Bitcoin Forum

Religions are strongly go against this idea but there are some members on this sector are not supporting on their formulated doctrine or theology. While doctors are suggesting it as the best choice for the family and for the patient because they know the real situation and giving no false hope.

In my personal  view, mercy killing is not bad but an acceptable and can be considered as the best solution offered coming from a doctor. Also what is the point for letting a person alive but in a present situation which is more worst than death.An extreme belief cause by a religion is not good although having a religion can help to a person's life to be better but if it leads you to foolishness that would be the moment that you should learn to realise the foolishness side of religion. I am not a religious person nor an anti, neither an atheist or agnostic.

I also consider the I also consider the emotion of a person as the very reason why he/she refuse to accept the fact and to make such kind of decision. But in reality we need sometimes to neglect our emotion for the fact.

What is your personal opinion with this?

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. (Mercy killing)
There are different euthanasia laws in each country.
American Law states that "a 'mercy killing' or euthanasia is generally considered to be a criminal homicide" and is normally used as a synonym of homicide committed at a request made by the patient.
IF MERCY KILLING BECOMES LEGAL
Many people support the right of a terminally ill patient to die - but what if the right becomes an obligation??? And what of the potential for abuse by impatient heirs???

Should dying patients have the right to order their doctors not to start or continue medical treatment? Should doctors be protected from prosecution if they shorten a patient's life expectancy with pain-killing drugs?

Most of us would answer yes to both questions. But does this mean we need a "right to die" law? Or is there more to the issue than first meets the eye?

Public discussion of the treatment of dying patients often confuses two separate issues. First, is the right of the terminally ill person to be allowed to die without being subjected to invasive medical procedures? Second, is the question of whether a dying person should also have the right to hasten his or her own death, and require the help of doctors and nurses to do so.

Sometimes mercy killing is the only humane thing to do especially when the person is really suffering, I wouldn't recommend euthanasia when the person has been in a coma for a very long time because we know that sometimes miracle do happen.

In extreme cases such as incurable diseases that cause continuous and unbearable pain that would be perfectly acceptable. Why force people to suffer needlessly?

Not sure what I think about mercy killing. But if I wanted to die (due to a terminal disease etc) I wouldn't want to die from an injection, but from a drug.
A heroin overdose, more precisely.

A person who dies from that would feel the most amazing and intense high a man can ever achieve. He would not die sober and in fear, but high and...high.

Mercy killing actually seems fair to me now.  If the patient, his family and the medical staff agree, there shall start the procedures of an intentional overdose (obviously only in the case of terminally ill patients)

It is not acceptable for me the mercy killing. Even you did that for good it is still a murder. Taking the life of other people is a sin and we dont have the right to take others life. Only God has the power and he knew whats the best for us.

Its a good question, and my heart and mind struggle back and forth on which is more appropriate.. I think I'm for it in very extreme circumstances, but the problem for me is in the interpretation of what and when is appropriate.. and usually things because of interpretation end up all or nothing.

Heroin overdoses are administered by injection, but I get your point. I'm not really sure if I'd want to go that way though.

You apparently only get to die once, so I'd like to see what it's like in as sober a state as possible.

If a person is suffering and that person wants to die, but physically is not able to end it. And a 2nd person understands this, and is not a killer and is getting no pleasure from doing it, then that person is doing a compassionate thing.

I don't believe in such thing, i believe in the measure that can be to help a suffering soul, but it is not the same ar mercy killing because in your scenario it is a personality thing and not a medical one.

There are numerous chronical ailments that cause continuous pain and suffering that can not be healed.

Yes there are but there is a need for a specialist to tell if there is a treatment or not and him with the pacient can get to a decision but still it is not a mercy kill. Let's say my teeth  hurt and you fell mercy for me, what then?? Yes, the felling is human but the way we put the question is the problem. So yes for mercy, no for killing.

I am not much worried about what the religion say about it. In my opinion, it should be left to the individual. If some individual is suffering from a slow and painful death (for example, from terminal-stage cancer), then what is the point in forcing him to going through all that suffering?

According to me, Mercy-killing is pretty necessary in some terminal illnesses . Rather than a person's suffering a lot, Mercy-killing would be better for him or her. In some serious cases, Mercy-killing can be inevitable. For that reason, this idea must be legal in every country for the sake of terminally ill people.

Mercy killing or Euthanasia for a better word is a very sensitive and highly controversial topic. It deals with life and
the decision of ending it. In the medical field it is quite common to see and handle cases like this. At some
point I would sympathized and agree with such a decision. I believe there are cases that the relatives
are the ones to decide and rarely patients themselves instruct them to resort to such a point to
end the pain and suffering. But nowadays it's likely common to hear mercy-killing in methods of
waiting or the patient to pass away without the need for life support intervention. It is a very
hard situation but sometimes it is an inevitable terminal last resort.
 

Mercy killing is a mercy. This choice should be made by the patient and be honored by the doctor or the family. In my opinion a life is determined by the quality one has to live with and the descision of the patient. If a person will lie in bed for the rest of their lives, eat through a straw and have someone to help you relieve yourself the patient could opt to have an assisted suicide for him. If a patient is brain dead for three weeks, then have the family descide if they still want to go on.

on my opinion i cannot accept such thing because its against the bible, by doing that we are committing a sins already to up above

Agreed. If there is zero-chance of survival, then what is the point in forcing that individual to go through all the pain? Rather than that, he can be allowed to have a peaceful death. This will also save the relatives from getting financially ruined as a result of the medical expenses.

