Euthanasia is the act of intentionally causing the painless death of a sick person. In terms of a physician's actions, it can be passive in that a physician plays no direct role in the death of the person or it can be active in that the physician does something directly to cause the death. Now the question:

Do you think it is right for a physician to refuse to participate in active euthanasia?

If you have an answer (or another question), click HERE and e-mail me a response.

Date: Sun, May 16 2004 8:55 PM From: ncdelorise@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes, a physician should have the right to refuse to participate in active euthanasia. I think physicians should not be involved in active euthanasia. A physician takes an oath to promote the patient's health and welfare above all else and to uphold the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. To participate in active euthanasia violates the oath and principles he/she has vowed to uphold. This would lead me to question his integrity and trustworthiness in other health related matters.

Date: Sat, May 1 2004 12:02 AM From: Ida.Smith@med.va.gov To: DoktorMo@aol.com

It is NEVER right for a physician or any one else to deliberately hasten a person's death. This includes all forms of euthanasia-active and passive. To deliberately withhold food/fluids is to subject the person to a painful death-it is NOT a humane death. We are not in a position to determine the worth of a life. Every person has a soul-it is up to God to determine when he will take that soul from the shell that is the human body. We all have a duty to support life with ordinary means-food/fluids but we are not required to use extrordinary means-aggressive life support,dialysis,etc indefinitely.

Date: Thu, Apr 29 2004 2:17 AM From: loveelk@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Right now I don't have a good attitude about anyone who talks about dignity and quality of life. My Mother recently passed away from cancer. Yes, she was terminal, but she wanted "to fight the cancer with all of her might, and until the end" were her words. She wanted to die a natural death without any help from Dr's and their drugs. I found that the "one" famous drug that Dr's love to use is "morphine". My Mom slipped into a coma just beofre her death, as all people I think do? But the Dr's were growing weary of how long her death was taking. They kept insisting that they give her "just a little bit of morphine to ease the pain and make her comfortable" Why on earth would my Mom need morphine if she was in a coma? There is no way she could have felt any pain, and how much more comfortable can One get than to be in a coma?

Finally, the hospital's Attorney and Vice President of the hospital came in and yelled at our family just a few days beofre my Mom's death. They told us that we were irrational and my Mom needed a " Advocate" to protect her rights.. The board of Ethics called us on the day she died and by making this call, Noone was in the room when she passed. The Dr's forced us into a decision of withdrawing life support, therefore practicing , "Euthanasia" We wanted our Mom to die at her will...when her body gave out, not when the Dr's decided it was time for her to go.

My last words to people who talk about quality of life ought to be a shame of themselves for even viewing an Elderly person by how much she/he accomplishes in a day. Even if all my Mother could do was simply sit in a chair and look out the window, maybe needed help with eating ...etc...this was quality enough for me. As we all become older we will find our quality of life dimishes. So I ask you, "should someone take your life to be lacking with dignity and quality where they take it upon themselves to have you killed?" simply because they don't find your life to be worthwhile any longer? God says that quality of life is not judged by how old or sick you are...He makes the decision, not the Dr's. People need to take a good long look at their own lives and realize that one fine day they will be old and sickly. Dr's do not care..they would rather end your life than help you. And it is simply due to money. the older one is, the more medical attention one needs, more tax dollars at work. The government and the Dr's work

together..they call this "population control". I have seen many elderly fall ill and once they have seen the Dr. and put in the hospital, they may as well say good-bye. The Dr's of today just as soon kill you. The old wives tale of helping your neighbor are long gone, now it is power and money. Here in MT, we have a saying that goes like this, "You may be safer seeing the Veternarian, than going to the Dr." Quite a few people die over a simple surgery ..makes you wonder if you can trust the health care system any longer?

I haven't quite decided if it is safe to see my own Dr. any longer after what I have seen take place in these hospitals here in Montana.? Euthanasia is practiced whether you want to believe it or not..by even your own Dr.

Date: Mon, Apr 19, 2004 6:32 PM From: haley10384@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that any doctor should absolutely have the right to deny committing euthanasia. If they are against it or not comfortable with it why should they be forced to do it? However, I think if a patient is expecting to do badly that they should check into whether or not their doctor will go through with euthanasia before they start seeing them. No one is being forced to be euthanized. It is a personal choice. And for all of you who argue that it is wrong because God is the only one who can take lives, perhaps God is trying to take those people in the hospital who are being kept alive by machinery and medicines. Perhaps doctors are going against God's wishes by keeping the, alive. Ever think of that. We are not killing people, we are letting God have them. We are ending their pain and beginning their eternal life. It's a personal choice and it should be legal just like smoking, drinking and going to church.

Date: Fri, Apr 2, 2004 6:19 AM From: sweet_thang2428@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

O.K. now, euthanasia (I think) is a type of suicide, whether or not you are sick. Physicians absolutley have the choice of NOT participating, in fact it should not be legal!!! Now if you put someone to death who was sick, or heck they dont even have to be sick, but you would look at your self everyday and be reminded of it. i bet you would feel like a murderer. If people want to die they can commit suicide in their own homes, makin someone else do it is not going to make it any better morally. Euthanasia is a sad, sad deal, please try to stop it.

Date: Wed, Mar 31, 2004 5:3 PM From: kjones@mchsi.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe if the person wants to die to end their life they should have the right to choose.I do not believe that the person should beable to have themselves killed if they're not really suffering. Yes the person does have the right to kill him or herself. BUt the authourity stands in the way of that. If this is such a free country why can't anyone participate in EUTHANASIA?

Date: Sun, Mar 28, 2004 3:32 PM From: beeboppg@shaw.ca To: DoktorMo@aol.com

hi, im a grade 12 canadian student and im on the pros side of a debate whether or not euthanasia should be legallized. i believe that if a person is going to die or live a life that they cannot handle why does society have the right to say that they cant be euthanized. isnt that up to the doctor and the patient involved. i personally would rather die than live months of extreme pain. if the person is in sound mind shouldnt they have the choice whether they live or die.

Date: Wed, Mar 24, 2004 12:32 PM From: ivan_pomidoroff@inbox.ru To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Someone said that Euthanasia weakens the society`s respect for the sanctity of life and I absolutely agree with this. People who are for Euthanasia I think are for it because of moral and physical pain. May be sometimes it`s better to suffer longer, no one knows what`ll happen future, perhaps there will be a chance to cure a incurable disease according to the latest medical researches and developments in genetic engineering. When its time to die you'll die there's no stopping it. So make the best of that year, day , hour! You may touch someone else's life. Not giving up, may give others courage. I also think that accepting euthanasia accepts that someone lives are worth less than others!! I think that we should pay more attention to improvement of people health and life, and not about better ways of killing people.(it`ll cost more money perhaps). I think that live and health of each person is the most expensive thing that our mankind has. We have only one life and no one is gonna give us another one. You may certainly say: Exactly!!! So we shouldn`t spend our life on suffering, that`s why I believe that we should definitely legalize euthanasia to make our life and the life of our loved relatives comfortable. I ll answer: So what is life than, why don`t we just ease our lives and legalize compulsory abortion. As Buddha said: All our life is suffering . And what about the Hippocratic Oath ("I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect."), it`s a classical example, which shows us that euthanasia is wrong!!! Doesn`t Euthanasia give too much power to doctors?? I think it`s our right to choose death or life! I definitely don`t think that we should just watch our affected relatives dying, we must do our best and bear down, to circle them with an aid and give them courage to leave this life worthily. Don`t you think that euthanasia will just increase the amount of self-murderers in the world? Isn`t it wrong? If we legalized Euthanasia, people would be able to commit suicide without fear of breaking the law. Eventually it`ll lead to involuntary euthanasia and killing the people who are thought undesirable. Some people can also seek profit from euthanasia thus bluffing or bamming the law. Think about the words legal death. Where do we draw the line? Do we stop at terminally ill patients? or do we end the suffering of mentally handicapped people ? What about the elderely? Aren't they just a burden to society? Although this isn't absolutely my view, I'm sure it is the view of others. "IS DEATH MORE DIGNIFIED THAN LIFE?" FIGHT FOR LIVING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Answer me if you both agree or disagree with me on this issue, I'll reply with pleasure. Sergey PUTIN.

Date: Thu, Mar 18, 2004 12:02 PM From: marykaryl@cox.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Doctors should have the same rights as anyone to refuse to participate in anything they do not belive in. No one should be forced by law or convention to do what they believe to be wrong.

Date: Tue, Mar 9, 2004 7:09 PM From: khmaio@earthlink.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

A doctor has the right to choose.Choosing not to actively participate in ending someone's life is not refusing to participate in ending it. Unless of course someone is holding a gun at the doctor's head. Harold A. Maio

Date: Sun, Mar 7, 2004 9:02 AM From: Tattooartboy@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

If we have the right (at least in the U.S) to do whatever we want to with our lives, whether it be rich and famous or an alcoholic crack head, why is it that we can not decide when our life should end? It is ours, if we can kill the life that grows inside us, we should be allowed to also destroy the life that harbors others. Especially if that person is in pain and requests that some end their suffering. I don't think you can allow one law with out the either. A life is a life, right?

Date: Thu, Jan 15, 2004 2:36 PM From: warren@hill3762.fsnet.co.uk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think a person has the right to leave this world with dignity and self respect. After saying that i am a mother of two and i would hate for my children to have to make the decision wether or not to put me out of my misery. In an ideal world you should be able to go to a solicitor while your of sound mind and body and have it drawn up like a will what you want to happen, if ever you cannot take care of your self or your terminaly ill and in excrusiating pain. I don't think anybody could critisise a physician for not assisting with the ending of a life, after all there trained to save lives, but i'm almost sure not all physicians think the same.

Date: Tue, Jan 6, 2004 11:36 AM From: jansen@os.dk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I know that it's a very individual thing to answer, and that most people who are considering the act of euthanasia as a way out of suffering often change their minds... naturally. However: I know that my grandfather would had taken the oppertunity if he, as a Dane, had gotten it. He didn't because it is illegal in Denmark, but it would have been so much better for him and us (his family and friends) if we hadn't had to see him suffer... In the last month or two he "lived" in, he couldn't do anything... he had chosen not to. He had chosen to take his own life, but seeing that he didn't have the means to do so, it took him a much larger amount of time and pain than necessary. Therefore I think that euthanasia is a good way out... but there has to be certain rules/restriction..

Date: Fri, Dec 5, 2003 2:50 PM From: mgd@iowatelecom.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes, I think that it is right. If someone you cared about was suffering why would you let it go on?

Date: Mon, Nov 24, 2003 8:37 AM From: al_murray76@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hi, I am a 26 yr old college student in my first year Social Services. I believe a patient and/or their family should be the only ones to decide if Euthanasia is the right way to go. The government, church and everyone agents it should keep there opinions to themselves. It is up to the individual and the family, mostly the individual. What happened to the right to choose. We are Candians, we have that freedom!


Date: Sat, Oct 11, 2003 2:12 PM From: LTCOMBS2000@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that a doctor has the right to do go along with their morals. If they think euthanasia is morally wrong then they shouldn't do it but they should suggest a doctor who could do it because it is the patients right or the patients family's right to decide to do it or not.

Date: Sun, Oct 5, 2003 1:11 PM From: luvonly128@msn.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am currently writing a paper on this topic and this site has really helped me put all the issues of euthanasia into perspective. The conclusion I have come up with is that it is the choice of the terminally ill individual who is to chose what happens to his/her own life. Although there may be families and individuals who think otherwise, for no reason shall a doctor prevent the inner happiness of a ill person who is asking for their help. looking at the situation at hand the physician should be able to determine whether this person has any minimal chance of survival and if they do not, what reason does the physician have not to help the ill individual.

Date: Mon, Sep 1, 2003 6:27 AM From: stella.cullen@btopenworld.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that it is up to the individual whatever their circumstances or health issues are. I think by dying this way you leave with dignity and actually know when your going to die. you've then got the chance to arrange your funeral and to say good-bye to your loved ones. sometimes people are just sick of living and that they feel they have achieved what they wanted to in life. why do you have to wait until 70 plus to die,with a terminal illness. but yet if you mention this to your doctor how your feeling. they automatically say oh!! your depressed. this way is 100% better than just going out and committing suicide and dying alone.and then the family having to live with the guilt of your death. kind regards, stella cullen.

Date: Sun, Jun 29, 2003 3:06 PM From: winstonjen@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hello again. I hope you don't mind a second reply, but this topic is very interesting to me.

First of all, I did not answer the main question. Of course a doctor should have the right to refuse to participate. What I don't understand is why most doctors simply ask another doctor to treat the patient. It seems to me that they have no real ethical problem with the procedure, and they approve of the act, but they would feel guilty about performing it themselves.

Next, I would like to reply to sanjeevij@yahoo.com and the letter on May 4th. It refers to the slippery slope fallacy. It can also be applied to pain relief medication, such as morphine and diamorphine (heroin). In England, pro-lifers tried to pass a law prohibiting the use of lethal does of pain relief to stop 'double-effect' euthanasia. That proves that so-called pro-lifers are actually pro-suffering. If we let them control our lives in that regard, what's next? Forced conversion to their cause under threat of death?

Sincerely, Winston

Date: Sun, May 4, 2003 4:07 AM From: sanjeevij@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

sanjeeviBrunei. There are two things Man is after ..one is to produce life by cloning and the other is to reduce life by whatever options available. Both these rights do not belong to him despite all the convincing arguments. Pain and suffering are part of life however extreme the case may be and the cure is not termination of life. What cannot be cured must be endured is the old saying. Ofcourse I am not the sufferer and I don't have the pain and I don't need to have the pain of knowing others' suffering. Let us imagine Euthanasia is legalised worldwide and I am sure the medical practioners if not all of them would make it an attractive proposal to all those terminally ill or chronic patients and it will not stop there. It is the most bizarre violation of nature and since violation has become fashionable these days it is not surprising many nations will follow the example of the Netherlands. Euthanasia is ethically wrong.

Date: Thu, May 1, 2003 4:10 PM From: jlphilibin@student.ysu.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

When I was about 13 years old, our family cat, Domino, was diagnosed with chronic bladder infections. He would never recover and constantly be in pain. We had him put to sleep. When I was 16 or 17, my Grandma was diagnosed with breast cancer. The doctors went in and removed what they could and then she went through harsh radiation and chemotherapy. After a few months it went into remission. Then it came back, not only to her breasts but to her bones and lungs. She silently suffered for months until they found it. She quickly deteriorated and soon her quality (if that's what it's called) of life was minimal to non-existent. She was put into the hospital and we were called. We were told she wouldn't make it through the night. The doctors pumped 2-liter bottles full of fluid from her lungs every four hours. Every time she took a breath, she moaned in severe pain and she cried. I have never seen her cry in my life, and she cried. She was a strong woman, but this was too much for her. Somehow she made it through the night and sadly suffered for 3 more months. She was so doped up on medication that she saw toast on walls, and saw old friends on playgrounds. She told us daily that she was waiting for the bus to take her to Heaven. Everyday she asked us to help her, help keep the pain away. There was nothing we could do. It broke my heart to see her, and I'm sad to say that I didn't visit nearly often enough. The last time I saw her, as I left, I told her I loved her and that I'd see her later. Her response was,"I love you too and no you won't. You won't see me later. Good bye." I found out on my 18th birthday that she had passed that morning. Now, every year, as I celebrate my life, I celebrate her death. The worst part of all is knowing that as she asked for my help I had to deny her. It sickens me to think that people can be this selfish. They are so attached to whatever it is that drives them that they can't let go and let someone leave this world in peace. We can end the suffering of our pets, but we can't do a damn thing to help our people. It's screwed up, folks. I watched my Grandma suffer for months and with her suffering, came the suffering of my Grandpa, father, mother, aunt, uncle, etc. If she could have had it her way, she would have had her life ended as to reduce the suffering for everyone. She wouldn't have done it to end her suffering but to end the suffering of all of her loved ones. She was the most unselfish person I've ever met and I miss her everyday. I know for a fact that if it would have been legal, she would have done it in a heartbeat. Maybe because I've seen it happen first hand, I'm for Euthanasia and Physician- Assisted suicide. I just hope that it doesn't take everyone in the world to see it first hand to understand that it needs to be legalized. Doctors have a responsibility to their patients, but at the same time are responsible for their moral grounds. If they can't participate, I think they should be required to suggest a doctor that can.

Date: Wed, Apr 30, 2003 5:42 AM From: v8beetle@msn.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I will put this as simply as possible. It is my life, my body, and my choice. Not that I agree with this arguments application to other types of life altering events (such as abortion), I feel that is a whole different scenario. And one in which people are using that argument to perpetuate, and even justify the killing of another because it suits them. What is this irrational sense of control we feel we must exert over our fellow man. Must we do whatever we can to hold him/her under our feet? As far as the Hippocratic oath, the cardinal rule is to do NO harm. Physicians are healers, not killers. And although veterinarians have taken it upon themselves to humanely destroy animals with little or no chance of survival, I feel giving our physicians that responsibility will give them, or feed into the illusion of power, or "GOD complex" some of them already have. Do I feel they should be consulted? I am ok with that. They possess knowledge that most people do not. Morally, I could not justify a doctor, or anyone else killing someone unless the person was mentally unsound, and even that is a broad interpretation. I think it is solely up to the individual. We are not them. We cannot feel their pain. We do not know what they are going through at that particular moment, and we should just honor what they may choose to do by allowing them to exercise their ultimate "free choice", and let them end their life. John Adleman, Psychology, philosophy, and social work undergraduate

Date: Thu, Apr 24, 2003 7:45 PM From: jmsvpm@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Everyone has the right of choice as to what they will or will not do. Why would a doctor be different? On the other hand, wouldn't that also be the same for someone who is in constant agony.

Date: Thu, Apr 24, 2003 6:07 AM From: 166267@swansea.ac.uk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I beleive that the question that is being asked is "Is euthanasia legally and ethically justifiable?". I find it hard to come to a strict answer on this, being a law student and not beleiving in God. However, I thought I would contribute some important points towards this site to generate some open thought:

Is there a right to die?

When deciphering whether a right to die is legally recognised it can be seen that UK law stands a little hazy. Suicide and attempted suicide are no longer criminal offences. The doctrine of consent recognised throughout the common law holds that a mentally competent person may refuse medical treatment or prolongation of life if he or she so wishes. Yet the law still forbids active voluntary euthanasia. The existence, or not, of a right to die is based on deeply held legal, ethical and religious convictions.

Ethical Considerations

The sanctity of life vs autonomy. Autonomy refers to an individual's ability to come to his or her own decisions and requires others to respect the choices patients make concerning their own lives, or in this case, deaths. It is after all the patient's life, and who better to decide when it should come to an end than the person whose life it is? In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the sanctity of life is founded on the notion that life is a gift over which we have stewardship but no final control. They defend the concept on the grounds that life itself is of divine origin and is, therefore, outwith human disposal. This seems to undermine the principle of autonomy as a moral justification for choosing to end one's own life. It is not the person who may makes the choice, but the "greater being". From this it follows that any intentional act to end life - which interferes with the will of God - is morally wrong. But there is constant interference with the will of God in contemporary hospitals with advanced technology. For instance, ventilating a patient in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) who has stopped breathing and otherwise would be dead is permitted, and not seen as interference in the eyes of their religion.


It argued that a person should have a right to die based on the concept of human dignity. If a person is capable of autonomous judgement and is now the victim of a severely debilitating illness, the choice of death could be an act respecting the dignity due to any rational human. He claimed that the most important consideration for the community is to honour the desire to be in charge of one's life and the dying process.


As mentioned above, legalising suicide has without doubt created a legal right to die. It gives the person total control over when they wish to cease living. However when regarding euthanasia the law is reluctant to legislate. What is the difference? The main aspect is that euthanasia involves a third party, and it is argued that it is this party that the law seeks to protect. It may be seen that the law is therefore discriminating between a severely disabled person, who has the same wishes to end her life, but can not physically carry out the administration, and the person who is able to commit suicide without fear of breaking the law.

I hope that these few points have made you think.

It must also be considered that allowing doctors to euthanase patients at their request, may be in the patient's best interets, BUT is it the best interests of the community at large who will possibly start to view doctors as killers, rather than curers and healers?

Date: Wed, Apr 9, 2003 4:22 AM From: HoughForensics@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that a doctor has the right to stand by what his moral decision is. Of course, all doctors won't have the same moral fiber, some will have no problem participating in euthanasia, and some will have a problem with it. Euthanasia, by definition, is not murder. A person should, at the end stage of life, still have the power to decide how they want to live and die, as long as they can competently make such a decision. I believe the decision to die should however be reviewed by the courts before it is allowed. If I were such a patient, I would rather die with dignity than live, against my wishes, in shame, pain, or sorrow; especially when the end is imminent. A person of sound mind should be allowed to make this decision for themselves, and if a doctor has no problem assisting, actively (for pain control), or passively, I believe it should be allowed. Quality of life should be as high a priority to the medical practioners as it is to a patient.

Date: Sun, Mar 30, 2003 6:58 PM From: eddielee10@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that an interesting viewpoint on the topic of euthanasia is that of the classical philosophers and physicians. One of the greatest debates in the study of classical medical ethics is whether or not the Hippocratic Oath totally prohibits the practice of euthanasia in its statement, "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect." It should be noted that the Hippocratic Oath was in some ways, a minority view and atypical of the beliefs of classical physicians, for upon further study, one will quickly realize that the practice of euthanasia, literally "good death" was openly practiced in ancient times.

It was not until the rise of Christianity in the 4th Century A.D. that opposition to suicide and ďphysician assisted suicideĒ, or euthanasia became a majority view. This presents the question of what ancient people found particularly appealing about the idea of euthanasia, especially when a citizen became a burden on those around him. With the advent of drugs like hemlock which offered the opportunity for quick, easy, bloodless death for the untreatable or terminally ill patient, doctors were able to offer their patients an end to suffering; that of voluntary euthanasia. In ancient times, voluntary euthanasia connoted a concern for the human state of mind, and genuine concern to end a patient's suffering, thus the term good death.

The Hippocratic Oath possibly included the prohibition of euthanasia to prevent medicophobia by the society in which physicians practiced, as well as to deter claims of medical wrongdoing or homicide. Other ancient philosophers however, had different reasons for their disdain for euthanasia. For example, Pythagoras expressly prohibited the premature end to any embodied soul, thus euthanasia was a religious crime. For Pythagoras, it was a direct violation of an individualís duty to his god to prematurely end oneís life, thus not only euthanasia, but all forms of suicide were distinctly prohibited. Platoís views on euthanasia are sometimes contradictory, depending on which work is being discussed. Nonetheless, in The Republic, Plato views the welfare of the state as greater than any individual's welfare. Thus, as evidenced in The Republic, Plato believed that terminally ill or untreatable individuals are expendable, if euthanasia will end their suffering and unburden the state. Later works, such as Laws promote quite a different view of suicide, but it is this view presented in The Republic which presents Plato's opinion of the morality of euthanasia in the ideal state.

Using this classical knowledge as background information, I do not believe that doctors should openly participate in active euthanasia. I believe that Pythagorasí view of the premature end to life is true even in contemporary medicine, thus I believe that it is wrong for a doctor to prematurely end a patientís life, even if the active euthanasia would be voluntary. If a patient has a standing Do Not Resuscitate order, then the doctor does have to obey his patientís wishes, however I believe that this passive action is the only acceptable means of end of life care.

