Ethanasia is leagal in many western country but most of the eastern countries like Nepal oppose to the idea of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

Do you all think a person should be given a cold sleep, quiet and painnless death, if we know that he/she don't have any hope to recover or should we let our loved ones suffer and die eventually just because we want to see them live longer, eventhough he/she cannot do anything but to lie down in a bed and wink their eyes??

How much pain are we talking about? I'm sure someone has developed a reasonably objective pain scale somewhere, so what's a good line?

For example, let's assume a retarded adult is lactose intolerant, and doesn't realize that eating ice cream is making him hurt badly. Since he's likely to be in pain for the rest of his life, would this be a justification for euthinasia? I'm not saying it shouldn't be done in some cases-- I'm not the all-or-nothing kind of person in this argument.

Of course. Euthanasia should be legalised. After all what's the point of life if you are dying a painful death everyday?

Watch "Million Dollar Movie", you might get a better answer.

Correction:
"Million Dollar Baby"

Have watched 'Million Dollar' Movie and also followed the news of terry schiavo. In her case, the neurologists appointed by court said that she's in vegetative state; but other neurologists said that she's not in vegetative state. The video of examination was also shown in tv. We should follow our conscience more than law. Laws are made by us and obviously it's made for us. Some cases, it (euthanasia) might be good n' in some other bad.

For 13 years, she (Teddy) lived in feeding tube. But I can't imagine how horrible she must have looked on the day she died. How she must have suffered and whether she made any response for such a long time after the removal of tube till the day she was declared dead (can't remember the day - i guess about 10-14 days).

Euthanasia is one of the hot button issues even in United States. Supreme Court has a number of cases in its docket relating to this topic. Law is important as it shapes society and to rush into a judgment hastily on such a sensitive issue like this would be a grave mistake. Well if you want Euthanasia to be legalized then what you say about suicide being legalized? A person wants to commit suicide to get rid of worldly pains and Euthanasia for physical. A blanket legalization of Euthanasia can lead to unforeseen problems.

For me its pretty simple, my body, my right to do what i want to that body. Personally i don't see how scuide can be illegal (other than the obvious fact that its simply attempting to legislate morality). If i want to die, i should be allowed to (as for euthanasia, depends on the cases.)

scuide=suicide

I kinda agree with dangerous tranquilit.

Well.. this argument warrants another wuest.. what is the purpose of your being sent to.. or (if u rather>>)... your being in this world?? Do you really have the rigt to end the life taht you did not originate?

Well Euthansia is physian killing an individual suffering from terminal illness. and the physician does not do so out of his own will. If the patient asks the physician to kill him then isn't there the intent to kill onself?I am not saying these terms are totally similar, there are differences but the intent is to take life, isn't it?
Euthanasia chai should be decided in terms of each case. the problem then arises is ... who is to decide if it is right or wrong??

Well .. personally i think.. it is indeed indirect suicide.
And, if you are asking someone to kill you .. you r taking the life that is NOT actually granted by YOU in the first place. WE are not born on our own will... thus, death should not be realy our choice either. Be glad taht at least we have been granted the free will living. we can at least make of our life what we want.
the thing is .. be it suicide or euthanasia...... u r in a voluntary man salughter.

Typo in my first paste.
wuest = quest

I am not sure where I stand on this issue.. each individual case should be looked at individually.. so i guess there is no right or wrong thing u can do.. Yes.. one should have the will to do whatever he/she wants with his/her life.. but then again in the name of mercy.. there are always going to be people like Dr. Jack Kevorkian who takes every opportunity he can get to end lives (when these lives could have been saved throu counselling etc.)

Felicity, agree with ya

I beg to differ with you, Felicity. You have to think Euthanasia as a medicine to believe that it is not a suicide. You kill yourself in suicide but you release yourself from enormous physical and mental trauma in Euthanasia.

Imagine what would you do if you see a person screaming in agonizing pain? First off, you will try to cure the person, right? You will try your very best to save that person using newest of the new technologies, surgeons, medicines, you name it whatever you can. Everyone will do that. Of course we are considering here an ideal scenario where financial constraints and all other practical hurdles do not apply.

Ok, now consider the case when you know that no technology, surgeon or medicine can save the person and he will have to bear the pain all by himself until he dies. Then you will know you have no other option. Life is not all about principles my dear Felicity. Sometimes you have to look upon things in pragmatic ways. I have seen goats being slaughtered back in Nepal, probably you have too. Can you imagine leaving a goat to die all by itself after its neck is cut by more than half? Do you dare to listen to the scream of the dying goat until it dies? Forget about humans. No one can overvome the trauma of death especially when you know you are dying.

Now comes the question that DT and few other people raised. How do we look upon the priorities to know which case needs euthanasia and which does not. Thats a good question actually.To answer that, I will say if the patient is under coma (a severe form of unconsciouness) for substantially long period of time and technolgies do not see the patient getting any better in the future should be a PROSPECTIVE candidate for euthanasia. Of course it should require full consent of the patient's immediate family members. But if it involves constant physical pain and trauma, then the decision might not need the consent as well.

I agree with those saying this is a matter of choice when and where a choice can be made. In cases where the patient is not in a position to make a choice, I feel there needs to be some threshold defined by the law - ie consent of living parents, children, and spouse etc.

I would caution people against allowing the Chiavo case to influence too much their opinions about euthanasia. As per what I have read, most euthanasia cases in the US involve the consensus of loved ones and the Chiavo case was more the exception to the rule.

This is a tough subject that exposes some sensitive spots in people's value and belief systems and I respect the views of those who think differently. I don't think there are too many easy answers to all the questions this issue brings up.

To life (while it lasts)

:)

A very controversial issue , it is too. Euthanasia, if one dint know what it meant, one would think it was actaully a name of some ancient greek goddess. Euthanasia has till date remained inarguably one of the most discussed issues .Human rights activists and religious groups remain steadfast in their beliefs .Who is actually to say what is wrong and what is not? Does one not have the right to end his life when he chooses to? And then again, if euthanasia is to be ever be legaliised worldwide... there could be numerous complexities.Possibly, a terminal patient might feel the pressure to"lighten " his family and friends the "load ".I for one, would like to live and let live.

Haddock, heres to you ..to life while it lasts.. and to make it all worthwhile.

Gone with the wind..

No opinions, just a story from my side on this topic:

- http://guild.sajha.com/guild/read.cfm?guildid=69

even after finishing a paper in euthanasia, i'm still not convinced if it is legal at all...
just too many angles to look at this issue.
during the research about this topic, i met a lady nurse who agreed to let her mother go instead of treating her...
her mother had cancer and was 79 years old, treatment going on for 5 years....
at a point, she decided that treatment was worthless and didn't make her mother able to do even basic things like eating, speaking etc...
sounds horrible, mother killer...
but what can we say... its better than throwing old parents through the cliff...as seen on one nepal tv serial...(actually they did not throw the old parents as their son told to keep the Doko so that he can throw them when they get old... haha)

lol...i know i know... its a serious issue.. ought to keep a stiff upper lip and all.But i had happened to see the same tele movie as mentioned above by Neupane. Save the doko for the next generation.
Euthanasia will never be truly justified.

gone.,,