quality of life. Some are also worried that this decision will also change doctor patient relationship. For example some say that if an elderly man comes into the doctors to get a flu shot he will be given the option of : A, you can get a flu shot or B) you are getting older, the flu won't be good for you, and I can euthanize you. I do not believe this will be the case. Doctors will still take into consideration everything they can do for a patient before offering euthanasia, unless it is the most beneficial to their situation. All other options should be exhausted before euthanasia occurs.
We read an article written by Rachels and he said that it is better to kill a baby, then to let it dehydrate and die. This is similar to the euthanasia argument. If a patient is morally ill and suffering they should be given the option where they can choose if they want to keep trying different medicines to make them feel better, or if they want the option of euthanasia.
Corie Gallagher
10/7/2014 04:50:40 am
I personally believe that euthanasia either voluntary or involuntary should be completely up to the doctor and patient. The conception of what a “good life” is can vary greatly from person to person. What I think of as a good life may not be the same definition to someone else. I think that doctors should be able to decide for themselves if they are going to make euthanasia part of their specific medical practice without having to worry about the repercussions of the law. If a patient who has some type of terminal cancer or ALS in which they are in excruciating pain for the duration of their life I believe it is wrong of the government to force them to stay alive and in pain if they and their family decide it is best to end life sustaining treatments.
I do agree that there is an extent in which the law should become a factor though, if the patient is not terminally ill, in extreme pain and has more then a 90% chance of survival I think doctors should not be legally allowed to perform voluntary/involuntary euthanasia without exhausting every other option first. The other circumstance in which I believe the law should be able to step in and saw euthanasia is against the law is in cases of mental illness. No one person can say that the life of someone with Down Syndrome is less then that of a cognitively able person. People with these mental disabilities do not know any other way of life so to them their life is a “good life”
Kaitlyn Merz
10/7/2014 06:43:18 am
The argument given about how it will change the way we consider doctors is similar to the argument made my Callahan that doctors are for healing. These arguments explain that legalizing euthanasia will change what it means to be a doctor. I do not agree with these arguments because even if euthanasia were to be legal, not every doctor would specialize or perform the act. If people are that uncomfortable going to a doctor that euthanizes terminally ill patients then they could go to a doctor that does not perform euthanasia. I also do not think people should have to worry every time they go to the doctor about being euthanized unless they have a terminal illness. It is similar to the issue of abortion because not all doctors will perform abortions and if an individual is uncomfortable with the fact that their doctor has given abortions then they could go to another doctor that does not. Even people that are terminally ill would not have to worry about being unwillingly euthanized because it is ultimately their decision and there are many steps they would have to go through before it could be done. I believe that euthanasia of a terminally ill patient that is suffering greatly is still considered caring for that patient. I think this because a doctor is there to make the pain go away and if there is no other option to make an illness less painful and the patient no longer wants to fight through it they should have the option of the doctor assisting them to death. I do think that there should have to be many steps taken before the patient can be euthanized and it should have to be approved by many forces outside of the doctor but ultimately the patient should be able to choose their fate.
Allison Dungey
10/7/2014 12:09:15 pm
When Roger Hunt was speaking in the beginning kept mentioning the phrase "relieve suffering" and was referring to that as what doctors are meant to do. This reminded me of what we discussed in class the other day about doctors' purpose being for healing only and Hunt put that into a new perspective for me because I think doctors should be looked at for a purpose of relieving suffering as well and therefore euthanasia can fall into that category. I also think that Michele brought up a good point about mentioning what Paul Russell stated about the protection for only doctors and immoral situations arising. Russell talked about situations where a doctor may be hellbent on a seeing a patient die. At first this sounds like a ridiculous and rare occurrence argument, but I think he could have been referring to a wide range of instances such as a doctor not having any more time for a patient, money issues, a hindrance or burden to their job, etc. which I very well could see becoming an issue. I personally think that if voluntary euthanasia should be legal, there should be doctors who only specialize in euthanasia and certain types of doctors who should be restricted from being able to perform euthanasia or specialize in it. Philip Nitchke touched on this a little by saying basically that it wouldn't be that easy to get these meds and be euthanized, that a lot goes into it and people have to talk to specialists and go through a process. Basically they can't just get a prescription if a doctor thinks that they qualify which is definitely shouldn't ever happen.
Austin Ching
10/7/2014 12:50:13 pm
I do not think that legal voluntary euthanasia would cause doctors to ignore their patients. I think that if it is legal they would potentially have more time for their other patients. If it is only voluntary euthanasia that is legal then there is no reason that the care of others should suffer. If you go into the doctor’s office because you have symptoms of the flu, and your doctor says euthanasia is the cure, that’s a bit extreme. If that were to ever happen then yes, this would be a case where the medical care is suffering when it should not be. I also believe that the only way that it should be allowed is if a patient is terminally ill and there is no chance of healing them. I think that if this is the case then there should be more than no doctor that is consulted when it comes to make the decision whether a person lives or dies. If multiple doctors’ say that there are no other options for a person’s illness then this is the only time that I think euthanasia is acceptable.
The fact that the bill reduces the legal liability for doctors, I think that this should not be the case. If a doctor unlawfully provides a treatment that they know could cause harm to their patient, this is grounds for punishment. No one should be able to get away with harming a person and knowingly doing so. I we get to the point in society where people can’t be punished for their wrong doings then we have reached an all-time low. We should never have to live in a place where killing someone and getting away with it is acceptable.
