Sitemap

health advisory Hospital Doctor Yu 2007-11-8 19:08:00

Which is more humane?

Answers:

Euthenasia is *infinitely* more humane, but it goes against some archaic religious rules so we starve our terminally ill instead.

Tragic.

---

Its all about not messing with the natural order of things. Stupid uh?

---

This is NOT a science question. There is a separate section og Answers for ethics questions and legal questions.

---

You make a good point, I don't think the common person knows why, but for some reason the friggin supreme court seems to think it's ok.

---

it's ok to starve a person to death? Really?

Sometimes Dr. Kevorkian's methods were more humane. Those people really were too ill to enjoy life any more and just wanted a way out. It seems much more humane to "euthanize" humans, but of course the methods need to be humane-- i.e., lethal injection or CO.

---

I know it doesn't make much sense, but when you remove a feeding tube, you are removing life support so to speak. Euthanasia is administering some form of medication to bring on death. I guess they feel that Euthanasia is more like killing while removing a feeding tube is letting nature take its course.

---

What happened to the ethics section?

---

Starving is probably less humane. It makes me want to be sick.

---

I don't understand why its ok to starve someone to death. If I decided not to feed my infant (who can't eat on their own) I would be incarcerated for murder. Doesn't make sense.

---

The answer has nothing to do with being humane. It has to do with law and religious beliefs. Both the law and most religions (especially christianity) define euthanizia as a form of murder. Therefore, anyone doing it risks life in prison or death. That same set of beliefs seems to see nothing wrong with starving them. Since it does not involve taking any action it is not defined as murder. It may seem illogical, but that's how it is.

---

Amen to the sentiment.