Talk:Euthanasia

Euthanasia is opposed by religious leaders because it involves people acting directly to terminate a life before its natural end, despite the suffering that a terminally ill person may be undergoing. It is held that this privilege belongs to God, whose will should prevail in the matter of suffering and death. And yet we prosecute for cruelty people who do not terminate the life of an animal who is in terminal suffering. Do we assume that God has no will concerning the suffering or life span of animals? It just strikes me as an anomaly.--Britinme 09:39, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between human beings and animals. Humans have responsibility and free will. Suffering, and our response to it, are moral/ethical issues.

Animals have only instinct. They have no responsibility as such, although dogs can be trained to help watch sheep. The dog has no choice whatsoever about whether or not to became a watchdog; the human being is his master.

Each human being is his own master.

It's not a matter of caring less: it's complicated. C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book about this; see The Problem of Pain. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:57, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

"They are convinced that the rule of law in democratic societies prevents excesses such as the euthanasia program of Nazi Germany." Godwin's Law has been invoked, I see. Barikada 14:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Is there not a need here for a distinction between direct action taken to end a person's life (active euthanasia) and refusal or withholding of medical care that results in death (passive euthanasia)? Dadsnagem2 15:53, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Regarding the word choice in this article

I think the use of any adjective regarding the morality of Euthanasia displays an unbelievable bias. If an action is truly "sinful" or "just" the facts alone should be enough to convince someone of it. Facts, not bias should be the only thing present in this article. - Nomanuno 12:08 CST 7/30/08