First Question: Do you think it is right to end the human life, if they are suffering. Why, why not?

Personally, i think you should have the choice to die if you wanted to. In many countrys it is illegal.
I simply dont understand why, some people have to lie around in the hospital, and just suffer for no good.

Some would might call it "selfish" since you are leaving family behind, but making your loved one suffer because you cant bear in mind losing them is just wrong.

That could be a second Question: Would you end the life of a suffering, who cant choose themselves. Why, why not?

I believe that only you are allowed to take your life away, no one else, not even with your permission. Because only a few are able to carry the burden of taking someones life away without developing a serious psychological trauma. A great example would be suicide by cop victims (the police officers) that go bugs bunny after the incidents. But in the end, it all goes down to the morals of the person who has to inject the chemical, shoot the bullet, cut the head- the executioner. No one wants to be that guy, because, it is not socially acceptable to say the least- sheeps are afraid of wolves.

I can certainly see why some people will find it traumatic, but surely it's up to the individual to decide whether they are able to kill someone? Obviously you shouldn't be able to force some specific person to kill you, but you need to be allowed to ask that someone does it, otherwise people who are too paralysed to be able to kill themselves can't do anything.

The U.S. already has executioners in some places, so the problem can't be with the people who have to carry out the act.

Well, then there's the problem of drawing the line between those who are able to ask for euthanasia and those who are not. The idea of euthanasia is to relieve someone from pain and suffering. How can we know that a person with no limbs is suffering more than the one with only one limb, or a patient with a severe depression/other complex disorder? How can we measure pain and suffering? Or are we going to leave this option open for only those who are paralyzed, vegetables, etc.

I'd also like to go back to executioners morality. Green mile is a perfect example. Tom Hanks' character is perfectly fitting for the executioners role, he doesn't like what he's doing, he's doing it because he has no choice, he finds no joy in his work. But then there's Persey played by Doug Hutchison that is a complete opposite of Paul. No one would want a person like Paul, that finds joy and pleasure in killing people, to be playing god, because that is equal to feeding drugs to an addict or paying a serial killer for doing his job.

Quote from Julermud

First Question: Do you think it is right to end the human life, if they are suffering. Why, why not?

Yes, so long as they give their permission. If they are so hurt/braindead/whathaveyou that they cannot give consent, then only if they have no hope of recovery and to let them live would induce unneeded suffering.

Quote from Julermud

second Question: Would you end the life of a suffering, who cant choose themselves. Why, why not?

Same as above.

I think most of the arguments against allowing assisted suicide/euthanasia go down the fallacy of slippery slopes, saying it will lead to life not being valued as much or that people will be pressured into it and forced to kill themselves. Those are both problems that would be caused by society, not euthanasia.

I think non voluntary with no communication with the individual is much harder to justify, you can never be sure you aren't taking a life that still wants to live or would recover and live a life with some quality of life to it. I'm not convinced that you should allow non voluntary euthanasia unless you can be certain the person wants their life to end and there is no way to improve the quality (which unless they covered conditions, they wanted to be killed when in, in their will and you know they still hold those conditions when you're presented with the choice, will be never).

I feel like this should be mentioned in this thread:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26181615

Belgium removed the age limit for euthanasia last Thursday. Thoughts?

Quote from Zed

Belgium removed the age limit for euthanasia last Thursday. Thoughts?

From that link

The law says adolescents cannot make important decisions on economic or emotional issues, but suddenly they've become able to decide that someone should make them die

I'm guessing the person is saying that children either can make decisions for both scenarios or none.
Oh, but then this comes along and the whole point they made dies

Parents, doctors and psychiatrists would have to agree before a decision is made.

I think abolishing an ageist system and keeping a system of informing and providing people with the knowledge they need to make any decision is a step in the right direction.

Because outside Biology, age means nothing, only experience has meaning with regards to so much age is used for instead.

I think you should be able to end your own life at will.

I believe that you have control over your own life and can give it away whenever you want. But first we must to separate the very depressed from the sad who want to die. A merely sad person will get over it. They might want to die but will get past that after a while of guidance and etc. Its a different story for the other.

Quote from Skeletonxf

Because outside Biology, age means nothing, only experience has meaning with regards to so much age is used for instead.

Actually, age means maturity, life experience and legal adulthood.

Quote from Zed

The U.S. already has executioners in some places, so the problem can't be with the people who have to carry out the act.

*still has

Quote from Naimad

Actually, age means maturity, life experience and legal adulthood.

Age is most certainly the last one and is associated with the other two, but an 18 year old that is immature and hasn't had many experiences, chosen not to learn in school and for the sake of argument has a bad attitude and low iq as well, is not necessarily in a better position to make choice about themselves or anything than a 16 year old that is the opposite of all those things I just listed. There is a correlation, but it's not set.