by Karl Luedecke

Created on: November 02, 2008

Euthanasia is not murder. The intelligent people in this world with education and things of this nature constitutionally are not forbidden to perform this act. It's strictly a moral issue and a factual issue as to whether or not the incident is in fact a case of Euthanasia. Their should probably be a structure as to how Euthanasia occurs though. No instance of Euthanasia is murder. It is against the constitution to say it is not. Worldwide, this world is based on a set of global principles that outline opportunity. The opportunity for every man or woman to be killed at the hand of anyone that they would like to be killed by. Euthanasia, like I said, is not murder in any instance. The influence of another person could lead some people to believe that the act was in fact forced upon the said dead, but that is why I believe that there should be a structure to how Euthanasia is performed, kind of like an abortion clinic. That does not mean that the death of said patient should be limited. It should kind of be like that movie Hostel. Accept the payee is on the other side of the situation. Actually, to be more efficient, the government should not only control Euthanasia, but tax it, charge the patient and the person performing the act of Euthanasia. Incur high tax and subsidy laws onto the Euthanasia firm. Require it to be foreign and only allow its employees to be in a certain form and stature. This will promote a more clean society and demote a disgusting overview of the way things are currently. Besides, if you are submitting at all anyways, you deserve to die in my opinion, and that is not consciencious, I do believe that.

As I recall a certain instance of Euthanasia when I was a little Ionic kid in my own little world of behavioral sciences, I noticed several things about society from this certain instance. One was that the instance was not particularily important. The doctor who was tried for the instance probably reported the instance in his medical documentation. Probably received a check for the ashes in the cremation. Probably had signed consents from the family of said submission. He was convicted. Why? Now this is strictly recollection, but my synopsis of the situation from a very tiny and unimportant and unsequential perspective is that he was found guilty because the issue was not 100% addressed by half of the population. Meaning, nobody cared and the laws of nature grant the power of submission to the higher authority. What he should have done in my opinion is pulled out a gun and shot himself in the foot in the courtroom and said "is that not constitutional." Humor is a funny thing. That is probably the reason why this guy was thrown into jail. People that cared enough to make this decision on this guy's life just felt like throwing him in jail and the defense did not know how to rebut something so new, so hot, so fresh so marvelous. The mockery of life was really the only thing the defense had to get over. Too bad that that guy wasn't smart enough to get out. O well, it was a step in the right direction.

Learn more about this author, Karl Luedecke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.