[Old Professer]

It is wrong to have a right to die.

Any death that requires the assistancee of another person or the intentional neglect of that person is not a right but a sanctioned action that has but one purpose and that is to rid society of the burden of caring for the afflicted person either emotionally or physically.

There is no dignity involved, nor is there any compelling state interest.

The problem we face is that we have already bought a bill of goods.

Let's call it what it is: euthansia.

[HiTech RedNeck]

There isn't anything remotely "eu" about this "thanasia." Getting dried out over 15 days. That says, at the least, the person was nowhere near death's door. If they really need to go quick, there is always the Japanese dehydration suicide: swallow a cup of salt. (I'm not advocating this!!!!!!)

[ClancyJ]

Gee, your points are so simple, so straightforward and cut to the very heart of the matter. Thank you.

[ChemistCat]

I think it would be wrong for ME because of my religious beliefs.

Other people have other beliefs. If they impose those only on themselves, IE through a living will, I respect that. I don't agree because we do not share the body of beliefs that result in that decision, but I respect their decision. That's how it is with my mom and I. I honor my mother and father, and will respect their decisions. I will NOT pull the plug, and they know that. But I won't stand in the way if, by the conditions of their living will, it's time for that to be done.

Many terminal patients "turn their faces to the wall and refuse to eat." I think their bodies tell them it's time. That's SO DIFFERENT from cutting off someone else's food and water when they haven't expressed the desire and ARE NOT TERMINAL as Terri wasn't!

[paulklenk]

Let's call it what it is: euthansia.

Let's call it what it is: euphemism.