|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:59 am
(Edited)
Discuss here how you feel about Euthanasia (Posh term for killing basically). You can either talk about it relieving humans of their misery, or about dogs being put down.
Also, abortions and that can be discussed here, it's all about taking and giving life heh.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:27 pm
That depends on the person. If they are comatose, have no hope of recovery, or would live too badly injured (mentally; physical handicaps can be overcome in this day and age), then let them die. It's a concept known as 'Mercy'.
On the other hand, if they have a good chance of recovering (I assume they're somehow non-functional on some level), and/or can express the wish to remain alive, keep them alive.
If at any time they tell you one way or the other, follow their wishes. It is among the cruelest things one can do to prolong life when it is not wanted, or take it away when it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:13 pm
I'm a lax Buddhist.
If one wishes to die then they may do so. There's 6+ billion people on the planet and nearly a 1/4 of em' are starving. Population control mates; pure and simple.
Here's my thoughts on medical 'mercy' kiling, though.
-1: If someone has 30%< chance of surviving/waking/living then don't kill them.
-2: If someone has <30% of chance of surviving/waking/living then kill them. Save the family the suffering, pain, and the very expensive medical bills.
Simple. If there is no to nill chance of surviving then it'd be better to 'pull the plug'. The life of a vegie is not meant for any human being. For a marathon person to not be able to run anymore.. Blegh. If they have a good chance (2/3 probability of surviving) then they should be kept alive. Aside from that, I don't beleive people should suffer any more than necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:14 pm
NHS....we don't have to pay for it.
Secondly...(lets get to a few facts)
He's struggling to get up and he's losing sight, and he may be becoming incontinent.
I want to know general views as well, such as on animals or humans, because I know that some people have different views etc on levels of life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:43 pm
If an animal can no longer survive in the wild, and can no longer 'live' on its own (ie: without a heart device, pills, ect..), then it should be killed. It's a waste of resources if it lingers on the planet.
Kenoshi. Not all the people on this forum know what incontinent means. heart Luckily I do, and I'll be more than happy to give a link to what it is.
If it's an animal and incontinent, "unable to restrain natural discharges or evacuations of urine or feces", kill it. Put it down. Put it out of its misery.
If it's human.. Then give the b*****d some pills and hope for the best. Blindness? Blegh. That's nothing and can be adapted to. Can't get up? Phegh. Humans have wheelchairs. Incontinent? As long as it's the medical term, with inability to vacate fluids/feces, slap a diaper on him/her and he/she is set.
If you buddy is human, and is incontinent in the way that he has no control of his temper/desires, I'll buy you the shotgun. [ j/k.. j/k.. wink ] heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:17 am
All I can say is life is not life unless you feel alive.
So if that person has no chance of living a normal life or for whatever reasons cannot continue on. Just let them die, is better than see them suffer waiting for a miracle that we all know won't happen...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:05 am
Lolol
It's odd that there's a difference between animals and humans don't you think?
(I've got the advice I need, thankyou all)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:09 pm
I believe that animals were put on this planet to be used by humans.
Note: That is NOT an excuse for treating them poorly. Animals should be treated very well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
