Pemalite said:
jason1637 said:
The government shouldnt let people make that decision. I don't like the government getting involved in a lot of things but not promoting sucide is a good thing.
|
The Government isn't promoting suicide.
The Government would essentially be stepping back from dictating any decision relating to it, leaving the choice with the individual and their families.
What you are actually proposing is for government intervention to tell people what they can and can't do...
Besides, if someone is in excessive pain, they can "make" their own creative ways to end their life anyway, regardless of what the Government says or do... I mean, what is the Government going to do? Jail them? They are dead.
Besides when people take action in their own way, it is often a more brutal and painful way anyway. - Having pain-free options would make it a much cleaner and humane process... And hopefully result in me being called to less incidents where someone has literally jumped off a bridge or cliff and I have to scrape up their bloody leftovers.
jason1637 said:
That's literally what you asked "Have you worked in the emergency services or the health sector and seen what people have to endure even with the aid of powerful drugs?".
|
The Emergency Services isn't just an emergency room.
It's any first responder... Be it an Urban Search and Rescue from a collapsed building, Firefighter entering a burning home, Extricating casualties from a car accident... You name it.
jason1637 said:
I haven't worked in these places but i've been in an emergency room a few times and yeah the pain people go through sucks but they should just fight it and they can get better.
|
They often don't get better. - That is the entire point. You are proposing that people should suffer in pain indefinitely.
jason1637 said:
People should not decide to put an animal down because we don't have their consent and it's wrong anyway.
|
A few years ago I went to a truck rollover with about 100 sheep in it.
I had to assist in killing half the stock as many had broken necks, broken legs, large wounds that would have simply meant that those animals would not have had any chance of surviving or minimal quality of life... In short, it was better for the animals to be put down and disposed of then and there. (No, you couldn't eat them due to various reasons.)
Their consent wasn't necessary, you don't allow animals to suffer, it's brutal and wrong.
jason1637 said:
So since I haven't experienced something I can't give my opinion on it?
|
You can provide your opinion on it (And is something that is welcomed!), it just means it's not from a more educated lived-perspective.
But I am wondering if you have formed your perspective due to religious influences or something else?
|
1.By allowing it they are indirectly promoting suicide.
So you'd be fine with someone wanting to shoot themselves in the head if they're in pain as their way of being creative about their death?
2. The answer is still no. I have not worked in any emergency services.
3. In these rare cases the person will die very soon anyway. They should enjoy the time they have left even if they are in pain. Their pain might even go away with new medicine.
4. So ya'll made the decision that it was better to let the animal die. What if the animals wanted to live?
5. I'm not saying that my opinion is from life experience. Most people don't go through issues that are prominent today but they can still give educated opinions on these problems.
I'm Catholic but i haven't really practiced my faith in the past year/year and a half. My opinion has nothing to due with the Catholic teachings but I am aware that the Catholic church opposes euthanasia.
