Euthanasia

My views still holding, I have similar opinions to euthanasia as I do Abortion. The only difference is that I have a clearer boundary when it comes to it. I haven't read up on the controversy or arguments for euthanasia in a long while, but my view stands for humans that inherit the term "vegetable". This is where my boundary stems from, because a person in a coma, for example, is merely in a recessive state where the brain is trying to heal, or any other temporary mental handicap that renders a body ineffective. This also reflects my view of the symbiotic brain and mind, where the brain renders and gives birth to the mind. I could construed with this view then by saying the only reason a mind lacks in a coma patient is because the brain is in hibernation while a patient in a vegetable literally has a "broken" brain and hence will have an equally, if not more or less, "broken" mind; hence a coma patient is still 'alive' in a 'human' sense while a vegetable patient has run it's course.

With the boundary set on patients whose brains/minds have become vegetables, my opinion on the matter stays with the choice of either that person (if a will was written) or whoever is closest to that person. Since I personally view patients with liquid mush as brains the same as corpses, a discussion over what to do with a vegetable patient is the same to me as a discussion over what to do with a corpse. The only difference here is that the family or close-partners of the person have the option of actually sustaining the body of the person for physical purposes, whereas a corpse would rot so your choices are limited to a type of burial or incineration. The reason for such a strong view on this is because statistically and as far as I know, vegetable patients or those patients with literally no brain have never recovered as "human beings", whether by dying or regaining enough conscious to operate like a machine.

My opinion on this seems a lot more simpler because of the above similarity to a dead person and a vegetable person. Really the only difference between the two is that one person's body cells are still running their automated course and the other body's automated cells have ran their course and are decaying. The ultimate fate of both are obvious at start since we don't generally expect either vegetable or corpse to spontaneously come back to life. Obviously however, if someone proves that a vegetable's brain can suddenly start reorganizing itself back into a brain and kick itself back into drive like a coma patient my opinion would change.

Obviously there are other reasons for euthanasia, to end a life that has already ended being just one. There could be someone who has cluster headaches for example, and just wishes to rest peacefully or perhaps just someone who is mentally and rationally stable and just wishes to be put down. In these cases, that is, cases in which the person is fully aware of the decision their making, I don't see why anyone would have the right to intervene in their choice other than immediate family members; which in that case if the outcome of that discussion is still euthanasia it shouldn't be stopped by anyone else.