^ well.. ive pretty much clarified what I meant.. so if you still think there is no relevance and that its vague..so be it. Its my opinion anyway. Peace.
You can define it literally as the dictionary mentions all you want, but I would never consider it "natural" to be dying from a painful disease that'll leave you screaming on top of your lungs in the last moments of your life. xiaojia .. it seems to me that in your mind, euthanasia ONLY includes the elderly who are on the verge of dying and lives ONLY off of a machine. You couldn't be more wrong. "Life prolonged" is vague because it does NOT really relate to euthanasia. In some cases, yes -- but for the majority, no. Here is your flaw, xiaojia. This explains the confusion you caused through your arguments, this statement clearly shows us that you very obviously have no solid idea of what euthanasia is. To reiterate this fact, IT DOES NOT have to apply to those "on the verge of dying and under great suffering." The euthanasia patient CAN in fact request for euthanasia even if their disease has not come into effect and the patient appears fully healthy. HECK, even if the patient has no disease whatsoever, he/she can chose to undergo euthanasia (in Holland). Do I need anymore clarifications? No, but you obviously need to do more researching.
What I wanna know is.. what version of euthanasia is hers and what's mines? I thought there was only one euthanasia, but circumstances differ a tiny bit depending where you are (Oregon, Belgium or Holland). Her version of euthanasia sounds like ONE situation, but I'm saying it's not limited to that, I guess.
The whole difference in opinion stem from what you all pay attention to: be it specific circumstances or the general thought of euthanasia. I don't know, I guess it's a choice. Not unlike suicide to a certain extent...
ok.. this was my original post from which sparked that arguement of yours. Did I imply in anyway that this is the only case of euthanasia? No. Its only a statement of my PERSONAL opinion of what I will do based on the situation above. And it is ur call to interpret that statement in whatever way you like. There are much more pts in ur last post that I do not agree with, but I see no pt in this discussion cos you obviously do not have any respect for the opinions of others. End of story.
I know it's your personal opinion and it's what confused me. I figured it should've sounded something like "I will also rather die naturally than die from self-administering the death pills (euthanasia)." I was like... "life prolonged by a machine"? What the heck does that have anything to do with euthanasia, does he/she think that euthanasia is patients merely living by machines? I don't know.. it just threw me off when I read it. So yeah.. you can see why it sparked some skepticism. My intent wasn't meant to disrespect your opinion, but if you took offense to that, my apologies.
^ You can when your time is up... Damn, the person this message is refering to is gone @_@bbb This message is NOT directed to you rsx...
Well.. euthanasia to you seems pretty much about 'self-administering with death pills'. It is valid, and good contribution to the discussion. Euthanasia can however mean more than that: And I was just commenting based on 'the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment'. So it appears that our area of interest within the wide scope of euthanasia do not coincide. Do not misunderstand what I'm saying. I do not think that 'euthanasia is patients merely living by machines'. That sentence is technically wrong anyway. It is but one of the possible scenarios that I chose to comment on. Pls reread the 1st post by the thread starter. The reason why I was offended is by your insistence of your own personal interpretations of what I wrote. And when I tried to explain using the definitions I base my opinions upon, you reject them. Am I not entitled to have my own definition and must use yours? Is that not a direct disrespect to my opinion? Furthermore, my definitions are not personal but quoted from dictionary. And no worries. I still like you -lol
There are 2 types of Euthanasia. Passive and active. You are talking about active, whereas xiaojia is talking about passive. Passive euthanasia is when the Dr. withdraws medical treatment that would otherwise prolong the patient's life, i.e. pulling the plug, and allowing the patient to progress towards their death. Something is not done to continue/preserve life. Active is when the Dr. has to intervene and "kill" the patient, i.e. distrubuting pills. Something is done to end life such as forcing medicine into the patients system (commonly opiods/narcotics).
^Ahh... I completely forgot about passive euthanasia. My mind was completely focused active euthanasia the whole time. It explains why it was mind-boggling trying to figure out what xiaojia meant in the active euthanasia context. Now it makes sense. Thanks for the clear-up, casshern. My fault, xiaojia -- a complete misunderstanding.
Whatever the scenarios are, euthanasia is WRONG. Who are we to have the right to take away ones life no matter what or how the patient feels? I think it's better to leave it up to God whether or not to take away his/her life...all we can do is just hope and pray for the best.
^yeah, i guess i would say that too but i think for someone in that actual situation of having a very close loved one in such pain, it's a real struggle. have any of you ever been in that situation?
