There is a line between ‘keeping people alive’ and active, voluntary euthanasia.

I am a proponent for active, voluntary euthanasia only if laws are in place and if good paliative care is available also as an option.
I hope that by the time my life is nearing an end, that voluntary euthanasia will be an option.

Voluntary euthanasia should not be available to the elderly only- it should be available to anyone who is facing either a terminal illness without chance of recovery and who suffer pain that cannot be properly managed with medication.
I know two people who opted for euthanasia. One of these people was a woman, a relative of about 26 years old, with incurable, terminal cancer. It saved her from being forced to unnecessary suffer for another month or so.

Euthanasia means a ‘soft death’ or ‘good death’ and preferably, we should all have a soft death as opposed to a cruel and violent death.

When we see an animal suffer, we find it extremely cruel to stand by and watch it slowly die. We say that it is a ‘humane thing to do’ to have the animal ‘put to sleep’.

I don’t agree with Brian that after a certain age (80), intensive care should not be available, and that life should be "over and out".
Firstly, people should maintain autonomy no matter what age they are.

Secondly, such a decision should not be 'one size fits all', but should depend on each different case.

Placing an 80 year old, who is terminally ill with no chance of recovery, no outlook, in intensive care is different from offering intensive care to an 80 year old who is suffering from a temporary problem but has a good chance of recovery and has otherwise been in good health.

Hehehe, it didn’t take long into the discussion for Godwin’s law to come up :+

Celivia
You said it all so well and mirror my thoughts on the subject. That Godwin knew what he was on about. If you don't agree with an issue just mention Hitler.

(Just don't mention the war - John Cleese)

Thanks Pelican,
Hehehe, I remember that Cleese episode!

I just thought it was funny because on the "going burq-o" thread a couple of days ago, someone also mentioned Hitler. It's becoming a sport to spot them!

Just for some entertainment regarding Godwin's law:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfDCwP2SnI4

An elderly lady in the UK has tattooed her chest 'DO NOT RESUSCITATE' so no mistakes will be made. I may do one too, down the track. The trouble is, family can get in the way of a 'do not resus', and who is to say that death is that imminent. Both my mother and mother-in-law endured an unnecessary six months, but at the time we did not understand the implications of their 'treatment', and a long goodbye was easier for the family, if not for them.

Having quotas and cut-off ages for treatment can be problematic. A relative in England was denied costly medication following a stroke, because he was over 80. The family were not even given the option of paying for it themselves, and the result was a severely incapacitated old man in need of ongoing care at considerable expense to the community. Ten years down the track his wife is frail and exhausted and he has just moved into a nursing home.

I'm cultivating the friendship of vets: they have the Nembutal.

Could some one please tell me why you need the aproval of society to kill your self, Is it that you want to destroy the rights of others that are pro life. If you want to pop your self, where there is a will there is always a way. Having seen members of my family pass away with palitave care in terminal illness I do not know whether it was the terminal illness or the palitave care that did the trick but am inclined to think it is the witholding of assistance as the body function close down under palitave care and they were all ready to go. Their choice not somebody elses. When Personal Choice is taken away one more liberty and freedom is gone. My step mother was on life support and her family made the decision 30 years ago to pull the plug so choices are available.

Richie,
Although I agree that one should not need the approval of society to kill oneself, the real issue is whether elderly people should be denied treatment and then let nature take it’s course.
This would come under passive euthanasia- but I don’t like that term. The term “euthanasia” should only describe active, voluntary death, because allowing a patient to die from natural causes, such as a slow, painful death of terminally ill cancer patients can be very cruel.

I can’t bear to think about bed-ridden patients who have lost muscle control and therefore are in danger of choking to death on their saliva, or a person who is forced to slowly starve to death and drie out when tubes are taken away to feed the person.
I find it incredibly cruel to force people to suffer for an indefinite period of time, by prohibiting the humane and painless alternative: voluntary, active euthanasia.

It should not be necessary for an ill person to have to take his/her own life, all alone and in secrecy.
Then there is also the risk that the suicide goes wrong and the person continues to live, now even with more damage from a failed suicide.
Another problem is that many very ill, bedridden patients wouldn’t have the ability to kill themselves because they are (partly or completely) paralysed.

The most simple and effective way is active, voluntary euthanasia, done by doctors who have special training in this field.
There are several euthanatica options available, and this range of lethal drugs should be discussed with a patient so that a patient has as much control as possible.

It happens that doctors in countries where euthanasia is illegal, keep increasing doses of morphine with the intention of relieving pain- until the dose is so high that it causes death anyway.
Why not make euthanasia legal so that everybody can be open about this, so that there is better control, and so that there is less chance that a patient will receive an overdose of morphine without consent?