Posted 08 May 2006 - 08:30 PM
For the most part I would agree with Mara's take on this issue.
Assisted suicide is legal in my state of Oregon...sort of. Oregon voted in support of the law twice. Even after that, politicians in D.C. have tried their best to combat it by making the drugs used for assisted suicide harder to get (if not impossible). This shows you what they think of democracy: "democratic process is great, as long as you vote for things we happen to agree with."
Besides the legal battle, I think the most difficult part of the issue is where to draw the line. How terminal do you have to be? If a doctor says you have 6 months, what if he's wrong? What about debilitating injuries that won't end your life but make life too painful or difficult to be, in your own assessment, worth living? For example: a person that is paralyzed from the neck down. You'll never move on your own again. You can't do anything without help. Your life consists of staring at what ever is right in front of you. One could argue that that is even worse than terminal disease; you have to live in this condition for many decades.
I guess the question is, if you have the right to choose to end your life, don't you also have the right to choose why you end it?
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." - Albert Einstein
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." - Douglas Adams