Quote:
Originally Posted by DivideByZero
Hi
It seems like Montana has made some progress with laws surrounding euthanasia. Other countries are also revisiting these laws. As far as I know most actions of euthanasia are extended to people with terminal illness where the quality of life is in question and palliative care is no longer sufficient to ease a persons suffering.
My question is this: Should some mental illnesses be considered terminal? If there is a very poor psychiatric prognosis and recovery is not believed to be possible and the quality of life is very poor should a human be afforded compassionate euthanasia for a mental illness? Personally, I think if we had this open approach to death then we would have less suicides and failed-suicides because the topic would be completely open and non-taboo. If a person no longer wished to be alive they could could be compassionately euthanized after a comprehensive evaluation.
Thoughts?
|
I agree 100%. (This has always been a question I've carried and
I take it Seriously)
Sure there are a lot what 'ifs, buts, etc. BUT
When I was
very young I believed that everyone should be given a cyanide pill. That when they thought it was their choice to go - they could.
BUT - we have teenagers who are too young to decide - their future is not defined yet
The pill could be allotted to people once they reach a certain age.
We humbly have our animals put down....
Yet, we are left in the humiliation of our own incontinence.
Also - True mental illness that can only be stabilized, if possible, for so long.. leaving life a continuous rollercoaster, etc.
I BELIEVE we should definitely have a choice..
Of course we could put stipulations: 'A certain amount of time of 'death choice' therapy....'
blah blah.... I want my pill