DEBATEitOUT.comHave Your Voice Heard, 24/7.

I believe in terminal cases, where the person is living in constant pain, where there is no hope of recovery that it should be permissible. There is nothing ethical about allowing a person to live in constant pain. In effect it's doing harm, the patient can no longer function, they can no longer sleep, in some cases cancer patients at end stage are in too much pain to even eat.
I know that the Hipocratic Oath states a doctor shall do no harm, but isn't allowing a person to live in that state a form of harm?

Of course I started that statement with I believe, and really thats all this debate will be.. personal opinions.

Well that is what any debate ever is, personal opinion. I agree with you on this topic. However, if the doctor discusses it with the patients family and they agree, is that a problem?

Legally speaking right now? yes it absolutely is. That doctor loses his license to practice medicine and probably serves ALOT of jail time.

And honestly I usually try to keep my personal opinions out of this place because I feel a debate should be about logical, moral, ethical, and scientific standpoints. I think it should be intellectual sparring between conversants.

And while I feel that people should have a right to die, I understand the moral standpoint of others where any last moment of life for some is better than the uncertainty of may follow.

Thats why I'm iffy on the personal statements, specifically in the form of this debate.

actually sal, a debate isn't supposd to be about belief, but fact. this site is in no way a debate site. it's a site for people to argue about their beliefs, with a little sprinklin of actual facts throne in as rebuttle from time to time. If this were a true debate forum people would have to provide proof to back up their claims, which would essentiailly delegitimize neaerly all responses from certain members regarding issues of "morality" and "ethics".

I myself think that it should be allowed. If I were suffering from a painful condition that I would not recover from, I would much prefer to just end it and go to heaven then linger for months in pain.

What are you talking about? This isn't a debate site. I see people debating…

I've been on this site since day 1 and many people have brought evidence from sources to back up their claims. Most people do.

Yea, but a lot of people make impulse decisions. They might regret it later on.

but who are we to tell them they can't make those decisions? o.0

Well we can't tell anyone anything I suppose.

It is also different actually being in that situation as well.

how so? im not questioning you in a i disagree manner just i would like to hear more of your thoughts

How do you regret killing oneself?

Because it is one thing to have thoughts about it when you are alive and well and not in the situation, but your mind set and thoughts will change when thrown into a horrible event such as that.

I hate to bring religion into this discussion (notice I did not say debate), but I feel I must. Here is the reason why . . . Most religions teach that suicide will send you (or your spirit, soul, etc.) the opposite direction from heaven. Remember that I said most religions – obviously Islam is not one of those religions.

So when you begin to discuss suicide in any form, wether it be doctor assisted or not, you must take the individuals personal religious beliefs, as well as that individuals family's religious beliefs into consideration.

Therein lies the crux.

It is the biggest stumbling block of all, for one simple reason. That reason is that a funeral or memorial service is not and never has been intended for the benefit of the deceased – they are ceremonies for those the deceased left behind.

For a deeply religious family who would believe that if the deceased committed the unforgivable sin of suicide, that ceremony would be pure torture and the fact that their loved one committed suicide would mean to them that they would never be reunited with that loved one in heaven when their own life on this earth is over.

No government official, elected or appointed, would want to make such a law that would cause his/her constituents such ever lasting grief, emotional pain and agony. At least no government official in his/her right mind.

Just my not-so-humble opinion. B)

But our government specifically, which has mandated a separation of church and state CANNOT make a law based on religious beliefs. Outlawing doctor assisted suicide on the basis that it will send the recipients soul to hell is an unconstitutional law. Outlawing it because it is considered a socially unacceptable crime is not, however you could consider it a breach of personal rights if you feel everyone has the right to choose their own fate.

Quite a good question.

In our Military, if one's religion prohibits him/her from taking a human life then that person is not put into a combat situation.

What you are saying – and do not misunderstand me when I say that "the separation of church and state" is NOT in our Constitution, ONLY that Congress shall NOT declare a national religion – is that based on the false claim of separation of church and state our government can and must declare that doctor assisted suicide should be carried out regardless of the patients religious beliefs. Sorry pard, but that is not only morally wrong, it is inherently wrong!

It would be much better for the government to get out of our personal lives altogether, and that includes any and all medical decisions.

That being the case, and if the government did pull out of all decisions in that manner; wouldn't those medical decision fall on the shoulders of the doctor and the patient?

Aren't you a teenager?

Maybe you should use spellcheck.

Once your dead. When you are in pain and suffering, it clouds your judgment. There should be physician-assisted suicides with a minimum waiting-period time I believe so that the patient understands fully what he is about to do.

Are you asking if I am a teenager? No I'm well past all my teenage years.