it seem we on different page, it no cancel it will reduce! cancel and reduce is two different thing! do you think science is hard cold data deserve that bald holding it head sighing pic? starting to lose value is gradual thing~ you seem only want instant effect which is ridiculous! fear starting to lose not fear instant lose~ you like it or not if patient ask to death it mean asking to suicide! killing is killing, self defense killing is killing, killing your enemy on battlefield is killing, killing to protect your love one also a killing~ it moral and law that differentiate which may good and which is bad~ you ignore this cat mentioned on country it government not so good there potential for shady administration malpractice that lead to fear business on killing which mean potential for specialize on euthanasia~ you think to much imagination? nope, on Indonesia abortion only legal with two case~ first if pregnancy have potential to endanger live of mother, the baby or both~ second if pregnancy resulted from rape case~ this cat may bit wrong about second condition~ anyway beside those two it is illegal to abortion~ even with first condition it have strict requirement such as multiple diagnoses from multiple doctors before it may happen~ surprise there several case of illegal abortion which run by qualified medical officer for sake of money~ oh there also interesting case about giving birth with caesar procedure~ caesar procedure is legal idk correct term on english you know going to labor via creating medical surgery on stomach~ it also have some administration before execution~ funny enuf it become business cuz since it is legal more family middle to upper class prefer caesar operation rather than giving normal labor~ even if there no medical condition that need to do such operation~ value about which way to going labor start to change~ yes only tiny bit, but it some change~ this cat find your original argument people who against only cuz not understand administration procedure behind it is absolutely ridiculous, euthanasia not first and may not the last thing which require complex administration before it execution~ you see bright side while this cat see both bright and dark side of so called administration~
I truly tried. But you simply don't get what I am saying. I already wrote a big chunk of text to Pass. Read it and if you still think the same I don't think that anything else I say would make a difference. Goverments while corrupt as fuck, don't take actions that don't benefit them. Intelligent people with real credentials from all around the world push for the legalization in countries in which it is still not legal cuz they know that it is something that needs to be done. It is as simple as doctors knowing more about the issue than armchair expert theories that don't have real studies backing their claims. Who would you trust, Antivaxxers that think that vaccines are bad based on their own reasonings or doctors with real data that proves that vaccines are good? Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
deal cuz this thing is debatable even among so called real doctors don't try to divert vaccine thing cuz on this cat country such thing is mandatory thing while protesters is ignored unlike idk which country you from so you bring such simple matter on this topic~
I bring the vaccine thingy cuz you guys aren't backing your claims. You are thinking up theories by yourselves without real data to claim it. How am I supposed to react to "Of course that 2 decades of data that say that Euthanasia is good isn't enough, you have to wait 7 more decades to know that I am right! Euthanasia will make everyone value their lives less in 7 decades! Cuz I say so!"? As for debatable, its only cuz a minority tried to bring religion and ethics into it. If you may care to link a real study from a reputable research center, then you might be able to hold a real discussion.
You honestly think the legalization of a substance is comparable to the legalization of taking one's life in a regulated and controlled manner? This is much deeper, this affects the ethical and moral beliefs we have as a living being. And as I said, the effects are subtle and long term. Research and thesis papers can't be made because of the lack of actual material for the basis of said research. But if you were to ask me what would be a good example of such an effect, it would be the effect of those people with disabilities, the elderly, and basically those heavily reliant on the people around them. In the future when euthenasia is inevitably accepted in society, it will encourage said people to end their lives from their sense that they burden those around them. As for the economy, healthcare system, politics, etc. tough to say its long term effects of it, such things are very subjective to change and I don't know much about those.
You're contradicting yourself. You claimed the slavers in your example intended to help the slaves. Those people do not have a solution for the patient in question at present. Why a given individual chooses to exercise their natural right and freedom is none of our damn business. I respect the agency and rights of people, unlike you. Why should someone live just because you believe in them? Who the hell do you think you are? You're just a stranger, a nobody. We are talking about euthanasia, not suicide, but if someone in front of me was suicidal my opinion is irrelevant. I know nothing about this person or their reasons. What possible weight could my opinion have? I would only intervene if their method of choice was going to inconvenience everyone else like jumping in front of a train or car. I can respect your choice to end your life, but such methods just makes you a dick. What if they get through it? That is a consideration for them. The decision to end one's own life is not something anyone makes lightly nor should they. It would be a simple matter to give them a few weeks to a few months for them to rescind their decision before granting their request. It is every person's responsibility to give due consideration to their life decisions and it is not the state's duty to launch some sort of discovery process into their reasons. This is their life, their choice, and their responsibility.
Young blood let’s chill XD I mean it is good to be passionate but i can feel your anger and annoyance through your text XD Happiness is the most important thing in life and being « right » is not worth it
No one's mad. And I'm sure most of us here already forgot and stopped caring about it until you pointed it out.
You really must be trolling if you were unable to comprehend what I wrote there. Like I said to Asriu, I will agree to disagree. I don't see any point in continuing this.
eh no you think too much~ this cat simple have different pov to approach on this matter, ekfreet only care discuss toward health aspect backed by well-known data avalaible hence imo it useless to argue via government pov or other which not only health aspect need to be considered~ oh almost forget this cat can't provide such data hence it useless to further detail~
Ai-chan's opinion is that it should be legal, as in allowed, but should not be offered as a 'choice' when considering what to do with patients who can still make the decision. Patients should not burden doctors with such an act. If they can still make a decision, and their bodies are still sound enough to commit suicide, then it should not fall on the doctors to end their lives. This is different with braindead or completely paralyzed people with no hope of getting better. The option should be allowed, but should not be one of the offered options.
You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. A hospital is a tool to heal the ill. If it fails at this and an individual is suffering immensely, the fact that the tool doesn't work shouldn't prevent that person from exercising their liberty to do with their life what they choose.
Person A does have the legal right to X but that doesn't mean Person B has to agree with said right. However, Person B voting to outlaw said right doesn't help either.
i'm not against it. i don't think it should be illegal too (human's law!!! not religious ones). personally, having the choice to choose the option, put me in relieved. it's only my preference, no need to take offence. if there's chances to live, of course i would choose to live
Legal, but with strict conditions/systems in place to prevent abuse. I support the right of terminally ill patients or those who have a severely negatively impacted quality of life which is also incurable to seek euthanasia. It's not something I take lightly at all and I've thought about it over decades while watching friends and family make choices on either side of the debate. It's a tough topic and one I'm very familiar with.