Is it right to prolong life at any cost?

Remove all ads!

But that in turn can constitue man-slaughter. The parents are running purely on emotion and not rational thinking. Imagine the upset when the government tells them that they won't allow their child to live (it's not exactly how it is but this is how the media will explain it).

I agree with what you say is what should be done. But it can't be done like that - especially when you're dealing with emotional people.

 

I agree with Viking. This is not about money but about ethics. Being ethical may be expensive, true. But isn't that the main point of earning money and paying taxes? That we can afford being ethical?

 

My grandfather had a braintumour for some 15 years before he died. Out of that time, he was pretty close to braindead for the remaining 5, for the 5 years before that he was never at least visibly aware of anything that happened around him, but he didn't yet need artificial breathing devices etc.

I never quite understood why my grandmother didn't let him go. Especially after he really did go "braindead". I do remember, though, what she said not too long ago when I brought the subject up with her. "Sometimes the suffering of the ones still alive and well can override the suffering of the one who is ill (freely translated)." If a person is so far gone he really has no way of understanding the pain and futility of his situation, then could his "unlife" still serve to give the living some amount of good?

Normally I'd say no. But who am I to judge, I wasn't that close to him.

If someone is born severely handicapped, do you kill him because he has no hope for a good life without the suffering he as a handicapped person would have to go through? What if someone is born with the same handicap but has a life expectancy of say 10-15 years (happened to the child of a former classmate of mine)? What if just 5? Where, exactly, do you draw the line?

Is a 'comatosis' life better than one where the person is aware of his possibly decades' worth of suffering?

Once again, there is no right answer. If it was just a matter of choosing the better of two evils, but it isn't even that simple. I believe that a person has to have the right to end their lives if they feel like it. I also believe that in modern life, life itself is way overrated. Death can come as a release, and it *should* be seen as a beautiful, respectable thing instead of the evil that everyone is trying to avoid. I've long dreamed that my death would be one where my friends and family would dance and have a party, rejoice the good times we had together and feel the proper sorrow only for missing me, but not because they felt I'd suffered the terrible fate that is the norm. But I have no idea who should have the right to say when someone needs to, or deserves to die or not.

Perhaps the money should come off of the parents' pockets. Perhaps then someone would suffer needlessly because they could not afford the money themselves. I see the dilemma, but not the answer.

 

Ho there, Foradasthar... I lost you.
Are you speaking of 'not prolonging life' or euthenasia when you say "do you kill him because he has no hope for a good life,...?"?

I see a significant difference between 'not prolonging life' and euthenasia. Read about my view on this matter here .

Agreed.

Disagreed.

This is a matter that some of us will never agree with. So I just tell you my opinion and like to add that I respect your points of view, since they are noble and are respectful towards people, but they are not in keeping with my religious outlook. That often is the trouble of being religious...

 

Just to bring this thread up to date, together with the BBC summary of the ruling in this case.

I agree with the ruling based on the facts I have seen, though how complete they are I do not know.

I'm sure the actual wording of the ruling is available somewhere should any of you wish to read it.