Edward Barnes, College Student

Date: Sun, Mar 30, 2003 6:41 PM From: greataaron@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

This question is an issue that has been a dilemma since the beginnings of medicine and the contemplation of medical ethics. Is has been debated since the time of Hippocrates, and as this is a question being asked here, has obviously not had a satisfactory conclusion.

Euthanasia, whether passive or active, leads to the termination of a life at the request or direction of the dying individual. The practice of killing oneself through the removal of lifeís necessities or using drugs is a very old tradition. People in ancient Greece could refuse to be treated by physicians, or remove basic life necessities like food, and allow themselves to die. They could also go to a doctor to request things, such as Hemlock, to remove themselves from this world from issues like kidney stones. Naturally, doctors didnít particularly want to participate in the sort of activity, as it is damaging to any physicianís reputation, which is all the ancient doctor had going for himself. There is also the question of the Hippocratic oath, saying the doctor will not give a poison, or suggest that course of action, to any patient. Whether or not this is a promise to not commit Euthanasia, a literalist viewpoint held by Edelstein, or a promise to the head of household not to poison his family, as believed by Murray, is a mystery. However, it is generally believed it is a prevention of physician-assisted suicide or active Euthanasia. Although this form of suicide/death was not considered to be a morally upstanding tradition, as stated by Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle (Carrick- Medical Ethics in the Ancient World pg. 150-160) it was a solution that was reached by many people.

The ancient moral abhorrence is still holds true today, seen through physician-assisted suicide being legal only in Oregon in the United States, while passive euthanasia is permissible only with a living will. It is an issue that must be dealt with on an individual level, and in many cases, has to do with a terminal disease that is extremely painful to the patient. Euthanasia should be legal and available if it is relieving the suffering from an incurable, painful affliction. However, should doctors be required to participate in active euthanasia, such as giving overdoses of morphine to terminal cancer patients, or set up systems, like Dr. Kavorkian, that allow the patient the means to commit suicide? No, there should be no requirement for them to do that. Many people believe suicide to be wrong, and parallel euthanasia with murder. It is again, something that must be decided on an individual level, allowing each practitioner to live to his or her own standards and ethical values. However, when considering the wants and needs of the patient, the doctor should refer the patient to another practitioner who might be more compliant with their wishes.

Date: Fri, Mar 28e: Fri, Mar 28, 2003 12:40 PMaol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

This is in response to your question on your website, "Does a physician have the right to refuse active euthanasia?"

A physician has every right to refuse active euthanasia if he or she does not feel right about participating in the act, for whatever reason. I am not alluding to the idea that euthanasia itself should be condemned, but every person has the right to make their own decisions in situations that would directly involve them. It is true that in our society today we are given many freedoms that allow us to make decisions to personally suit each of us. A physician is no exception and also has the choice to deny assisting in the death of a patient, disregarding any circumstances the patient may be facing. The physician can choose to make a reference or give alternatives, but in the end, he or she should not be reprimanded for opting to avoid active euthanasia. The physicianís ultimate job is to help his or her patients medically, and he or she can decide whether or not euthanasia would benefit the patient. I agree that in scenarios in which people have terminal illnesses, it might be better for them to be put out of their misery than continue on in life, but no one ought to feel obligated to assist in taking away a life, seeing how many believe that our lives have been graciously given to us. This conflict can be dated back to ancient times, where different philosophical groups such as the Pythagoreans held their own opinions towards euthanasia. Pythagoreans opposed all forms of euthanasia, including active. They felt that it was manís greatest moral duty to obey the commands of God, including the command prohibiting anyone to take their own existence. There was a respect for life and of the human species as a whole. Not every follower of Pythagoras followed these rules as stringently as they were presented, but there is no doubt that the concept of this belief has been carried on into modern times. The controversy of euthanasia is as big an ethical issue today as it was in the ancient times, and each person has the right to decide where he or she stands on such an issue, even physicians

Date: Sun, Mar 23, 2003 10:45 AM From: vdoggett@planttel.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that the doctor has the right to refuse to perform euthanasia. This is an ethical decision that each person must consider individually, including physicians. I personally think we have always been more humane to our animals than our humans. When our pets get old and worn out or terminally ill and in pain, we take them to the vet and "put them to sleep", and everyone thinks this is a good thing. What do we do when mama gets old and worn out? WE decide, NOT mama, that we want everything done to save her. Do we think about her suffering and dignity? Probably not, we are just selfish enough as humans that we don't want to lose mama, even though she is not really with us anyway. I don't consider euthanasia murder, I feel it is allowing a person to die with dignity before that decision is taken away from them either by family, the courts or illness. Whether or not a doctor wants to participate is his decision, but I think he should be willing to refer a patient to another doctor who is willing to allow one to die with dignity.

Date: Mon, Dec 16, 2002 9:04 PM From: cathie@lowmiller.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I can't say whether it is right to help a suffering person die or not; but I will say that if we invoke the commandment "thou shalt not kill" in this case then we must apply the commandment to war and the death penalty as well. And I see very few people doing this.


Date: Sun, Nov 10, 2002 4:35 PM From: GRIZIKAT@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The Dr. can refuse the "suicide." He can refer another physician. I believe it is "our right" to choose death or life. It is very important to have a "living will" for such cases and to discuss the issues with family members as to "what should happen in the case of....." More hospitals are requiring that you have a living will and a power of attorney for such cases. Not all states agree with the assisted suicide. But I hope that in the future it will not be a "issue" and we will be able to do what we wish. Physicians to not nor anyone else in the health profession need to assist if they wish not too. Just as the "abortion act" no one has to take part in it. Liesel :)

Date: Wed, Oct 30, 2002 5:58 AM From: Black star764620@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

OK i'm a 16 year old agnostic, so i think it's fair for me to ask what is meant by "thou shalt not kill"? If it means in don't kill anything in general...well people eat meat don't they. You can't really use that to back up an anti-euthanasia argument, if you have a good reason it should come from the heart. there will be times when euthanasia would be wrong and times when it is truly the right thing to do and we have no right to decide without knowledge of the persons suffering.

Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2002 3:42 AM From: bottomly@bigpond.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that those who hide against their belief in God, are scared of any moral conflict. True, while it does state as a commandment that 'thou shalt not kill.' However it also states, in another one of the commandments that thou shalt love thy neighbour. If your neighbour was sick of a life destroying disease then would you defy your god by not offering to assist your neighbor in the only noble way of ending their life, true it will in its actions defy the no killing notion, however jesus also taught us to treat others as we would ourselves expect to be treated. I put it to you the anti-euthanasia lobbyists to respect your fellow human beings enough to end their suffering when no other means present themselves. I am a christian, and I am also a euthanasia supporter, does this make me any less human?

Matt Bottomley

Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2002 2:55 AM From: Bandit889570823@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

good morning, with the greatest respect, if a person is in a position suffering long term disease, or prolonged pain, and quality of life is non existent, remembering that loved ones , our subjected to the experiences of trauma relating to illnesses. personally i condone suffering , but if doctors had powers to terminate life, perhaps considered on the person circumstances, whynot!!!!!!!!!!

Date: Tue, Oct 15, 2002 1:44 AM From: Kitten@austarnet.com.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Only recently after recieving my last assessment piece for modern history did I even begin to consider what Euthanasia is, the good and the bad. Although I have only just begun my indepth research on the topic, I have slowing been reaching my own thoughts and feelings on the topic. I think that physicians do have the right to refuse to participate in active euthanasia. They are humans too, and are entitled to live their own moral and spiritual ideals. The prospect of persuing in active euthanasia could quite possibly leave one scared with the knowledge that they gave the 'OK' to end anothers life. I am not at all a Christian, but I do believe that we were not put on this earth to play God in deciding who has the right to live or die. We are here to live. Yet whilst death is apart of life, to knowingly take away someones life, whether they gave permission for such an act or not is going beyond our duties as human beings. I understand when people may say that euthanasia is the only solution to terminal illnesses, and that it is the best thing. But if these people were meant to die at that stage in their lives, then God would be at work doing His thing. All in all, participating in euthanasia whether voluntary or not, is an act that is very contraversial no matter what way it is looked at and will most likely not come to a close any time soon. However, in the meantime, if a free rein was given to perform this action, what would inevitably happen to the human moral? Life is a gift, don't waste it.

Date: Tue, Oct 8, 2002 4:29 PM From: petersdm@sympatico.ca To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that it is the doctor's own choice. if they dont feel comfortable taking someone's life...for whatever reason, that is up to them. I do however think that euthanasia should be legal, for many reasons.

Date: Tue, Sep 24, 2002 8:41 PM From: winstonjen@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hi! This is a contribution to your website.

It's a touchy subject, but here are my views. I'm definitely for it. If they are suffering with no hope of a cure, they would thank you for ending their pain. Those who oppose euthanasia haven't experienced the pain, so they can't judge it for themselves. They don't care about the poor patient, they just want to appear morally correct by opposing it. People who oppose it need to be GIVEN a terminal illness. It sounds cold and harsh, but I'm not trying to flame. The ones that oppose it have NO IDEA what it is like to be in a terrible condition with no hope of recovery. They would most likely change their mind. Keeping the terminally ill alive against their wishes is nothing short of torture. Don't we have laws against that? Also, 'freedom' comes from the words 'free' and 'doom'. Laws against UNassisted suicide are meaningless, because if they succeed, they are beyond the reach of the law.

There's also evidence of Euthanasia in the Bible. Jesus only hung on the cross for three hours, and then died. It usually takes much longer to die from crucifixion. The Romans stabbed him because 'they were surprised he had died so soon'.

There was an Australian Senator who opposed organ transplants (he said that if someone had a heart attack, that was God saying they should be dead). Then HE himself had a heart attack and needed a transplant. He said that God wanted him to have a transplant. Well, why him and not so many others?

What a hypocrite! The people that oppose euthanasia need to be put in similar pain to those that desire it. Otherwise, they can't understand the pain and shouldn't judge those that want euthanasia. Also, the opponents of it aren't going to be affected by it (they're not the ones dying), so why complain? I think they are a bunch of bigots (no offense to anyone here - everyone here tends to have good opinions and good reasons).

Also, check out www.nancycrick.com

From the main page of that site:

My name is Nancy Crick. I'm 70 years of age and have been suffering from bowel cancer for three years. To say my quality of life has deteriorated is a gross understatement.

I have gone from being an active, vital, healthy woman (I had no symptoms on diagnosis) to a 27kg shell. I've lost almost all of my teeth, energy and, most importantly, the will and desire to live.

Most of my day - and night - is spent leaning over the toilet bowl dealing with chronic vomiting and diarrhoea. I am also in almost constant pain.

I can no longer leave the security of my home because of the vomiting and diarrhoea, and have had to cancel most of my medical appointments for this reason. Would you wish to have me in your car? My energy level is so low that it is as much as I can manage to venture as far as the letter box. On occasions I have made that distance, but have not been able to make the return journey before collapsing.

I require medication to sleep, but am often too tired to allow myself the luxury of sleeping as I lose control of my bladder when asleep, and also am not aware if my colostomy bag fills and overflows.

Imagine if you had to wake up in a wet bed, covered in your own faeces; it's not dignified, comfortable nor compatible with a relaxed start to a new day.

Through all this I am still at home, managing my household and cooking as best I can, sometimes forcing myself over the limit and paying the price. I have some help with stoma management, and am lucky in that I have friends who visit.

Other than visitors, the phone and television, I am cut off from the world, a world I fully embraced before this befell me. I am a prisoner in my own home. If family and friends cannot come to me or phone, I am alone with my pain. I cannot go to them.

As the pain and indignity worsen, I am frightened of the future. Not the future as others envision it: my future - becoming so weak I am unable to leave my bed to clean myself up; being unable to reach my pain medication; having the pain become so unbearable I lose my mind. The only future I have to look forward to.

This type of future would not be visited on a pet or farm animal. Compassionate vets will not let this happen; they gently euthanase our animals. Why then is it so unreasonable to expect compassionate doctors to do the same for human beings? Yours sincerely Nancy Crick

Another issue is that some people don't know what euthanasia is. One person said, "Euthanasia isn't murder, is it? OK, how about if I euthanise you when you're asleep in bed?" That guy is foolish. That isn't even euthanasia. Euthanasia requires consent, awareness and probably a legal signature.

About a month ago, Nancy Crick took a lethal cocktail of drugs to end her suffering. The pro-lifers want to prosecute the 21 witnesses who were with her to give her comfort (she didn't want to die alone). The pro-lifers also accuse the voluntary euthanasia advocates of manipulating her into commiting suicide. They use the evidence that Nancy did not have cancer when she died. Even so, she was suffering from the consequences of cancer and the treatment. She was a 27kg shell when she died. The pro-lifers make me sick.

I believe that anti-euthanasia = pro-torture. Take the example of Diane Pretty, a British woman with Motor Neurone Disease. She choked to death painfully over a week because the law did not allow her husband to assist her with her suicide. She was paralysed from the neck down and was helpless.

What are your thoughts on the issue? Sorry if this is a bit long. Sincerely,


Date: Wed, Jul 31, 2002 8:27 AM From: dschrim@msn.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Letís consider this. You have a dog that you have taken care of for 15 years. Let's call him Sparky. Sparky is a part of your family. You have watched Sparky grow. He is your best friend as well as your kids' best friend, and you love him. Over time Sparky has become very ill and very sore. He moans and wimpers with every step he takes. At this point he hurts too much to even wag his tail. So, you decide that it is time to put Sparky to sleep. You don't want to see him in pain, because you love him. Now, my question to you is, do we love our pets more than we love our people? If not, then why are we insistant that our loved ones suffer, while we can put our pets out of their pain. I don't know. Maybe itís all a question of letting go. Itís easier to let go of a pet than it is a parent. I work in a hospital and I have seen what happens to people when they want to die, but their families wonít let go. And let me tell you, there is nothing as sad.

Date: Thu, Jun 20, 2002 2:41 PM From: ma0033@earthlink.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes! I believe that all physicians should have that right to refuse to assist with euthanasia. But I do think that each should look inside their own belief system and values and ask the question, if that was my parent would I want that for them. Also in the code of ethics, we all are to do no harm to the patient, but are we doing harm to them by completing their wish to end the suffering? I believe that it should come down to informed consent of the patient and family involved. I believe it should be between the patient and his family for the final decision. But if the physician is unable to assist in the patients wish I think it would be in the best interest for the phyisican to find someone who is able. Thanks Ella Abela

Date: Thu, Jun 20, 2002 2:06 AM From: lochert@riverland.net.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that euthanasia is wrong. People that do not believe in God can not understand this. They are sometimes very bitter and consider our beliefs self- righteous and selfish. This is because they do not understand our reasons and so try and find their own reasons for our beliefs.

I am not a selfish or self righteous person, I am only following God's commandments and the first one is thou shall not kill. I am sure that God did not make these commandments for us to follow only in the easiest of times, they were made for tough times, when it is hard to distinguish between right and wrong. So how can we be called self righteous, those people that want to play God and make decisions on whether a human should live or not are the self righteous ones.

Where will it all stop! Where will people draw the line. I draw mine on God's commandments.

Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2002 5:14 PM From: ymartos@attbi.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes. I think is the doctors choice on what he wants to do. Just like is the choice of the person with the terminal illness to want to put him self out of suffering.

Date: Sun, Jun 2, 2002 10:46 PM From: SinganEric1@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that if a person is on life-support, and that the only thing that is keeping them alive is a machine, that they have the choice of whether they want to be kept on that life support or not.

16 year old CA

Date: Wed, Apr 24, 2002 7:17 PM From: redeamed@redred.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

We go through life for 40, 50,60,70 or more years and we do not for the most part know what it that we do that will shorten our lives or make our lives worse than what it should be. If we smoke cigarettes all of our lives, there is plenty of information out there to be looked at for us to see that smoking is harmful to our health and it will shorten our lives. if we opt to die or have some one KILL us that is just a cheap shot to get out of life or it is just the cowards way out.God told us that we are not to kill. Who was this commandment meant for? was it only for the healthy or was it for all of mankind?

Wally Hess

Date: Sat, Apr 6, 2002 12:09 PM From: BPSUNDANCE@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I feel that many doctors out there perform abortions, many believe in it. Just the same. Doctors can either perform euthanasia or not. I use to work in a nursing home for many years but had to leave because it was too depressing. there was this man in his 70s who had had a stroke at one time. ever since i worked at this home, he had lived there. the stroke left him bound to a wheelchair. he could not move his head, arms or legs. he couldn't talk or even smile. he couldn't tell you if he was in pain or if he needed to go to the bathroom. every day he sat in this same chair. we had to use a lift to pick him up out of bed, tell me how scary that was for him, he can't. he would wet his pants and sit in them until someone had the time to change in, and quite frankly when someone needs to be lifted out of bed mechanically, try to find someone to do it. Feeding him was always a joy. His mouth was so contracted he couldn't open it. They would literally pry it open with a spoon and feed him. It was like he didn't want to eat. He had no family who came to visit, he just sat there day after day. I use to wonder when I looked at him if he was even in there. I swear heaven already took him and his body was left to die. What a way. Now if you think that euthanasia is wrong how can we make this gentleman not suffer? Drug him up? That's always everyone's answer. how can you say you wont end up like the man, what if you cant talk to even say you want to be euthanized its really sad. A doctor should be able to make the decision. If there is no quality of life left, what is there?

Date: Tue, Mar 26, 2002 4:27 PM From: vlbell@alaska.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe it is the right of an individual who is terminally ill to decide if they want to continue on with their life. When man was created he was given the free will to make his or her own decisions. And I have read many things stating its murder and a sin, isn't it more of a sin to watch someone suffer!

I agree that yes maybe their will be those who abuse the right to die and kill those who are not terminally ill or even mentally sick individuals who feel they have nothing to live for. For those two reasons alone some policies and limitations should be set to prevent abuse of the right to die. It is easy for all of us to speak out and cast stones of what is morally right or wrong. And it is much easier for individuals to judge what they do not know or have experienced.


Date: Fri, Mar 22, 2002 5:57 AM From: r3p2000_2000@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am in a Philosophy class, and we are having a discussion on this right now. I feel that it is up to the person if they want to die. if the person has no quality of life, and no hopes of recovery, then it is up to them to decide what to do. It is also up to the Doctor if he wants to assist this person. There is nothing set in stone as to how and why it is done.

Date: Mon, Mar 4, 2002 3:27 PM From: live_4_u@msn.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hi. I'm a grade 11 student in a school near Ottawa Ontario. I take law, and presently we're working on a debate on the topic of euthanasia. Our topic was 'Should it be legalized in Canada'. When asked to pick sides, I automatically chose not to defend this statement. Sure, it's easy to say that someone should have control over their death, and have the choice to die or not. But I really don't think that should be the case at all. We don't choose when we want to be brought into this world, why should we choose when to leave? It's the same as abortion, who are we to decide the fate of somebody else's soul? And what about involuntary euthanasia, when someone is so ill that they can't tell us whether or not they actually want to die, should doctors still have the right to kill somebody even with the family's approval? I really don't think so, we were not put on this earth to judge other people's life, and it's not our responsibility. And how can we tell if someone really wants to die? Is it up to us to even judge that? No. Life is a gift, and we don't know what ot's like to be terminally ill, people like that might love their lives, and they might find joy in the most simple things, we don't know what anyone is really thinking. I was reading something you wrote on your website, and that encouraged me to write to you and tell you my opinion on the whole issue. I was also wondering if you think that it should be legalized in Canada. Thanks for your time

Date: Sun, Mar 3, 2002 3:57 PM From: Savvy77@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Now the question is, do you think it is right for a physician to refuse the choice of euthanasia to an ill patient? or in other words, should eithanasia be permitted? in the first 2 storied that i told you, if euthanaisa would have been legal and permitted, then both victims would not have had to go though the pain that they did. especially Mary Jackson, the mother who placed the pillow over her own sons head to save him from the suffering on Huntingtons disease. can you even picture that? she not only lost her son in that situation, but she went through the horror of helping that happen. Euthanaisa should be a choice for anyone and everyone who wants it. its not murder and its not the case of stealing a life. its a choice. a person wanting to end their life this bad, must be pretty misrable. and if we can end that misery then why not. we should respect how they feel, and give them the oppertunity of euthanaisa.

To make it as clear as possible for everyone, let me tell it to you this way. picture this, you have an incurable disease that causes you endless trauma and suffering. everyday, all you can do is sit, and watch the people around you live their lives to the fullest because they are not sick like you are. you dont even cry anymore, whats the use? its not going to help speed recovery. and in some cases there is no recovery. you have no energy, none, whatso ever. you lay in bed all day, and all night. you do nothing and your life, to you, is worth nothing. now let me ask you this, would you wanna live that life? well there is millions of people in this world that do. wouldnt you rather go onto a better place where there would be no misery or agony. where life would be simple and easy. a place that some of certain beliefs like to call heaven. in order to get to this " place" a choice needs to be made. a choice of life or death. the choice of euthanaisa. euthanasia is " the act or practice of a life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension or extrodinary medical treatment.

I personally have volunteered at a Convalesint Center for the elderly, off and on, for a little while now. During the times i visited, i came across many ill people, whether it be a type of disease or severe disability. It is horrible some of the things that happen there. People begin, or have already begun to deteriorate either physical or mentally, to where all they want to do is die. As you can imagine this is a serious decision, but would you rather have a nice peaceful death, or a horrible death. When a person dies in not a very nice way, it is very hard to remember that person whether you are related to that person or not. Death is not always a quick process like some may think. It could take weeks, months, or in some cases years. It's not only the person dying/ill you have to consider it is those around them, imagine the effects that this could have. I believe that euthanasia should be available to those who choose to die for a more peaceful death or as a way out of their life if they are miserable. For those people who are against euthanasia , just remember when you next get a headache or break a bone, and are reaching for those Advil to relieve the pain, if you times that pain by perhaps fifty, and not take any mediction, that just might give you a small idea of the pain that people go though everyday. The reason i added the part about not taking the medication is because there are many people who cannot be helped through medicine. They just have to deal with the pain.


Date: Thu, Feb 21, 2002 10:55 PM From: rodz_iii2000@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that anyone are free to lose thier lives..Not to other people..If we prevent the euthanacia that is called murder you are a murderer!!!!We are all wrong...

rodz.stevan iii..phil...

Date: Sun, Jan 20, 2002 12:27 PM From: freeman@freeman58.freeserve.co.uk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am currently a university student, one of the topics i am concentrating on is Euthanasia. The approach which i have been given to look at is "Right to Die". My opinion is strongly for euthanasia. I have worked at a Resedential home for the elderly for just over three years (part time). During this time i have come across many ill people, whether it be a type of disease or severe disability. Obviously there are differant stages of the particular illness the person may have. However, when people begin to deteriorate either physical or mentally, to the stage when they tell people they do not want to live any longer. As you can imagine this is a serious decision, but they would rather die a nice death than in pain. Being a carer myself i have seen numerous people who have died a horrible death, not a nice way to remember that person whether you are related to that person or not. Death is not always a quick process, i have seen many who have suffered for weeks. It's not only the person dying/ill you have to consider it is those around them, imagine the effects that this could have.

