Assisted suicide

NBVegita · March 2, 2009

So with the current article in the news about Final Exit I feel it brings up a good debate:

Should medically assisted suicide be legal or not?

I personally feel that if you want to end your life, it's much better to have a medical professional help you, than to try it yourself. Or in the case that you are unable to do it yourself. Obviously with regulations.

What are your opinions?

SeVeR · March 2, 2009

Suicide is insanity, so i say yes. Help insane people die if they want to.

NBVegita · March 2, 2009

I wouldn't necessarily agree.

My fiance's grandfather just passed away after two months of being on level 10-15 oxygen (fluctuating) and having a morphine drip under his tongue to simply make the pain bearable.

I don't think I would have called him insane for wanting to end that.

Nor would I consider someone who has (insert terminal medical illness) from trying to die before their body is wracked with pain/disease/ect.

**Samapico** · March 2, 2009

I think trying to keep people alive no matter what for as long as possible is insane. Of course don't make it so anyone has the 'right' to have someone end their life... That would be crazy. But people who are obviously dependent on medical instruments and can't do anything on their own, and have no chance whatsoever of ever recovering, they should have the right to choose to keep going or not. However, one issue that could appear is if the patient is not even able to make the decision... can the family take the decision for that person? Could get tricky...

Tigron-X · March 2, 2009

It's not murder, so I don't see anything wrong with it. I think each case, however, needs to be very well documented before such a procedure is carried out.

»Lynx · March 2, 2009

Who has the right to the choice of life? I know that somebody in so much pain they can't think straight shouldn't, neither should the doctor, and the family shouldn't be left with the burden. I believe the only right you should have (and do have) is the right to deny treatment (while being capable to do so). The only thing this will lead to is an easy way out of something difficult, which shouldn't even be an option. Look at abortion, in the UK they've increased tenfold since abortion laws have loosened up, which I personally believe isn't right either.

Then again, each to their own. I'm very pro-life, and I think death shouldn't be a choice at any time.

btw, I'm not at all religious.

-L

**PoLiX** · March 3, 2009

We passed a law allowing it here in Washington pretty much copying the one Oregon had this year. It has a lot of restrictions, but I agree with it.

if you're terminal and suffering, and want to go, why shouldn't you have the choice to choose death? Why should you have to spend your last days in pain, or dazed and confused because your on so many pain meds you're really not functioning as a normal human beeing anymore?

**Samapico** · March 3, 2009

The thing is, in most of these cases, the person should be already dead in the first place if it wasn't for artificial blood pumped by an artificial heart and oxygen pumped directly in there...

**PoLiX** · March 4, 2009

Agreed.

Aceflyer · March 4, 2009

We passed a law allowing it here in Washington pretty much copying the one Oregon had this year. It has a lot of restrictions, but I agree with it.

if you're terminal and suffering, and want to go, why shouldn't you have the choice to choose death? Why should you have to spend your last days in pain, or dazed and confused because your on so many pain meds you're really not functioning as a normal human beeing anymore?

Agreed PoL. Pro-lifers shouldn't have the right to force other people - people who may not share their views - to endure such cruel and unusual torture.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Aceflyer

»Lynx · March 5, 2009

We passed a law allowing it here in Washington pretty much copying the one Oregon had this year. It has a lot of restrictions, but I agree with it.

if you're terminal and suffering, and want to go, why shouldn't you have the choice to choose death? Why should you have to spend your last days in pain, or dazed and confused because your on so many pain meds you're really not functioning as a normal human beeing anymore?

Agreed PoL. Pro-lifers shouldn't have the right to force other people - people who may not share their views - to endure such cruel and unusual torture.

You make it sound like the pro-lifers are administering the illness or problem which is killing the person. As I said, you have the right to deny treatment and you also have the right to pain medication. On top of that, if you're incapacitated your medical proxy has the right to deny treatment for you... The only cases where this logic doesn't really flow so well are cases where the brain has been damaged, in whatever way, for example dementia.

