The Slippery Slope of Assisted Suicide: Offending the Disabled Community

[turbo]

Lol, how should we punish suicide?

Death penalty! It's a bit disconcerting to consider that the people who want to punish people for aborting an early-term pregnancy or even using human eggs in experimentation seem to be all for killing adults for any number of offenses. "W" claimed to be pro-life, but his record as Texas' governor suggests that he was pro-death.

 

[kasse]

It's a bit disconcerting to consider that the people who want to punish people for aborting an early-term pregnancy or even using human eggs in experimentation seem to be all for killing adults for any number of offenses. "W" claimed to be pro-life, but his record as Texas' governor suggests that he was pro-death.

Good point! Personally I agree with Peter Singer: Killing babies should be legal under certain circumstances.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Lol, how should we punish suicide?

There are few places where suicide is illegal anymore. Currently though if you attempt suicide you will be considered a danger to yourself and others and so placed in a mental institute against your will for evaluation. When you get out (if you get out) you may be billed for the expense. You are not technically "imprisoned" or "fined" legally speaking.

 

[Moonbear]

Especially in the last 10 years western medicine has gotten pretty good at controlling pain with drugs. Some people don't like the idea of taking drugs, but this goes backed to their shame and shattered personal image.

I don't know where you are getting these bizarre ideas that euthanasia is used because of a self-esteem problem. You are very misguided about the adequacy of medications for treating certain types of pain too. When referring to euthanasia, one is not usually talking about someone who can be pain free with medication, we're usually talking about someone who is in constant, extreme pain with no hope of a cure (i.e., a patient with cancer that is not responding to any treatment). What about the pain that is so extreme that the only way to stop it is to give such a high dose of narcotic painkiller that it kills the patient?

 

[phyzmatix]

But Russ, in true PF fashion I have to take what you said out of context, and argue against you for 10 pages.

How can you support eating dead babies?

Man, I'm always late for the good discussions! Bleeding time zones!

Having got that out of my system, I'll proceed to include here a belated:



That is so true!

 

[russ_watters]

But Russ, in true PF fashion I have to take what you said out of context, and argue against you for 10 pages.

How can you support eating dead babies?

I love this place, but sometimes it leaves me shaking my head.

In an engineering ethics class in college, I did a debate on GM food (I was pro). My partner was not a very strong debater and I had to help him prepare. When we stood up for the debate, my highly opinionated prof (loved that guy) told us he thought our topic was absurd, even before we got started. I had to argue with him against GM food before he would let us start our debate, before he would accept it as a real controversy!

 

[russ_watters]

Non-dogmatic arguments, please.

There is nothing dogmatic about that argument. The logic of it is too simple to even bother explaining. And that's also the flaw: it is simplistic.

I'm not seeing anyone else in here giving the OP what he asked for. Here's another one:

Suicide is usually considered to be the act of a desperate and sick (mentally) individual (partly because of what I said before - that life is precious). If that is true, then there can never be such a thing as a rationally decided upon suicide.


One of the problems with many highly opinionated people - and this is true on this forum and elsewhere - is that holding a good debate (heck, even having an informed opinion!) requires understanding the opinions of the people you are debating as they see the issues. Too many people on this forum hear the argument statement and have no capacity for seeing it through the eyes of the person they are debating. It leaves them incapable of fully processing those opinions and giving a reasoned response.

 

[rootX]

I'm not seeing anyone else in here giving the OP what he asked for. Here's another one:

I think OP title is misleading (or I just failed to see what he was looking for) in which he asks for opinions and then in the post wants only arguments that are against euthanasia:

Euthanasia - yes or no?

I struggle to find arguments against euthanasia. Can anyone help me?

I don't have any strong arguments against euthanasia and neither I see any in this thread. Only argument I can think of involves human bonds or emotions. Say one's partner get a serious illness in his/her old age that cannot be cured, whether the partner chooses euthanasia voluntarily or involuntarily, the other person wouldn't like that idea assuming that he/she is strongly emotionally attached to his partner.

 

[ExactlySolved]

I don't know where you are getting these bizarre ideas that euthanasia is used because of a self-esteem problem.

Maybe you didn't see the quotes I posted:

Janet Good of the Hemlock Society puts it this way: "Pain is not the main reason we want to die. It's the indignity. It's the inability to get out of bed or get to the toilet, let alone drive a car or shop without another's help.” A Honolulu attorney and member of the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Death with Dignity said on KHET in 1996 that he was not afraid of dying, but he was afraid of “being in diapers and being dependent on others.”

The Hemlock Society and Death with Dignity are two organizations that politically support assisted suicide. While I grant that these are just particular statements, the excerpt as a whole is from a scholarly article by a writer in the disability rights movement. I have spent approximately 50-100 hours researching this issue under guidance of the expert professors I mentioned earlier, and I am not making these arguments up.

You are very misguided about the adequacy of medications for treating certain types of pain too. When referring to euthanasia, one is not usually talking about someone who can be pain free with medication, we're usually talking about someone who is in constant, extreme pain with no hope of a cure (i.e., a patient with cancer that is not responding to any treatment).