I believe that euthanasia should be available to those who choose to die for a more peaceful death or as a way out of their life if they are miserable, due to perhaps a physical disability. For those people who are against euthanasia i suggest you remember your opinion when you possibly witness a family member dying who is in pain, or perhaps yourself. Just remember when you next get a headache and are reaching for those paracetamols to relieve the pain, if you times that pain by perhaps fifty, it could possibly give you some idea as to what those people go through, then again maybe not i wouldn't know i am not in that situation but i have witnessed it, more than once. In my eyes euthanasia is a huge painkiller that stops the pain forever for all concerned. Doctors give the choice in intensive care units whether to keep a person alive on a life support machine. They switch it off when the decision is made by the family. Don't you think it's a very similar situation.

Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2001 6:14 AM From: Callmetrouble25@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com


Date: Thu, Nov 29, 2001 5:09 PM From: Meghan530@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I have to do a debate on "mercy killing" and I was nominated to go against it... I've never even heard of it before! I just found out though, that one of my really good friends, her step-dad is dying of cancer and has only like 4 months to live. She also has a baby which, if they kill him because he 'doesn't have much time to live, or he's just suffering', her baby will never get to know her dad. We were talking about death and stuff the other day, and I truly believe that doctors and stuff have cures, but it's just like a population control type thing. Micheal Jordan, he's the famous athlete that had AIDS and for some odd, reason, he seamed to get completely cured! He did have the money to spear, and he's a 'popular' person, so why let him die? It totally makes sense though... I do believe however, that God is in untimate control over when you come into this world, and when you leave. If my family believe in Euthanasia, several of my immediate family members wouldn't be here... *That's a scary thought!* I think we've let doctors and medicine become too much of a depdent upon it/them. Well, tahnks for hearing me out! Just think before you agree. we aren't cats, we only have one life... :-) en

Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2001 2:28 PM From: Shall.7@btinternet.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

i think that people should think hard about the facts of Euthanasia. many people suffer everyday from diseases that they are dying from. what hope do these people have? people who have a faith believe that they will be taken to be with God when it is right and that they cannot determine when they are going to die and live through the pain as God has intended. But what about the people who have no faith? they are not living for anything. they are slowly falling into a world where they are only mind and no body. If mind is all that is left then what use is it that, that person has to suffer there last few weeks, months, years in a state whereby they cannot communicate and have no dignity left.

It has always been a matter of opinion and always will be because so many people will never have to suffer what many people suffer. You may say that stress can bring you down, the flu can drain you, But try having a disease whereby every day you wake up and feel nothing, everyday you wake up not being able to tell anyone how you feel or that you love them. To people who live this it is like reaching hell early.

If only the world could be still for 10 minutes and experience what these people go through then maybe one day the world will see that besides religion and a matter of opinion, these people are being kept alive because you want them to be, regardless of the suffering.

So spare a moment for the people who have to suffer because someone won't let them go to a happier place and won't let them be free of the everyday pains of life.

Experiencing it is bad enough but understanding it is what we need to do.

Date: Thu, Oct 25, 2001 12:56 PM From: sujata_milind@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think it is right for physicians to refuse to kill a patient. A phycician who is willing to kii someone is like commiting murder.

Date: Sun, Oct 21, 2001 9:54 AM From: DUNNEANNE@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that people should have the right to die.You own your body and should be able to decide what you want to do with it.Especially if it does not function properly why suffer?The person that helps them die,is only doing what thier friend or family member e.t.c whishes.And therefore should not be punished.If you had a disease where you needed assitance to eat,drink,dress,go to the toilet,live.Would being stripped of your dignity bother you.I think it would.Could you cope with the immense pain.

Date: Thu, Oct 18, 2001 12:13 PM From: S204563@uu.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I strongly feel that God does not want his children to suffer extensive pain. It would be very hard for a doctor to witness on-going suffering from his or her patients and not want to put them out of their misery. Although some patients with fatal, agonizing diseases recover, most aren't that lucky. Most, unfortunately die, a slow painful death. Doctors who perform "mercy killings" are only trying to stop the patients suffering. In their hearts they are doing the right thing.

Date: Tue, Oct 2, 2001 3:11 PM From: PIGLETTPAL@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

How is it possible 2 judge other in that way? People say that euthinasia is wrong and that under no circumstance should it be allowed. i ask you this: if your mother/father/sister/brother or indeed yourself we're found to have a terminal disease, like cancer or aids, would you really want to live with the pain and suffering that is to follow. The pain and suffering is not just to yourself, the pain that your family and friends must suffer due to the state you are in. i watch a relative in pain all day everyday, not as bad as cancer or aids, but i know how i feel watching her lying there! if she ever got to the state like that and asked to be let go then i would stand by her whole heartedly. it isn't you who should make that choice, nor i, but them!

Date: Thu, Sep 6, 2001 6:02 PM From: Moonsk8er@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that the physician should not deny euthanasia. If the paitent is suffering then the physician should perform the operation and let the paitent die without suffering. if the patient chooses to die the physician should allow the patient his/her rights. i dont noe what i am talkin bout but i think that a person should be allowed to choose weather he/she lives or dies. The doctor shouldn't keep the person alive and suffering just because they dont want to perform that services then they should tell the person that they dont feel right performing those services and let the paitent chosse someone that will. i will send another letter later

Date: Wed, Jul 25, 2001 8:00 PM From: 1justin1@msn.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

If Euthanasia was o.k. How would you feel as the physician? Would you be able to do these mercy killings as you so called it? Or would you get a conscious? Would you finally wonder when its your time to go when you face your maker if He would feel the same way you did? How would you explain your actions? Oh gee I felt I had the right to take away your beautiful creation. I personally feel Who ever, Or what ever you believe in put us here for a reason. I say live and try to find your reason for being here. Who ever made creation put an awful lot of thought into making us. Why would He want to make us suffer more than we had to. Unless there was something left for us to do. When its time to die you'll die there's no stopping it. So make the best of that year, day , hour! You may touch someone else's life. Not giving up, may give others courage. Fight to live.

Date: Thu, Jul 12, 2001 10:11 PM From: KAAHORN@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

While it should be decided on a case by case basis, euthanasia can be an act of mercy and generosity. When the patient's pain surpasses his/her coping ability; euthanasia should be given serious consideration. However, Euthanasia should never be discussed before the patient has clearly indicated an urgent interest of his thinking.

Thanks, Herbert allen Horner, Jr.

Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2001 8:57 AM From: crystalb@cocentral.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I found your website while I was looking for some facts about euthanasia for my oral communications class in college. I figured that it was a pretty hot topic and from reading some of the emails that people have sent, I think I was right. I have always been brought up knowing about God and I do know that euthanasia would be wrong. My mother once sat by her father-in-law's hospital bed and silently prayed for God to take him away and out of his misery. Within a few minutes, God had taken him away. Honestly, that is how everyone should go. But I have to say that if you are in such unbearable pain that you really do not want to go on with your life and if you are in your right mind, it's your decision. Besides, if we are Christians and we judge someone that does such a thing as euthanasia, we become judged by God.

Thanks, Crystal

Date: Sun, May 20, 2001 9:27 PM From: recordav@knr.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

To quote a misdirected person; "I am devout Roman Catholic and I believe that only GOD all mighty has the right to choose when one dies, no human CAN CHOOSE TO DIE." Then why do we have the option to CHOOSE TO LIVE through medicine that can sustain life beyond the inevitable. Is this our gift from your GOD? Suffer more! Doctors for years have been assisting suicides. We need a board of authorities that can review each individual case and determine what is fair. I have done forensic work for the Kevorkian case that convicted Jack. Everyone involved with the case agrees that he has the right idea. Just the wrong approach. Maybe he is trying to give attention to something that needs a closer look and some open minds to look at this problem. Your outlook will change when you are presented with this problem. I have AIDS and want to choose when, where and how. There will be a point when I become a burden. Will you pay my surviving family the expense? Then shut your damn mouth. Don't tell me how to live my live through you stupid religious beliefs. I am not telling you how to live your life through my religious belief. What I do doesn't affect your life so SHUT UP IDIOT!! And do not use the State to enforce laws that have a religious bases. Is america stupid enough to accept your religious believe as law? Remember the separation of church and state! Did you forget??

Date: Wed, May 9, 2001 4:19 PM From: mwtimko@avci.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that euthenasia is wrong. Taking a pill or having an injection is just like shooting yourself in the head, only the pill or injection is prettier, because there is no blood.

As creator, God alone knows with certainty whether a disease or injury is incurable. If a loved one is suffering, the best you can do is pray to the Lord and say," You know Lord, So and So is really in a lot of pain right now, and I hate to see them suffer. Lord, please take So and So home to be with you or help them to recover. And Lord, please help me to coap with this."

If you truely believe in the God and have faith in him, he will always pull you through.


Date: Wed, May 2, 2001 3:14 PM From: Orangepinapplesc@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

i think killing a person even if they want you to is wrong.They are sick they dont really know if they want to die.Put that on your website.

By, Rebecca Pepper

Date: Wed, Apr 25,2001 11:58 PM From: s_jgb@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I have a chronic incurable desease which seriously reduces my abilility to have a life and would my breathing to stop as well as all the rest of my functions, and am willing to pay for the ability to receive a painless death. Reply online to this notice boards starting with the in Response to only solution

Date: Wed, Apr 18, 2001 12:27 AM From: jamiss@fix.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

It is my strong belief that Euthanasia is illegal for one reason, money! If you look at how much hospitals and drug companys profit from a "sick" patient, you would understand their position. In the pharmicutial field a "sick or unhealthy" patient is considered a client and you do not put clients to sleep. How ever, the insurance companies are pro euthanasia and lobby for active and in some cases even aggressive euthanasia. So if you want to look at the core of this debate then look no further than the bottom line.

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 5:21 AM From: micallefa@vol.net.mt To: DoktorMo@aol.com

My dictionary says- Euthasia is MURDER pure murder and nothing but MURDER. It is not mercy killing it is not kind it is a way by which one gets A- rid of an unwanted person B-Wills made faster. I am devout Roman Chatolic and I believe that only GOD all mighty has the right to choose when one dies, no human CAN CHOOSE TO DIE.

Date: Sat, Mar 17, 2001 2:16 AM From: ekidd@holburn13.freeserve.co.uk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think the person has the right to chose. If the person is so ill they cannot make that decision for themselves, then the nearest of kin should be asked to make that decision as they have to suffer as well.

Richard Kidd

Date: Fri, Mar 16, 2001 10:31 PM From: joefuess@pacbell.net To: DoktorMo @aol.com

sure, If a physician dosent want to kill some one, or themself. Why should they be forced to do anything that they don't feel comfortable with. I do however, think euthinasia is a crime, and those who successfully kill themselves should be tried as murders. HA!

Really now, who wants live forever. I belive that sooner or later we all give up and die. Rather than was the time, money, grief, and pain, just die quick..... and for all you religous fanitics... If god wants you to stay alive, I think he would let you know.

Date: Tue, Mar 13, 2001 7:23 PM From: richard_kidd56@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

It depends, I think if someone is dying and is never going to get any better, I think its fair someone should choose Euthanasia. It depends on the circumstances

Date: Thu, Mar 1, 2001 12:29 PM From: CorbinToz@cs.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

There are 2,562 gods around the blue ball we call earth, each god is generally specific to a particular group of individuals in a particular area... The problem with killing people who are in great pain is that other people who are not in great pain beleive that they have the right to tell them they have to suffer. To all those people who would want me to suffer rather than commit suicide I just have one thing to say, " I wish you could bear my pain for 10 minutes, then see what you thought..."

Date: Mon, Feb 26, 2001 4:24 PM From: kentfar@swbell.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Euthenasia...morally right or wrong? I'm a stubborn yet open-minded Christian, and when I read all the horrible accounts of the ill and/or dying who have been forced to continue in a life that's hardly that, I feel such greif. Suffering in any form is tragic, and it tears us up to see it. Yet, at the same time, all life, even hard life, is a precious gift that's been lent to us for a while. It's not ours, and we don't have to privilage to say when we recieve or take life, even our own. We alll go through stuff that makes us wonder if we can handle it, but, God be praised, He gives us the srength to survive...literally and he expects us to use well the gifts he gives us.

Date: Sun, Feb 25, 2001 6:36 PM From: svanstrien@webtv.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I do think a physician has a right to refuse to participate in having an active role but converseley it is a persons ultiminate decision to deceide to terminate and if a compassionate caring physician has evaluated the person and agrees then the state should not interfere in this decision. This is a persons ultimate freedom. Of course safe guards should be put in place so no one is terminated for simple decision. Do you know what the current laws are in Oregon on this most delicate issue ( euthanasia ). How does one find a doctor who is willing to assist. I live in Vermont and deal with daily chronic intractable pain and am looking for help. Please inform as to its legality and a list of understanding doctors? Thank You Very Much, Steven Van Strien

Date: Tue, Feb 20, 2001 6:26 PM From: MHWDRW@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

You say that in the bible that we are not to kill, yes in exdous 20. But also god dosent want us to love by mans standereds either and when they do the procider called euthinasia/assited suicide(so called) it is people that more than likely wont live with out the man made machines that breath and pump blood into them when tere lossing blood fast and theres no why you can fix it. so in a why your preventing God to prevent him from doing his job faster and easier. And God said let no man cast the first sone unles he is sin less or no man judg unles he wants to be judged. And right here your judging in Gods place if it is right or wrong and if it is in his eyes then hell put a stop to it. And me prsonaly dont want to watch my mom, dad, granparents, or friends have to die like that. B/c i did with my mom they put her on machines when she had half of her brain blown of and you know that if and Istress "IF" she would haved lived she would be nothing but a vegtable and I know she wouldnt want to live like that. But the doctors stressed that she saty on it until she died and I was 10 and Iwas telling them to take her of the machine but wouldnt lisent to me and its the worst memorie i have of my life knowing that I couldnt do nothing about it. But know there is a way to do it, with out hurting people and if it was avialble and I had a say in it I would have sugested them to do it. Thats is my thought on it and if you would like to know i am a Christian I am member of First Assmble of GOd in Laffeyette, GA. and I thank you for letting tell you my thoughts on it

Date: Wed, Feb 7, 2001 10:46 AM From: Duncan.Macgregor@btinternet.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I have a Question How can Christians actually justifiy Euthinasia?- the Bible teaches about loving thy neighbour and not to kill so how can the christian church accept it?

Date: Fri, Feb 2, 2001 11:55 AM From: cheral@mail.med.upenn.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Man has always had the ability to end his or her own life. Law does not control it. So, the question becomes; should it be done as humanely as possible, or left to the best efforts of the individual. In considering it, we think about:

* Not being successful. Leaving ourselves in some even more debilitated state.

* Which of our loved ones will find the remains, and how will that effect them?

* Causing the police to fire on us to accomplish the task quickly and efficiently.

* What kind of death will best preserve organs we have donated?

* If it's humane to euthanasia a sick pet, why do I not get as much consideration?

Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2001 4:15 PM From: kdeven_2000@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

well i think it would be very hard for a physician to participate but if the family wants them to its ok but otherwise i think its ok if they dont want. but for one euthinasia to me is horrible and i dont think it should axcually be done but if someone is axcually suffering enought it may be ok. but what am i to know about it i am only 12 in 7th grade. but i have choose to do a report on euthinasia. Thank you and have a good day! -Beth

Date: Thu, Jan 25, 2001 4:34 PM From: LeoGal13@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

hi. I was looking around the web for facts on euthanasia for my editorial when I found your site. I personally think that it is not only right for a physician to refuse to participate in euthanasia, but that it's the right thing to do. Thanks for having your web-site up so I can find some facts to support my opinion. -Tj

Date: Tue, Jan 23, 2001 3:55 AM From: angoevans@one.net.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

If the patient requests to have a lethal injection of euthinasia, it is their right to have it, if they are in so much pain and have nothing more to live for them let them die for christs sake

Date: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 12:21 PM From: LYGIRL.COM@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Euthanasia is a matter of opinion and perspective. if a man who is about to die has no chances of living, or the chances for him to survive is so minimal that it is either ni\egligible or immaterial then i think that euthanasia is but just. euthanasia saves the persons involved and the family members of further physical pain and mental anguish. not to mention that the cost of living is so high. this is not to say that every person who is admitted to the hospital be killed that very moment.relatives of terminally ill patients should have the right and liberty to do as they think is right and appropriate.

Date: Wed, Jan 10, 2001 5:42 PM From: Orleans23@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

In response to Indian8580's message. Medicine isn't meddling in God's plan. If you were ill and needed medicine to cure yourself you wouldn't be sinning or anything. Medicine is a gift and we need to use it appropiatly. How can you possible ask a doctor to kill you when they have been trained to do their best to save people? To have a doctor do this to you would be selfish. I watched my granpa suffer until the day he died and never once did he complain. Never once did he consider killing himself and he especially didn't consider asking someone else to do it for him. He lived one day at a time and when his time came to go he was prepared and so was our family. There is no need to be inpatient for death, it all happens in its time. Whether you believe in God or not it doesn't matter death still will happen in its time.


Date: Wed, Jan 10, 2001 10:07 AM From: cailab@tin.it To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Personally,we think life is the most precious thing:nothing is more important than it. In spite of this opinion, in front of a serious illness, we would think differently.In fact ,according to us, euthanasia can be"justified" if it is used for preserving someone from a terrible pain (physical but also mental, and not only for himself but also for the relatives ) and for avoiding a death that , after all , is sure and , above all , very very painful !!!!!! Moreover , we want to underline the human side of this question without taking in consideration the religious " principles " and , consequently , to follow a HUMAN ethics and not a divine one !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Date: Tue, Jan 9, 2001 3:25 AM From: cailab@tin.it To: DoktorMo@aol.com

We are two young Italian students and we would like to express our opinion about euthanasia. It is very difficult to approve or not this method because we do not know our reaction or our attitude in front of our familiar or friend who is a terminal ill. We cannot be sure if our love for this person would stop us in the decision to give him death or not.To give a true opinion we should personally live this terrible situation.

Date: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 5:46 PM From: stepanj@email.msn.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that if you can't get in trouble for plain suicide I don't think that someone who aids you should have to pay for your decision. If you were well enough to do it your self then by all means do it, but if your someone who is bed ridden and you can't do anything for your self you should be able to tell a doctor and have them fulfill your wishes.

Date: Thu, Dec 28, 2000 4:18 PM From: juniormiss@email.msn.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

To answer your question about euthanasia I would like to contribute that when a health care provider pulls the plug it is simply letting the patient die as long as it's by the patients request.

Date: Sat, Dec 16, 2000 4:11 PM From: Sugar2skb@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Hey there, I was searching on the Internet for my final on Euthanasia and I stumbled over your site. Believe me this isn't hate mail, it is actually to tell you that it was just what I was searching for. I have the same exact feelings as you do on this one, because for one I know what it is like to see my mom-mom and nana die from cancer. Trust me, if it was posible, I would have wanted their pain to end sooner. Personally, I am a strong christian, but I still agree that this is right. Voice your opinion and good luck in medical school. Sarah

Date: Sat, Dec 16, 2000 12:48 PM From: Indian8580@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Most of the major opposition to euthanasia come from religious groups and their argument that god brought you here and he should take you out, no assistance from others. If this is the case should medicine for someone who has a disease which can be cured but if left alone is lethal should not be administered because maybe this is god trying to take the person to heaven and the medicine is only meddling in his plan and the disease should take its course no matter the outcome. I'm sure few people would not leap mountains to get the proper care for their loved one. Euthanasia is the only morally right choice for terminally ill people who have no more hope and the rest of their life riddled with pain and agony. How can people sit by and watch others in horrible pain and say this is "his plan" and we can't do anything. Whether doctors choose to help their patients end their pain is their choice but people should not stand in the way of a persons CHOICE to decide to end their life and leave this world with dignity and friends, not destitution and strangers.

Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2000 11:35 AM From: pward@mail.monroelocalschools.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

i would hate to be put in such a horrible position!it would stink!i think that doctors should be able to refuse such things!it is wrong to try and force someone to murder another person!we should shine the light of God to maybe give them hope not to want to take their lives! in Christ.


Date: Tue, Dec 12, 2000 2:19 PM From: Shav85@cs.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

ear who ever it may concern, I am in the debate club at my school and i just thought i would share my opinion with you on euthanisia, euthanisia is wrong all the way."my job is to save the people's life and not take their life"-does that quote look familar to you.i would rather to live through the pain and see anothr day than to do euthanisia, anything could happen,-a cure could be found, a miracle could happen, etc, see what i mean, so therefore i leave you with my opinion, if there is any problems, questions. etc, feel free to e-mail me any time. thanx alot. bye

Date: Tue, Nov 28, 2000 6:31 AM From: TWONEILLS@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Personally, I feel that physicians haven't the right to refuse a terminally ill or disabled patient euthanasia. Euthanasia is a mercy killing, and therefore should be performed by physicians, for no suffering human being deserves to be refused the right to end their lives. It is and should be their decision and no one elses. Physicians also haven't the right to force the patient to suffer and be in pain the rest of his/her life. That is cruel and wrong. Granted killing is wrong, but in certain circumstances, exceptions should be made. No physician could ever possibly understand the amount of torture the patient undergoes daily, and so no physician could ever possibly understand why the he/she would want to end their life. Just respect his/her decision and perform euthanasia.

Date: Tue, Nov 28, 2000 6:30 AM From: kf2538@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that a person has the right to decide if he/she wants to die. I have different views on the subject of euthanasia. I feel that if a person has a terminal illness such as cancer and they want to die that is their decision and nobody else's, they would probably rather die an unpainful and relaxing death rather than dying a long painful antagonizing death. Then on the other hand what if the person decides when it is too late that he/she doesn’t want to die, or what if he/she dies then they find a cure for their disease. This is how I feel about euthanasia for now but I can't say that it won't change when and if I ever have to face the situation first hand.

Date: Tue, Nov 28, 2000 6:10 AM From: cleo815m@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe a physician should be able to deny an active euthanasia. on the other hand I think it is okay for a physician to perform a passive euthanasia such as removing a life-support machine from a patient. An active euthanasia would actually be killing the patient with your own hands such as using an injection.

Date: Sun, Nov 26, 2000 4:48 PM From: Kandi71@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The majority of people who have posted a response to your question speak of "God" and the "Good Book" and that the Bible says it is wrong...I, as a rational, intelligent, and modern human being, prefer to look at life, illness and death, realistically. How can you base your life's decisions on the crazy ramblings of an exceptional story teller? The MORTAL, HUMAN, STORYTELLER who wrote that book, does not have to live with the decisions YOU make, does he? Nor does he even have to suffer the consequences of YOUR actions, does he? Believe it or not, where I come from (Canada), suicide was illegal until a very short while ago. Murder is still illegal. Again, it is another book, by numerous authors telling people how they must live. Every rule is accompanied by an exception. Euthanasia is not murder, and neither is abortion. Perhaps one could see both as selfish acts, but they are not wrong. Both instances involve the removal of a life in order to benefit a human being. A patient has the right to request anything he wishes from his doctor, just as the doctor has every right to refuse on the basis of incapability, or fear, or the fact that his heart will not permit him to do so. What I think is absolutely incomprehensible, would be anyone who claims euthanasia is wrong because we are in "God's" hands, "He" wouldn't like it. Well to those of you who agree with this, then your "God" must be a cruel, savage and relentless being, to allow the indignant suffering of his children, and then shun them for wishing to end their suffering and join "Him". Don't forget, euthanasia does not refer to people who just feel like dying, it refers to those who absolutely cannot go on living. I am only 19 years old, but if something happens to me at any point in my life, rendering me incapable of movement, I am so glad that I have at least one person who LOVES me enough to help end the pathetic, prison of a life I would be forced to live in.