I have pity for the loved ones who have to watch the person they love slipping away slowing, and I have pity for the person suffering dementia to witness them selves switch from a conscious state, to an uncontrollable body, back to a conscious state, and in this type of case then assisted suicide is understandable, but again... In the case of dementia, a lot of people demand that they do not want to die, however a lot of people do. It's also not like you can just ask somebody with dementia 'Would you like to die' as the trauma of dementia alone is likely to prevent somebody to think along any kind of rational train of thought. So then, it falls to the proxy, loved one, or whoever who has to decide - but as I said in the first place, what gives them the right to the choice of life?

Then, another view in this debate is the doctor who is actually administering the medication to assisted suicide. What if he doesn't want to? What if it's against his personal views and ideology? What gives the patient the right to demand a doctor to go against his Hippocratic oath?

This whole debate isn't as simple as 'do you think it's right or wrong' but more so 'it's very wrong, however in certain circumstances it's slightly less complicated, but a still a hell of a conundrum'.

Also, no doubt the T&C's of assisted suicide will change every year, as each case is reviewed, and as new doctors are voted into the decision makers board. This is probably one of the most greyscale things you can argue about, and furthermore, there's the chances of people bastardising other peoples decisions, and it becoming more of a normality (like abortion) and getting abused.

-L

NBVegita · March 5, 2009

This whole debate isn't as simple as 'do you think it's right or wrong' but more so 'it's very wrong, however in certain circumstances it's slightly less complicated, but a still a hell of a conundrum'.

To you, it's very wrong, to me it isn't.

People have been using euthanasia for centuries yet now it is magically wrong? I mean if a horse breaks his legs and he'll never be able to walk again, they kill it for it's own sake. If an animal gets rabies, you kill it for it's own sake. Yet if I were say to become a quadrapalegic, with brain function, it would be wrong for someone to help me die? Or I have to go through the extremely painful and torturous natural death process?

I agree with you on the fact that with something like dimensia it becomes very complicated, but if you are in full brain function and willing want to end your life, specifically due to a serious medical condition, it is only humane to help you do so. You say that have a right to pain killers, but no pain killers in the world, short of knocking you unconcious can takle the pain of a serious brain tumor. Also you say to dope them up, so then they're really not "alive". A person's life isn't simply the years in there life, it's the life in their years.

It is cruel to force someone to die a painful or prolonged death, when they could pass on very painlessly and immediately. It's cruel to the person and to the family.

As for the doctors, you don't have to force doctors to do this, simply allow doctors to do this. Obviously with regulations.

»Lynx · March 5, 2009

You're saying that a horse is the same a human? You're saying that your life is as important as a rabbits? Well sorry Rodger, but that whole argument is void, and if that's your way of thinking about this subject then I'm glad you're not in any power to make a decision.

A horse is put down after it's leg is broken, because of our understanding of a horse - it runs. However, a human isn't there to just complete a simplified set of functions (simplified for whatever reason, greed, ignorance or whatever else), but we're here to exist. We make friends, we have emotion, and whatever other trait an animal doesn't do. The very fact that we're having this conversation makes your whole argument mood and pointless and apparently only there to set a very dumbed-down point.

As for people practicing euthanasia for centuries... People have been practicing abortion for centuries too, even very late in the birth process however yes now, it is 'magically' very wrong. I agree, this is a debate of opinions and views and morals and ideologies and whatever other drive is personal to you. And yes, if you were to become a quadrapalegic... Or, paralised, then it would be very wrong for somebody to assist in your suicide with an euphoric sympathy death, other than a natural death. Also, could your elaborate on the pain and torture of tetraplegia? If we still stoned people to death, would it make it any more right? History is no backing for the acceptance of euthanasia.

However as you've said, and I've said - that's my opinion, and you can hold yours. If I were disabled for whatever reason, I'd be thankful that at least I'm alive. If I were deaf, I'd still appreciate the beauty that I can see through my eyes, and if I were to be in a car crash tomorrow and become quadrapalegic, I'd be unhappy but eventually accept this circumstance, and appreciate what I do have.

And as for regulation, and as I've already said, what makes this regulation right other than the views of a small sect of people? History has shown that environmental factors that can sway decisions consistently occur, and if that's the case surely it's easier to practice medication the way we do now, a way which the majority of professionals accept as working, beneficial and morally correct. It's not like this kind of this is not regularly discussed, and that euthanasia isn't loosely practiced when people are allowed to pass away painlessly.

