I don't know if a similar post like this has ever been deliberated on NL.After so much deliberation in a law class some years ago I've been looking for the perfect section to post this, so I deemed it fit to post it here in religion section. Euthanasia is the act of killing a person with the person's consent usually to end his suffering. Let me paint a scenario, during war, a soldier is been injured by a bomb that cuts him into half and he is been inflicted with unbearable pains and in this circumstances the injured soldier only begs to die to relieve the pain. Will it be religiously or morally justified to end his life? Under what circumstances can mercy killing be justified? Legally, it is not a crime.

From what I understand it is a crime in most countries. Why not use an example outside of a combat situation? The rules are different during such scenarios.

Personally, I approve of assisted suicide under certain conditions, like if the patient is in considerable pain or handicapped with very little chance of recovery and is of sound mind and makes it clear that this is her/his decision for instance. If refused, at that point s/he is being left alive to alleviate the grief of friends/family or to satisfy their religious believes, which I think is very cruel. Enforcing this policy though would be rife with complications.

wiegraf:
Personally, I approve of assisted suicide under certain conditions, like if the patient is in considerable pain

Anesthetics could lessen the pain. Wouldn't that be preferable to suicide?

wiegraf: or handicapped with very little chance of recovery and is of sound mind and makes it clear that this is her/his decision for instance.

Discoveries are being made everyday. A new scientific/medical way of helping him recover could be discovered the next day after he is killed. What then?

wiegraf: If refused, at that point s/he is being left alive to alleviate the grief of friends/family or to satisfy their religious believes, which I think is very cruel.

No. Religion is not the only reason why the family would want to keep their relative one alive. They might actually love the person enough to want to keep them alive.

wiegraf: Enforcing this policy though would be rife with complications.

Very true.
I don't believe euthanasia should be legalized. There is always a solution to problems and medical conditions/ailments can be cured only that cures for some ailments have not been found.

E_monkey:
Anesthetics could lessen the pain. Wouldn't that be preferable to suicide?

Discoveries are being made everyday. A new scientific/medical way of helping him recover could be discovered the next day after he is killed. What then?

No. Religion is not the only reason why the family would want to keep their relative one alive. They might actually love the person enough to want to keep them alive.

Very true.
I don't believe euthanasia should be legalized. There is always a solution to problems and medical conditions/ailments can be cured only that cures for some ailments have not been found.

Anesthetics could indeed lessen the pain, but it still doesn't take it away. One could still be living a pretty terrible life despite anesthesia (opiates in particular, I'm looking at you). So yes suicide would be preferable in some situations.

Discoveries are made every day, true, but supposing the patient has little time left by all accounts, and there's no cure on the horizon? For patients with say full paralysis even, I say they be given the option of deciding if they are willing to wait for a cure with low odds of materializing or just ending it. It is the patients life after all, not the families or the states. They have no right to dictate how he/she lives it, and they'd be forcing the patient against his/her will in some situations.

Where do I say only religion is the only reason the family might want to keep him alive?

Oh yes it would be really difficult to implement, but I still believe it should. In cases where for instance there's a good chance of a cure arriving before death, then the patient probably shouldn't be given the option. There are various other scenarios, regardless its worth a shot.

wiegraf:
Discoveries are made every day, true, but supposing the patient has little time left by all accounts, and there's no cure on the horizon?

@bold,
I don't think anything is 100% certain, including medical diagnosis, so there can't really be a 'by all accounts' situation. There can be misdiagnosis and you can't be sure that a cure for what they suffer from cannot be discovered in future, like I said before.

wiegraf:
For patients with say full paralysis even, I say they be given the option of deciding if they are willing to wait for a cure with low odds of materializing or just ending it. It is the patients life after all, not the families or the states. They have no right to dictate how he/she lives it, and they'd be forcing the patient against his/her will in some situations.

Human beings are programmed to be innately self preservative, a person wanting to end their existence is likely to be an indication of a mental disorder or a temporary error of judgement and that person might have a change of heart after considering their situation more carefully. Life cannot be gotten back when lost. You can't risk ending a person's life by euthanasia when it is possible that they are requesting suicide hastily (maybe due to unrealistic pessimism) without carefull consideration of their situation. Yes, it is their life, but some circumstances call for the family making decisions for that person.

wiegraf:
Oh yes it would be really difficult to implement, but I still believe it should. In cases where for instance there's a good chance of a cure arriving before death, then the patient probably shouldn't be given the option.

Agreed.

No matter d condition.i cant take what i cant make.I CANT MAKE LYF SO I WONT TAKE LIFE

E_monkey:
@bold,
I don't think anything is 100% certain, including medical diagnosis, so there can't really be a 'by all accounts' situation. There can be misdiagnosis and you can't be sure that a cure for what they suffer from cannot be discovered in future, like I said before.

Human beings are programmed to be innately self preservative, a person wanting to end their existence is likely to be an indication of a mental disorder or a temporary error of judgement and that person might have a change of heart after considering their situation more carefully. Life cannot be gotten back when lost. You can't risk ending a person's life by euthanasia when it is possible that they are requesting suicide hastily (maybe due to unrealistic pessimism) without carefull consideration of their situation. Yes, it is their life, but some circumstances call for the family making decisions for that person.

Agreed.

First point, true you can never be 100 percent sure (of anything imo) but if all manner of specialists and what not have been called in and the patients chances are considered terminal, then I think its safe to agree with their prognosis as final.

Second point, you rightly highlighted 'likely', this might not be the case and you've acknowledged that. As for family, again, it would depend on the case.

I'm not for just killing everyone who brings a case. You don't imply that of course but just want to make that clear. Think panels and checks etc. Realistically, in the third world this won't be possible mostly for logistical reasons, but in the developed word it could work (and it does in some european countries I think)

Edit: also, there will be mistakes made, no doubt. But the gain of a graceful and painless demise for many others would be worth.

The morality of euthanasia: a Philosophical analysis
http://www.bravoprojecthelp.com/philosophy/the-morality-of-euthanasia-a-philosophical-analysis/

Following!!!!