There was a news article that caught me eye, where in short, a handicapped individual was given a choice of suicide. I haven't actually taken a stance to where I am for or against this. Maybe I will after I hear some thoughts.

From what I understand, suicide is illegal in most countries. By enabling this, could it possibly increase the rate of suicide considering that individuals are given a less violent death? Then again people have a right to choose whether to live or die , and in circumstances where the satisfaction of life is completely unachievable suicide might be a viable humane option.

The question is, should the handicapped be given a choice of suicide? In the process I believe expanding on suicide in general should also be explained but avoiding straying too far away from the main point.

If you're not in an altered mental state affecting your judgment, you should have every right to request a painless, humane death, and if you're hospitalized someone should be willing and able to perform the procedure for you.

However, that should really only apply to people in serious pain or who have absolutely zero chance of recovery. For the others I think there should be a waiting period of 2-4 weeks or so, to make sure it's not a knee-jerk reaction to something that can potentially be fixed. If they still truly want to die at that point, then I say let them.

I think it's appropriate for people who are basically vegetables. If a person knows they are going to die soon and no part of the rest of their life will be enjoyable, and they WANT to die, why keep them alive?

As long as people refrain from being affected by other people into wanting to commit suicide (as in, old people feeling like a burden), being able to end your own life should be completely legal.
There's really no reason against it.

I've thought of a question about whether if euthanasia was excepted should there be an age limit. Children who suffer a severe disability may also not want to live however it may be out of impulse in certain moments. Their ability to make such decisions are still developing and obviously aren't as good as an adult. There may also be newborns with disabilities, so is it the parents who determine whether they live or die or do we wait until they are of age. So at what age is it suitable for one to be given a choice?

The parents should have the choice until the child is a legal adult.

I'd be a little uneasy about giving parents the right to kill their child if said child was sick.

Well I mean there should be limits; it shouldn't be available at all if there's a reasonable chance that the child could make a full recovery. Besides, any parent who would allow their sick child to die probably shouldn't be their guardian anyway.

EDIT: As an extension of that last part, there could also be a third option. If the parents do not feel that their child will survive, or the child will be stuck as an invalid for the rest of their life, but they don't like the idea of removing life support on their child, they could relinquish their parental rights and give the kid up to someone else. This would obviously still apply if the child ever becomes healthy again.

Why would anyone willingly take over a parental role in that circumstance?

Parents already act as the medical proxies for their kid(s). The only thing they can do is sign over that right to the caretakers, to act on whatever they feel is best, but I can't imagine that happening in most cases.

In Oregon, assisted suicide is allowed, IIRC. Doctors can give you a pill, but you have to take it yourself.
I agree with others in this thread, your life is your life, you should be able to do what you want with it. However, forcing someone else to have to clean up your mess afterwards is kind of jerkish...

I am sure that doctors will not be forced to kill and would be given a choice.The role of doctors are to help act out of their best interest of their patient in an acceptable degree. They would have understood the patients condition and see if euthanasia is deemed suitable according to their assessment. There have surely been times where they have been asked to remove life support which seems similar in regards to forced killing. It is part of the job.

I'd like to refute my point for the sake a debate. Euthanasia places a heavy moral burden on doctors. Although they are given a choice they will have pressure upon them to take their patients life as many will believe that it is ultimately the patients decision to live or die, and denying that is cruelty. In the end, they may choose out of reluctance. Though it is the patients choice to die, it would be silly to deny that there would be some negative consequences towards the doctors. Legalising euthanasia would simply place a heavier burden on those who follow this profession. Many became doctors to save lives, not take them.

I think he was being literal about the cleaning up, as in, if you kill yourself with a shotgun shell to the head in the middle of the street.

Oh.

Quote from Exilement

I think he was being literal about the cleaning up, as in, if you kill yourself with a shotgun shell to the head in the middle of the street.

I think he meant in both ways.

Quote from Fusion

The parents should have the choice until the child is a legal adult.

Parents already have the choice, its called abortion. I for one am definitely against suicide or abortion, unless that person just got their leg blown to pieces and is going to bleed out on a battle field I don't think it should ever be acceptable for someone to choose death. In my opinion it is fine to accept death, its going to happen to everyone so why fear it? But not welcome it, no one should be seeking death.

Again though, just my opinion, if a couple people want to put a bullet it their head then they can, i'll try to stop them but overall it isn't my choice.