Hello! I'm a nursing student that recently cared for a child in the ICU. This child has never had the ability to speak, smell, see, walk, swallow, or care for herself in any way. She comes to the hospital frequently because the only way to survive is with medical machinery and constant suctioning. Unfortunately, the parents have become burned out. I felt like I was prolonging misery. To "pull the plug" on anyone is never easy, but it seems less ethical to do so on a child than it does with the elderly. Should quality of life have greater influence than age?

Greeting's oh wise one's, my question ... How is it morally correct to put a very sick animal" out of it's misery" yet not accord the same privilege to a Human who has no chance of recovery ? What baffle's me most is the thoughtfulness given to the dog ,but denied the human . Kind regard's Dermot

Some people believe that removing someone from life support is wrong and is "playing God" because it could most likely cause death. With that line of thinking, shouldn't life support be considered "playing God" since they are sustaining life (especially when there is almost no chance for recovery)?

I have been ill since 1993 so much so that I now have 20 documented medical disorders, including depression, psychosis and schizophrenia. In the past 13 months I almost died twice of acute renal failure and digestive system poisoning. I was hospitalised five times during this period. I am now taking 26 tablets per day plus weekly hormone injection. I am in severe pain 24 hours per day. Since I cannot eat what I want to eat, cannot do what I want to do and cannot go where I want to go, is euthanasia justified for my specific case?

In human terms, is not euthanasia a preferred and valid alternate to the artificial and selfish attitude of "life at all costs" now generally practiced?