Unfortunately you're wrong, assisted suicide is not usually used in cases of extreme pain:

The reports from Oregon of legalized assisted suicide for
the year 2002 show that pain is not the primary reason for want-
ing to die—It’s not even in the top three. Reports were solicted
from physicians of the people who had requested assisted suicide
about which of six reasons might have contributed to the request.
The reported reasons were “losing autonomy (84%), de-
creasing ability to participate in activities that make life enjoy-
able (84%), and losing control of bodily functions (47%)”(Oregon
Department of Human Services, 2003). George Eighmey, exec-
utive director of the assisted-suicide advocacy group Compas-
sion in Dying of Oregon,makes it clear that disability phobia is
the primary cause for death wishes. “The No. 1 reason given to
me is: ‘I don’t want to have anyone wipe my rear end’ (Rob-
eznieks, 2003).”

The quote comes from a scholarly article:

"Our Lives and Ideologies: The Effect of Life Experience on the Perceived Morality of the Policy of Physician-Assisted Suicide" (Ron Amundson and Gayle Taira), Journal of Disability Policy Studies 16, 2005, 53-57."

The link to the statistics themselves:

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/index.shtml#concerns

From the state of Oregon's own report:

"As in previous years, the most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns were: loss of autonomy (95%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (92%), and loss of dignity (92%). During 2008, more participants were concerned about loss of dignity than in previous years (82%)."

Attention: if you think that the primary reason for physician assisted suicide is pain, then you have just been proven wrong: pain is not even mentioned in the state of oregon's report on physician-assisted suicide. I hope your able to face the truth that this supposed reason for suicide is not even in the top 3, and maybe you might believe that this is because, as I have been saying, we are pretty good at controlling pain.

The image of a terminal cancer patient suffering in great pain sounds convincing, until you look at the statistics for yourself (the 2008 report on physician-assisted suicide in the oregon.gov link I provided) and see that pain is not even mentioned as a reason for requesting suicide, that once again, according to the government's own report on the 60 people to whom they administered death in 2008 the reasons were:

loss of autonomy (95%),
decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (92%),
and loss of dignity (92%)

 

[kasse]

There is nothing dogmatic about that argument. The logic of it is too simple to even bother explaining.

Life isn't always precious. That argument is religious, and against the forum guidelines.

 

[Alfi]

Re: Euthanasia - yes or no?

Yes. I want the right to choose, and I don't want laws to penalize my family if I do choose.
Life insurance policies may need to be adjusted.

 

[ExactlySolved]

I want the right to choose, and I don't want laws to penalize my family if I do choose.

'Right to choose arguments' often disguise discrimination e.g. "Shouldn't you have the right to choose who lives in your neighborhood?" sounds good until you realize that this has been used to gain support for discriminating against minorities. Similarly, "Shouldn't you be able to choose to commit suicide?" sounds good until you find yourself in a situation where other people consider your life to be suicide-worthy.

Sure, you might say, but a decision to commit suicide affects mostly myself, and besides that only my family. OK, but if you support legislation that allows people in certain conditions to kill themselves then you are saying those lives are not, or might not be (pending a 'decision'), worth living. Recent victims of physical catastrophes are very perceptive to their lives being unwanted, I know because I have read their stories, of pushy doctors with do-not-resucitate orders or candid nurses that say things as frank as "I don't know if I could keep living if I were you." Do you see how the choice is not completely free? This goes back to Russ' point about a suicidal person being not in their right mind; I won't go that far (and ultimately I defer to Aristotle who said that suicide is justified in some cases), but it is clear to me that modern assisted suicide is a choice that is not made in a vacuum, it is influenced by societies attitude towards people with these conditions, and if our attitude is super-negative then no wonder these people want to die?

 

[ExactlySolved]

I presume everyone on this forum is interested in the truth, so I just want to make it clear that these statements, although I consider each of them to be totally ethically correct, have very little to do with the reality of what patients are receiving physician assisted suicide.

In other words, suppose that I agree that someone in constant and extreme pain should be euthanized. The important thing to note is that this sentiment is irrelevant to the reality of assisted suicide, most assisted suicies are not commited over pain but over dignity, and no one should support the political issue without realizing who is actually killing themselves and why.

So a struggling painful life, which involve anything from physical pain that disables you from thinking or multiple seizures per day, is precious?

on the other hand for some one in constant pain i would leave the decision to them.

You and your buddy are soldiers in a war zone, your buddy gets splinters from a grenade (or a bullet) into his abdomen, rupturing his intestines, with all the goo oozing out, infecting everything.

There are a broad range of physical problems a person can have that can result in them living in a lifetime of constant pain.

When referring to euthanasia, one is not usually talking about someone who can be pain free with medication, we're usually talking about someone who is in constant, extreme pain with no hope of a cure (i.e., a patient with cancer that is not responding to any treatment).

State of Oregon, 60 assisted suicides in 2008, I am not spinning the numbers in any way, self-reported reasons for death:

loss of autonomy (95%),
decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (92%),
and loss of dignity (92%)

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/index.shtml#concerns

 

[f95toli]

and no one should support the political issue without realizing who is actually killing themselves and why.

