TED Conversations

Miclaus Maria-Luiza

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Do you agree with euthanasia? (for humans)

I recently had an argument with 2 of my teachers on this subject. Whenever asked whether they agree with euthanasia or not they were either avoiding to answer or they were completely against it without bringing any arguments to support their opinion.
As far as I've noticed this is a very controversial and sensitive subject but I couldn't find anyone to debate it with.
Both my history and my religion teacher found their safety saying that Jesus says humans have no right to take away anyone's life but they didn't share their personal opinion.
Basically my belief is that endeed we do not have that right but in some cases,when for instance a certain person is too sick and hasn't got any chance of getting better and that person doesn't have the streght or the will to fight anymore and their desire is to die,shouldn't they be given this right?

+14
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 28 2013: You have asked the question, my simple answer is yes! In life there are 2 certanties, death and taxes. If a horse is lame we will euthanise it but if it's a person then their suffering is prolonged until the eventual certainty arrives. This is to me flawed thinking.The only real reason to keep someone alive is because their is hope to make them well again...quality of life. If their is no hope what is the point!
    Now my view on the status quo of death is different. I THINK EVENTUALLY PEOPLE WILL BE SMART ENOUGH TO DISCOVER A CURE FOR DEATH! What does this mean, well to be honest, don't be scared, your ancestors have all done it and you are pretty well done in any case, so just face it but be a bit smart about it. I planned on building a business around it, and so what do you have to lose by preserving yourself ( for example) in alcohol so that in 500 years you can be re- energised... we are after all 65% water and utilise electrical and chemical impulses! Anyway, just saying you don't have to go with the status quo!
    • thumb
      May 29 2013: Hmm, I am rather intrigued by your statement and you brought my curiosity to surface. Still,I think that death is just another phase and that it only represents that our consciousness reaches a higher level.
      Do you think that it would be better for humanity if there were a "cure" for death?
      • thumb
        May 30 2013: We may be born to die, but if you had a choice would you rather live or die? Our consciousness only physically knows being alive. Religion and other concepts aside, what if there only was life and in death you are nothing. No spirit, no other world, no other awareness, just nothing!
        What if, in 500 years, technology had advanced to such a state that re-energising people who were dead was akin to recharging a flat battery and they sent them off to populate on auto pilot to far reaching Earth like planets that had been developed for human population.
        Perhaps it takes 350 Earth years for the space ship to make the journey! My posit here was purely in terms of the worst of the worst case scenario, as in you are nearly dead and you are in pallative care.
        Personally, I don't know if one would want to burden their loved ones with final stage pre death downward spiral of their human condition. As much as one wants to spend time with their loved ones, truthfully the act of dying slowly and painfully (in terms of doped up to the eyeballs with no bladder control and fed via tube etc with no resemblance to who they were as now they can't even communicate etc) could be psychologically traumatising to them.
        Ok so bad as inevitable death is, give people hope that in the future, a cure may be discovered for their illness and for death itself and for every other ailment that man presently suffers.
        I obviously am not using todays technology or understanding of biology or DNA etc etc play a part as this may be hundreds or thousands of years away or maybe even never. I don't know, it's just a hunch I guess. Anyway what do you have to lose by backing it?
        • May 30 2013: You are assuming death is a negative and none of us should be feared into this belief in humanity's positive effect. Perhaps death holds a positive? None of us can answer that.
    • May 30 2013: TT - Quality of life is Subjective.

      Reductio ad absurdum: That if you're quality of life is not of sufficient standard then there is no point in saving you. IE your a homeless person, therefore you have no QOL so let them die.

      Or again Reductio ad absurdum says why not preemptively euthanase them. Thought - didn't someone in the 40's try that?

      As for the 45% that your not considering, you need to do some research into DNA and it's longevity while operating with an organism.
    • Lindy R

      • +1
      Jun 2 2013: Time Traveller says "... so what do you have to lose by preserving yourself ( for example) in alcohol so that in 500 years you can be re- energised...
      !!! AAAagggh!!! I am having enough trouble coping with the changes in this world in my life time [ 50 +something ;-) ] that the thought of coming back in 500 years ... to do what? None on my friends or family will be there and I certainly wouldn't be qualified to work in the evolved technology of the world in say 2500... gimme a break!!!!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.