A strong believer in Pro-Choice everything, and a strong Jack Kavorkian sympathiser, Kandi

Date: Mon, Nov 6, 2000 1:42 PM From: sam86@talk21.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

i think a doctor has a right to refuse to aid euthanasia but also a right to help the person die. In the netherlands, euthanasia is legalised but only buy an express wish of the patient. i was visitng this website to research a school speech on the topic of euthanasia, and i found it helpful -well done all!!

Date: Wed, Nov 1, 2000 3:28 PM From: swatkat101@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think euthanasia is not unethical and those who think that life and death are all in gods hands should think again because nobody knows if god exists for real or not. My grandparents had cancer and i watched them suffer.In the end they died.Do u think the battle and all the pain they went through was worth it?My Dad almost went bankrupt taking care of them. I think mercy killing is okay if the decision is taken collectively by the doctor, the patient and the patients family.There is nothing wrong with releasing someone from their pain.Infact it is torture to let them suffer. I'm going to be a doctor soon and I'll accept any hatemail for my decision in believing that euthanasia is the right choice(and so is abortion in many cases)

Date: Sun, Oct 29, 2000 12:49 PM From: LouiseAlexander@tinyworld.co.uk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Doctors are people we go to when we are in need of help, they are a shoulder to cry on. It is part of their ethcal code to "Do Good", but it is also in their code to let the paitent choose. I know if there was nopthing else for myself to live for and I had no-one else to turn to then yes I would choose euthinasia.

Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 11:02 AM From: matthewp@iopener.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

to whom it may concern:yes i do think doctors should be a part of the act of euthanasia too be sure it is the only option for the patient if a patient wants too die instead of deal with the pain of a disability or a disease a doctor should help them with options for pain relief and if euthanasis is the best option in the doctors opinion then the doctor should be there to administer the drugs so that they work too end the patients life if the drugs are not given right the patient could end up a vegitable or in a coma and suffer alot more euthanasia should be an adults decision too end there own life an adult should not use euthanasia as a way to unburden them selves from a disabled child unless the child shows a desier too die because of pain or feeling of worthlessness a psychiatrist should examin the patient to determin there mental state and see if drugs would help the patient but i believe drugs are a fake fix they can just mask the problem and make a patient so out of it they just do'nt care that is'nt always the answer sometimes death is the only humaine answer

witten by matthew powell

Date: Fri, Oct 6, 2000 10:19 AM From: Robin559@webtv.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think this depends on the beliefs of the doctor. I think he should at least know who does participate in this, therefore can refer. We have our animals put to sleep, why cant we make the same decision? Like everything else, there should be guidelines, but I beleive also that this should be available for the people. Then Dr. Kavorkian wouldnt be rotting in prison. Shame on them!

Sincerely, Robin Turman

Date: Sun, Oct 1, 2000 8:09 PM From: edmanpen@earthlink.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think it should be the personal decision of each individual doctor involved to accept euthanasia as a medical act. Some people's religious and moral ehtics may conflict with what modern medicine thinks is 'acceptable'. However, I don't think euthanasia should be expected to be 'accepted' by a doctor, if that person doesn't feel that it is morally right for them.

Frank Baker

Date: Thu, Sep 28, 2000 12:26 AM From: monnzerelli@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The fact is , you can make as many responses as you want to, if you're not the one who is doing the dying or doing the killing than you're not one to talk. I just think that everything that is said is just something to be said. in fact it doesn't matter if i agree with one point or another...do you now why? because i am 19. i'm neither dying nor thinking about killing someone else. but someone who is actually faced with this decision, well, what to they decide. The fact is, it's different every time. you can't decide a life or a death so long as you are the one not dying. the argument in itself it irrelevant until you are IT.

Date: Thu, Sep 21, 2000 3:30 AM From: annareyes@zdnetonebox.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

One of the Reasons why people choose euthanasia is because of financial problems. What can we possibly do to solve this problem so as to discourage them to choose euthanasia. Pls. email me your answer to: annareyes@zdnetonebox.com [ Moderator's note: Also e-mail a response to this site.]

Date: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 3:26 PM From: vstarks@tmain.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

There is something which seems to have escaped the cognitive reasoning of many..

For those who legalize and support abortion . the same consideration ought to be offered the terminally ill [hope thats clear]/// v. starks

Date: Mon, Aug 28, 2000 2:18 AM From: aedwards@vtown.com.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

In roughly eighty years time, I pray to God that I am never in this postion where I can ask a doctor, a total stranger, to eliminate me from this earth. I may be old, I may not work as well as I use to, but does that give anyone else the right to terminate my life. Women say that they have the right over their own bodies, therefore they can terminate the life of a baby. Then do I not have the right whether I live or whether my family have the right to choose whether I live or die. ' The right', what does that really mean? I pled with every person considering euthanasia, make sure you are the one who decides. I don't agree with euthanasia, but I can see both sides to the coin. The right to live is your choice and your choice only. I pray for every person who reads this. May God bless you in your decision.

Date: Sun, Aug 6, 2000 7:34 PM From: LADY77@worldshare.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think this question is easily answered. A doctor has an option of what meds to prescribe, why wouldn't he/she get an option for this? I have a doctor that does not prescribe any diet aids. He feels they are not safe, even though studies so far say they are. I believe that if he has a choice in medications such as this, he definately should have the choice in prescribing medication that would lead to a patients deliberate death. I am all for the euthanasia laws, and am happy to be living in Oregon, but if it goes against a doctors beliefs than he should never be forced to do it. He should promptly transfer all medical records to another doctor that the patient finds to perform the procedure. And he should in no way try to stop the death from occuring, based solely on his beliefs.

Date: Sun, Aug 6, 2000 3:24 PM From: ngr4reel@webtv.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Alas, a spot where I can divulge and expound upon my beleifs for self-deliverance by way of assistance my medicla practioner. In reading some of the more emotional responses on your web page it pushed me to offfer my own. I being of sound mind offer this point for contemplation; it should be in the sole interest and benefit of the suffering that the idea of assisted suicide be entertained. The poor soul speaks of deliverance and we objectify,debase and ridilcule his mortal suffering with verbage. The irresponsibility mentiioned in some the observations forwared falls heavy -handedly on those who no not of the perspective of pain and susffering and will the healthy survivalist agenda upon the inferm. As might be worth noting the supposed benefit of "hangin' in there and pulling yourself by your bootstraps" or "weathering the storm" are of absolutely minimal benefit in conquering sorrows beyond the call of the medical world. I myself have known an assortment of acquaintences who chose to drug themselves to death, inadvertanly selecting suicide by means that to some are truely gruesome. How much better for them if they also chose to exclude themselves from that inevitable self-destruction. The addicted, as in this case, are given options either to engage in what assuredly is a life of "pain" or to deliver themselves through rehabilitation. No such law can persuade or Hypocratic Oath can commit an addict to "ease" their life of misery. Parodoxically. the terminally ill with no such option except to embrace unrelenting misery have to uphold moral obligations to the medical and religious communities. So sad that the welcoming of death for whom all of us it is intended, is not comprehended by its closest ally: the physician. "When I die, people will say its the best thing forr me. It is because they know it is the worst.They want to avoid the feeling of pity.As though they were the people most concerned." _Ivy Compton-Burnett,The Mighty and Their Fall (1962) thanks for space to voice

Date: Thu, Jul 13, 2000 10:54 AM From: ellis@alvant.alva.ok.us To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes, I do believe a doctor has the right to refuse to actively participate in euthanisia for several reasons. One reason is spiritual in that I believe murder (killing of another human being) and suicide (killing of oneself) is wrong as stated in the Ten Commandments "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder". A doctor is given the skills and knowledge to help heal, not to take one's life. A doctor also has the moral right to refuse based on the hippocratic oath that each one takes as they embark on their new career. It clearly states in the oath, "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such councel and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary (sic) to produce abortion. As I do, we can all pray for our patients who are suffering and if it's the Lords will it will be done.

Date: Wed, Jul 5, 2000 8:38 PM From: Evrybdy1@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe euthanasia is the right of the patient. If the patient is of sound mind when the decision is made, or the family members of the patient have discussed this with the patient before dementia has set in, then the patient's wishes should be carried out. It is a doctor's responsibility to take care of a patient all the way through even if that means in death. It is cruel and unusual punishment to make a patient suffer in pain and misery when he/she has no quality of life left. Thanks for listening to my opinion. Sherry

Date: Mon, Jun 26, 2000 10:53 PM From: wa161201@swp.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com


Date: Mon, Jun 12, 2000 7:09 PM From: CDunning@webtv.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

IM 29yrs old. ive been terminilly ill for 8 & half years now.I MEAN PAIN SO HORRIBLE ALL I CAN DO IS CRY FOR GOD TO GIVE ME STRENGTH TO GO ON.Morphine dont even help me anymore,becouse my body has gotten tollerant to it.SO DONT TALK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU HAVENT EXPEINCED!!!!! MOST OF YOU PEOPLE ARE THE HIPOCRITS!!!!!!AND DONT ANYBODY WRITE ME BACK,TALKING BULLCRAP.BECOUSE NOBODY SHOULD HAVE TO SUFFER FOR 9 YRS.ALSO YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE WHAT IVE BEEN THOUGH. But i will tell all of you this.I wouldnt wish this kind of hell & misery on anyone. God Bless You All,and i have love in my heart for each & every one of you. Nomatter what you may think on this matter.

Date: Thu, Jun 8, 2000 1:09 PM From: Slimshady5521603@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Well i think euthenasia should be legal, because we should choose if we want to die. What is the point of living if you will be strapped to a bed doing nothing for the rest of your life? The people should choose what they want to do with their life.

Date: Wed, May 10, 2000 12:10 AM From: reciprity@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

A physician's role is to serve his patient by helping him/her in anyway possible. Therefore, he should act upon their rational patient's requests. The physician should not be forced into doing anything, at that point, hire another doctor. In addition, if a person is suffering enough and would rather be around friends and family rather than a hospital enviroment, they have the right to. They have the right to lead their life anyway they want, and they have the right to end it anyway they want.

Do not force religion on any person. Believe what you want to believe. In the end, if they makes your life content - more power to you. Otherwise, do not force your beliefs/politics on me.

my 2 cents.

M.H. Vo

Date: Tue, May 9, 2000 4:22 PM From: Al4MEE@cs.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that you are just talking out of your butt! Have you done any scource of research because it sure doesn't look like it. Woman have the right to abort because they were given that right to decide their fate. People have been given the choice to kill themselves with or without a doctor. If they don't legalize euthinasia things will just get messy. Same with abortions people will go out on the street and get them done instead of a doctors office and with the possibility of not only killing what was inside of them but themselves as well. Abortions and Euthinasia are no comparison. Abortions are getting rid of a mistake, and Euthinasia is ending your life because you are sick and aren't going to live your last days happy. I think before you go posting a thing on Euthinasia you should know what you are talking about.

Date: Mon, Apr 17, 2000 9:43 PM From: k5cts@dellnet.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

One thing that I keep reading over and over is the famous quote from the Hippocratic Oath, " I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such councel;" but everyone seems to be forgetting the very next line, "and in like manner I will not give to a woman a Pessary (sic) to produce abortion." To me, we have already stepped over the line on the Oath that it is hardly a good source to make an argument from. What is the difference between a living baby inside the womb and a patient who is competent to make his or her own decision not to go on? Ill tell you, the baby never had a voice to say weither to live or die but the patient does !!!!! How backwards can you get! In a sense we are saying " No I'm sorry you don't have that right Mr. So and SO and turning around and aborting a baby who never asked to be conceived in the first place. I find it ironic that in our society we have so little value for human lives (people are killing each other every day and barely get punished) but we wont allow someone who is in constant pain the grace and dignity to bow out. We as Americans should be ashamed of ourselves, we are true hypocrites in every since of the word.

Date: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 10:32 PM From: I RANI I@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

When someone becomes a doctor, he/she takes the hippocratic oath. Then how can they go and break this oath by doing abortions and performing assisted suicide or euthenasia of any kind? (By this i mean those doctors who do participate in the performance of abortions and euthenasia) Please respond. I mean they take a vow and they break that vow so easily... doesnt make sence to me.

Date: Tue, Mar 21, 2000 10:37 PM From: cinefacta@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The Hippocratic Oath, which is an ideal drilled into most physicans' heads, strictly prohibits the practice of euthansaia. Many doctors, upon recieving their degrees swear by this oath, and this provision against euthanasia is certainly present. A doctor, while swearing by this Oath to attend to the best interests of his patients, also swears not to harm them or prescribe them a fatal draught. Depending on a doctor's religious, moral, or political stances, his opinion on the best interests of his patient could vary significantly, but by swearing in the oath not to be the willing agent of his patient's death, he if foreswearing the practice of euthanasia. If the doctor should choose to assist his patient in euthanasia, it is an entirely different matter; denying a doctor the right to refuse to kill someone is equivilent to denying a patient the right to refuse to die by his doctor's hand.

Michael Stafford,University of South Carolina

Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2000 9:12 PM From: Bbusbee24@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Euthanasia is a means of dispatching human life at the hands of another. It is evident in the Hippocratic Oath that: “I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy ” This clearly displays a prohibition of euthanasia. Euthanasia has often been depicted as a peaceful means of ending a terminal illness. In Australia’s Northern Territory, The Australian Measure “painted a picture of calm peaceful death surrounded by loved ones.” Then it goes to say that if drugs are used to induce death, family members may wish to leave the room during the killing process due to possible unpleasantness. By removing the personal aspect of one killing themselve, it makes suicide a much less intimidating experience, causing one to be more prone to terminating their life prematurely. Legalizing such actions would not be in the best interest of creating an ethical society that values life.

Brantley D. Busbee

Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2000 8:50 PM From: dongrant3@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

A doctor should definitely have the right not to participate in active euthanasia. This is a decision that they may tell a patient ahead of time if it acts as a problem. There are many moral issues about euthanasia, and if doctor does not want to kill someone, he should not be forced to. Many doctors also swear by the Hippocratic Oath when they graduate from medical school, and this prohibits euthanasia. I would think the question should be, "does the doctor have the right to practice in active euthanasia?"

Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2000 7:56 PM From: jkbyrd13@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think it is absolutely the right of the physician to refuse to participate in active euthanasia. Aside from the fact that active euthanasia is illegal, it is the doctor that must wrestle with his conscience after helping to kill someone. If a doctor is not comfortable with doing so, the patient can most certainly find someone who will help him or her die. In Hippocratic Oath the physician swears not to harm anyone, and helping someone die certainly could be construed as harming. Furthermore, the physician swears not to prescribe a "fatal draught" to anyone or even suggest one. This could be a prohibition of euthanasia, though it is doubtful if you look at the public opinion of the times (such things were actually encouraged).

The basic point is that a physician should not be obligated to perform a procedure if he is not comfortable with doing so, even if it means giving up a patient. If a doctor feels that his personal morals are being compromised, or that he is not keeping the ethic of not harming anyone, then he or she should have a choice in the matter. Furthermore, by swearing to the Hippocratic Oath the doctor has already chosen not to perform the procedures, if he chooses to bring up this point.

Ken Byrd

Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2000 7:25 PM From: Jdtaylor20@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think it is understood that the role of a physician is to help the ill. I believe performing euthanasia on a suffering, terminally-ill patient would constitute helping them. I do believe the initial responsibility of the physician is to do everything in his or her power to make the patient well. However, if all fails, euthanasia is not unethical. The Hippocratic Oath can, by no means, be used as support for an argument against euthanasia. The Oath was written by a minority that was against its practice and was not a good representation of the overall view of Greek society at that time. The majority of Greeks condoned euthanasia under certain circumstances. The Oath was then altered to prohibit all forms of euthanasia, whether active or passive, after the rise of Christianity. I also feel that one cannot distinguish whether one form of euthanasia is more ethical than another. The ultimate purpose of all euthanasia is the same.

-Jon Taylor, University of South Carolina

Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2000 6:48 PM From: MayDay913@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Should doctors be in a place in any sort to take lives instead of help better them? That is a tough call with many consequences. In thinking of the patient's well-being and interest, why shouldn't terminally ill patients with capable minds be allowed to choose their own death? Living each day with only the doctor's voicing of how long you have to live, or how persistant the pain is going to be, can't be a way of life that anyone ultimately desires. However, I do think doctors should have the right to decide whether or not they participate in these acts. Religion will be the main decision factor for me in my days as a practicing physician (fairly ambitious in my freshman year of undergraduate study). Doctors personal morals and values in adherence to religous standards needs to be weighed as well. I know I would not feel adequate, to say the least, in assisting someone to death, even if it is what they ask me to do. How can a law force me to take part in that and disregard my religious beliefs?

As for euthanasia as a whole, not just singling out the physician's requirements, i should hope we can encourage living with dignity to include dying when the natural time comes. I know I am overlooking many issues with this comment, but it is impossible to draw them all out in a sensible manner without contacting a publisher.

Date: Sun, Mar 12, 2000 7:58 AM From: amhames@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

"Euthenasia" is Greek for "good death." It is the administration of a lethal agent by another person to a patient in order to relieve his or her intolerable and and most often incurable suffering. The practice can be traced to antiquity where several methods were practiced and recorded. The procedures included a lethal but painless dose of poison extracted from the Hemlock tree. Sustained phlebotomies were also practiced. The patient's veins were cut and he or she was left to bleed to death. The first known document of medical ethics, the Hippocratic Oath, prohibits euthenasia. "I will not give a fatal draught to anyone if I am asked, nor will I suggest any such thing." This follows a long honored tradition in which it is the social commitment of a physician to relieve suffering and save lives.

It is understandable that some patients in extreme duress may decide death is preffered to life. However, allowing physicians to participate in this act is not right. The American Medical Association's current Code of Medical Ethics states, "Euthenasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks." Instead of assisting in a patient's demise, the physician ought to respond aggressively to the needs of a patient at the end of his or her life. However, the practitioner should respect the mentally competent patients' decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatments.

Date: Tue, Mar 7, 2000 3:03 PM From: edujose12car@mixmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Indeed, a person is just this, a person. I think that euthanasia and abortion is completely bad. The medic's work is often insignificant, the death will happen, but the medic must follow his treatment or support care until the patient die. He doesn't have any power about another decision, only the patient himself.

Tu correo gratis en MixMail http://www.mixmail.com

Inicia tu navegacion en http://www.ya.com

Date: Sun, Mar 5, 2000 8:21 PM From: packard2000@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Dr. Mo:

I am currently a student at Deuel High School and of Mrs. Ramona Lundberg. I recently posted a web quest on Euthanasia. I felt, after researching the subject, that there was definite conflict in the issue.

I personally feel euthanasia is not ethical if performed on non-terminally ill patients. However, I also feel suffering of patients that cannot be cured is cruel. Euthanasia may not be ethical in the minds of millions of Americans, but in the minds of suffering it may be freedom. I understand that mercy killing can be considered murder, but if not performed the act can also be considered torture.

Thank you for your time in allowing me to express my opinion. My email address is packard2000@hotmail.com if there are any questions or comments.

Sincerely, Jeremy Sample

Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 12:13 AM From: Stephx13@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe it is OK for a doctor to refuse, but It should be the patients right to end their suffering, if a person is not able to commit the act then someone should be found who could assist. How is choosing to die any different from a DNR. I would rather end my suffering with dignity than to be so drugged to hide the pain that I couldn't control myself. we fight for so many of our right's but our ultimate right seems to be compromized

Date: Sun, Feb 27, 2000 12:26 PM From: SCHS Dawgs 01@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Euthenasia. It's not easing a person out of their pain. It's murder. God has a plan for each of us on this earth. Even the ones who lie in a hospital bed in vegitaive state. Come on. Reason with me. It's plain out and out MURDER! I pray for those of you who are so intent on believing that euthenasia is right and should be legal. I also pray for those who agree with me. Stand your ground. Don't faulter in your beliefs! Thank you!

Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2000 8:27 AM From: SANDIRN28@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

My feeling is that the person who is ill should have the right to end their life. I can't understand how abortion is leagal when that person (the baby) doesn't have a choice, and the person who has suffered and can no longer live, doesn't have that option. How is that humane?

Date: Thu, Feb 17, 2000 4:10 PM From: kimmy_the_great@yahoo.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Come on people...doctors already "assist" in helping patients to die quicker if a patient is terminally ill. They prescribe legal drugs, such as morphine, to lower the heart and breathing rate, letting the patient have a relatively pain free death with calm, dignity and hope. This is not against the law. However, a painless but lethal injection that would "help" the patient faster is illegal. Where is the sense in this? And for everyone that says that it is the doctors duty of care to keep the patient alive, this very much conflicts with the doctors duty of care to relieve a patients suffering. Just think about what you're all saying...

Date: Wed, Feb 16, 2000 4:41 PM From: 94BULLH@kingsfield.rmplc.co.uk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

i think that euthinasia is right in the right curcumstancies. It's the patients choice. Put yourself in there position if you were dying and was in a lot of pain and you knew there was no chance of survival would you want to go on. Because i know i wouldn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Date: Thu, Feb 10, 2000 5:37 PM From: Sarah.Giblin@NOTREDAME.vic.edu.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes I do think that is right for a physician to refuse to participate in active euthanasia. It is their own personal choice whether they participate or not. No person should be able to force someone to do something that they want or wish to do.

Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2000 1:12 PM From: higginskizzy@netzero.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I don't think it's wrong. I think euthanasia is wrong and should be illegal. Everywhere!

Thank you! Angel


Date: Sun, Jan 23, 2000 4:26 AM From: tomanne@tm.net.my To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that this topic is a very controversial. The Bible says that suicide is bad and people whole-heartedly support that. I myself think that Euthanasia is a form of suicide. However, I dare not swear that I will never agree to it whether in doing myself in or a beloved family member/acquaintance. It is easy to condemn other people of suicide and cowardice or even sinning in the eyes of God. But I think that many would be singing a different song if they were in the same position or had a sister or mother etc.. who is suffering from a terminal disease. It is different when you wake up everyday to excruciating pain and you face another day knowing that your end is near ...when you do not feel that the time given to you on this Earth was sufficent. When you know that you will never see your child graduate... or have grandchildren oretc etc... i have a friend of my age, 18, and his mother has just died of cancer. Being his friend, I know what pain he goes through everyday and i know what pain he went through when his mother was still alive. how he was tortured to see his mother being reduced to a vegetable from a healthy, active and caring woman. He is a staunch Christian... but he has confided in me and told me more than once that he would have given anything for his mother's pain to be lessened or shortened. fin short, i do not think that us, the healthy ones who do not know the meaning of pain, have a right to preach or act so self righteous.


Date: Sun, Dec 12, 12:22 PM From: Tall6Blond@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that religiously, and morally... Euthenasia is wrong, and it does say in the Bible, "thall shall not kill"- as Brian pointed out... but people also have the right to make their own decisions. Not everybody believes in God and an afterworld, if they believe that they want to die and are willing to go through with assisted suicide... let them. It's their decision. If it's a friend of yours or a family member... i believe its your right to try and prevent the person from doing it, by letting them know that they're worthy, or they could get better... etc... but their final decision is their decision, no one elses.