-L

edit: typo

Edited March 5, 2009 by Lynx

»Lynx · March 5, 2009

A quick edit:

On the euthanasia being practiced for centuries...

Hippocratic Oath:

I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

- Dates back to 4th century BC.

NBVegita · March 5, 2009

»Lynx · March 5, 2009

NBVegita · March 5, 2009

First, the oath you quoted is outdated, the modern oath is:

Spoiler! --Click here to view--

Second, what I was quoting is that I interpreted what you posted as insinuating that simply because it there were oaths against it, it meant it wasn't widely practiced. Also note that an apothecary wasn't required to take such an oath. I was simply stating that just because there are posted statements against it, does not mean it is not very wide spread.

Because that specific argument comes from somebody who's religious, we should disregard this statement because it *might be religiously driven?

No, it should not be disregarded, but when you quote a source that contains religion, it must also be stated that most religions are stoutly against both abortion and euthanasia, thus you are not producing a neutral source. That would be tantamount to the republican party quoting Rush Limbaugh to support one of their stances. Is his opinion irrelevant? No. Is it bias? Yes.

Yeah, Hitler thought he was doing disabled people a favour when he put them down too. Just because your view of disabled life makes you unhappy, it doesn't mean that everybody views life as a disabled person that way.

Now you are changing my position. Never have I stated that I support involuntary euthanasia, simply that I support voluntary euthanasia. If you are happy being sick/ill/disable/insert item here, so be it. My argument is that if you are unhappy with the aforementioned you should be able to have a humane and peaceful way of ending your life.

abortion being more accepted (due to I believe, legal factors loosening up) doesn't make it any more right,...Again, if it's my view that a baby should have the right to life, that's my view. If it's your view that it's just a fetus and isn't actually a living thing, and that the mother has the right to kill that baby 'within a certain time frame' or whatever, then that's your view.

You just contradicted yourself. The idea of "right and wrong" are solely based on opinion. In this case I simply stated that abortion has become more accepted, in which by legal and social standards it has. If the majority of people still believed it to be wrong, then it would be less accepted and certainly less legal. Being right and wrong are relative, it may still not be right to you, but that does not mean as a whole abortion is any less right or wrong.

I forgot that if you become a quadriplegic you no longer have any family or friends... Oh yeah, and I also forgot them quadriplegics couldn't talk to their kids, or talk to their friends or have any of their own thoughts. Sorry about that... Just because you have no use of your arms or legs it doesn't mean it's the end of the world, it means you don't have control of your arms or legs anymore.

Maybe to you, maybe to millions of people, but there are a lot of people who don't look at it that way. I for one, have always been an active person, I love working, doing sports and being outdoors. If I could do none of that, my life would effectively end. Yes I would still have family, for which I would be a constant burden upon. Would they still love me? Sure, they're my family. Would I ever enjoy my life? Never like I used to. I wouldn't want to live never being able to hug my fiance (well eventually wife), never holding her hand. Even if we got insemination to have kids, I would grow up never being able to hold my child, play ball with my son, dance with my daughter. I mean I could go on and on and on. For some people that kind of diminished quality of life isn't worth living for. I for one, would feel that way. I'm simply stating that if you feel that your quality of life is that poor, you should have an efficient peaceful way to end your life.

And yes, if they are continually scruitinising the euthanasia decision, yet still respecting morals and other views pragmatically, then ... Damn right, if it's not broken, why fix it? Sounds pretty damn diplomatic to me.

First off that is not how your original sentence came off. Second if they are constantly scrutinizing it, then they are not simply going by the don't fix it method. If they are constantly evaluating it, society, and those environmental factors will change it one day. Maybe to make it more strict, maybe to lessen the regulations, but it will change as we as a people change.

With euthanisia, you're trying to create legislation which will allow people to kill themselves because they're not happy - which can easily be miscomprehended or abused.

How so? I find it hard to miscomprehend the concept of someone wanting to live or die.

