Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSocial Issues11yrs ago

Should terminally ill patients be allowed to end their lives via assisted suicide?

Euthanasia, the practice of ending a life prematurely in order to end pain and suffering, is currently considered a criminal offense.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

Reply

 @9F7KG6Qfrom Georgia  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, but only for mental retardation and also for individuals after a psychological examination to show they fully understand this choice.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

How would you feel if you had the power to end a loved one's suffering through a decision, knowing their condition is irreversible?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

What do you think about the idea of having the right to choose how one's life ends, especially in cases of extreme, untreatable pain?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

How might your personal values or beliefs influence your stance on whether individuals should have autonomy over their own life and death?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

Can you imagine a situation where ending one's own life might feel like an act of compassion rather than a crime?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

If a friend were suffering terminally, what advice would you give them about the choices they have at the end of their life?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

What are your thoughts on the balance between the sanctity of life and alleviating unbearable suffering when no cure is available?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

How might cultural or religious backgrounds shape one's opinion on whether assisted suicide should be a personal choice?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

Do you think that pain and the right to avoid it should factor into the legalization of assisted death for terminally ill patients?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

If you were to put yourself in the shoes of someone with a terminal illness, how might your perspective on assisted suicide change?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

What are the potential societal implications of legalizing assisted suicide for those who are terminally ill?

 @8ZY2RKD from New York  answered…2yrs2Y

No only for extreme situations

 @8YX4JT9 from Texas  answered…3yrs3Y

If life is only causing a patient pain, then the decision for them to end their life is morally okay.

 @93ZP8QG from North Carolina  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but only if there is no chance they will survive their illness, and only after a psychological examination to show they fully understand this choice. I personally disagree with euthanasia, but it should remain a personal choice.

 @8TP6QKSanswered…3yrs3Y

No, but they should not be prevented from ending their own lives without assistance

 @8QG5XSM from Indiana  answered…4yrs4Y

only if they are in pain on a daily basis

 @8X3KQBN from Nevada  answered…3yrs3Y

No, I think instead they should be helped any way they can and prevent suicides if possible.

 @6HM8ZBP from New York  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only if there is zero chance of recovery, and they are found to be in a sound psychological state following an examination

 @7W3SBDC from Florida  answered…4yrs4Y

This is more of a state choice.

 @7GLVLCC from Colorado  answered…4yrs4Y

They can't survive and had a psychological workup.

 @89CDM9C from Kansas  answered…3yrs3Y

Only in cases where the patient is facing an imminent painful death.

 @842VWLK from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

no, life is precious even when terminally ill

 @Davidc0302 from Oregon  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, and extent this right to non-ill individuals

 @8CYG8KL from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

While it is inhumane, it is more inhumane to let someone suffer in the hellish abyss that is terminal mental illness, if there is a chance they can be saved, then we should try for a certain amount of time, the amount of time depends on the illness, but if it's impossible, then don't let them suffer.

 @8DP6P7F from Massachusetts  answered…4yrs4Y

They should in theory, but right now we don't have the resources to morally do this, some people end up having to go earlier than they wanted because they may no be able to give consent at the time that they intended to die.

 @8FB9K6P from Missouri  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, assisted suicide should be allowed in general.

 @8FPLGKD from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but only if the medical professional also consents to performing the procedure.

 @giannadavison888 from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but only if there is no chance they will survive their illness or they are in extreme pain.

 @8H2G98J from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

This is something I don't feel comfortable having a strong opinion on.

 @8JN8BGC from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

Only if they don't want to be on life support or are brain dead.

 @8L2DQDJ from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

yes but only if there is no chance they will survive their illness and after a psychological examination to show they fully understand this choice

 @8L55CZ7 from Utah  answered…4yrs4Y

This is only up to the person, and should not be a political issue.

 @NotShaggy3 from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but only if they go through a psychological examination to show they fully understand the choice.

  @buday4vancouver from Washington  answered…4yrs4Y

Not assisted, if they want to do it themselves, up to them. Leave some cleanup money behind.

 @8PZ7LSP from Indiana  answered…4yrs4Y

Even though I disagree with it, allow them to do it if there are no other options

 @8QW98GR from Nebraska  answered…4yrs4Y

yes but as long as it is completely their choice and no one is indirectly forcing them

 @8SLRGMY from Oklahoma  answered…4yrs4Y

I say yes if that’s what they really wish and how they went to leave the world. It just depends on the person.

 @8YT6XX7 from Indiana  answered…3yrs3Y

uh i dont really know

 @lucasnat0r from Illinois  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes but only in cases where survival is impossible and life is unbearable.

 @8XCJY2Y from Kansas  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes as long as their family is ok with it.

 @92T58MH from Illinois  answered…3yrs3Y

family has to be involved in decision

 @92MKPWZ from California  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only if there is no chance they will survive and show full understanding of their choice.

 @8TLGGNV from Indiana  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only for terminal illnesses

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Pete Hegseth Slams Gay Troops Policy

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, has repeatedly criticized policies allowing gay people to serve openly in the US military, calling them part of a “Marxist” agenda to prioritize social justice over combat readiness.In his 2024 book “The War on Warriors” and in subsequent media promotions this year, Hegseth described both the original “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy and its repeal in 2011 as a “gateway” and a “camouflage” for broader cultural changes that he claims have undermined military cohesion and effectiveness.In a 2015 appearance on Fox News, Hegseth also argued these policies like repealing DADT “erode standards” in favor of political goals like social engineering.DADT was implemented under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s and allowed gay people and lesbians to serve in the military — provided they did not disclose their sexuality. Military officials were also barred from asking military members their sexual orientation. If a troop’s orientation came to light, it could lead to their discharge.The policy was repealed during the Obama administration, allowing openly gay service members.Hegseth writes in his book that he was initially ambivalent to the change but came to regret his passive stance, describing the repeal as a “breach in the wire” that opened the door for broader cultural and ideological changes in the military.On Thursday, Hegseth appeared to walk back his earlier remarks about DADT, telling CNN, “Oppose the repeal? No, I don’t,” and calling this report on his previous comments “more false reporting.”

▲  1811 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Vetting Fiasco: Trump's Defense Pick Caught in Sexual Assault Allegation Storm

CNN commentator and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said President-elect Donald Trump’s team missed Pete Hegseth’s payoff to a sexual assault accuser when they vetted him to be secretary of defense.Hegseth is among a raft of cabinet picks facing tough confirmations, and who aren’t being subjected to the customary FBI checks, instead being vetted by private firms. Over the weekend, Hegseth’s attorney dropped the bomb that there was a confidential settlement with a woman who accused the former Fox News host of sexual assault. On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Haberman revealed that her sources in Trump world did not know about the payoff, which was missed in the vetting “because it was a private settlement”HABERMAN: There’s more concern from some people around Trump than there is from Trump himself, about this whole issue. Trump has really dug in, and has told advisers that he is going to stick with Hegseth. Now, we’ll see if anything else emerges.They did do a vet, we are told. This did not show up, this issue, because it was a private settlement, according to the people, who were briefed on what took place. Trump really likes Pete Hegseth. But this did introduce the thing Trump doesn’t like, which is an element of surprise and a negative headline. And so, we will see where this goes.

▲  59 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1wk1W

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  1914 replies3 agree