Date: Tue, Dec 7, 1999 9:26 AM From: awhitehawk@united.isd.tenet.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

It is said that one reason why doctors went through years of medical school is so they can excel in their job. their job is to protect any human being from death no matter what the situation.

luis g. united

Date: Mon, Nov 29, 1999 6:08 PM From: LinkyT@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

A person has every right to end there own life. A doctor has every right to participate in the assitance of it or not. If someone really wants to die, they will find a way regardless, so whynot make it painless? No one should have to stay alive just to suffer,if the patient decides that they want to die, so be it. Perfectly healthy people who kill themselves have problems in there lives they think can't be solved. Those people need counsoling, they think they have no way out, but they do. People who are terminally ill and are mentally able to make that desicion can. It should be an option to people taken into great consideration, but still an option.

Date: Sun, Nov 21, 1999 9:58 AM From: tina@abts.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

why do you think assisted suicide is so wrong when mothers kill babies all the time and it is legal plus the the 14th admentment insures us the right to happiness so if going that way is what they want who are we to say no plus any doctor you talk to will say when a babies heart beast it is alive you are alive until your heart stops and most mothers kill there babies with 2 months by then the babies heart is beating

Date: Tue, Nov 16, 1999 4:46 PM From: clprent2@student.gc.maricopa.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

What the hell is wrong with you people? Euthanasia = killing!

Date: Mon, Nov 15, 1999 3:43 PM From: jdb258@email.byu.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

If I cut my hand, I suffer for a while. If I go to the hospital and have to wait longer to get help, I still heal Does it matter if I suffered a little longer? After the suffering is over, it doesn't really matter does it? If a person dies, their suffering is over. If they weren't given assistance and suffered longer, their suffering is still over. In both cases, suffering ends with death. Does it matter if they suffered a little longer?

Date: Mon, Nov 15, 1999 12:42 PM From: Joe@jbattams.freeserve.co.uk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I agree with Brian, The Bible DEFINATLY says that suicide is wrong.

Date: Sun, Nov 14, 1999 9:14 PM From: guillermo.smith@worldnet.att.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

To be honest to the ethical question about Euthanasia. I would have to say that I do not consider myself to be a super religous person. I would agree though that from most religious beliefs of different religions, killing yourself and Eutanasia are both wrong. I have been taught that you should be strong and fight things no matter how bad they are in hope that somehow things can get better. From the area I have been brought up, only the wussy ass, can't hack it, crybabies kill themselves and would go for Euthanasia. I feel though that if you are one of those people, Good . . .die then, cuz that's one less of those people out there that we have to put up with. Believe it or not, crying doesn't get you anywhere in this world, and people need to realize that. If they'd quit crying and start believeing and suckin it up, things might get better and diseases might get cures, and problems might get solved.

Date: Sun, Nov 7, 1999 2:45 PM From: bkleyla@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Euthanasia is wrong!!!!!!!!!!! No one has the right to kill someone nor does a person have the right to kill themselves. It says in the Bible that " You shall not kill"

LOOK IT UP Everybody needs to understand this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Date: Fri, Oct 29, 1999 6:10 PM From: Hlksr@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Physicians take (or should take) an oath to protect life. If this is violated legally or illegally it is a violation of their sworn code of ethics.

HLK Sr., M.D.

Date: Wed, Oct 20, 1999 6:18 PM From: GS71056@concentric.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am only 16 , but I have morals and understand that assisted suicide is definately wrong. I believe that is absolutely right for a physician to refuse to participate in active euthanasia. In fact, I support ALL physicians who stand up to this murder. Once again, I am only 16, but I know right from wrong.

Date: Tue, Oct 12, 1999 6:14 AM From: LancelotGallant@Bigfoot.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Firstly, I wish to point out that physicians can hardly be expected to administer any treatment that they personally felt was immoral. Doctors are - for good reasons - required to be of the highest ethical standards and the ethics of someone who consents to doing something they think immoral must be questioned. As regards the immorality of euthanasia, we must remember that all morals are subjective - ie. in the eye of the beholder. The basis of morals varies from person to person. For some it is religious tenets and beliefs, for others it is their person emotional response to a situation, for yet others it is simply the whim of conscience that may have been shaped over the years from a multitude of influences including school teachers, peer groups, cultural or racial values, personal heroes, even the movies and television. Only the person who has separated themselves from all these influences is in a position to truly know what is absolutely right and absolutely wrong, and a person who does this will almost certainly conclude that nothing at all is absolutely right or wrong. To put it bluntly, a great many of an individual's morals are a product of manipulation of that individual by one means or another, though a great many people aren't even aware that they have been manipulated. They 'think for themselves' according to someone else's programming. Euthanasia is at the very pinnacle of moral issues - it is one of the biggest. It is here that the practical value of morals is exposed as highly inadequate, as discussion produces manifold opinions many of which are diametrically opposed. It is fair to say that if there were one truly right opinion, most people of good intellect would see it immediately and disregard the rest. Since that is not the case then there must be many 'right' aspects and many 'wrong' aspects to the subject. In the end, consensus can only discover what most people can live with in regard to the question 'do we have a greater responsibility not to terminate human life under any circumstances than we have to end human suffering if possible'. My personal answer is that I don't see why we do. I support euthanasia in principle - but show me the details in practice before I will agree to them.

Date: Sun, Oct 10, 1999 10:07 AM From: Ssoto@earthlink.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

There appear to be some misconceptions on euthanasia that people seem to be embracing as some sort of truth. One fellow has written that if euthanasia is legal, then we should accept the practice. Some one else has written that we should have the right to practice euthanasia. Others have said that it should be a matter of consent, a private matter between the physician and his/her patient. Each of these points has serious flaws in their reasoning. Let's look at legality first.

The fact that something is legal does not make that thing moral. A case in point: Dred Scott was a black slave who, upon returning to the South after being in 'Free' territory, declared that he was now a free man. The case was argued all the way to the Supreme Court which ruled that Scott was not a free man but property. The fact that black people were legally property did not make the condition of slavery a correct practice. Morality is not derived from how LEGAL something may be. Therefore, it doesn't matter if ALL 50 states declare euthanasia legal because it would still not justify euthanasia as a morally good act.

There is an assumption that we should have a right to die, however, we have firemen, and police, and psychologists, and counselors, and negotiators who routinely talk people down from buildings or bridges or out of barricaded homes because we wish to preserve their lives. This seems curious if we truly believe such a right exists. Why? Because we still make attempts to dissuade suicides even if those people may have committed murders before their suicide attempts, or if they are terminally ill and acting out some frantic desperation. If we follow the reason that we have a right to die, should we not be assisting them by shooting them or convincing them that they should jump! After all, in the case of the criminals, if they're convicted of a capital crime worthy of the death penalty,( and let's say the chances are good they will get the death penalty because the crime was really horrible!), then they are, in essence, terminal anyway. And the desperate man/woman who has cancer and is on the edge of the building because they can't face the future, are they not terminal as well? One can well imagine the evening news broadcast of the future:

"The police urged a man with terminal AIDS to jump to his death today. The crowd watched as the man shouted that it was his right to die in the manner of his choosing as per the recent electoral ballot which passed last year. Trained negotiators talked with the man about the futility of living and offered to push him in case he lost his nerve. The man jumped on his own and was pronounced dead at the scene." No one thinking clearly would not have some reservations about such a scenario.

You see the argument is not that we have a right, and it is not that we are terminal, it is that it is wrong to murder other human beings. The right to die cannot be justified by appealing to the fact that the law of the land somehow declares the act legal. And the coercion of the medical community to perform any act which results in the destruction of human beings will, and has, result in great division among all of us. Why do we fail to see the disunity between legal process and morality? The law cannot tell us what is moral, only what is legal. And since we cannot seem to tell the difference, we argue whether it is right or wrong to kill human beings.

This forum is a testimony to that fact. Indeed, the whole abortion debate (another bioethical issue dealing with human death) hinges on how we view unborn persons and the morality of fetal death. There are those who will say, "Who are you to make such a claim?", as though it is somehow wrong to judge any situation. Well, outside of being educated, well versed in the subject, published on the subject, and a bone fide member of the human race, I guess I qualify! After all, who do you HAVE to be to be qualified to make such a claim? A friend of mine was told that his view was intolerant and that he was too judgmental. "You mean it's wrong to judge?", he said. The reply came back, "Darn right it's wrong". My friend replied, "Then why are you judging me?" The moment we concede that it's all right to judge, (no matter what the politically correctness of the culture may say), then you can appreciate that we cannot continue to beg the question but that we must certainly judge certain circumstances in light of their moral direction.

Lastly, it is incorrect to assume that the mere consent of someone in a Doctor/Patient relationship can somehow validate the idea of moral assisted suicide. Just because someone consents to an act does not make the act, in principle, moral. A woman in her forties who engages in sex with a 16-year-old is legally guilty, even if she has the 'consent' of the 16-year-old. A women in her forties who is a Psychiatrist (MD) studying sexual behavior who engages in sex with a 16-year-old test subject is still legally guilty, even if she has the consent of the test subject. Just because something can be consented to within the doctor/patient relationship does not not mean that the context of the relationship makes it right.

The real answer appeals to a higher moral ground that states that it is incorrect to kill people regardless of whether people think its legal, their right, or just a matter of permission.

Date: Tue, Oct 5, 1999 12:24 AM From: toogoodb@bigpond.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

For one thing.. euthanasia is NOT killing, or murder or genocide. The word actually refers to two greek words, eu and thanatos, which means good death. if our life is our right.. don't we also have the right to choose to die at a time when we still have our dignity?? as a wise man said " there is a deep difference between having a life and being alive" if you wish to argue.. mail me at "iam_honeystar@hotmail" wit the subject as euthanasia

[ Ed note: Also write to this web site! ]

Date: Sun, Oct 3, 1999 8:04 AM From: leonard.price@pop.net.ntl.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I personally feel that euthanasia in whatever form should be the decision of the patient only. We all have the right to take our own life through the from of suicide, so why can't we have the right to decide when we want to die.

Date: Tue, Sep 21, 1999 7:00 AM From: gayle_crawford@cpcc.cc.nc.us To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Life under any circumstance is precious and no one but God Almighty has a right to decide when a person should die. According to the scripture it is appointed unto man once to die and after that the judgment. All these self righteous people worring about spending money for this or that and sitting back with these big bank accounts, surely will die one day and will not be able to take not one cent with them. Maybe man thinks they made the rules for this world, but God will have the last say. St. Matt. 7:1 states for us to Judge not that we be judged, for with what judgment we shall judge, we'll also judged. St. Luke 6:37, judge not and yea shall not be judged, condemn not and yea shall not be condemned, forgive and yea shall be forgiven. Romans 13:1-, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resiseth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. David sinned, he had a man killed to have his wife, he committed adultery, but God forgave his because David repented and God said that David was a man after his own heart. God has the last say, and the book is open and every deed is recorded about you, me and a prisoner. We are God's people and no man has a write. The commandment said thou shall not kill, it did not stipulate any given being to take anothers life. I sure hope these people see every face everytime they close their eye.

Date: Tue, Sep 21, 1999 12:20 AM From: SharpBubbs@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I feel that the physicians have the right to refuse to participate in the act of euthanasia...however I feel that although they, themselves, will not participate, if the terminally ill person wishes to be euthanised, then it is the physician's duty to find someone who will perform that duty. As it is the patients right to do what they will with their body and the treatment that they recieve due to their illness, it is not the physician's right to inhibit the patient's wishes to end their life. If the physician will not help the patient with their wishes personally, then it should be their duty to find someone who will. In order for a person to be successfully euthanised, there is a long and extensive process that the patient must go through to ensure that they are not suffering from depression and to ensure that they DO wish to die and to be alleviated of the pain that they are sufferring. Everyone has a universal right to life...why not a universal right to death. If a person is in such a state of suffering that can not be cured, and that there is no hope to help the person rather than to prolong their already painful life...then they should be able to die with dignity. Rather then dieing where they just slowly fade off into the end, where they die pretty much as a vegetable. That they become so drugged up to try and alleviate their pain that they are suffering. EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY. FOR CHRIST SAKE IT IS THEIR DYING WISH. DO YOU WANT YOUR LAST MEMORIES ON EARTH TO BE THE EMMENCE PAIN THAT A TERMINALLY ILL PERSON FEELS????? I DIDN'T THINK SO, SO LET PEOPLE DIE WITH SOME SELF RESPECT! It is the most humane thing to do.

Date: Mon, Sep 13, 1999 5:40 AM From: bfryz@email.ouhsc.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think we have to value what the client wants. I only just started nursing school and all we have hearda bout is how what the patient needs and wants to most important. if it is relieving suffering from the patient then I think it is not killing or passive euthanasia,it is simply treating the patients needs

Date: Sat, Aug 21, 1999 12:25 PM From: clayb4@wans.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

It is ok for a physician to refuse to participate in active euthanasia, because killing someone against or along with his/her will may conflict with a physician's religious beliefs. Also I think that people should be more readily to accept euthanasia, because it is better than suicidal people jumping off buildings, or trying "Suicide by Cop," and horrifying children who may be around and complicating many people's lives.

B.C., clayb4@wans.net

Date: Wed, Aug 11, 1999 2:06 AM From: burchportmcq@mpx.com.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Euthanasia should be for the patient to decide. If they are in immense pain and wish to end THEIR life then let them, I know that most people under those circumstances would want to do the same thing. By having the patients signature or even a video tape of their decision as proof of their will to die. But what happens if they are in a coma? Isn't it the families decision. If the person knows they are going to have a chance of going into a coma then they should sign a policy saying they would like to die after a period of time. I think it has nothing to do with the doctors at all.

Date: Tue, Jun 15, 1999 8:19 AM From: David1627@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that a physician has the right to refuse participation in avtive euthenasia, but only if Euthenasia is legal amongst some of the 50 states! You should have the right to die if you are in pain that no one person can understand! I do not know what the pain and suffering a terminally ill patient is going through, and second of all who am I make assumption on there pain. If you do not want to live, because you are unable to be cured helped, when drugs aren't enough to stop the pain, then let them die! You would want the same!

Date: Wed, Jul 14, 1999 1:29 AM From: thhig@coombedean.plym.sch.uk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I personal feelings on the subject are that voluntary euthanasia should be the descision of the patient and only the patient

Date: Wed, Jun 9, 1999 3:34 AM From: library.sb@intnet.mu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

We students of SOOKDEO BISSOONDOYAL S.S.S in Mauritius are against euthanasia.we believe that life is a gift from GOD and no one has the right to take it even though we are sufferring. Life is a mixture of sorrows and pleasures and thus, we should accept both of them. We should have the hope to live till our last breath as GOD IS THE LIFE OF YOUR LIFE.

Date: Wed, Jun 2, 1999 2:43 PM From: judybug@prodigy.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Euthanasia is wrong. not because of morality or ethics. It is wrong because of the sociological effects it has on the community. Think about it. euthanasia is killing another human. Here are some other words that mean the same thing: Suicide, Murder, Genocide, Homocide. These are ugly words, and we need to remember that euthanasia means the same thing, it is in the same catagory. If we allow our society to become one that freely kills humans, we have to produce individuals capable of doing the killing. There have been many societys down through history that created killers on purpose. Weather they were priests who sacrificed lifes to their gods. Or Hitlers Germany. Or even societys where people killed themselves to please their rulers. As time goes on if this were to be legelized the United States would eventually be added to all other societys that purposly produced killers down through the ages. If we prosecute those who accedently take a human life on the highway, we most certainly must continue to prosicute those who do it on purpose.

Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 8:44 AM From: Tphscutie@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think it [euthanasia] is fine if a person is hurting...I would rather see a person be with God then suffering here on this mean earth...!!!

Date: Sun, May 16, 1999 4:09 PM From: Tang857925@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Generally most patients with emotional pain are more easily cured, than the patients with the unrelenting physical pain. I do realize that there are some Health care providers that are not adequately trained the in the ever changing techniques of alleviating pain, but that does not mean there are not patients who are just not satisfied with the quality of there life anymore. What is the purpose of continuing to live a life when it is no longer worth living?

Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 3:30 PM From: EDPENA@webtv.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

YES.. I believe that they have a right not to participate, if they wish... I would not want to put that burden on anyone. but I also believe that if that Dr. knew me that well, he would not want me and my family to suffer the most godawful painful death as Cancer.. Terminal Cancer robs you of all dignity and places a horrendous burden on your family no matter what age... I also believe that if some Doctors of Medicine that have taken the Hypocritic oath are willing to abort innocent fetuses(children) and inject Death Row inmates then "they" should also be able to assist in painless and "assisted termination".... Why is it that "THE LAW of THE LAND" can allow innocent fetuses to be terminated and convicted felons to be put to "death", legally?? As usual "WE", the innocent, must pay for their iniquities or is it MONETARY COMPENSATIONS????? I have TERMINAL CANCER of the Liver. I have seen four of my friends die of the same disease

Date: Tue, May 4, 1999 12:01 PM From: packland@bc.cc.ca.us To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Euthanasia is most known for mercy killing of assisting someone to alleviate their pain. This is more acceptable than suicide is in this society. When hearing of people who have committed suicide, it is hard to fathom the pain with which they were in, to go to such links. Euthanasia usually deal with patients or people who are in great physical pain. So, what if a mental patient decides he/she cannot live with their condition anymore? Should it be just limited to people who only feel physical pain?

To me, Euthanasia is another form of suicide, only worse. I understand the thinking behind it, but I don't think this is the answer. Patients ask doctors to end their suffering, but are not willing to end their own suffering. Instead, they ride on the guilt of others to do their deed which is ultimately up to them. If one chooses this avenue, they should not rely and expect another human being to be responsible for their death. This to me, is great selfishness. This is looked upon as acceptable, while suicide is not. Are they so different?

Date: Sat, May 1, 1999 9:24 AM From: jml@qx.sparks.nv.us To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The doctor has the right to refuse work. The problem is the poeple who are against it are always saying "I'm against it because killing is wrong" are usually the ones sending troops to bosnia and supporters of our drug war which kills 40,000 of our own citizens. they also support greedy corporations that feed us poison like ciggarettes and watch us die while collecting corporate welfare. These so called high principles are thrown out the window when it becomes profitable or expediant . I know I wont open any eyes or make anyone think or change a life. Death is more dignified than life! Life in the gutter isn't worth a damn. Very few humans on earth have the fortune of our hypocritical country. We pay a lot of money to keep dictators like Saddam in power with virtually no objection from the ones who pay the bill. we even bomb his country men so they wont overthrow him. The point is we are the planet of death and murder. and compromise is the secret way of assimilation. When all of society is forcing assimilation then death is the only escape. Credit reports, drug testing, DNA sampling, and production quotas there is no escape but death, so dont take that away, It's all we have left!

Date: Wed, Apr 28, 1999 2:50 PM From: Edenside@tesco.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I guess you could say I am just a dumb 15 year old girl who knows nothing about the subject of Euthanasia, however I am a christian and although I would not like to watch my parents being fed for many years using an tube, I cannot say that legalizing Euthanasia would be a good thing. Although my heart would bleed to see my parents being fed using a tube, I would always be faced in my mind with the question, 'Well, what if?' What if I had left it just a few more months? Would my parents recover? More than likely the answer would be no, but I would forever be faced without knowing My second thought on this issue is :- Where do we draw the line? Do we stop at terminally ill patients? or do we end the suffering of mentally handicapped people ? What about the elderely? Aren't they just a burden to society? Although this isn't my view, I'm sure it is the view of others.


E-mail me with your reponse, edenside@tesco.net

[ Moderator's note: Also post the response here! ]

Date: Tue, Apr 27, 1999 9:13 PM From: al420699@academ01.her.itesm.mx To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am in favor of euthanasia. I believe each person has the right to decide, depending on the circumstances, when to die. This is a strong decision. I think nobody desires death when he or she is in normal health conditions, only when facing terminal diseases. We don't even think about death when we're enjoying life. I don't personally know how much can one person suffer to consider the idea of not living anymore that way, but I guess it must be a lot to get to the point of thinking about killing oneself. And it's not just the ill person suffering, his or her relatives are also suffering. Of course, whenever there's medical proof that the patient can actually recover, there's no point of even thinking about euthanasia. In that case, it's good to use medicine. But when everybody knows that the patient will inevitably die, it's not good to make the agony longer. There will be more emotional damage to the ones that will keep living. You might say that God gives life to us, and therefore we can't decide when it's our time. I say we can, it's a decision God won't consider a sin. Other decisions are sins, such as killing or abusing other people. But even if God would disapprove my decision, I would still choose to die while I'm conscious in a quiet and dignified way. I would like to have the chance to say goodbye to the people I love. I'd have inner peace. I don't think my decision would influence other people's minds. I also think that some physicians may abuse other people's wishes, but if euthanasia was legalized under strict conditions, there would be a better control of it. I'm not saying that I encourage everybody to freely decide to get help to die. What I say it's that the choice ultimately lies on each one.

I welcome your thoughts.

Date: Sun, Apr 25, 1999 12:35 PM From: STACIAB@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that a physician always has a right to refuse to participate in something. If the patient wants someone to be an active part and the doctor refuses then the patient will just have to find someone who is comfortable with being an active part of the death of someone else. I think there is a very thin line between right and wrong when it comes to being active in an assisted suicide.

Date: Sat, Apr 24, 1999 12:19 PM From: CS2fish@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

YES, if I had an incurable disease, I would want the right to choose!!!!!!!!!!

Date: Mon, Apr 19, 1999 7:22 PM From: basinmlwade@pdt.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Euthanasia is defined as any action or omission intended to end the life of a patient on the grounds that his/her life is not worth living. Euthanasia literally means good death. many believe that this type of mercy killing is acceptable in our modern society. I however don't view it in the same light.

Euthanasia, no matter how nice you make it sound, is wrong. Dr. Kevorkian is, or seems to be the spokesman for the euthanasia movement. He started doing assisted suicides in 1990 and since then claims to have helped kill more than 130 people. His latest mercy killing was for a man named Thomas Youk.

In killing Youk Kevorkian went to far. Instead of his customary allowing the patient to inject his/her own poison this time Kevorkian injected it himself. He video taped the episode and sent a copy to 60 minutes. On the tape he practically dared officials to try him in a court of law.

Officials responded to his challenge and last month Kevorkian was sentenced to 10-25 yrs. in prison with apossible parole at 7 yrs. Despite its wide spread practice euthanasia is illegal in all 50 states except Oregon, which has strict rules and codes of conduct ofr the practicing there of. Despite the law many people are avid supporters of euthanasia.

Mercy killing is in fact playing the role of God. I believe that no one has that right. It is completely unethical to take another persons life. God decides each and every day whether each of us will live or die. Where do we get off trying to usurp Gods omnipotent power?

When someone with a terminally ill disease decides to be assisted in suicide as a way out, what does that do to the morale of the rest of the people in this country that are dealing with that same disease every day? I'll tell you. It squashes their will to live, obliterates it. Puts ideas in their heads that don't belong. Soon the rest of these people start thinking about the financial burden they are to their families and decide that euthanasia is more dignified than living.

Clearly the most distinguished Medical association in this nation (AMA) opposes euthanasia. If we allow physician assisted suicide to continue, when will it come to the point of instead of suggesting treatment or pain killers doctors will suggest death? When will euthanasia become a acceptable treatment? How long will it take before the general public will begin fearing a treatment of death to cure their ills?