If you saw somebody standing on a bridge as you walked by, about to jump... Would you just say 'Hey fuck it, jump... It don't matter because you're not in my way or anything... Go for it' or would you maybe try to talk them down?

Personally, I may (depending on the circumstances) try to talk with them about why they want to commit suicide. Yet I do understand that some circumstances result where you really don't have much reason left to live. My Aunt recently go laid off and one of the gentlemen who got laid with her off would have, in my opinion a valid reason to commit suicide. Less than a week ago his house burned down, he lost all possessions his two dogs and his wife. Now he just lost his job, his retirement was destroyed by the economy and he has no children and only one living relative. If he was on the ledge and told me that story, I'd pat him on the back and walk away. I don't feel that as a person I have the right to dictate what another person should do with their life and that includes whether or not to live or die.

What's stopping somebody with really bad arthritis from wanting the assisted suicide because they're in pain until they die... My dad always complains about his knees, wrists, elbows and hands... I've not seen him setting the noose up yet.

Again, there are levels of pain and it's a personal choice. You are arguing this like I'm trying to legalize involuntary euthanasia. Also you can't compare arthritis to the pain that the majority of terminally ill cancer patients go through. If you can tolerate the pain and feel you have plenty to live for by all means do what you are doing. If you are in such pain that you feel it's not worth living through I support having a peaceful means of resolving the situation.

By definition, you're clinically depressed if you want to kill yourself. That alone prevents you from being able to make medical decisions.

Nice to know we have an MD on the forums. As stated prior there are a ton of reasons to want to kill yourself. I support it if you have a severe disability or illness. I don't support euthanizing a patient simply because they're willing to pay you. Also there is a difference from being chronically depressed and being depressed. Simply having chronic depression doesn't limit your mental capacity anymore than feeling any other emotion. You wouldn't win a court case saying the only reason I killed that man was because I was depressed. Or I shouldn't be responsible for this credit card bill because I'm clinically depressed and shopping makes me feel better.

I'd much rather see someone with an illness or disability have their life ended clinically in the hospital than hear about their brains being splattered all over the sidewalk because they jumped off a building. Also from a family point of view, if my fiance had say an inoperable brain tumor and decided to commit suicide to end the pain, I'd rather see her pass away peacefully in a hospital surrounded by friends and family than come home on day to her wrist slit/her hanging from the ceiling/her brains scattered against the wall.

»Lynx · March 5, 2009

If you're chronically depressed, of course your mental capacity to make a decision is going to be clouded. Thousands of people have a bad point in their life where they consider suicide, however they do not actually go all the way - and those who are clinically depressed will look at suicide as a viable option to end their depression, while others won't. That alone shows that their mental capacity is going to be swayed. If you've lost your house, car and wife due to an accident, well, that's terrible however it's not a reason to die. It's likely that their life will never be the same, and they will need counseling and whatever else to try and overcome the trauma of such bad things, but suicide in this particular case most defiantly doesn't deserve a pat on the back. And here's my point of where to draw the line between what's right and wrong in assisted suicide? It may be very wrong now for assisted suicide as a whole, however, in a year from now assisted suicide for those with less than six months left to live may be allowed, then two years from then assisted suicide for those with pain issues may be allowed with less scruitinisation, to four years from now you have euthanasia clinics like those you have in Zurich, Switzerland. Also, if I came home to my fiances brains splattered all over the walls, with her wrists slit hanging from the ceiling, I'd firstly be baffled at how she done it, but secondly be disheartened that my fiance would be so selfish take her life in such a disgusting manner because she's too weak to face the music. Also, on the involuntary euthanasia - what about those who are constantly suffering pain factor 10, yet can't talk or telegraph that they would like or not like euthanasia? Wouldn't it come to the next of kin making a decision, and what if that decision isn't really what the patient wanted and there were then medical advances to reverse the said condition...

I have a very close friend who had cancer when he was 16, and I personally talked him out of suicide - and he beat the cancer then when we were 18, he got diagnosed with it again however in just under two years is now clear of cancer again. Within this time, there have been plenty of ups, and a lot more downs yet he has thanked me on many occasions for the time I talked to him when we were 16... He's faced a lot of pain, and overcome it. Although his condition never was inoperable, it's not a pleasant way to live yet he still fought through it. If I hadn't been there though, would he still be here now? I doubt it...

