Switiching off life support, What's your opinion

I was wondering what peoples opinion on this were.

1. If the person in question is married, do the parents have a say so in whether or not to allow them to die?

2. If they do disconnect life support, is starvation and dehydration an appropriate way to "ease someone's suffering"? Or should they introduce a lethal drug like with a death row inmate?

3. Is this morally right or wrong? Should they be allowed the option to end their suffering or be kept around in hopes of some unforeseen cure in the future?

I mean for me personally if i was only being kept alive by machines i would want them to be turned off.

This is going to stir up some controversy, but if the person is better off dead, then why not pull the plug?

"Who are we to decide when somebody should die?"

When somebody is not living, but existing. If a person is going to be a vegetable for the rest of their lives, they are not living. They're existing.

indeed thats the whole point
'Who are we to decide when somebody should die?"

You are looking at the question in the wrong light, in my opinion.

The better question to ask is, "When is somebody not living?"

Like I said before, if somebody cannot perform trivial day-to-day activities such as using the bathroom and eating, then they become more of a burden to society, and those who are close to the 'vegetable' should have the decision of whether or not this person should be 'put down.'

There is a fine line between 'living' and 'existing.'

As long as their heart is beating on it's own they are living no matter what else functions.

Originally posted by silver_tears
As long as their heart is beating on it's own they are living no matter what else functions.

Not necessarily true. The heart will keep on beating so long as it is given a supply of nutrients and oxygen - That includes outside of the body. A person is only living if their brain is still functioning enough that it can organise the supply of said nutirents and oxygen to keep the whole body alive IMO anyway 🙂

This is extremely hard to answer. I really don't know what to chose here. I'll just simply say that if the patient is still showing signs of life or can possibly regain consiousness he/she should be allowed to continue life support.

Originally posted by ash007
I was wondering what peoples opinion on this were.

1. If the person in question is married, do the parents have a say so in whether or not to allow them to die?

2. If they do disconnect life support, is starvation and dehydration an appropriate way to "ease someone's suffering"? Or should they introduce a lethal drug like with a death row inmate?

3. Is this morally right or wrong? Should they be allowed the option to end their suffering or be kept around in hopes of some unforeseen cure in the future?

I mean for me personally if i was only being kept alive by machines i would want them to be turned off.

1. yes..parent should have a word.

2. life support is not to keep you fed and hydrated, but to keep your heart going....mainly keep you breathing. if you need life support, it's safe tu assume staying conscious is too much to ask from that certain person.....so he won't feel much hunger or thirst. that's not a problem you should consider.

3. i don't see it as morally wrong. man is meant to die, like any other species.....you shouldn't hang on to life when there are ony theoretical chances you'll recover.

sometimes, they recover...you don't always pull the plug....they have a purpose.

people have DNR orders which means basicly dont plug me in if i go i go.. if they dont have one and they are out of it family decides.. personaly I plan on having one once im older i see no point in living as a machine

because one might save your life. They are designed to have a purpose....
They wouldn't exist only as death postponers...
sometimes the body does recover..and you wake up from a coma, or..heavy trauma..or whatever