TRAVIS WADE, TETON HIGH SCHOOL ridethewake@yahoo.com

Date: Mon, Apr 19, 1999 3:54 AM From: richo@ne.com.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

If I were an elderly woman lying on my death bed with no quality of life whatsoever - then I would choose to die. If I were a 30 year old woman lying on my death bed in agonising pain - i would choose to die. But what right do I have as an individual to leave a doctor with the everlasting memory of murdering me?

Date: Thu, Apr 15, 1999 6:42 PM From: shurtlif@kingston.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Euthenasia. murder or suicide? the true shame is the penalty for both is life. We can"t force anyone to live. If we do , our penalty should be to live through their eyes. We think highly of our selves for the humane acts of ending the life of terminally ill animal. Yet we seek to prolong the pain of human beings. Is our life really that more important to God or are we just on a super ego trip? I guess we'll have to wait to see first hand. For most this is an issue of God and religious beliefs. Remember God is not in the church waiting to see you. He is inside you waiting to be taken to church.

Date: Wed, Apr 14, 1999 5:51 PM From: ecfeick@ilstu.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I stand firmly behind the idea that certain patients have a right to death with dignity, however, if a doctor chooses not to participate in active euthanasia that is his or her right. If that doctor deems it wrong to participate for any reason, that would be immoral to force that doctor to compromise his or her beliefs. Your doctor's views on euthanasia should be known by you at this moment, not when you come down with an incapacitating terminal disease. To be responsible to yourself, and your loved ones in the best way possible, you should find a doctor who's views coincide with yours.

Erik Feick, ecfeick@ilstu.edu

Date: Thu, Apr 8, 1999 4:35 PM From: jim.dandy@alltel.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that if that is what the patient truly wants, and they are of sound mind than they have the perfect right to do so. Even though the patient should get that choose I know there is no way they should force that decision on their doctor. I'm sure there are quite a few doctors that would be willing to do it w/o arguement.


Date: Tue, Apr 6, 1999 2:01 PM From: SAB3680@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that anyone has the right to do their own free will, if they want to be killed then let it be.

Date: Fri, Apr 2, 1999 7:50 PM From: ladyluck@ibm.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The physician, as well as any other health care professional (such as the nurse), is not morally or legally obligated to perform euthanasia if requested. If it were considered a legal right, then there would be no option but to follow a request. It is difficult for persons who do not work in healthcare to understand that legal implications for care are of the utmost importance in making decisions of this kind-such as helping a patient to die. Physicians, if they do not strictly adhere to the law, may be subject to severe malpractice suits from families who claim they didn't want the patient to die. On the other hand, if the physician does break the law and commit an act of euthanasia, the family may claim they are glad the patient does not have to suffer anymore. Either way, it is certainly the physician's choice, but he/she should realize the consequences that can ensue with such a decision.

Date: Sun, Mar 28, 1999 8:43 PM From: maureeno@netcom.ca To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that it is fine for a physician to refuse to participate in active euthanasia, as long as there are other physicians who are willing to do it. The resources must be there for the patients, BUT I do not feel that a physician should feel compelled to commit an act that he does not want to perform.

Date: Tue, Mar 23, 1999 7:08 PM From: jsikora@bellsouth.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The decision for a doctor to participate in euthanasing someone should be their own personal decision but, if a terminally ill person wishes to end their life early than spend the rest of their days in pain or incapacitated they should have a right to do so and if a doctor is willing to help, they should be allowed to!

Date: Tue, Mar 23, 1999 4:14 PM From: reichert1@MARSHALL.EDU To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe strongly in the right for terminally ill patients to end their lives in a legal way with the help of a physician, but I also believe that a physician should have the right to refuse to perform such an action. Doctors go into the field to save lives and I can understand how it may be either too difficult of a thing to take part in, or they may just have beliefs that are completely against doing such a thing. Nobody should feel required to help someone end their life.

Date: Tue, Mar 23, 1999 1:55 AM From: wl.higbee@worldnet.att.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am doing a report/debate in school on Euthanasia. I am con and I do stand behind it. My answer would have to be "yes" it's like forcing someone to murder you, in fact it is, in my eyes. If a doctor doesn't want to provide a drug to kill the patient then they shouldn't have to. Nobody does what they don't want to. I believe assisted suicide is wrong.


Date: Tue, Mar 9, 1999 5:28 PM From: ebloom@MCIUNIX.MCIU.K12.PA.US To: DoktorMo@aol.com

As the previous post stated, all citizens have unalienable rights to life and the pursuit of happiness, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. But when we administer euthanasia, we are depriving them of these rights. The right to life is taken away, and even though the death may be painless, when it's all over, you're still dead, and thus you can't possibly pursue happiness...or anything, for that matter. Also, what if you euthanize a patient and the very next day, a cure or even a new medicine which could alleviate some of the suffering is discovered? Now, it's too late - the patient is dead, and that is irreversible. If we are going to kill patients to avoid pain, then what is the job of the medical profession at all? A lot of pain happens, but the reason doctors are there is to find cures. If they find one, life is worth living again. If the patient is dead, it doesn't matter how good life would be because they can't enjoy it. Thank G-d, I've never been in such a situation, so perhaps it's a bit out of place for me to speak on behalf of people experiencing such pain. But euthanasia is the easy way out. It's giving up. We can't allow ourselves to do that.

-Chaim Bloom

Date: Sat, Mar 6, 1999 3:47 PM From: reinhart@algorithms.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Throughout life we make our own choices. We chose how to take care of ourselves, who to marry, when to reproduce. Euthanasia fits the logical decision making criteria that is entitled to us as active members of a democracy. Is it sinful to decide you are in too much pain too die? Is it wrong to give up? Many people say yes. Society frowns upon euthanasia but relinquishes murderers from strict penalties. The drunk driver still drinks. Still drives. The teenagers that wrap their newborn infant in plastic bags and place it in a dumspter get a slap on the wrist. The woman that kills her unborn child suffers scarce ridicule. These crimes, these sins-- they are excused. They were confused. Naive. But the man who decides he cannot bear the pain of another day is immoral. Look at the society we are living in. It is surprising that massive suicide is not prevalent.

Date: Mon, Mar 1, 1999 8:01 PM From: rogue@netfeed.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Euthanasia: the act of killing someone painlessly. SYN: mercy killing

Euthanasia is an issue which has long been debated however if one takes a glimpse of what Euthanasia is one may see why it clearly can not be legalized. Euthanasia by most is considered to be call assisted suicide. Notice the word suicide! Suicide is defined as the act of taking one's own life voluntary and intentionally; self-murder. Euthanasia is indeed suicide because the patient is deciding to take his or her life. That is it, plain and simple! The only thing the doctor is doing is helping the individual kill herself/himself. Is that not suicide? Or is it murder? Let me make the argument that it was indeed suicide.

If the U.S. congree decided to legalisze euthanasia then what basis can they draw behind suicide? Since the two are so closely related when can someone determine what is euthanasia and what is planly suicide. You the reader might be thinking that I am talking about a guy jumping from the building, but I am not. What I am trying to say is when does a individual decide whether a patient is allowed to t ake his/her own life. What basis does the person have to decide? Is it when an illness is incurable? There are no treatments? If euthanasia was only allowed for people who suffer from untreatable or uncurable diseases than individuals with cancer can't kill themselves legally because there are treatments. Who is going to play the role of god? People with mental illness might consider themselves untreatable or uncurable does that give them basis to kill themselves or have someone else kill them? My point is that no individual can determine what is in the limits of the term euthanasia, the two can't clearly be separated because there is no clear basis on what type of illness is to be allowed to have euthanasia. If people with cancer are allowed to commit euthanasia why can't people who are manic depressive? Both are treatable? And sometimes cancer can be cured? Aren't both suffering? Yes? Don't individuals kill themselves because of mental illnesses such as being manic-depressive? What I am trying to say is who decides okay you have suffered to this point, we will allow assisted suicide? Does the individual decide whether he wants to take his own life? If so, does he not decide to kill himself? Suicide, exactly. If it is purely up to the doctor than it gives him the power of god. It lets the doctor decide who has suffered enough and who hasn't! My point is this, patients deciding to take their own life because of their illness and people deciding to kill themselves because of emotional distress are still commiting suicide no matter who actually did the deed. Hencing the term assistant suicide. If euthanasia was legalized it would undermine the laws regarding suicide because basically the law would state that a doctor can kill you if you are suffering and want to die. THus giving the doctor extreme amount of power. If you had emotional distress and a doctor killed you would it be okay? Who would be turned down for assistant suicide? A person who is not suffering so much? My point is that euthanasia justifies suicide!

Brandon Cody, Johansen High School

Date: Mon, Mar 1, 1999 4:13 PM From: 000198@abpat.qld.edu.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

All you people are wrong , the patients decide whether or not they live or die not the doctor .You people seem to think that it is the doctor who makes the decision but in actuall fact it is the patient and if they want to pass away by their own judgement then let them do it. If they were at home feeling the way they are and knowing the condition they themselves are in , they would more often than not commit suicide.

Date: Sun, Feb 28, 1999 9:50 AM From: UZVD41B@prodigy.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I feel that whether or not a doctor should administer euthanasia to a dying patient is a personal decision and should be left for the patient to choose. If an able-minded patient is faced with a terminal illness and they're in a lot of pain, I think they should have the right to choose whether or not they want to live. Whether or not doctors practice euthanasia treatments is also be a choice that each physician should be allowed to make on their own. If a terminally ill patient asks a doctor to induce death (something they will experience anyway), then the doctor, by all means, has every right to do that. Why should someone die in pain if they can die peacefully?...if a disease is going to kill someone anyway, it's more humane to help the person die in peace. A doctor's job is to do what is in the best interest of the patient and to try to ease pain. Patients have the right to refuse treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation, which can cause more pain than good sometimes anyway. The United States is a free country, and all citizens have freedom of speech, and the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness; this is written in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. Illegalizing euthanasia deprives people of these rights.

Date: Sat, Feb 27, 1999 10:51 AM From: amoulton@nacs.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I used to be very much against euthanasia, but after eight weeks as a nurse on an oncology unit, I have since changed my mind. The amount of suffering I saw was unbelievable. Some say that only God should choose when to take a life, but if this is true then why do we practice medicine at all. It is man's technology that has enabled us to sustain life, why then is it wrong to use that same technology to allow life to end in a dignified manner?

Date: Fri, Feb 26, 1999 10:00 PM From: petersen@cdsnet.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

In response to a previous post by Graham Gault, I would like to say that I too have done extensive research in the topic of active euthanasia. I have reviewed the statistics and I am a firm believer that terminally ill patients with capable minds should be allowed to choose their own death. The instances of active involuntary euthanasia in the United States occur not within the sanctity of law but outside it. These statistics would not be affected by legalizing physician assisted suicide except perhaps to reduce the occurrences. There was a survey published by the American Medical Assc. in which 1 in 5 doctors admitted to having deliberately taken action to cause a patients death. Although this figure is certainly frightening, it is ludicrous to insinuate that it is due to any legislation legalizing active euthanasia. In contrast, if you examine the statistics of Measure 16 in Oregon, you will find that in 1998 only 15 people committed suicide under the act. All of them did so intentionally and with full knowledge of the available alternatives. The majority of them were cancer patients for whom the pain medication was not working. I believe that before people make a judgment call they should understand the facts. Legalized euthanasia, when safeguarded properly, can save many patients from unnecessary pain and suffering.

Sincerely, Anna Petersen

Date: Thu, Feb 25, 1999 2:44 AM From: ccsu8088@earthlink.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes, because the right to live is a choice we can't control. If the doctor didn't help you will die anyway at the appointed time. Everyone will die, so why interefere with the normal process.

Date: Sun, Feb 21, 1999 9:14 PM From: ahaussler@netmdc.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I personally believe in euthanasia. A human being shouldn't be allowed to suffer and have no way out. They should be able to "rest in peace". I do believe though, that doctors should ONLY pull the plug under extreme circumstances not because the family doesn't want to be bothered with them anymore. Thank you.

Annalise Haussler.

Date: Sun, Feb 21, 1999 6:24 PM From: Lmlc21@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

No, it is wrong no matter how you look at it to kill another human being. Murder is murder. Active Euthanasia is WRONG!

Date: Thu, Feb 18, 1999 4:35 PM From: "Don Halvorson"@bc.sympatico.ca To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I do not think that anybody has the right to kill a dying person. So I am dead against Euthanasia. (Pardon my pun)


Date: Wed, Feb 17, 1999 4:09 PM From: dliving@cnshc.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think euthanasia is wrong to do to anyone. It is a form of killing someone. I think that if you are taking that person's life then you are killing them. All though the doctor is just trying to help that person because they will die anyways you are taking that person's life away. I think euthanasia should be made illegal. That person isn't dead until there heart stops pumping blood. I would not want to die to euthanasia. People were not put on this earth to be killed by doctors.

Date: Tue, Feb 16, 1999 6:07 PM From: jbmjh@planet.eon.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

How are we to play the role of god and choose who lives and who dies? we have no wright to do that. Murder is Murder is Murder, no matter how nice we make it sound, someone is still dying. Suicide is not leagle, so why should this be?

Melissa, age 14, Alberta Canada

Date: Sat, Feb 13, 1999 1:21 PM From: u1c05201@wvnet.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

If someone is living in a terminal state, who are we to judge whether or not they live? Do we know how they feel? Our congress has become against this subject, thinking about the legal subject of the matter, and failing to feel for the patient, ignoring the ethical and moral part all together. Other countries are sympathetic to the terminally ill, but the most powerful country in the world is unable to feel for its people when the Time comes. Such places as Holland and Switzerland are compassionate to Those who are in these states, and Uruguay is for it all together. granted, I'm only in the 10th grade at a medium sized high school, In Morgantown West Virginia, and may not be knowledgeable to all Aspects, but I know one thing, it is not our choice to continue someone's life if not wished. In this subject, the hippocratic oath has become a double standard. Therefore I think that a new oath should be made that allows this controversial topic as a positive and legal event.

Drew Behling

Date: Thu, Feb 4, 1999 4:47 PM From: victor1376@hotmail.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think the question is wrong. The real question should be do you think euthanasia should be legalized. As of right now many doctor's don't have the option to refuse to participate in active euthanasia. I also think doctor-assisted-suicide is the road to take if a patient would happen to request death. That way the pressure is on the patient (who is the direct recipient of the death wish) not the doctor to take life away. I believe a patient should have the right to end a life that no longer has any meaning for them.


Date: Wed, Feb 3, 1999 10:59 AM From: xena_morph@lineone.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Who are we to force our views on another, if they choose that there life is not worth living through illness we should respect their decision and if necessary help them to 'die' painfree.

Date: Tue, Feb 2, 1999 9:49 AM From: XXXX@bee.d93.k12.id.us To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that euthanasia is a good option because there are many people in this world that are lying on their death beds just waiting to die in pain and agony. If i was one of those people i would want to die in peace and not have to go through all of the pain and suffering . The people that are against euthanasia are stupid and don't realize what people are feeling when they know they are going to die and have to go through all of the pain . thank you very much,


Lincon High

Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 9:09 AM From: mrp99@webtv.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The question is whether a physician should advice his/her patients on the options they have regarding their health and well being. If the question is that a doctor should literaly help someone comit suicide, than the answer is no. But beyond everything, including the physicians moral stand on the subject, he/she has the oblgation to counsel, get involved with the patients family, and patient to find another way until there're no options left for the patient to recover. But if I was the patient, with no hope for a cure, I would like to get help from someone I trust, my physician. After all its' my body and I would like to have the right to do anything with it.

Date: Wed, Jan 20, 1999 9:05 PM From: WLBTHERE@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am not sure of which way I myself would go, but I can say that if you have never experienced a family member dying from a long term disease, one can not truthfully say they did not have it in mind. The thought of helping your loved one pass piecefully through thier slow death is always on your mind. Death is never to be taken from anyone, but from god himself. The medical field has put many miracles in our hands, and without gods help it would not have been so. We have, as miracle workers, a responsibilty to take care of the sick in as many ways as possible to be sure our patients see and get all aspects of the healing possess and when those are all gone then we have no right to refuse any other wishes of the patient and family. The physician has rights as an individual as anyone else, so he has the right to say no, but should help the family seek what they feel is right.

Date: Tue, Dec 1, 1998 9:19 PM From: JJones3702@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes, I do think its right for the doctors to say no to participating in euthinasia because one of the ten commammands is not to kill

Date: Sun, Nov 29, 1998 6:56 PM From: jpapi@ibm.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe the doctor should be able to refuse in the case that he does not believe the person should die yet

Date: Wed, Nov 18, 1998 1:31 PM From: mmorse@bellatlantic.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes, a doctor has every right not to participate in administering a patients death, if he so chooses. I also believe the patient should have the right to die if he or she chooses. However, only doctors willing to carry this procedure out (for their own reasons) should have to do it.

Date: Mon, Nov 9, 1998 2:57 PM From: Jsunshinne@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Although I am not 100% certain about this issue, I beleive that people should have the right to choose. Yes, there are hospices but not everyone can afford them. And even if you can, why should you choose slow death. I personally, would not want my family to suffer and go through with the whole ordeal. I woud not want pity and I woud not want to be helpless. Life is about the persuit of happiness and the sharing of love. When you are bedridden with cancer, AIDS and other terminal diseases there is no hope for the better, it is all down the hill. I can not imagine lying in bed for months putting up with pain that I know will only get worse. This is hell on earth! Also, if you consider that hospice care pain killers such as morphine every day, it is equivalent to lethal injection or slow euthanasia. Euthanasia can, however, be easily abused. This is why if and when it passes there should be very strict laws and conditions regarding this matter.

Date: Sun, Nov 8, 1998 9:34 PM From: AmyE021@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

As a society, we have come so far with life saving techniques. We have respirators and life support systems as well as so may surgical techniques and drugs. You really have to start asking yourself, where is the line between life saving and suffering? Since we have come so far, I feel that we should give people who are suffering and terminal a way to relieve their pain. My father was a terminally ill patient for three years. For three years he suffered, he didn't know who I was in the end, and if I could have, I would have ended his pain eventhough it would have shortened his time with me. Euthenasia is not for everyone, but when you work so hard to prolong someone's life and then tell them that they will never be able to get out of bed and life a normal pain free life ever again, I think you have to provide the option of either stopping medical treatment or providing a painless way out.

Date: Mon, Oct 26, 1998 10:44 AM From: jitools@nus.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The question is not whether it is right or wrong to participate in active euthanasia, the issue is that if someone feels it is their time to go or is brain dead, what right do we as society have to tell them no you can't go yet. And if that is the case how come the families of the person who is sick or brain dead with a limited chance of survival, are allowed to make the discission for the person? Is that or is that not making a life or death choice for someone else, isn't that the point of euthanasia anyway? If we are not allowing the person themselves to make that choice, then why do we allow the family of the person?

Date: Tue, Oct 8, 1998 7:08 AM From: ghobashy@grove.iup.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes a doctor should have the right to refuse to participate in euthenasia. But a doctor who is willing to participate should be immune from any responsibility. We MUST provide a humane way for people to end their suffering. Even a person who is not terminally ill but no longer has much quality to his life due to illness should have the right to end his/her life and should be able to find a doctor who would help him/her end his/her life in a humane way. If I have the right to put the gun to my head if I choose I should have the right to delegate the task of ending my life to someone else.

Date: Wed, Oct 7, 1998 10:37 PM From: student@academic.csubak.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Euthanasia , " that a very big subject" I'm for euthanasia all the way. Who want's to suffer, nobody does. I think physician are taking care of what needs to be taken care of. I think there doing a great job. With out physician there would be a lot of suffering people out there.

Date: Wed, Oct 7, 1998 2:48 PM From: smp.wtp@mailexcite.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes I do support active euthanasia. I do believe that doctors should be able to say no, and yet, if they say yes, I think we should allow them to perform the euthanasia. Many people want to die with dignity. They don't want to, for example, shoot themselves or over dose on the drugs they have available. They want to have the reassurance that someone who is capable is handling their last moments. I believe if you have the right to commit suicide, you have the right to ask someone to do it for you...... as long as you are sure that is what you want to do. No one can know the suffering for individuals. Each of us has their own level of pain tolerance. I do believe there should be some guidelines, but yet still be allowed.

Date: Mon, Oct 5, 1998 12:01 PM From: 950223u@stran-ni.ac.uk To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I have spent the last six months conducting some extensive research into the euthanasia debate - particularly voluntary euthanasia. I have read the responses in your discussion forum with interest and have noted that many people view assistance in death almost as a civil liberty. I would like to mention, however, a point which deserves much more attention than it receives. It is widely held that the Nazi holocaust began in the nursing homes and geriatric hospitals in Germany during the 1930s. The erosion of the doctrine of the sanctity of human life led to public conscience becoming increasingly hardened to an attitude that there existed certain groups within society who were of a 'lesser' quality of life. The logical direction of this movement led to sections of society being deemed is 'appropriate' subjects for euthanasia. Already in Holland, we are witnessing this gradual decline. I read some startling statistics recently which showed that the number of patients euthanised involuntarily was greater than those who did request it. It is necessary (in order to protect the vulnerable and weak in our societies) to protect life. Human life is of utmost value and the dangers of disregarding the worth of man are quite frightening.

Graham Gault

6 Harleston Street, Stranmillis, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT9 5FS, (01232) 226999

Date: Thu, Jun 18, 1998 9:24 AM From: jimr@theshop.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I feel that it would be very difficult for anyone to intentionally give medications that would terminate a patients life. When someone is suffering so terribly and there is no possibility of becoming well sometimes it would be easier for them just to die peacefully. I don't think that anyone should be forced to euthanize anyone or anything but there generally is someone that would give pain meds to a patient to increase their comfort.

Date: Mon, May 11, 1998 8:36 PM From: patklo@mplususa.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Every day, many animals and pets are euthanized by their owners or the humane society. There are a variety of reasons; owners wanting to end their pets' life and its 'misery', or the humane society putting an animal 'down' because they see no chance of it getting a new home or it is sick, dying, or suffering. This is, in a manner of speaking, exactly what euthanasia is. So, why can we do it to our pets, who can't even tell us their wishes, and not to the human race?

Date: Fri, Apr 24, 1998 10:30 PM From: Redhagis@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes! The physician should have the right to say no. They have a conscience to live with, too. However, why should it be up to the doctors of our country to do the final deed. I am all for Euthanasia. I have watch and cared for patients that have died with horrible pain. The normal person has no idea how much these people suffer before they die. The drugs given just aren't enough for some. They beg you, god, and their families to let them die. It is heart breaking. I could only work their for six monthes before I couldn't stand it anymore. The public should see the pain these people are in, because if they did there would be no more debate. Everyone in this wonderful country would have the Choice of quality of life in pain or quanitiy.


Date: Sun, Apr 12, 1998 10:16 PM From: Crnortis@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I would have to say that Active E would not be in the best interest of our country. It would leave to many questions to answer. A Doctor's job is to protect and preserve life, not to end it. The Doctor would be forced to make judgment calls that go beyond them. It would be a judgment on the value of life. Holland allows active E under certain situations and requirements. They have found that in most cases the requirements were not met for active E to take place. This kind of abuse can be expected every where.