Also, there are constant medical advances - such as those for inoperable lung cancer - I think it's called RFA which can add another two years to life expectancy. I'd rather live my life and treasure every day I have more than fall into pity and take the easy option in a euphoric death - however, that's my opinion... as I stated, and if it were my friends in a bad position, I'd try to talk them the same opinions I hold to prevent them from taking the easy way out. If that makes me selfish, then so be it - but that's my moral standpoint.

-L

**PoLiX** · March 6, 2009

Not gonna read all of that, but just a funny fact they discussed on the news last night (Had a special story on this since it just recently went into effect here in Washington), and oddly enough, there have been less assisted suicides in Oregon since the law went in effect (1st state to) than on avg in states where it is illegal. And in the states that it is illegal in, it is only the known cases. So the fact it is now tracked and monitored more effeciently, it has scared most doctors from doing it illegally for the patient, and the amount of time it takes for all the paperwork to go through gives a patient time to 2nd guess themselves. Also all the mental tests, and the reviews their request has to go through threw a lot of requests out.

So really, imho, the law allowing it is safer than not having it.

NBVegita · March 6, 2009

I ask you, if chronic depression isn't enough to get you realeased from a crime, so thus legally you know right from wrong, how would that stop you from being able to make a decision as to live or die? Yes depression effects you, but no more than anger or happiness does.

Also I don't see why we as a people should dictate if people can take their lives or not. I just view it as a personal choice. I personally feel its better for these people to do it peacefully, than to do it painfully.

Again, I do not support any involuntary euthanasia, short of someone having power of attourney over the patient. As the person with power of attourney could take them off like support and thus end their life, or do it a more humane way. Obviously with regulations.

If you've lost your house, car and wife due to an accident, well, that's terrible however it's not a reason to die.

To you, maybe not. To someone else? Maybe. It is my ultimate stance that regardless of if you feel it is a good reason or not, you shouldn't have a say in the matter. The only person whom you should have a say over who lives or dies is yourself (or the situation above). Simply by taking away a peaceful method for a person to do it, because you don't believe in it, is in itself the definition of selfish.

Also, if I came home to my fiances brains splattered all over the walls, with her wrists slit hanging from the ceiling, I'd firstly be baffled at how she done it, but secondly be disheartened that my fiance would be so selfish take her life in such a disgusting manner because she's too weak to face the music.

First off I didn't imply all three. the / was one or the other. Second why is that selfish? Is it not selfish that you wish her to go through months of brutal therapy, being drugged near incoherency, wracked in pain simply to spend another few months or years with her? I would say that committing suicide is the opposite of being weak. Most people will grasp on to every thread of their lives for absolute fear of death. They will do what ever possible at the inconvenience of everyone in their lives to drag out a hopeless situation longer and longer. Where as this person has simply come to terms with the fact that they will die, maybe tomorrow, maybe 3 years from now and are not afraid to die.

Thats great for your friend. It is his choice. But again there is a huge difference between inoperable, and operable. There are dozens of examples to go one way or another. You seem to think that I believe anyone ill should kill themselves. I absolutely do not. I am simply stating if they want to, give them a human avenue to do it.

Also, there are constant medical advances - such as those for inoperable lung cancer - I think it's called RFA which can add another two years to life expectancy. I'd rather live my life and treasure every day I have more than fall into pity and take the easy option in a euphoric death

First off why does euthanasia mean you're looking for pity? In fact I would say that it is the opposite. Also medical advances are great, but not many people can afford cutting edge technology. As for your two years, great you have blood pumping through your body for another two years...but that doesn't mean you are alive.

Again my whole argument is that a person who is willing to commit suicide should have a humane way to do it. Am I saying to not have councelling set up or any of that? No. Yet if someone is determined to do it, they should have a humane and peaceful means to do it.

**Drake7707** · March 6, 2009

Euthanasia is already legal in Belgium if the one that decides to end his life is mentally healthy and not having delusions etc

Synister · March 15, 2009

So with the current article in the news about Final Exit I feel it brings up a good debate:

Should medically assisted suicide be legal or not?