I also accept that but the reason should be tough to be considered doing it. A person who is in coma for a very long time or he's in a vegetative state and the machine is what keeps him alive. These can be considered to make it happen.

no killing and euthanasia. It is necessary to be above this

A mercy killing is an act of killing someone who is very ill, in order to stop them suffering any more pain.

Mercy killing is the greatest way of saving a person from the hopeless situation yet hard to execute because you need to convince yourself from the heaviness of truth to accept it and stop believing the deadness of false hope.

In my opinion, it depends to cases. I'm totally in favor when people are suffering from a terminal disease, and there wouldn't exist any solution to get them better. If it can stop them to suffer, that's necessary.

I agree. That's the right term there, when it's necessary. Sometimes a patient obviously be having a hard time fighting for life but fighting none the less. I wouldn't give up on that case. Look into the eyes of the person and ypu'll see if there's still a fight left and i wouldn't want to deny them that even with how impossible it could be

I prefer the word Euthanasia. Well, I think every one has the right to decide for their own lives by themselves. If someone decides that to live makes no sense and it's too painful, so it be. But, of course, the decision must be taken by the affected person, not by anyone else.

I’ve never thought about the things you mentioned. I didnt know that there are a lot of things to be considered about this matter before implementing. In a place where i am right now they do not allow euthanasia and i just thought because of their religion and if they really want to end their lives or their love one’s life they will need to fly to Switzerland to do the procedure. Me personally i dont agree with it. I believe only God can give and can take life. No matter what you put in patient’s body to sustain his life if God decides to take his life he will eventually die.

Mercy killing for me should be an option. I mean we see it now in hospitals where a patient will request a do not resuscitate to the doctors and nurses. I know this approach is a passive euthanasia but still it is euthanasia. If a person chooses not to live anymore then we should allow it. It is their life and if they think that living is a horrible ordeal for them then let them end it. Imagine living your life in pain all the time, or an incurable disease that you could potentially pass on to your loved ones isn't a way to live life

well if the person who is sick is clearly suffering and will die in a short time. when you think about it its not that bad. its for the benefit of the patient

It is up to the patient. If he want to fight it to the very end, then he should be allowed to do so. On the other hand, if the patient feels that he can't take it anymore, the he should be allowed to commit euthanasia. But the problem is when the patient is unconscious and the relatives have to take the decision.

I'm pro-choice and as long as the concerned person is in a position to make that decision, I think its crystal clear - Euthanasia or no-Euthanasia , he/she makes the call, not the state/government. Last year I met and talked to a guy who is in his late sixties, he was paralyzed below the neck, the pain was excruciating and the only thing he wanted was to die. There was no talking him out of this thought. Quadriplegia made him victim to other diseases as well, there was actually very little hope- It's horrible, the very thought of not able to move your limbs and having to depend on someone else do even your basic stuff. Further, if you're poor & live in a country with abysmal health care coverage for citizens, the medical bills are tough on the family with young children.

However, this gets tricky when the concerned person is not in a condition to make that call himself/herself.

The particular person, and the people related to that person should have the final choice. A person's life is never entirely his/her own to decide for.

i think its violate the law about the rights people. i think life is a precious gift so we need to spend it wisely and while the people live there is a hope that makes a miracle. so we need to be patient even it is hard to us and to the people that we mercy..

Does not the old saying go dont u kill a horse that has a limp

now why ?

It is often overlooked that patients have the common law right to refuse any medical treatment. A doctor who treats a patient against his or her express wishes can be charged with assault. It would be wise to educate people as to their right to refuse treatment. There is no need to convert this well established legal principle into legislation.

Euthanasia is another word for mercy killing.It is not fair to take a life that you never created just
because the person is passing through pains.Delivering mothers pass through pains of delivery.
Some may tell the nurses to just kill them to avoid experiencing such pains! If one has pains,
the best solution is to find a way to eliminate the pain and not to kill the person in question.

Mercy killing is good, at least it will not be painful for the victim
Mercy killing is the  act of putting a person or animal to death painlessly or allowing them to die by withholding medical services, usually because of a painful and incurable disease.Mercy killing is also referred to as "euthanasia."

The Greek word euthanasia translates to “good death,” making it and mercy killing terms that can be comforting in the face of difficult medical situations. When any person, especially a family member or close friend, is experiencing pain, mental degeneration, or other adverse condition, our instinct is to relieve the person in any way possible. Sometimes, this desire to alleviate pain can become so strong in the caregiver or patient that it overrides our deeper impulse to preserve life and survive.

In my opinion, mercy killing is not a bad thing, yes it violate the commandments of God but if someone is suffering from painful situation will you not do anything to lessen his/her illness? Because as we know all of us will be dead when time comes and no one can avoid it. We should have mercy to someone needed it but actually I can't do it ofcourse.

Well mercy killing from the word mercy you kill by a mercy. Because you didnt wanted to see suffering to death something like that. And i think its not a sin you just kill by a mercy at the end.

Whichever life is, it is given once. A person must decide whether to live or not to live. No one else is in the right to decide for him. "Kill for pity" - sounds irrational.

I really like the idea of ​​murder by grace! After all, if a person dies in agony, this is wrong. Pain for example from cancer can not be hidden even by strong drugs! In this form of murder, it is important to exclude doctors' mistakes!