Date: Fri, Apr 3, 1998 5:15 PM From: hummeln@c2i2.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I am currently attending Chapman University (Tucson) campus. Trying to get my masters in counseling. I am currently searching for materials to support passive aspects of E. You raise a good question we all need to address in a very individual way. I believe myself to be a very ethical, and a Christian. However, I cannot judge a man or woman in the blindness of pain when they choose to end the pain. I recall that in sunday school I heard about a man named Samson who in his last hours asked God for the strength to pull the support colums down and destroy all the people that were there. He also knew that in doing so, he would end his suffering and therefore take his life. God gave him the strength. You ask if it is right for a doctor to withhold lifesaving treatment from someone wishing to die. Who am I to answer! Who is anyone to answer? I would counsel you to know beyond a shadow of doubt that death is at the patients door and that lifesaving measures would only prolong the agony. I can accept passive E, but I cannot come to grips with active E unless I knew that the individual was in blinding, untreatable pain. And even then I wonder??????? Don' t you????

Norm hummel11@juno.com

Date: Thu, Apr 2, 1998 5:52 PM From: impmod@nbnet.nb.ca To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think if a person is willing to end his/her life, then we should let then. If they are not able to do it themselves, doctors should help them.

Date: Sun, Mar 29, 1998 1:17 PM From: osb819@mail.ntl.sympatico.ca To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I feel that it should be accepted the same as abortion. I am not 100% for ar against it, but it would be a comfort to know it was there if myself or someone I know needed it.

Tiffany Hack t__h @hotmail.com

Date: Thu, Mar 26, 1998 10:55 PM From: taranc@mssl.uswest.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that if a physician refuses ti participate in Euthanasia it is not wrong, in fact I think it his or her right to make that decision. My personal opinion is that euthanasia is wrong.

Date: Sun, Mar 22, 1998 1:10 AM From: speckled@swbell.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think it is perfectly o k for a doctor to refuse to participate in euthanasia.Why would any one want to foorce a doctoor to participate in the killing of a human being.If some one really wants to die you cant stop them from taking their own life.If their not able to dream up a way to do it.Then they must not be in their right mind and therefore not rational.And in need of mental help.It suprises me that laws and such are even being addressed and discussed. What is the real venue behind this,is it cost containment for the H.M.O.,medicine is expensive. I thought human beings had their right to life guaranteed in the constitution.What is this talk about a right to die.What next an obligation to die?

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 6:33 AM From: trcook@ehc.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I one of my classes we have recently been studying euthanasia, I have learned a lot of information that I previously did not know. Even though I have gathered more information, my opinion remains the same. I think that doctors should take a roll in helping someone IN PAIN take their life. Why not? If there are no doctors to help these people, they will find a less dignified and more risky way to do it. Let them die in peace with no risk of making a mistake and having to live as a vegetable the rest of their life. Just think of it as a way that doctors can help to take away the pain forever. This should only be allowed to happen in severe and irreversible cases. Also I feel that the patient should be mentallly stable when making the decision.

Tina Cook

Date: Tue, Mar 17, 1998 11:41 AM From: arreynol@ehc.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that no one person should be allowed to determine when their time is finished. I am a devout Christian, but I am also a college student presently taking an ethics course that discusses topics concerning science and technology. To say the least, I have been uncomfortable to hear the different opinions of my fellow classmates. However, I also believe that a person can be too closed minded to other people's opinions. I plan to stand firm in by beliefs and not compromise with anything that goes against my religion. I do believe that human life is a gift that we are all blessed with. Sometimes that blessing can be very trying, but that is where my faith steps in. I believe that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him.

Date: Thu, Jan 15, 1998 4:42 AM From: ndietric@ibm580-1.clc.gmeds.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Im currantly writing a paper on euthanasia. Im a student and the University of Michigan-Flint. When I started my research last week I was leaning toward our rights. I believed that if someone wanted to end their own life than that was their choice, let them do it legally and in a hospital or doctors office. Since my reading 4 books, 3 magazine articles and 6 internet articles, I have changed my opinion... Todays doctors can provide patients with pain killers to help get patients through the rough times, as for mental suffering, thats when I believe that family should step in and help the patient enjoy the last days or months of their lives. If the patient has no family thats when hospice and palliative care takes over. Let that person know that their are still beautiful things on earth to enjoy. We have the right to refuse treatment, if the patient wants to die. I don't think it should go any further. Thanks for your time.

Nanette Dietrich Midlux Car Group, Flint. Design Quality & Verification (810) 236-0515 GM 8-446-0515 email: ndietric@ibm580-1.gmeds.com

Date: Wed, Jan 14, 1998 12:36 PM From: @age.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that Euthanasia will always create BIG problems in our society whether it has to do with religion or beliefs... The point of the matter is that every one should have the right to decide for themselves. If they are unable to do so, a loved one in his or her family should take this dramatic decision for them. I mean, don't forget, the loved one did live with him or her for a very long time and should be able to take the proper decision.

Student from CollŹge Boréal in Sudbury Ontario. Thank You.

Date: Fri, Jan 9, 1998 8:38 AM From: radioflyer3@juno.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Do you think that a sick person has the right to pull their own plug or do you think that they are in capable because they are not in control of their body?

Date: Tue, Dec 9, 1997 10:21 PM From: RJMilner@goesp.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

God is the only one that should take the lives of people,when it's there time it's there time. Even if they are deathly sick,god has the only right.I think euthanasia is a suicide,if people want to die that should just kill themselves.Why hire a doctor.

Date: Sat, Dec 6, 1997 11:34 AM From: walsh@iserv.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

In the situation of a doctor and a dying patient who has no chance of surviving , euthanasia is acceptable if the person (patient) makes the decision. The medical proceedures that were being administered to the patient were only impedeing death, the euthanasia is not causing it. The doctor is only ending the impedation of death.

Date: Tue, Nov 25, 1997 10:23 PM From: NyCHun4@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Having experienced a glimpse of excruciating pain, I think "YES," euthanasia should be acceptable-- What IS the point of living out a life of constant pain, while your insides are being eaten away? Can a person think or act rationally while in pain? Although we should hold life to be precious, there IS no life if there was no rationale. What do you do when someone drops a brick on your toe? you say, "Shit!" and maybe, without thinking, even if it had been done by a person by accident, you hit out at the person who had done it. Now imagine this kind of pain DAILY, with no hope of recovery. Would you WANT to become that kind of person before you die? Bitter? ugly? vile? Believe me, you WILL become that kind of person if you were to be in that situation. If not bitter, a very DEPRESSED being. Now add that to your physical pain. IF you think it's wrong for physicians to carry out euthanasia, just BECAUSE a cure may be found, tell that to the terminally ill patient. What do you think they're response would be? - "WHEN??!! YOU TELL ME WHEN! You think this (euthanasia) is an EASY way out? you think I WANT to die? --(sob)" Come on, give me a break. Can't you picture it? Those "moralists" out there who think it is SO wrong to take the natural laws into our own hands when needed, tell me this. I, too, am a strong, and faithful Catholic. I did not believe euthanasia was moral UNTIL I glimpsed a life of pain--- but there was a difference. I knew I was going to recover. Try "living" in the hospital for 2 months, and take a walk around the rooms with patients who cry, beg, plead for some stronger medication because their pain is so bad-- that is their life. It is DIFFERENT! SO different! when YOU are the one in those shoes. There IS no dignity. I strongly believe that because God, our creator, is such a compassionate God, he would actually instead take those who suffered so needlessly for so long into His arms - not punish us for trying to escape a life of pain. That wasn't his purpose when he created mankind.

Date: Mon, Nov 24, 1997 1:46 PM From: jab.man@mailcity.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Any physician has the right to make the decision that he or she will not participate in active suicide. They have no obligation to assist if the doctor feels it is morally wrong. In my opinion Euthanasia is unethical, and doctors in no way should play a role. If someone wish's to take their life let them do it themselve. I'm not saying they should, but they shouldn't depend on the doctor. The answer is pain management not suicide.

Date: Thu, Nov 20, 1997 12:14 PM From: Nikki61170@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that a physician should assist someone in suicide, if they ask for. It is our life and we have the right to do what we want with it. Especially if we are elderly or have a terminal disease. If I were dying of a disease there is no way I want to suffer through pain and or be a vegetable. I would want to die and go to a better place, in my religion heaven. Sometimes a person doesn't have the right things or is unable to kill themselves and that is why they go to doctors. Doctors should help someone if they know there is no way this person will survive.

Sara-Nikki Klein

Date: Wed, Nov 19, 1997 9:52 PM From: michaelm@m.al8.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Is it right for a person to act in accordance to their conscience? Is it right for someone to require another to violate their conscience? Can they EFFECTUALLY require them to violate their conscience? In otherwords, if someone want to die, fine... but why involve someone with scrupples against killing anyone -- and require them to kill the guy who wants to die?

Date: Tue, Nov 18, 1997 1:34 PM From: tgci@mb.sympatico.ca To: DoktorMo@aol.com

No a doctor shouldn't be able to refuse to kill someone!

Date: Sun, Nov 16, 1997 10:40 PM From: pembo@fastlane.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think a doctor has every right to exercise that right.

Date: Fri, Nov 14, 1997 4:23 PM From: Smsteinman@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think a doctor should be able to refuse to participate in it. In the end, it's really the doctors decision, anyway. A patient can't force their doctor to kill them.

Date: Wed, Nov 12, 1997 3:55 PM From: theophilus@mail.snider.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Physicians are practitioners of the healing arts, not doctors of death (Kervorkian, notwithstanding). People die without the aid of anyone. Naturally, or by accident that is.

Suicide is a serious matter. Many of those I hear demanding a "right to die" compare human suffering and animal suffering. If a dog is suffering and will not recover, then you put it to sleep. No one wants to see a poor animal suffer needlessly. If a person is suffering, and the illness is, without a doubt, terminal; no one wants to see them suffer either. So it is advocated that we put them to sleep, just like the dog.

What is the difference? I think that our society has traditionally held to the belief that people have immortal souls, and that it would be wrong to presume to take a life, in this situation, before natural death. In the time the person has left, he may have opportunity to make amends with people and with God. If his life is cut short by suicide (self or physician-assisted) he will not have all of the time that may be necessary for him to decide whether or not he wishes to make amends.

With a man's eternal soul at stake, the idea that he should be put out of his misery like a dog is out of the question. We must leave it up to God when he will die. Allow natural death no matter how much suffering takes place, only some amount of pain relief should be allowed to ease the suffering, but not so much that he is incoherent, or that it would kill him.

Of course if man is just an animal, as the Naturalist thinks, then I suppose that they would permit the man to be killed like a dog. If there is no God, and no eternal soul which will face judgement one day, then of course this is the proper course of action. Although I reject this idea, this seems to be the way that our society is headed.

Alex Mac Donald

Date: Sat, Nov 8, 1997 10:43 PM From: richco@ix.netcom.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I feel that if a physician chooses not to participate in Euthenasia, he should have the courtesty of providing alternative assistance. He should feel that he has the duty of a human being to allow the person who makes the choice to die to go to another doctor who believes in Euthenasia. How many doctors believe in Euthenasia, or is Kavorkian the only one.


Date: Thu, Oct 23, 1997 8:01 AM From: DSkel89259@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes, I think a physician has a right to refuse to participate in active euthanasia. As a believer in the quality of life as opposed to the quantity of life, I also think that we, those of us who believe in euthanasia, have the right to request a painfree "good death." This is our right as an individual. When is the government going to quit sticking its big nose into our private business? As long as we're not hurting anyone else, why should they care how we die? The same goes for those opposed to euthanasia. Of course, there has to be guidelines for this. I hope when/if the time comes, I will be able to find a caring and compassionate doctor to help with the way I want to die. When I go, I want to be able to say goodbye to my loved ones and there is joy knowing that I am not in pain any longer.

Date: Sat, Oct 18, 1997 1:32 PM From: ckirby@htonline.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Most definately the doctor has the right to refuse to do anything he does not want to do. The patient also has the right to ask another physician. That is the answer to the question. Whether the patient has the right to ask for or receive the doctor's help or if the doctor is morally right in his participation or refusal are totally different questions. What question did you mean to ask?

Date: Thu, Oct 16, 1997 1:33 AM From: KUTYPIE5@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that it right for a physician to refuse to participate in active euthanasia because a doctor's duty is to procure health and not to end one's life. Euthanasia gives the doctors an ok to kill off the dying patients instead of coming up with breakthroughs to save their lives. We must work together to eliminate the underlying suffering in a constructive and not a destructive manner. The future goal of medical science should be to improve the quality of health, instead of letting people become terminally ill so that we can kill them off one by one.

USC student

Date: Wed, Oct 15, 1997 1:30 AM From: sstewar1@ionet.net (sara) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that every doctor has his/her own right to participate in active euthansia just as the patient has the right to die.

Date: Fri, Oct 10, 1997 10:07 AM From: farmer@thewebcorp.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes I think it is right for a doctor to refuse. this is a free country... consenting to kill someone shouldn't be something they're obliged to do

Date: Wed, Oct 8, 1997 9:00 AM From: kirk02@flash.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

To whom it may concern, Should a human being be forced to survive with unbearable, excruciating pain? Pain in which there is no cure, no hope of decreasing the pain or of having any quality of life. I would like to know how a pro-lifer would stand up to 24 hours, 7 days a week, 365 days a year of not sleeping, constant "blinding" pain, eating only baby food and no enjoyment of being alive. I wonder if that would sway their opinions. I bet it would. I bet they would be the first to scream and fight for the right to be released from such an existance. Because it's different when you're the one in pain. It's different when the doctor's tell you they are so sorry they can't help you. It's different when it's you that can't work because of one or more medical conditions or can't get medical insurance. My opinion is that when they are walking in your shoes then they have the right to condemn release of such suffering.

Date: Tue, Sep 30, 1997 5:39 PM From: jicc@mail.ans.com.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes I believe that the physician has every right to practice euthanasia under the patient's request. Everyone's life should be managed by THEMSELVES, not BY the social morals or what people believe is right for the them. Althought the idea is of mental disburbance to most members of the human race, it is nevertheless a new definition of "liberty", liberty to ourselves, not to others.


I greatly support euthansian!!!! (ps: I am alive and healthy) Why do physicians always have to "preserve" lives?? They should help the people who do not have the equal medical knowledge to "manage", or "treat" their lives, including ending them!!!!! not just preserving them!!!!! In doing so they are not practising the full use of their medical knowledge, and should be called "life preservers" rather than "doctors" or "physycians" who (i believe, should,) take care and help us to manage our own lives!!

Jeanie I. Chuo

Date: Mon, Sep 29, 1997 8:00 AM From: booker@2die4.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that every person has the right to live out there live to their full potential. I however do not believe in the imprisonment of these hospitalized zombies that are no more capable of feeding themselves as a new new born child. If it is the choice of the individual to impede his or her own pain, then my heart is with him/her and the family for the obvious troubling life that has influenced the decision. s

Sincerely, OPSU student

Date: Sun, Sep 28, 1997 11:33 AM From: al247843@academ01.qro.itesm.mx To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that the perosn who is sick can decided what its the best thing to do with his own body. It is a very serous decition, but if you are in your five senses you can do whatever you want to do.

Date: Sun, Sep 28, 1997 2:49 AM From: eliezer_dvir@bc.sympatico.ca To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Please note that on my Home Page (http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/eliezer_dvir/) the issue of malpractice and the legal issues relevant to that as well are carefully discussed. However, the main issue is that of doctor-assisted suicide/euthanasia/mercy killing. The ONLY answer to whether a doctor should be allowed to make such a decision or be FORCED to perform an action to which he does not agree is obvious; free choice. How else should it be? Are all physicians then required to become government-sponsored and controlled murderers, and the government will again attempt to gain that much more full control over their ill, terminally or otherwise. NO doctor should ever be required to do that which he/she would morally disagree with, and which violates his/her personal medical standards under any circumstances. This is beginning to sound like an introduction to another chapter of Orwell's "1984," however. Since I have been unable to obtain the copies of my medical documentation regarding the surgery/treatment from the organizations mentioned on my Home Page, proper treatment has been made virtually unavailable to me (I was turned down by the G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Foundation just this last week; my final hope in my attempts to obtain relief from the constant agony I suffer). Am I in agreement with euthanasia itself? Most certainly. That should be relatively clear, though never referred to by the term itself, I believe from my Home Page. Being denied either proper medical treatment or access to euthanasia, and suffering pain of a distinctly fiery nature (in the literal sense) on a permananent basis, purely a drain on others that could do something in return for the services they receive. I feel as if I have been simply shelved and forgotten about, as if I am simply one more in the huge number of disabled that are truly in favour of this issue (through private discussions with numerous individuals). Should it not (logically) be the choice of the individual in the terminally ill, degenerative, incurable, the vegetative (living will being the obvious consideration here), who being emotionally, psychologically capable to choose to request assistance in the means and method of his/her demise? It is simply torture to many of such persons to continue their existences, as the new stories appear virtually daily regarding this issue. If the doctor does not wish to actively participate, the MEANS should be made available to the individual, and other appropriate assistancekk, if necessary, should the individual be debilitated to a great degree. There are still many societies that abandon their injured/disabled/aged to the elements/beasts, yet there are no controls over such practices, and RARELY does the individual directly involved ever utter a word of complaint regarding the issue, though I am certain that not all agree with it 100% in their societies as well. Euthanasia is practiced on a DAILY basis in hospitals, hospices, nursing homes, private homes, et cetera, but is simply never 'noticed.' I have personally witnessed a number of cases of this nature myself, in which I was left with strict orders NOT to carry out life-extending treatment to the patient should he/she demonstrate enchroaching death symptoms. I have seen I.V.'s and oxygen valves closed more than I care to remember, when it was 'possible' to 'save' the victim's life, or extend it (to no worthwhile end, since the patient would never recover any degree of normal life at all; vegetative state situations, mainly).

Most sincerely, Mr. E. Dvir

Date: Fri, Sep 19, 1997 7:43 AM From: Danmg@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

A doctor can be prosectuted for taking any part in euthenasia, so, yes, i believe that a doctor has every right to protect himself and refuse to participate. However, I do not believe that end of life decisions are for anybody to make but the patient and the doctor.

Date: Mon, Sep 8, 1997 7:43 AM From: ibt@mail.connect.more.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that the physician should listen to what the patient wants. A doctor is there to relieve patients' suffering and help with the pain, if assisted- suicide is the only way to do that and the patient is goin toi die anyway then if the patient wants to die, then the doctor has an obligation to the patient. So, no, a doctor's priority is to the patient, he does not really have the right to refuse euthanasia. Michelle Kennedy: mouthy1@hotmail.com

Date: Fri, Sep 5, 1997 2:24 AM From: curly@majestic.net.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe it's wrong to force a physician to act against her will (or his) and they have the right to refuse. I also believe that it's the patients right to select a physician who is willing to perform active voluntary euthanasia, and not the right of governments to force their "consciences" onto us.

Date: Tue, Aug 26, 1977 10:07 PM From: science.gghs@clear.net.nz (Science Dept.) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I don't see how it can be the physicians choice to say yes or no, because surely they could just hand over the needle and let the patient do it themselves as the patient has obviously thought about it and it's ultimately their choice, so what right does the physician have to say no, but on the other hand it could be extremely hard to live with the fact that they had helped someone to die.

Date: Sun, Aug 17, 1997 12:29 AM From: gunndna@picknowl.com.au (D & A Gunn) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Dear Doktor, I believe that Euthanasia is wrong, yet I do not have a terminal illness. How can those who are not faced with painful death decide whether it is right or wrong for another to accept Euthanasia. I believe that all physicians are faced with decisions everyday which involve their own morals, yet if a patient wants to die it is their duty to carry out the act. Often we lose lives and manage to go on, why not spare the unnessasary agony and end a life peacefully. I would gladly perform any procedure to a needing patient, be it surgery or mercy.


Date: Mon, Jul 28, 1997 4:41 PM From: drentzel@netexp.net (David E. Rentzel) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

A physician should be allowed to refuse to participate in active euthanasia, but I regard it the right of any individual to choose to end his life as he sees fit. Hopefully there will be physicians who respect that right and assist as needed.

Date: Sat, Jul 26, 1997 2:53 PM From: DocReading@sprintmail.com (William H. Reading, MD) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that it is wrong to force a physician to participate in active euthanasia. It is against our creed. Primum non nocere. To provide comfort in death and to do our best to allow a death with dignity are in order. For some physicians euthanasia is morally wrong. Forcing physicians to provide for the killing of their patients is tantamount to forcing them to provide abortions.

Date: Sat, Jul 26, 1997 7:46 AM From: Hedworrall@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

As my mother gets older she begins to think more and more of the last part of her life. Currently she is over 70 and in perfect health, but she has a real fear that this will not continue. Obviously she is correct. We must bear in mind that she has not always been old. I too will be old one day, and contemplating my own death. When those days arrive I will not have the strength to enter into a vastly controversial political arena with the odds stacked heavily against me from those whose business lies elsewhere. It is only polite to allow those who wish it easy access to assisted suicide. There is obviously no question of forcing doctors or anyone else to assist if they don't want to. But by removing the threat of legal action upon them, many doctors will accept euthenasia as a part of their daily job. They will go home unscathed after helping an otherwise helpless old lady out of discomfort and fear. Their consciences will be clear. And the rest of us will come to regard it as just another option, adding it to all the alternatives - most of which are not very happy to imagine. Live and let die. Gracefully.

Simon Worrall.

Date: Sun, Jul 6, 1997 12:04 PM From: jwwright@northrim.net (John W. Wright) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think a doctor has a right to refuse giving one euthanasia, just because of what society is doing these days. Also if it against a doctor's morals, than he shouldn't have to do that.

Date: Wed, Jun 11, 1997 12:49 AM From: csc@corryong.albury.net.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I beleive that it is the right of the physician to decide whether they wish to participate in active euthanasia, not the decision of the sick. If a physician doesn't want to participate, that's tough luck to the sick person, I know it may sound crude, but that's life. People should have the right to decide for themselves, if we get hassled into doing something we weren't keen on doing previously, we're bound to regret it. This doesn't apply in The Northern Territory anymore as Parliament overturned the law last year. So, as an Australian, I don't have much say in the matter.

Date: Thu, May 29, 1997 8:38 AM From: dforrest@inna.net (Deborah Forrest) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Dear Doktor, In regards to euthanasia, I believe that it is morally wrong, but yet is right in the belief of the individual. If it is what the individual wants, it is right.

Date: Thu, May 22, 1997 2:24 AM From: paulw@merlin.net.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I have never ever been in the position of being personally faced with this question and I hope I never do, but I feel that it is wrong to deny a human being the simple rights that we give animals. If an animal is in pain and will die sooner than usual no matter what, the vet will always put it down for those very reasons. If there are people that dare to take away that right from someone else, maybe they should put themselves in some one else's live that does have an incurable disease and is in constant pain then I hope that if they ever are in that situation and are in constant pain, then I hope that they should be made to live in pain and suffering until they do die.

