Why is euthanasia justifiable for pets, but not for people who are incurably ill?

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a human or animal who is incurably ill in a painless or minimally painful way, for the purpose of limiting suffering. Asked by pappy425 50 months ago Similar questions: euthanasia justifiable pets people incurably ill Politics & Law > Issues.

Similar questions: euthanasia justifiable pets people incurably ill.

There is a huge difference between what is justifiable and what is legal. If a person wants to end his or her life on the grounds that there will be no quality of life, or to end pointless suffering, it is completely justifiable, and every person should have that choice. The injustice is that in most states, people are not permitted to make that choice legally.

Either euthanasia or (in many states) suicide itself is against the law. In this country, it's not necessary to look very far to find a stupid, bad law..

Because we think we're different In "Details" you use the phrase "human or animal" & therein lies the key: many people still cling to the simplistic notion that we’re not animals. At the risk of opening a theological debate, we ARE animals, in the scientific use of the word; but in common parlance, ’animal’ means ’non-human’ & is frequently used as an insult (I trust your use of that phrase was for sake of clarity. ) One sees the same differentiation between ’human’ and ’ape’ & no scientific explanation will convince the simple-minded: humans are apes, not because I say so, but because of common descent & the scientific taxonomic definition of ’ape’.

Apes are animals; therefore, HUMANS are animals. Q.E.D. HUMAN VANITY Of course, there are differences between humans & other animals: for one thing, we’re having this discussion, right now, remotely. We have mastered language & technology to degrees that allow us to do things most animals cannot even imagine or contemplate, let alone duplicate.

But it all seems to be a matter of degree, rather than any absolute difference. AFAIK, every definition of what makes us different from other animals, has been called into question by new discoveries about how animals think & act. Language, toolmaking, war-fighting, non-sexual love, altruism, planning, culture: there are examples of ALL of these among non-human animals.To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, whenever a test of what makes us different, is passed by some ’animal’ we move the goalposts.

Nothing wrong with that, because that’s what Science is all about--but how many negative answers are enough? I suppose if you KEEP touching the stove, eventually it will be cold, but it’s not really a good use of your time. ONE PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE One can actually ask Grandpa if he’d like to go on living & expect a reply--assuming he can still hear or read the question & is still mentally & physically capable of replying (don’t make MY mistake: make sure he’s signed the will, BEFORE you ask him.

) If he is NOT mentally capable of that decision for a sustained period of time, there’s really no point in speculating about his wishes. By the same token, Grandpa can ask that question of himself & do something about it: take his own life, or at least make his wishes known. Yet there is an underlying assumption that the wish for suicide is necessarily a sign of mental imbalance, even if it’s the product of hopelessness & unendurable pain--right, Dr. Mengele?

However, try asking Fido to raise his hand if he’d like the pain the stop. Of COURSE he’d like the pain to stop, even if he cannot reply in English, understand all the implications of the question, or produce a hand to raise. Because we OWN Fido (legally), we won’t even bother to ask the question: we "know" how he would vote, so we make the decision FOR him.

Qui Tacet, Consentit. In the Terri Schiavo case, the subject was a long-term, brain-dead human, all paranormal claims aside. Nobody "owns" her body (not even she did, but that’s a whole nuther can of worms!

), and she could not be asked, because she was NOT THERE anymore. So, how does the legal right of ~100 lbs. Of unconscious human flesh & bone, outweigh that of a dog that knows & responds to his owner DESPITE intense physical torment?

LEGALISTIC SIDESTEP The same factor that works to prevent slavery & cannibalism, figures into the question of Euthanasia: what prevents someone from doing it to YOU? ("Gee, that hangnail looks pretty bad, Mr. Gates--is it interfering with your ability to destroy Microsoft’s competitors? I have JUST the pill, to make the pain stop...") No one wants others’ judgment gratuitously substituted for his own: what’s in your interest, may well not be in mine!

The Law has a way of handling that, by limiting the opportunities for humans to use judgment where it would involve conflict among the parties’ motivations. Case in point: I could sure use a slave around here, to clean up after me. But it’s not in anyone else’s interest to BE that slave, so that is not a legal option: case closed.

MY OPINION No one should have to endure the avoidable suffering of a loved one. Where the primary victim (the candidate for Euthanasia) cannot speak for himself, we should be willing to substitute disinterested medical judgment (in determining the likelihood of recovery & the current condition of the primary) AND the wishes of loved ones (the secondary victims). Inflicting avoidable suffering, or prolonging it via legal grandstanding or other sinister means, is not defensible.