Shannon Czarnik
10/7/2014 02:13:38 pm
I believe that once a person gets to a certain point in their life and sickness, a doctor should focus more on helping a person feel comfortable in their last stages of life and be able to pass how they like, not by prolonging the process. Roger Hunt, a physician from the video explains that sometimes there is only one way to achieve relief when someone is at the end of their life by hastening the dying process. It should be decided that it is not acceptable to be allowed voluntary euthanasia. The answer for mental suffering or a lifelong prison sentence is not just quitting on life before your time but fighting through and finding a solution for happiness within oneself. This being said, euthanasia should be allowed in some end of life sickness cases, but not with all mental illnesses or prison sentences, based on the discretion of a psychiatrist.
therron
10/7/2014 05:10:27 pm
I think doctors should be able to relived the suffering of a patient. Sometimes the only way to relive that suffering is the patients death. The doctor should be able to carry out there duty to give care to that patient. But there a thin line between what you can do for that patients to be help to die, and doctors need to have some protection. Because ultimately doctors are not just trying to kill people there trying to help.
Autumn Hendricks
10/8/2014 01:56:30 am
The whole euthanasia debate has its benefits and downsides. I am not entirely sure on the matter. On one hand, the person who is suffering from an illness can be put to death peacefully. On the other, I think we are giving doctors too much responsibility. So in the end, I do not believe in euthanasia. I see it as a type of suicide. I believe doctors should do their best they can to preserve someone's life. I think if euthanasia was legal, doctors and patients would always have that as a back up plan. It should not be a plan at all. The plan should be to help the individual get better. No shock here, but I am also pro-life. So when I look at people's lives, I believe in the sanctity of life. If someone has been defeated by their illness, doctors had done everything they could for the patient, then the doctor has other ways to make their death more comfortable as they go naturally. I see euthanasia as a type of suicide and do not think it is right to make it legal.
Josh Penny
10/8/2014 03:27:33 am
I'm on the fence when it comes to this topic. I am partial to supporting euthanasia for certain cases an stand against it for all other cases. I totally agree with Frances Coombe when she says that it should be allowed in the face certain death when all other options have been exhausted and unbelievable pain and suffering is along the route to death. I personally watched my grandmother suffer through stomach cancer for months before she passed and it was very hard to watch. She lived in the Philippines and for that third world country, they did not have the resources to fight that extreme type of cancer and with her resources, she could not provide the relief from pain for herself. Many times, she wished that it could just be over. So I can understand from that point of view. Just as Frances said, I consider that to be part of the doctors care and they should be able to provide that without fear of legal issues. Although I do think that if that were to happen, there would have to be multiple doctors that review the case and give there approval. But on the other hand, I don't think there should be any other cases where this is allowed. Just as Paul Russell states, when you allow doctors to start killing people, whether they want it for a good or bad reason, it changes how the doctor looks at his practice, medicine, and his patients. It also changes how patients look at doctors and medicine. If I were to walk into a doctors office and meet the doctor for the first time, not knowing anything about him, I would look at him just as I would anyone else I just meet for the first time. But if I were to walk in and know that he has the resources and capabilities to kill me and has killed others, even if I know he is not a crazy murderer, I would kind of him look at him a bit different. No matter how you look at it, if the doctor just neglects care to let someone die, or if he aids the death, it's still killing someone but definition, which in my belief is wrong.
Taylor Janes
10/8/2014 09:16:47 am
In this particular argument I find myself leaning towards the side of active euthanasia. When looking at the arguments strictly on paper, it seems that both sides bring up a number of good points. But seeing theory in action gives a more appetizing perspective to those who support active euthanasia. Referring to what Philip Nitschke said, there is a "naive" image that is sometimes attached to the argument that a doctor is simply going to prescribe a bag o' death. Seeing the process in reality shows that there's more to the process. Nitschke also stated that changes were made from past mistakes, which brings up an interesting point. No new ideas in this world are ever perfected in the stage of drafting and in blueprints alone, so why would introducing a new procedure into society be any different? Perhaps the opposition is correct, perhaps applying this concept will shake the core of doctor/patient relations. And if this idea failed, then wouldn't it give stronger resolve to the opposition? But if there are enough people with interest to devote time and money, then I say allow them some time to apply and evolve. At worst, another law could be written to make the other null and void. At best, we can wait for other countries to figure it out and then act according to the results.
Connor Bailey
10/8/2014 11:43:12 am
I'am leaning more for the allowance of active euthanasia under certain circumstances only. If the patient is terminally ill and only has a few week and is in extreme pain then it should be okay. I do not think that doctors should preform this act though, I think that a different specialist should come in to keep the doctor's reputation as healer a continued thing. People's perspectives of the doctor would change if they could preform active euthanasia. Also, euthanasia should not be publicized because that would give people the wrong idea. I do not agree with Philip's idea of having special clinics set up because that would make the subtle option too obvious. Whoever the specialist becomes should receive a law that protects them from position because I feel like people could uproar about that possibility. If a person is disabled to the point to where they cannot respond then I think that should be left up to the doctor and the family and maybe even a second doctor. Overall I'am for active euthanasia but only under the certain circumstances.
Comments are closed.
Author
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.