Date: Thu, May 8, 1997 9:35 PM From: KPAYTON@agnes.AgnesScott.edu (Sojourner) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think that the dicussion I've so far seen at this site ignore the real issue at stake in euthenasia: autonomy. Some have recently claimed that EVERYONE should be allowed to commit suicide if suffering, and presumably with the help of a physician or loved one. This view is normally supported through a Millsian "harm principle" doctrine, which many philosophers and laypersons gliby accept as liberal, multicultural, and other such admirable PC goals. I think, contra Dworkin and others, that autonomy can and should be limited in the case of suicide, both active and passive, assisted and solo. First of all, there is the constitutional issue of whether or not assisted suicide is constitutionally protected. I think that it's clear that it isn't, and I won't go into details here for brevity's sake. Then there's the separate issue of AUTONOMY and DIGNITY, the two topics assisted-death proponents usually cite as the pressing reasons that assisted death is a moral act and should be a legal one. I think that relying on the harm principle and letting autonomy trump regardless of the consequences is foolhardy. There are many cases in which intervention into an autonomous decision are clearly needed -- for example, in the case of indentured servitude. Autonomy should be tempered with judicious paternalism, and I think that assisted death is a grave enough issue to require such temperance. Secondly is the issue of dignity (and dignity's cousin, medical integrity), which some have addressed here. My argument is that by preserving life of all levels of quality, the state and the medical profession are renewing their belief that no life is useless or worthless. Allowing physician-assisted death would effectively communicate to the elderly, ill, and caretakers that there are some lives which are unworthy of state protection. Is that the message we really want to back? I think not.

Joy Payton


Karen J. Payton at Agnes Scott College karen.payton@agnes.agnesscott.edu or Georgia Institute of Technology gt5959b@prism.gatech.edu

Date: Wed, May 7, 1997 9:47 PM From: evlyn@harborside.com (Lyn Johnston) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Just as the right do die should exist for the terminally ill patient, the right to choose wether to participate should be afforded to the physician.

Date: Tue, May 6, 1997 3:46 AM From: gsb00944@mail.wvnet.edu (Carlotta Evans) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think it is wrong for doctors to refuse to if a patient really wants to. It's their right to die if they would rather not suffer.

Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 11:17 AM From: maxipriest@innocent.com (Satnam Sohal) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Definitely a physician has complete rights to refuse participating in Euthanasia but at the same time if a Patient is in extreme condition of pain and agony he should be assisted in suicide. If the physician chooses not participate in helping the patient he should look for other physicians who have no problem in helping patients out from the dilemma of severe pain. Euthanasia should Definitely be legalized in every country... MaxiPriest

Date: Fri, May 2, 1997 6:44 AM From: Lab_K@pink.district125.k12.il.us (Lab --Station K) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes, I feel that it is wrong for any person to aid in another person's death. Euthanasia is murder, plian and simple. Everyone should try to help other not to die, rather than kill them. For a second point, the point of doctors for as long as I can remember was to help people. I wouldn't want to walk into the doctors office and have him strap me into a machine that killed me because he was having a bad day....

Date: Wed, Apr 30, 1997 8:20 PM From: KELL3@student.monash.edu.au (KELL3) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes I think it is a physician right to choose whether or not to participate in active euthanasia although I do believe it is the patients choice. I think there should be doctors out there that will assist and those that won't and I honestly believe there would be more doctors willing to help than those who will not! Personally, I'm all for it. If they have no cure for their illness, let them die with dignity!!!!!!

Date: Sun, Apr 27, 1997 5:29 PM From: dixies@cdsnet.net (Dixie Smith) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

No, it's not right for a physician to refuse to participate in active euthanasia. The patient's right to die would be violated and I think it's not right for a doctor to deny a patient's wishes.

Date: Sat, Apr 26, 1997 8:18 PM From: Jared_Johnson@baylor.edu (Jared Johnson) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Of course it is the right of a physician to refuse to participate in any act of euthanasia; however, it is also his/her right, if the physician so desires, to choose to participate in any act of euthanasia. The whole issue centers around posing your question, when appropriate, to individual physicians.

Date: Thu, Apr 24, 1997 6:44 PM From: jk27508@chs.mat-su.k12.ak.us To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I personally think that euthanasia should be completely legal in all states and to all people, even the brain dead or retarded. If the person is that sick and suffering that much and cannot find a reason to live, than why not euthanasia?

Date: Mon, Apr 21, 1997 6:08 PM From: dslater@infolane.com (Sandra Slater) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Personally, I think that it doesn't matter what one thinks, but that each and every person has a right to choose (and for religious people that right is God-given) for themselves whether to live or die. I believe that every person should be allowed to do whatever it is they choose to do, as long as it does not affect anyone else, unless others affected are ok wtih it.. So, with euthatnasia, anyone can choose to die. I don't think I have the right to take away their freedom. That is one right no one has.

Thanks for standing by my soap box.

Andrew Slater, 17, dslater@infolane.com

Date: Thu, Mar 13, 1997 10:10 AM From: ccrisci@tin.it (claudio crisci) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

It is obvious, for me, that doctors have the right to refuse to participate in active euthanasia. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are a very personal issue and doctors have the right to make their choice as well as patients. Here in Italy abortion is legal under certain circumstances, but gynecologists can choose whether to practice it or not; they have to state clearly their choice to patients, discuss this issue and eventually address them to another doctor. I think that a similar attitude should be proposed when euthanasia and assisted suicide will become legal (it will happen, sooner or later).

Another question then will probably be addressed: "should any doctor be allowed to practice euthanasia and assisted suicide or should we select and prepare specialists for this ultimate medical act ?"

Claudio Crisci MD - Naples, Italy

Date: Mar 9, 1997 8:04 PM From: Jo.Riggs@Oceana.net (Jo Riggs) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

YES! it is right that a physician refuses to take part in active euthanasia. Civil law may determine that euthanasia is legal at some point in time, however, that would not mean that one could be forced to participate in the act if it is against their beliefs.

Date: Wed, Mar 5, 1997 10:55 PM From: C 14047@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Absolutely! Each individual must decide this dilemma based on their values and morality, in short, their conscience. If a physician feels that it is morally wrong to assist in euthanasia, then he should not. However, another physician may feel it is morally wrong to continue to support or prolong a life that is suffering with ultimately no hope of recovery. This physician may consider this a greater injustice than performing active euthanasia and ending the suffering and pain of the patient. At what point do we begin to listen to the patient? When we become the patient? How ironic that we usually do not understand the situation until we walk in their shoes!

As a registered nurse in the intensive care unit, I see more than enough suffering of terminally ill individuals. It is difficult to repeatedly explain to these suffering patients the reason it can not end for them. I ask, why can't it end for them if this is what they want? Is it not just as morally wrong to prolong their suffering by placing them on ventilators, and performing painful procedures every day?

As a registered nurse and mother of three, I can honestly say I love life and enjoy being alive. However, if I was terminally ill I pray for a physician that would end my suffering when I was ready for it to end.

Futhermore, I believe if both the physician and the participant are in agreement on active euthanasia then the correct coarse of action has been chosen. On the other hand, if the physician believes this is wrong for whatever reason then he should refuse to participate. This physician can chose other options to provide comfort to the patient.

In conclusion, with active euthanasia there should always be guidelines included to protect the patient and the physician. Guidelines, rules, and regulations are part of our lives, and we live by them each day... why not include them with euthanasia?

Date: Wed Jan 15, 1997 8:02 PM From: ssoto@earthlink.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

It is incorrect for us to believe that the role of physicians should include the practice of euthanasia. Traditionally, doctors have always been referred to as healers, not destroyers. True, physicians in the Greek and Roman cultures sought the help of physicians to end their lives. But it must be remembered that suicide was considered an acceptable end to what was a terminal life as per Caesar! Plato committed suicide, but he was under a penalty of death from the state. He either committed suicide or was terminated! This hardly fits our view of cancer patients. The role of physicians is also to provide comfort. I am in the medical profession, and I don't think there will be very many people who will want to be in my shoes when, after the "physician assisted suicide" of 100 people, people who might have lived say 10 more years before their ailments caught up with them, when those diseases killing say 20 of them are found. We will have killed 20 people, for what? Convenience? Cost? What kind of mercy is this? To be honest, suicide requires one person in attendance. Why involve physicians! These people want validation of their decision!! If medicine condones their point of view then they have a respectable group which back their choice. The New York Study has revealed that 95% of all people who attempt suicide are mentally compromised. Why are we giving credibility to people who fall into this catagory? It just does not make sense to me. If you have a different point of view, E-Mail me at Ssoto@earthlink.net and we can discuss it. Euthanasia is wrong!

Stephen Soto de Mayor

Date: Sun Jan 5, 1997 11:29AM From: BBrodie960@aol.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes, I think it *is* right for a physician to refuse to participate in active euthanasia and I think the physician should *have* the right to do so. As a Christian I think active euthanasia is morally wrong, although I think it is also morally wrong to artificially prolong the life of one who has no reasonable hope of medical recovery. I disagree with those who assert that morally there is no difference between "active" and "passive" euthanasia. As a Christian, I believe humanity answers to a higher authority who calls us to perform every endeavor, whether medical or otherwise, within the confines of the moral principles which give our lives dignity and meaning. When God says "You shall not kill." the issue is not whether or not someone is going to die, because we all die eventually. Rather, it's about *when* the person dies. The question is "Do we end a person's life, including our own, at our discretion, or allow that life to end at God's discretion?" Passive euthanasia allows nature to take its course, as it should, and leaves the timing of death to a higher authority outside ourselves. Active euthanasia does not. If medical science has the ability to provide adequate comfort measures to those facing imminent death, as I believe it does, choosing to kill or be killed tends to be for convenience instead of relief from physical suffering, which indeed starts us on that infamous "slippery slope".

For those who do not subscribe to the Christian point of view (at least my version of it), I would support active euthanasia if substantial and meaningful safeguards, such as verification of mental competence, counseling, and a waiting period, are in place.

Brent Brodie

Date: Tue Dec 31 15:16:56 1996 From: k.warner@postoffice.worldnet.att.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Each person must be guided by his/her own philosophies and beliefs. It would be wrong to force a doctor to participate in something in which he/she did not believe. At the same time, patients who are suffering should have the right to pursue death with dignity. Therefore, it is the patient's responsibility to seek a cooperating doctor who will assist.

Date: Tue, Nov 12, 1996 12:00 AM EDT From: TOBY1@wow.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

When a physician graduates from college, he or she takes an oath to protect and preserve life. They should keep their oath and refrain from assisting in an intentional suicide. Dr. Kevorkian does not have a physician's licence, so he did not take the oath (assuming what I read was true). I do believe euthanasia is a choice that someone can make for themselves because it is the execise of personal freedom of choice. Unllike abortion, a choice is made for an individual with no voice. I do feel a physician can assist in a suicide if he wants to, but they would be breaking an oath. I have no objections to euthanasia; the quality of life is far more valuable than the quantity of life.

Date: Thu, Oct 3, 1996 1:33 AM EDT From: sion@dowco.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I have read much in this area in my undergraduate philosophy program, and this particular topic is of great interest to me. James Rachels outlines the issues very clearly in his work on the topic; drawing the distinction between "active" and "passive" euthanasia diverts the attention from the common purpose of such treatments in the first place - to provide the assistance and means towards the end of an informed, voluntary, and merciful death. If we accept this premise as the basis for withholding treatment, it seems rather arbitrary and cruel to not apply it to active instances as well. As to whether a physician ought to be allowed to refuse to participate in euthanasia, I would draw a parallel to the common law here in Canada on abortion (since R. v. Morgentaler) which states (don't quote me, check the case law) that if a physician has a conscientious objection, he/she must refer to another, and in those remote areas (i.e. Northern & Interior BC) where there may be only one hospital available - that hospital MUST provide abortion services. As to which physician in that hospital, I would assume that would be an institutional decision. I suppose by now it's fairly obvious that I support the theoretical principle of euthanasia (active & passive), though I certainly do have reservations about those who practice it and sidestep the required procedures, i.e. waiting period etc.

Date: Mon, Sep 30, 1996 10:51 PM EDT From: omb00682@mail.wvnet.edu To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Of course, if a doctor or nurse disagrees with participating in a procedure that is morally and ethically wrong for them to do, then they are obligated by their conscience to abstain. The patient/family can certainly find another doctor/nurse willing to assist!

Joyce DeHaven

Date: Sat, Aug 10, 1996 1:45 PM EDT From: af485@lafn.org To: DoktorMo@aol.com

As a physician, I agree with the content of most of the prior messages. One aspect of this issue, not previously mentioned, disturbs me greatly. Our common definition of euthanasia implies a peaceful, painless death, whether through natural causes or through lethal injection. This is something all of us hope to attain, when our time comes. But today, the only ones assured of this option are the most dastardly criminals amongst us---

Must we regard this as just one more idiosyncrasy of our justice system?

Hans G. Engel, M.D.

Date: Mon, Jul 29, 1996 12:30 PM EDT From: 71600.1123@compuserve.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

The question is not whether there is a right to "die with dignity," but rather, and more critically, whether there is a right to "live with dignity" despite restrictions. In an article in Cambridge Q. on Healthcare ethics 1996;5:1, I argued that emphasis on euthanasia without an at least equal and balancing focus on "dying with dignity" asks the most fragile among us to "play Russian Roulette with a loaded gun. The only question is, how many bullets will it hold. Four, five, or six?"

In addition, discussion of euthanasia in North America occurs within a context which is redefining chronic illnesses as terminal conditions. This was true, in Canada, of ALS in the Rodriguez case; was true in the Janet Atkins case (early stages of Alzheimer's), and in a recent MS case. C. Evert Coop said, last year, that what started as a reaction to untreatable pain has become a more general complaint against the inconvenience and the limits of illness. The result is, too often, "murder in mercy's name." (Toronto Life, Dec. 1996).

Those more interested in this approach are referred to my web page where books (Watersheds) and articles (ethics section) detail some of my work in this area.

Tom Koch

Date: Wed, Jul 24, 1996 10:19 PM EDT From: rmyers@SoCA.com To: DoktorMo@aol.com

It is my opinion that it is more a criminal act NOT to assist those who are in need of ending a painful and horrible wait, until death takes them. I am 58 yrs old, and as I grow older I understand the need for compassion to those dying of painful and debilitating diseases. I vote a YES to physician aided suicide. "Live with dedication, die with dignity!"

Date: Tue, Jun 11, 1996 4:52 PM EDT From: jford@mail.tds.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that any physician should have the right to refuse to perform euthanasia. However, I feel that physician has an obligation to his or her patient to seek out another qualified physician that can render the necessary assistance. I am terminally ill myself and have agonized many times over having a qualified and loving physician to help me to end my life if the pain becomes unbearable.

I do not take this matter lightly. It is my life and I love being alive. But, I can see no reason to be in a state of uncontrollable pain. Many of the religious fanatics feel the more one suffers the more God loves you. I think God gave us a wonderful gift, LIFE, it is precious. He gave us a wonderful mind and many well informed physicians who know how to stop our suffering. Why can we so easily have out beloved pets euthanasied but our dearest loved ones we sit and moralize at the expense of their suffering with no hope of recovery.

It is a very dangerous area to grant the right to terminate life. It must not be taken lightly and all precautions that can be taken must be taken. The patient should be counseled by the family, physicians, priests and others who love him or her. But, in the end the decision must be the patients. I pray that when my time comes I won't have to ask for help but if I do I can only hope God will provide me with an angel in the form of a caring physician who will help me to leave my wonderful life with dignity and as pain-free as possible.


James Ford

Date: Thu, May 23, 1996 6:29 PM EDT From: readme@sccoast.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Dear sir,

I do not believe that anyone should aid in the death of another. I don't know if I should speak because I have never been in that situation. ... The [conclusion] is: Euthanasia should be illegalized in the US.

Dwight McInvaill

Date: Mon, May 6, 1996 11:54 AM EDT From: jjuarist@icb.gdl.uag.mx To: DoktorMo@aol.com

well!!! I Think this subject it's the most controvertial to answer, the physician must remember the bow that he made when he graduated, in which it said that you should preserve the life of anyone by all means, and it doesnt say anithing about causing dead, painless or not, of anyone.

Date: Mon, Apr 29, 1996 7:59 PM EDT From: TKennedy@L2.lonet.ca To: DoktorMo@aol.com

After completing a long researched ISP(independent study), I have come to the conclusion that helping a suffering person die should be legal. Refusing euthanasia can be discriminating towards the patient. Suicide is now legal in this country [Canada], and people who are disabled, or in a hospital setting may not be able to exercise this setting.

Raegan Kennedy

Date: Mon, Apr 1, 1996 10:00 PM EDT From: ssandler@passport.ca To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I do believe that doctors have every right to refuse to participate in Euthanasia, just as patients should have the right to terminate their own lives. Christian ethics dictate that suicide is a sin. Our laws in Canada and the United States are based upon those same Christian beliefs. But we now live in a society where many people are not Christian and many others with Christian backgrounds have abandoned these morals. So, is it not fair to say that the laws founded on those principles should be changed to give those with different morals the right to chose their own path in life and law. Whether it is to take your own life through Euthanasia or to refuse to help that person. The underlying dilemma in the debate over subjects such as euthanasia and abortion is firstly that it is in a very touchy area concerning religion and values, and secondly that people feel that even though the death of an unborn fetus they would never have contact with or the suicide of someone they have never met doesn't hurt them they are offended by it and feel it is their duty to stop it. We need to teach people to take responsability for their own actions and not to interfere with the lives of others if interference is not requested or wanted.

Stephen Sandler

Date: Sat, Mar 23, 1996 12:27 AM EDT From: Paula.Parsons@jcu.ed.au To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes I believe it is a physicians right to refuse to participate in active euthanasia. The physician still has rights, he/she may have a set of values/beliefs which clash with active participation. A persons religious beliefs may prevent them from participating etc.

In Australia recently, in the Northern Territory only, legislation has been introduced allowing euthanasia to be carried out legally in certain circumstances. Some doctors in the area have voiced opinions that they personally do not want to be associated with the termination of life, they fear (negative ) press. In response to this (a doctor I beleive) in the Territory has come up with a machine similiar to a PCA (Patient controlled analgesia) machine. This machine has a computer attached which asks the patient three questions related to thier consent, do they know what there doing etc... (with a keybord the patient keys in answers yes or no). If three yes answers the PCA type machine goes ahead and injects the patient with a lethal dose of drug. This then allows the patient to choose when, and whom they would like to have present at the time of death, the doctor is not necessarily present.

This is one suggestion to the delemma even if it is a little simplistic in the early stages as not all patients are able to type yes/no answers on a keyboard. But I do believe physicians have a right to refuse to participate in active euthanasia. It's a little like the abortion issue for every doctor who refuses to take part thankfully there are two who would agree to participate.


Date: Sun, Feb 25, 1996 3:56 PM EDT From: jflamini@erie.net To: DoktorMo@aol.com

As stated, there is no dilemma in a physician refusing to participate in any activity that the physician believes to be morally wrong or futile. The last post mentioned giving pain relieving medication. The ethical principle is the principle of double effect, in which the action is permitted if the intent is appropriate even if forseen but unintended adverse reactions may result. Thus a physician may give increasingly greater doses of narcotics to a gravely ill person suffering pain even if those doses of narcotics may be sufficient to cause respiratory embarassment and demise. This is in the case of terminally ill patients. Obviously, one would not treat trauma paitents, for instance, in this fashion. Please note that one must be intellectually honest to oneself here, and that the intent may not be double-edged. If the intent is valid, the act is valid. The pain must also be sufficiently severe and the alternative (suffering and pain) sufficiently severe to warrant this action. Much of the clamor for active euthanasia may well be eliminated if care givers became more agressive in treatment of pain with appropriate medication and consultation (pain management specialists are becoming more accessable). Pain is only one aspect of suffering, however, and we as a society must become much more adroit at amelioration of suffering (emotional, spiritual, familial, financial, etc) if the real issues (care for suffering patients, terminal or nonterminal) may be resolved. My medical school training was in the late '70 s, and even then the thrust was for "cure". Since medical school, however, the better dictum, "cure if possible (or desired by patient), but care always has become common. I also have no objection to patients refusing life sustaining or saving treatment if the reason is sufficient. For instance, a patient who takes an overdose and refuses treatment may receive treatment validly if the patient is felt to be suicidally depressed. A patient with advanced cancer refusing chemotherapy, even with good odds of success (define success as you like) is another matter. This, confusingly called "passive euthanasia" by some, is nothing more than the patient's right to self determination (autonomy) when the results are not in keeping with the patient's life goals.

John A. Flamini

Date: Sat, Nov 25, 1995 3:58 PM PST From: matts@earthlink.net (Matt Schwinger) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I think the answer is yes. A physician may decline to do anything that he feels is a)harmful b)futile or c)morally wrong. For example, a physician may refuse to perform an abortion also. There may be an obligation on the physicain to help the patient find another physician to help perform that which the original physician finds morally wrong. I should state for the record I would would be in favor of legalized euthanasia if the appropriate safeguards could be enacted. That's a big "if" however. I don't think that I could intentionally cause death per se. However, I am willing to provide pain relief even if I know the doses may cause respiratory arrest as an unintended side effect. I am not opposed to ther physicians intentionally causing death to a suffering, terminal patient either.

Date: Fri, Nov 24, 1995 11:43 AM PST From: crose@violin.aix.calpoly.edu X-From: crose@violin.aix.calpoly.edu (Christopher Rose) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

Yes, I believe it is right for a physician to refuse to participate in active euthanasia, because the physician has the right to do so. It seems to me that answers to questions regarding ethics will vary according to the source of the principles used, e.g. a religious or political basis. Although we all, including physicians, may or may not subject ourselves to these principles on a personal level, it may be the case that physicians have a duty to some sort of code of ethics and/or oath, simply by the nature of the profession.

I am not a physician, however, it is my understanding that many if not most physicians adhere to the guidelines set forth by the American Medical Association. The AMA does have a published code of ethics; a few of the codes follow below:

I apologize for the non-politically correct use of the word 'his' when referring to physicians; I could only obtain an older version of the code, I hope it has since then been corrected. The first code presents the standpoint that a physician has the responsibility to protect the dignity of his\her patient; it may be argued that active euthanasia is therefore an obligatory service of the physician if the patients dignity as a human being is jeopardized by the illness.

It is my understanding however that most states have laws against a physician participating in active euthanasia. This being the case, the physician would have the right to refuse active participation on the basis of the second code mentioned above; furthermore she/he would be obligated to refuse participation if indeed it is illegal.

Euthanasia should never be considered an emergency treatment; rather, it should be a well thought out alternative. Given this, the physician by virtue of the third code outlined above has the right to to choose his/her patient, including a patient seeking physician participation in active euthanasia.

Therefore, the physician has the right to refuse participation in active euthanasia based on the premise that she/he are professionally bound and free to practice the code of ethics outlined by the AMA.

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 1995 10:20 AM PST From: Kathleen.A.Hausmann.1@nd.edu X-From: Kathleen.A.Hausmann.1@nd.edu (Kathy Hausmann) To: DoktorMo@aol.com

I believe that the physician has the right to refuse to aid a patient in dying if the physician believes active euthanasia is wrong, because he/she should not be forced to complete and act that he/she finds morally wrong. However, if a physician finds nothing wrong with active euthanasia, the physician should be free to act in accordance with the patient's wishes (and ONLY if the TERMINALLY ILL patient wishes active euthanasia)

Should a time constraint be placed upon a terminally ill patient before they can access physician-assisted suicide (e.g. Oregon's Measure sixteen states that a patient must be diagnosed as having less than six months to live)?

Kathy Hausmann University of Notre Dame 1997 - Philosophy Kathleen.A.Hausmann.1@nd.edu http://www.nd.edu/~khausman

Reference Links to Views Pro and Con regarding Euthanasia


Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Scotland (VESS)

Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization

The Kevorkian Verdict (on PBS Frontline)




Ethics Updates on Euthanasia

Return to Bioethics Front Page
This page was last updated 7/18/2004