First, I don't think any long speech will do an effective work than the method I would to employ in this discussion/debate. I hope you are conversant with dialectics.

I will throw a question with two opposing views, all you are meant to do is to choose the logical and leave the illogical. It is optional to tell me why. It can also be in the form of a yes or no format. Indicate if none is logical.

If you are not in for the method I am willingly ready to drop it.

I'm ready o

Traditionally, every existent entity within the confines of the universe has a cause.
But we cannot find the cause by retrogressing to an infinite regress.
It is either the cause is or it is not.
But if it is not, then we can never be. So, it is only logical to conclude that it is.

Question: Do you agree that God caused the universe or that the universe is the product of a big ba.ng?
Patience sis.

romzyxy: I'm ready o

You are welcome, bro.

And for other parties involved. My position remains that Euthanasia is an evil that should not be promoted.

Reyginus: And for other parties involved. My position remains that Euthanasia is an evil that should not be promoted.

wat's evil about it.pls don't tell me that ur God is against it.

Logging in. Watching on the sidelines for now.

Ranchhoddas: wat's evil about it.pls don't tell me that ur God is against it.

Do you mind to indulge in my dialectics or you'd like me to approach it from a new angle?

I see Euthanasia as an exception to thou shall not kill. Euthanasia is a curative medicine from my view and done out of respect for the dignity and spiritual value of a human.

Kay 17: I see Euthanasia as an exception to thou shall not kill. Euthanasia is a curative medicine from my view and done out of respect for the dignity and spiritual value of a human.

gbam!

Kay 17: I see Euthanasia as an exception to thou shall not kill. Euthanasia is a curative medicine from my view and done out of respect for the dignity and spiritual value of a human.

To the far length I agree with your post, I will ask a question.

Dont you think this should be done only at the request of the patient?

FOLYKAZE:

To the far length I agree with your post, I will ask a question.

Dont you think this should be done only at the request of the patient?

it is usually done at the request of the patient, except in extreme cases where the patient has become unconscious and cannot make that choice then it falls on his/her immediate family. It is never the decision of the doctor.

Mr Troll: it is usually done at the request of the patient, except in extreme cases where the patient has become unconscious and cannot make that choice then it falls on his/her immediate family. It is never the decision of the doctor.

If the patient make the decision, like it said traditionally "Anger turned inward against the self." dont you think such decision might arise through psychological imbalance?

Family members taking such decision on behalf of patient is cold blooded murdering.

FOLYKAZE:

If the patient make the decision, like it saidthe self." dont you think such decision might arise through psychological imbalance?

Family members taking such decision on behalf of patient is cold blooded murdering.

do you know the situations in whih euthanasia is considered?

Kay 17: I see Euthanasia as an exception to thou shall not kill. Euthanasia is a curative medicine from my view and done out of respect for the dignity and spiritual value of a human.

Curative Medicine? Kay C'mon!

For Euthanasia to be really what you are saying it is, it must be solely aimed at eradicating the pain the patient is made to experience. That instant, you've cured the primary ailment tormenting the individual. Then, we cannot be talking of Euthanasia.

But you cannot speak of a curing a dead person. That's a contradiction you do not want to fall into so early. A cure cannot destroy entirely what it is supposed to be bring back to normalcy and still be regarded as such.

Mr Troll: it is usually done at the request of the patient, except in extreme cases where the patient has become unconscious and cannot make that choice then it falls on his/her immediate family. It is never the decision of the doctor.

Don't see this as a distraction.

Do you agree that medicine like every art prescribe to preserve for their customers, or you agree that the customers prescribe to preserve the art?

^^
Then we don't agree as to what medicine is.

Placebos are not the immediate solution/cure to the particular disease, yet they are curative medicine.

Euthanasia restores the human dignity which the sufferer lost.

Reyginus: Don't see this as a distraction.

Do you agree that medicine like every art prescribe to preserve for their customers, or you agree that the customers prescribe to preserve the art?

bros, I no understand this kweshun o!

Mr Troll: do you know the situations in whih euthanasia is considered?

You think I dont know and I am here discussing it?

Mr..... If the patient make such decision, dont you think it psychological imbalance?

Those who want to die are not in their right mind and perhaps can be argued as being clinically insane, or rather not of sound mind, and that they are incapable of making these decisions rationally due to the duress and pain they are must constantly endure. Look at it from this angle that we all have a biological need to live (fit) and survive. Therefore no one wants to die. What people want, even the suicidally depressed, is to end the pain and suffering.

And like you said that intimate family member can take the decision is synonymous to murdering. Assisted murdering is the same as murdering. If every family members can make this decision then families will want old people to die sooner and against their wishes to save money. This is killing and it is too easily open to abuse, and as a cover for murder.

Wooow!! I'm just seeing this...


Ride on bro..

Will so gladly join..

@folykaze

^^
What makes euthanasia, self defence/defence of property different from murder is context and circumstance, so don't overtwist it to invoke undue emotions.

Dp.

Your response didnt show that you understood the situations...

FOLYKAZE:

You think I dont know and I am here discussing it?

Mr..... If the patient make such decision, dont you think it psychological imbalance?

Those who want to die are not in their right mind and perhaps can be argued as being clinically insane, or rather not of sound mind, and that they are incapable of making these decisions rationally due to the duress and pain they are must constantly endure. Look at it from this angle that we all have a biological need to live (fit) and survive. Therefore no one wants to die. What people want, even the suicidally depressed, is to end the pain and suffering.

