Euthanasia - Legal or Illegal?

BloodVayneI heard euthanasia is OK in the Netherlands? How is it?

It's allowed here in the Netherlands BUT only if the patient or his family can give a good reason for it. You have to fill in a lot of forms that take a while to get processed, then a doctor comes to check along with somebody official that I don't know the English word for to make sure everything said in the forms is true and then and only then is the patient allowed death. This is usually performed by a Doctor who is educated for this type of thing so it's done right. I think it's better anyway. Suffering with no hope of getting cured or living like a vegetable is not something anyone looks forward to.

1Blacks1Lets say someone there in my house at night trying to steal my shit, and i killed him lets say by Stabbing him. I'll get charged for deffending my house, my shit inside, and who ever is in the house at that time including myself.What Kinda shit is that ?

In the Netherlands you are allowed to prevent criminals escape......by sitting on them. Actual law in our country. We had a robber in our house once and my dad caught him in the act. The thief tripped and my dad promptly sat on his back so he couldn't get away. Never felt sorry for a robber until that moment. My dad weighs a lot.

well you wouldnt say its okay until you experience iti experience it my father was...dying and i cant think of him dead but sadly he did...

If they kill animals with Euthanasia and they don't want to die why can't humans who want to at least have Euthanasia?!

It really depends on the individual but there are moral and ethical issues related to this.If a person is suffering from an affliction he or she knows cannot be resolved, it would be a normal reaction for the rest of us to show some compassion and ease his or her suffering any way possible, even if it means death. However, you are still taking the life of a person which some consider as murder.And about the animals, why are people so concerned about their "feelings" when we ourselves cold-bloodedly kill eack other without mercy and remorse? WAKE UP!

in my opinion if you can get away with having free roms it's legal. No doubt about it for sure.

Replying to #45

WTF!? This thread isn't about free ROMs, or whether or not they're illegal.

Laws blah. It's all about money. If you're rich or have awesome insurance, they will tell you that you are not allowed to die and must stay plugged in to the machine or whatever. But if you are some poor shmuck with no life insurance and are living paycheck to paycheck, your dead meat.

The UK has made some poor choices in the past.
I think that this should not be illegal, only the partents/guardains of the child with the terminal illness does not want them to die. But the child wants to die to end the suffering.Everybody should die while they are sleeping. Death without pain means death without fear.So...NO THIS SHOULD NOT BE OUTLAWED IN AMERICA AND UK SHOULD RE-CONSIDER THEIR CHOICE!

I'm reading wikipedia and my religion book (they teach religion in my high school) so here are my thoughts...
Euthanasia can be divided into two by consent and by means
[list type=decimal]
[*]1 by consent[/list]Euthanasia may be conducted with consent (voluntary euthanasia) or without consent (involuntary euthanasia). Of course it is hard to question the voluntary one. The involuntary, where there is another individual decided to do euthanasia when the another person isn't capable of doing so, for an example the another person is in coma and still alive, is-in my thought-could be considered "an act of killing".
Well yeah, one could argument this is done to end the person suffering.
In the term of ending another person life legally by law, the person him/herself must know it first.
You can consider death penalty for example.

• 2 by means

Euthanasia may be conducted passively, non-actively, and actively. Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, chemotherapy in cancer, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death (principle of double effect). Passive euthanasia is the most accepted form, and it is a common practice in most hospitals. Non-active euthanasia entails the withdrawing of life support and is more controversial. Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill and is the most controversial means. An individual may use a euthanasia machine to perform euthanasia on himself or herself.
Well, I believe seeing one person suffering is suffering. Many people can agree to the passive way and not to the active way.It is complicated.
Let's consider human rights. Humans can achieve or do human rights when they are not disturbing other's.The result of euthanasia is ending one person life. So, it is violating human rights.
How about the voluntary one? Is it considered violating human rights? The person is wanting him/herself dead. Other supposedly not involved in this. But, humans interact with each other. This make other involved in this in the form of relationship.The next one is: can you consider not giving treatment to sick people is a violation of human rights? Or can you consider injecting someone to make him/her die is a violation of human rights knowing the death is inevitable?It is humans right to live. Yes it is their right.
So, my final words could only be: it depends on the person whom is considering him/herself to be subject of euthanasia.[/list]

LoonylionIn the UK, yes. If you take part in euthanasia (either as the mercy killer, assisting the 'victim' with performing the action, or being present when the action occured) in the UK, you are liable to be charged with first degree murder, or at the very least accessory to murder.

Anyway, I wonder if someone in his stake of death (his life depends entirely on hospital equipments) and his family cannot afford the medical billings and life-supporting machines maintenance cost. Who would pay for the costs if the life had to be supported? Do the family has an option to remove all the equipments and speed up the dying process?
It's essentially the same as euthanasia. But, in this case, no one kills the patient, the patient died by itself, somewhat painfully. So what should be done?

the family don't pay for the equipment. in a situation like that, the doctors would have to ask the family for permission to withdraw treatment, don't think it can happen the other way around.

I don't really get it. It's the family who pays for the medical expenses right? If the family refuses to pay, the doctors then would ask permission to the family to remove the equipments.Anyway the point is, isn't it the same as killing the patient? The family can't do anything about that since they can't pay and the hospital wouldn't run without the money. So, who's responsible for the death?

in the UK the state pays for medical care.

So that's it. I wonder if the American hospital system served the patient like this too?Anyway, I've read somewhere that there's two types of death, brain death and body death, something like that.
*confirms by googling*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death
there's even this Lazarus Phenomenon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Phenomenon

Brain death is a legal definition of death that refers to the irreversible end of all brain activity (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life) due to total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of blood flow and oxygenation. It should not be confused with a persistent vegetative state. The concept of brain death emerged in the 1960s, as the ability to resuscitate individuals and mechanically keep the heart and lungs functioning became prevalent.
Traditionally, both the legal and medical communities determined death through the end of certain bodily functions, especially respiration and heartbeat. With the increasing ability of the medical community to resuscitate people with no heart beat, respiration or other signs of life, the need for a better definition of death became obvious. This need gained greater urgency with the widespread use of life support equipment, which can maintain body functions indefinitely, as well as rising capabilities and demand for organ transplantation.

I can't give my opinion on this as I haven't understand this matter as a whole and there are still debates around defining this 'death' and 'conciousness'. But this should serve as a good reference for this topic.

Euthanasia: necessary