At the same time, I think it a cowardly path to withdraw feeding tubes or other physical sustenance measures, so we can wait for "nature" to decide the question for us. Why not just strap the aged, the infirm, and the comatose into parachutes & drop them from 3,000’ to let "nature" decide if they’re going to pull the rip-cords or not? That’d be a lot faster (there’d be fewer open-casket funerals as well, but I’m not sure that’s really a bad thing).

FOR THE RECORD When Michael Schiavo requested that life-support be withdrawn from his former wife’s body, he was acknowledging that she is dead, in any sense that made her special to him. He also absolved himself of any responsibility for the maintenance of her corpse. Thereby, he relinquished his right to determine her corpse’s fate, which right SHOULD have devolved to her parents, and so on, as long as there were loved ones to accept that responsibility.

He is not the only party to have suffered a loss, and her parents had a legitimate right to do what they thought they HAD to do, even if that means paying to sustain the physical functioning of what once was their daughter. As far as can be determined, she was in no pain, so the choice should have been theirs to make.PS: It occurs to me that my Summary answer (’Because we think we’re different’) would have changed completely by inserting a comma (’Because we think, we’re different’). THAT is why I’m so nit-picky when it comes to writing.

Sources: Would you believe, I've thought about this before? Anonymous's Recommendations Practical Ethics Amazon List Price: $24.99 Used from: $3.88 Average Customer Rating: 3.5 out of 5 (based on 39 reviews) You don't have to AGREE with everything Peter Singer writes (I don't! ) but if you're not willing to hear him out, by all means, get back to your "Three's Company" marathon on TVLand.

Anonymous's Recommendations Softly with These Songs: The Best of Roberta Flack Amazon List Price: $13.98 Used from: $4.00 Average Customer Rating: 4.5 out of 5 (based on 45 reviews) And they say I'm not romantic! Has the Hemlock Society approved "Killing Me Softly" as their anthem? .

Ethics, Morality, and Religion I think all of these play into the lack of acceptance of euthanasia for people. Doctor often have ethical problems with this as their oath is first do no harm. Their entire career is built on saving and extending lives, so it can be difficult to alter that mindset and take them instead, where there is no hope.

Especially when the next "medical miracle" could be around the corner that could have saved the person's life. Morally it can be a challenge as well as the ill person generally needs some sort of assistance from a family member. The conscious decision to end a loved one's life, regardless of their suffering is not an easy thing.

Religion also plays into it as euthanasia could be interpreted as suicide (which is a sin in some religions) or murder (which is pretty much universally frowned upon). It could also be interpreted as neither, but how many folks are willing to risk damnation? ListerD's Recommendations Final Exit (Third Edition): The Practicalities of Self-Deliverance and Assisted Suicide for the Dying Amazon List Price: $16.00 Used from: $5.73 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5 (based on 55 reviews) Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide (For and Against) Amazon List Price: $27.99 Used from: $6.79 Average Customer Rating: 3.0 out of 5 (based on 2 reviews) The Animals' Viewpoint on Dying, Death and Euthanasia Amazon List Price: $29.95 Used from: $19.45 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5 (based on 5 reviews) Unplugged: Reclaiming Our Right to Die in America Amazon List Price: $24.95 Used from: $0.97 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5 (based on 8 reviews) .

This topic just kills me I know! It is so insane. My dad had bladder cancer and for a week-a very long week we watched him die.It was so so very painful.

He was in so much pain and than he was so drugged that it was just unbearable. It's crazy.Dr. K had it right. It's your own choice.

I would choose an injection over my dad's experience every day of the week. We put out dog to sleep. They torchered my dad and my family.

I vote for euthanasia to be a choice.It should be.

INteresting description So THAT is what we do to people being punished for a capital crime. (seem fair? ) I’d say we do it to animals and not humans because of our Christian roots.

Because there are no Spiritual healings or raising from the deadof animals in the Bible. Because GOD gave life and only GOD can take it away. Because GOD said that all the beasts of the field, all the fish of the sea and all the birds in the air were fair game for us to kill and eat.

If you want scripture to support this, then just ask and I’ll post them in the comment section. I’m not going to inundate you with scripture here. So, holding out the possibility that a miracle could take place, we endure illness.

Also ya know tloer started out with what you’re talking about. Getting rid of the retarded and the lame. We know where that leads, so let’s not go there.

Story does not repeat itself; people who don’t learn lessons, tend to repeat history. Sources: HS .

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.