I will not disagree on your argument that pharmaceutical companies are not as reliable as most think. Grunenthal's thalidomide tragedy and Merck's Vioxx tragedy are two of the largest scandals in medicine's history. Like any other company, bottom line is profit. They would do anything for the money, even if that means killing you.

However, I have to strongly disagree with your take on allopathy. Allopathic medicine do not baselessly discredit alternative medicine. Systematic studies are carried out before they decide if a treatment is bogus or, ineffective. If they were subsequently found to be therapeutic, modern medicine would then adopt it as part of their treatment. After all, why deny a treatment that works to a patient? If there are no conclusive evidence to suggest it works, then of course, they will discredit it. Many traditional chinese medicine are known to be effective. They have been adopted for use in modern medicine. Many more are in the pipeline, being tested for possible use. Investigations are carried out before they adopt or reject it.

Equating medicine to organised religion is as ridiculous as it gets. Religions base their understanding on nothing, something that cannot be proven to exist. Medicine exist on the pillars of scientific evidence, the direct opposite. Of course, there are unethical researchers who manipulate and fabricate research data, but that is not the norm of science. And regulations have been constantly modified to reduce the likelihood of this happening. Even so, penicillin has saved more lives than thalidomide has killed (not that I condone Grunenthal's actions).

This is not the right thread to discuss this, so I will stop here. If you are interested in discussing this issue further, start a thread and copy paste the relevant posts over, I'm more than willing to continue the discussion.

--------------------

As for the topic at hand, being a libertarian, I believe every individual should have the right to make their own decision. However, that decision should be an informed decision, that is, after they fully understand the pros and cons of both prolonging their lives, but likely suffering, and ending their suffering and therefore lives.

In other words, it varies depending on the case at hand. There should be no universal rule/law on the matter. The level of suffering differs from one condition to another, the tolerance to suffering also differ from one human to another. Likewise, some medical treatment may prolong life for years, some only days. Hence, there can be no definite answer to a question like this.

And then there is homeopathy