I personally feel that if you want to end your life, it's much better to have a medical professional help you, than to try it yourself. Or in the case that you are unable to do it yourself. Obviously with regulations.

What are your opinions?

Honestly, I think if someone wants to die and they don't have the balls to do it themselves there shouldn't be a law saying you can't have help. It's kind of too controlling when laws state you cant have assisted suicide.

If I was suicidal I'd wanna die the way I wanna die. If I want my best friend to drop a rock on my head than so be it..

But in general the states have alot of messed up laws and I heard in some states theres a law saying assisted suicide is legal. I don't know.. not sure.

**PoLiX** · March 15, 2009

I heard in some states theres a law saying assisted suicide is legal. I don't know.. not sure.

Oregon (1st State to pass a law allowing it), and Washington.

But as I said before, funny enough, since passing it, Oregon has had less assisted suicides than the avg state without the law.

Stibbymicto · March 17, 2009

Then, another view in this debate is the doctor who is actually administering the medication to assisted suicide. What if he doesn't want to? What if it's against his personal views and ideology? What gives the patient the right to demand a doctor to go against his Hippocratic oath?

Just a quick note.

Are you saying that a Doctor should NOT help people if it goes against his beliefs?

My mom is christian and is a nurse in a clinic were she gets all kinds of stories, one of which is abortion.

She strongly disagrees with abortion, but, she still does it because it is her job.

A doctors job is to try and save as many lives as he/she can OR help ease the pain of those dieing.

By assisted suicide, the doctor is fulfilling his/her job regardless of beliefs and/or an oath.

NBVegita> No, it should not be disregarded, but when you quote a source that contains religion, it must also be stated that most religions are stoutly against both abortion and euthanasia, thus you are not producing a neutral source. That would be tantamount to the republican party quoting Rush Limbaugh to support one of their stances. Is his opinion irrelevant? No. Is it bias? Yes.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Stibbymicto

»Lynx · March 17, 2009

Firstly, your mother should reconsider her line of work if she clearly doesn't like a major factor of her job. You seem to word it as if she turned up to work one day, knowing nothing about abortions, to turning on the hover and sucking babies out of bellies. Sorry, but I'm a skeptic to your story, and I'm a skeptic to how much your mother believes that abortion is wrong, and I'm a skeptic to how you're reading my posts.

Abortions, I believe are sometimes a sheer necessity. If somebodies life is dramatically endangered by a child, or the child's life is dramatically endangered by the carrier, then abortion should be carried out to try and preserve either life as best as possible. For example, if a mother is in a car crash, and has a 10% chance of living, but the babies life could still be saved by abortion, then I'm all for abortion. Same goes for if the baby is theoretically killing the mother, and there is nothing anybody can do but kill the baby to save the mothers life. However, when it comes to naive kids having sex without condoms and then demanding abortions, I say fuck that, and fuck them.

Secondly, if I were afraid of flying, I wouldn't get a job as an airline pilot.

Also, your very over simplified view of what a doctors job is kinda makes me giggle. If this whole case was as black and white as you just suggested, I'm sure that we wouldn't be having this debate, and if a doctors job were to just be saving lives and easing pain, I'm near certain that assisted suicide should never be an option. Easing pain, near by definition would be to keep the person alive. Assisted suicide terminates the life, and therefore is neither saving a life or easing the pain.

-L

ps. thanks for the bolding of nb's reply, I would have never even read that if it weren't for you to parade it in front of me as if it were yours.

Sign In

Assisted suicide

Assisted suicide
19 members have voted

1. Should people be allowed to perform assisted suicide?

Recommended Posts

NBVegita

SeVeR

NBVegita

Samapico

Tigron-X

»Lynx

PoLiX

Samapico

PoLiX

Aceflyer

»Lynx

NBVegita

»Lynx

»Lynx

NBVegita

»Lynx

NBVegita

»Lynx

PoLiX

NBVegita

Drake7707

Synister

PoLiX

Stibbymicto

»Lynx

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity

Assisted suicide

Assisted suicide 19 members have voted

1. Should people be allowed to perform assisted suicide?

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation

Assisted suicide
19 members have voted