http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MD4DG1.html

IMO this is sick.

Wow, that's a noodle-scratcher.

saveuplife, do you think that people have the right do die, in general?

Legalize it.

What do you find sick about this. If I had to choose between caring for a child who won't be able to function properly for the rest of his/her life or putting an end to it before it gets to that. What is the problem? If the parents are making the choice then that is what they deem fit. I would like to see a report that asks this question to parents who struggle to work and raise a child with great needs in the real world with no assistance from the government what they would think about this law.

please read the part about the killing 'retarded' because they lack 'free will'... I'll check the responses tomorrow.

That's a whole different ball of wax.

This article covers about 10 different topics. I'm for adults being able to euthanize themselves painlessly with the aid of a doctor. The rest is sticky sticky sticky.

So when was the last time you saw a severely retarded person functioning all by themselves. When you are staring at the world drooling on yourself.......... Yes you are a life, but, what quality is it? For the people who don't want to spend money on social health care. Better not tread on this one with heavy feet. You do know who keeps these people alive?

So an arbitrary "quality of life" definition must be made to determine whether or not we should just off these people? Hmm.
Or is it based on how much care is required to keep them alive? Because that means pull the plug on anyone in a coma or on a respirator.

Well that would be up to the "keeper" if the case was that severe. Quality of life is a good use of words for where a line could be drawn. I have a retrarded cousin and she functions just fine for being retarded. If her parents could have had a decision when she was born and they were told that they had an autistic -sp little baby. Maybe they would have had a tough decision to make. And just maybe it would have been the right one. I mean abortion is not much prettier than this. And they could be taking the life of a healthy baby? Depends on how you view life.

If something terrible happened to me and my quality of life became almost zero. All the people who care about me already know that if the doc ain't pulling the plug. They have my word to trip over it if they want. But get the thing out of the wall.

This is a very cloudy subject, and the article really does nothing to help make sense of it.

If a fully competent and aware adult chooses their right to die, I cannot argue with their decision. It is up to them and their family to discuss and decide.

The rest, as AS mentioned, is tough.

IMO, this stresses the need to fund and advance medicine and health research.

Absolutly legalize it.

We afford such mercies to animals, why not ourselves? If I was in an irreversable coma, I'd much rather end that tomorrow than put my family through having to see me like that for as long as a ventillator can keep me alive.
No one should be forced to suffer. If someone's terminally ill, in pain and wants to go, they should be allowed to go.
And by "no free will", the children, newborns, etc - how can anyone with any sense of 'faith' see something wrong with letting them go back to 'God' over a short, pointless painful lifetime of suffering??

Kindly remove all of your "logical" arguments from discussions of God and faith.

Please. If you used that logic, then aborted fetuses would go straight to heaven without even the slightest hint of sin on their hands, and what good Christian would want that?

--PunkDavid

I don't see what is "sick" about putting human suffering to an end where death is emminant and severe pain and suffering is constant. Its what I would want for myself if my life should come to that, and federal governments should not stand between me and my doctor or between parents and what they and their doctors believe would be best to relieve the suffering and emminant death of a child. Is it more "humaine" to leave someone, be they a prematurely born child or an adult, on a life support system indefinately when all brain function is gone with no chance of recovery and if conscious only pain exists unless heavily medicated, or is it more "humaine" to let that individual go to in peace to whatever god they believe in? I say the later is the "humaine" way; and for those who believe otherwise, that is YOUR RIGHT to do so, and no government should dictate your faith over any medical decision you would make with your doctors.

I wanted to clarify a point that has come up in a couple of posts so far. In the US, I think in just about all jurisdictions, the "next of kin" can prevent extraordinary measures or remove life support machines. The patient would die without the life support, therefore they are not being "euthanized". What this article talks about is the person with a deformity, defect, or other very low quality of life whose body is functioning adequately to keep them alive, although at a low level of function. The article is about actually actively injecting a drug into the person so they will die. This is what you do with your old sick dog, you poison him so he will die and not suffer in pain anymore.

--PunkDavid (this has been a "no value judgment" production)

letting them suffer endlessly is the equivilant of torture

LOL, I just think it's ironic. I think being outside the Christian box gives some of us a more clear view on the hypocracy of the "God Wants" arguments.
As I see it, if God goes about creating a soul he wants to have a life, and it is aborted, he'd have to be a pretty big asshole to deny it a second chance.
Or possibly, since God is all knowing, wouldn't he already know that the soul he created was implanted into a woman who isn't willing to mother it, and will therefore distroy it? I mean, HELLO?!?
The "Intimidation with God" arguments, to me anyway, seem like a complete lack of faith on their part.

I agree with these posts, and the "putting your dog to sleep" analogy is something I often think about regarding this. It can be a very sticky issue though, for various reasons.

good! I'm all for it. If i had a child suffering a terminal illness, not being able to get a minute of rest from the pain and KNOWING that his disease would be incurable, i'd grant him death myself. And it would be out of love for him and from the unwillingness to see him suffer any longer. And i don't care if i'd get arrested and put in jail...i wouldn't have an ounce of regret, because i know that i would have taken the right decision FOR him.