I can't decide which one to accept

[Vicious Storms]

Sorry in advance if this is in the wrong place. I can't decide which option to accept because they state good reasons for their thoughts. I'm just looking for opinions.
______________________________________________________

The Issue
Dorothy Terwilliger lies immobilized in a hospital bed, unable to move. She has end-stage cancer, and wishes to end her struggle against death. However, laws prevent her doctors from obeying her wishes.

The Debate
Dorothy and her family are campaigning for a "Dying with Dignity" bill, to change this situation. She implores the government to legalize euthanasia.

Accept

"I understand this is a very difficult time for these people," says freelance medical writer Prudence Jefferson. "But the solution is not to let our medical system slide down the slippery slope of killing people in pain. We must cure, not kill. This is not the right time for euthanasia."

Accept

"I agree, but go further: there is never a right time for euthanasia," says Bishop Naki Dredd. "The lives we lead are given to us by the grace of God, and he decides when they end. It is not for us to question God's divine purpose, no matter how odd or screwed-up it may seem."

Accept
____________________________________________

Please give your opinion.

[Secruss]

I chose the last one.

You can always dismiss it. You don't need to decide a position on every issue.

[Ballotonia]

I always pick #1, to increase personal freedoms.

Ballotonia

[College Football]

In instances like this I always ask "if it were me, what would I want?" In this instance I would want to die with dignity, so I voted for option one. But as quoted by another person earlier, you need not reply to all issues. You can dismiss the ones you are not clear on.

[Greater Somalia]

For that issue, I always select option 1.I don't like to interfere with other people's personal choices (as long as it doesn't pose any threat to the rest of society).

[Galloism]

I also go with #1. It's the person's free choice that should allow him or her to die. Besides, we should have pity on people who are suffering and will never recover. By rejecting it, you deny her the decency given to the common dog.

[Takaram]

I go with one.

[Swartaz]

go 1

[Marcuslandia]

The underlying issue is, "Are you free to do what you want with your own life?" Euthanasia is essentially a more controlled suicide, usually. (There's also the "persistent vegetative state" scenario.) Is it _murder_ to kill yourself?

An odd trivia is that nearly everywhere where it's a crime to attempt suicide is that the community is not objecting to the "self-murder". It's concerned with the general disruption to the surrounding society. Cost of ambulances, trauma counseling for survivors, and all that other stuff.

Anyway. back to "it's _my_ life...." This is actually closely related to "Is abortion murder?" controversy. Bottomline: Is it _ever_ okay to knowingly and with forethought take someone's life, even your own? If you lean towards "No", then you already have your _moral_ answer. Game-wise, we're talking about personal choice. Like the person said, it's a Civil Rights issue. #1 will improve your CR, and I think, lower your taxes 1% (as people are taken off of life support). The others, of course, lowers your CR and raises your taxes (as people get put onto life support).

Side note: The people that should be polled as to whether euthanasia should be made legal are the ones dying from a long, PAINful disease. It's _real_ easy to argue against euthanasia when it is not YOU that is experiencing that 24-hour pain.

[Palpatinist Coruscant]

It all depends on what your country's priorities are (using real-life justifications should be beyond the scope of this thread): if you want to give your citizens more freedom, pick one. If you want to screw around with your people without having to introduce religion, pick two. If you want to establish a theocracy, pick three.