Euthanasia, your views

I think though that’s a bit of an issue in that language we use is emotive but I think for the protestors they actually fail to realise that we are not talking about putting people down as we do with pets. It’s a strange one really. I wonder when the my body my choice slogan will take off with this one, because people can chose to end their life as it is. It seems just pious rubbish to say it’s not happening and let them suffer on, we won’t help them. There’s a lot of parallels with the abortion debate but this is actually more clear cut I believe. It’s the lack of will and I think the cultural non discussion of death we Irish have that are huge stumbling blocks.

I think there's probably relatively little opposition to actually allowing people to end their own life in certain circumstances (including most of the situations already mentioned in this thread); the concerns that some people have though is how this will affect older people who maybe don't want to end their lives but may feel pressure (likely imagined in most cases) to euthanise themselves because they are "becoming a burden" on their loved ones.

Obviously the upshot of those concerns (if they are great enough) is opposition to allowing people to end their own life but there's a nuance there that's worth understanding.

Is what you've seen in Canada based on a few articles in a few right wing newspapers, the same newspapers that consistently oppose proper funding of health services and other services for people with disabilities, older people, people with mental health difficulties?

TB ... HIV/AIDS ... Heart Attacks/Heart Failure/Angina/Cardiomyopathy/Myocarditis ... MS ... Parkinson's Disease ... Bubonic Plague ... Smallpox ... Polio ... just some of the diseases that were once almost certainly terminal but now are either curable or treatable or there is vaccine for them .... we can add Covid in there too as a disease that was terminal for some but vaccines/anti viral drugs turned the tide .. people today can have these and live very long lives is the end result .... I don't see why cancer, ALS/MND/PBP, dementia and the other killers can also be dialled down ...

I agree that people cannot live forever but I also agree we do not have to necessarily die of say cancer or ALS no more than we now die of TB, some types of cancer or many forms of heart disease ... I believe we can win the only war that matters ... the war on diseases that still kill ... such diseases as ALS, pancreatic/lung/liver cancers and dementia are taking many young people to their graves ... I believe that can stop and if money unwisely used to fund war, enforcement of compulsory Hijab rags or indeed Ryan Tubridy was used instead for research, treatment, vaccines, etc. wrt diseases that remain killers then we could move forward to find cures or prolonged treatments to end prolific killer diseases often with a horror story prognosis ... e.g. progressive bulbar palsy .... what Charlie Bird has ....

..

That's absolutely not the reason for most dog owners. Expense might be a factor for some but the other is the fact you're putting it through unnecessary long term pain. Their quality of life will be gone. I'd happily keep a dog going if I was confident in their quality of life being okay.

Yes it is. You could choose to give the dog the same type of care and medication as a person gets to ease their suffering. The reason you don't is that you wouldn't spend hundreds (or thousands) per day that would be spent on the person (and the State won't cover it for you - understandably enough!).

What you are doing in the first step is refusing to pay the money to reduce or eliminate the suffering. Then the second step is to put down the animal due to the suffering.

If a dog gets cancer, there is nothing stopping you from spending tens of thousands on chemo and other treatment. You won't do it because it's not justifiable.

Would you agree on the State paying 10k for treatment that has a 50% chance of successfully treating Mary's mother's cancer?

Would you agree on the State paying 10k for treatment that has a 50% chance of successfully treating Mary's cat's cancer?

Now answer the same with you being Mary and you paying instead of the State

If your viewpoint depends on the subject being able to understand the treatment, then are you going to treat an infant or a mentally disabled person the same as the cat?

Ok. Fair enough. Apologies.

I hope you never have this come to you own door. All this whataboutery is meaningless when you learn about the limitations of medicine and you see somebody you love going through hell. Or worse still, you are the one who's suffering and can't do anything about it.

Same type of care a person gets?

If you force an animal to suffer you are committing a criminal offence.

If you force a human to suffer, it's something that under current law they just have to suck up.

A 'humane' death is only an option open to non-humans.