And like you said that intimate family member can take the decision is synonymous to murdering. Assisted murdering is the same as murdering. If every family members can make this decision then families will want old people to die sooner and against their wishes to save money. This is killing and it is too easily open to abuse, and as a cover for murder.

check @ bold, that is what euthanasia does in a terminally ill patient. The person will eventually die. All what is being done is save the patient and his family undue and excessive pain and stress for what will eventually occur anyway.

It is not murder.

Kay 17: ^^
Then we don't agree as to what medicine is.

Placebos are not the immediate solution/cure to the particular disease, yet they are curative medicine.

Euthanasia restores the human dignity which the sufferer lost.

Is your definition of medicine any different from restoring life through therapeuthic means?

Please, what do you mean by: ' Placebos are not the immediate solution/cure to the particular disease'?

I don't think there any dignity in destroying the entire mass of the human body because of a particular inhomeostasis. A body has to exist or be alive for it to have dignity. Non-existent entities know nothing about it, because nothing is.

To put it in a proper sense, it is the same thing as saying that a dead man is better off dead than when he is sick and alive. After death he loses consciousness, so the question of happiness or sadness cannot be appropriated to him.

Mr Troll: bros, I no understand this kweshun o!

Let me rephrase it.
What I mean is this, if a businessman's work is to make his patients happy, a tailor also, then what about medicine?

Will a man of medicine go against preserving life, what his occupation serve for and still be a man of medicine?

quivah: Wooow!! I'm just seeing this...


Ride on bro..

Will so gladly join..

Post two is for you.

Reyginus: Question: Do you agree that God caused the universe or that the universe is the product of a big ba.ng?
Patience sis.

Hmmm I don't believe any of the two really...

But weighing both sides,then I'd say I'm an evolutionist...


There's God but the Bible isn't a science textbook...
So in this case,don't use the bible..

Mr Troll: Your response didnt show that you understood the situations...

common this is an insult to my intelligence. If I dont agree with you on a stand, does that make me ignorant of it?

Mr Troll: check @ bold, that is what euthanasia does in a terminally ill patient.

And you said I dont understand it?

Mr Troll: The person will eventually die.

Illogical. We will all eventually die. This is unwelcomed excuse....people will start killing others claiming this.

Mr Troll: All what is being done is save the patient and his family undue and excessive pain and stress for what will eventually occur anyway.

I asked a simple question and you are turning around to remixing. What if the patient is clinically insane or psychologically imbalance? Pls answer that.

Secondly, why cant we check the psychological state before proceeding on euthanasia because biologically, living organising are to fit and survive?

Instead of focusing on euthanasia, we should work for a greater education in pain management so that healthcare providers at a clinical level can use it. After all, killing someone pain does not solve the problem of pain, and we shouldn't solve problems by killing people.

Mr Troll: It is not murder.

And I repeat.....this decision is subjected only to the patient. When the intimate family member is included, it become murdering. People will use euthanasia as excuse for killing a patient so that they either save some money on medication or earn from life insurance. Nobody has right to rule on another person's life.

quivah:

Hmmm I don't believe any of the two really...

But weighing both sides,then I'd say I'm an evolutionist...


There's God but the Bible isn't a science textbook...
So in this case,don't use the bible..

Babe, you don't know me. I don't use the bible when the question is not asking for proof from the bible.

Do you agree that this God created man or you agree that man is as a result of Evolutionary Natural Selection?

Reyginus: Is your definition of medicine any different from restoring life through therapeuthic means?

Please, what do you mean by: ' Placebos are not the immediate solution/cure to the particular disease'?

I don't think there any dignity in destroying the entire mass of the human body because of a particular inhomeostasis. A body has to exist or be alive for it to have dignity. Non-existent entities know nothing about it, because nothing is.

To put it in a proper sense, it is the same thing as saying that a dead man is better off dead than when he is sick and alive. After death he loses consciousness, so the question of happiness or sadness cannot be appropriated to him.

I doubt if you really meant to say "restore life", cos we are not talking about Jesus.

You fail to see the diverse nature of medicin. Take a look at amputation, it seems destructive, yet it is a curative procedure, so also placebos. They don't cure anything actually, rather have a profound psychological effect.

Euthanasia as a medicine is applicable only in cases of hopelessness, terminally and destructive diseases, wherein the sufferer loses human dignity and an appreciation for self. For them the disease has done its worst, and the sufferer is in an irredeemable state. He might have possibly lost his cognitive faculty.

Ordinarily everyone has a right to life, so as right to die. The right to die is so much so a natural right, because it is reaily at his instance. Euthanasia is an extension of this natural right in an irrdeemable diseased state.

Kay 17: @folykaze

^^
What makes euthanasia, self defence/defence of property different from murder is context and circumstance, so don't overtwist it to invoke undue emotions.

Euthanasia is termed as 'assisted suicide'. The person assisting or aiding the suicide is a murderer.

No emotion here

Reyginus: Let me rephrase it.
What I mean is this, if a businessman's work is to make his patients happy, a tailor also, then what about medicine?

Will a man of medicine go against preserving life, what his occupation serve for and still be a man of medicine?

sometimes it is not as clear cut as that. In most cases of euthanasia, the doctor provides all the possible options and it is left to you to make the choice. So, a medicine man not only prescribes medicine but also renders medical services like drug information, medical advice etc

Ideally, whatever medical course is taken is usually with the full consent of the patient and the patient can and do go against medical advice.

A medicine man should aim to cure diseases but if that is not possible then he should aim to reduce suffering as much as possible but the final decision on euthanasia rests on the patient or his family.