But WHEN it should be allowed is a separate discussion. The "pain" scenario is useful simply because most of use can imagine reaching a point where we given a choice between extreme pain during our last few days and euthanasia would choose the latter.

When it should be allowed (or to be more specific: under which circumstances should a doctor get involved) is a difficult question and is worth discussing at some length; but it is a discussion that is only meaningful it those involved agree that there are certain cases where euthanasia should be allowed. Those who oppose euthanasia tend to do so unconditionally (usually because of religious reasons) which makes constructive dialogue very difficult.

Personally I can imagine several scenarios where I would prefer it even if I could technically go on living for a long time; e.g if I knew I was slipping into severe dementia (something that has happened to several members of my family) or for some other reason was losing my intellectual abilities. To some extent this is simply because I define "myself" via my intellect; my body without my mind wouldn't be me, so from my point of view I would already be dead.
Now, do I think this is one scenario where it should be legal? I am not sure, but it is something worth considering.

Also, I am not that familiar with the legislation in Oregon; but as far as I know it still only applies to terminally ill patients. Hence, the fact that they state that the reason is "loss of dignity" presumably only means that they prefer to die while they still have some control over their life. The point is that it is not a question of if they are going to die, it is a question of when.

 

[phyzmatix]

That argument is religious, and against the forum guidelines.

Whaaaaat?

 

[phyzmatix]

Personally I can imagine several scenarios where I would prefer it even if I could technically go on living for a long time; e.g if I knew I was slipping into severe dementia (something that has happened to several members of my family) or for some other reason was losing my intellectual abilities. To some extent this is simply because I define "myself" via my intellect; my body without my mind wouldn't be me, so from my point of view I would already be dead.

I've been struggling with phrasing my own opinion on this matter, but I think you've done a bloody good job of it.

This sums up exactly how I feel about it.

 

[ExactlySolved]

But WHEN it should be allowed is a separate discussion. The "pain" scenario is useful simply because most of use can imagine reaching a point where we given a choice between extreme pain during our last few days and euthanasia would choose the latter.

As a political matter 'when it should be allowed' or 'scenarios that we can imagine' are less important then the real life consequences of the laws that already exist. I am talking about what's going on right now, not about what should be going on. In particular, I am pointing out that most individuals who choose state-endorsed suicide do so for dignity reasons, not for pain-related reasons as most of the members in the thread seem to have thought.

but it is a discussion that is only meaningful it those involved agree that there are certain cases where euthanasia should be allowed. Those who oppose euthanasia tend to do so unconditionally (usually because of religious reasons) which makes constructive dialogue very difficult.

The question is not whether euthanasia should be allowed, but whether it should be legal and state endorsed. There is a very big difference: it is relatively easy and common for elderly, disabled, or terminally ill patients to take there own lifes by overdosing on medications. This occurs all the time without anyone being prosecuted (don't believe me? check the alt.suicide newsgroup archives for information and stories for/from terminally ill patients).

If that were the case, you might say, why would there be a political issue at all?

If you have that question, then I will offer an analogy. Many states in the union still have laws against unbiblical sex acts, targeting gays in particular, and yet gays are able to do these things in private without fear of reprocussion. Does it make sense that they would still want to change the law to legalize their activities? Whether you believe it or not, the case with physician assisted suicide is quite similar, just do the research.

Therefore, while suicide is justified in some instances, I don't believe the state should ever endorse it, because to do so would be an act of discrimination against those people with lives that are deemed suicide-worthy.

Personally I can imagine several scenarios where I would prefer it even if I could technically go on living for a long time; e.g if I knew I was slipping into severe dementia (something that has happened to several members of my family) or for some other reason was losing my intellectual abilities. To some extent this is simply because I define "myself" via my intellect; my body without my mind wouldn't be me, so from my point of view I would already be dead.

I've been struggling with phrasing my own opinion on this matter, but I think you've done a bloody good job of it.

Since loss of dignity is the main reason that people request death from their doctors, it makes sense that a loss of mental function, which is stigmatized more than the loss of any other bodily function, would be a very common reason for requesting death, even more so for physicists/mathematicians/academics.

I don't think there is anything undignified about even a total loss of mental function, or more precisely, I don't see any reason to pass judgement of such a condition as being undignified. If you insist on passing such a judgement on yourself should you acquire such a condition, this is just a form of making exuses for giving up. I find that willpower is a much better judge of someones wisdom than are their superficial mental attributes.

 

[Gokul43201]

Since loss of dignity is the main reason that people request death from their doctors, it makes sense that a loss of mental function, which is stigmatized more than the loss of any other bodily function, would be a very common reason for requesting death, even more so for physicists/mathematicians/academics.

I don't think there is anything undignified about even a total loss of mental function, or more precisely, I don't see any reason to pass judgement of such a condition as being undignified. If you insist on passing such a judgement on yourself should you acquire such a condition, this is just a form of making exuses for giving up. I find that willpower is a much better judge of someones wisdom than are their superficial mental attributes.

You just didn't understand f95's post. His decision about the value of his life is not determined by social mores or stigmas but by his own individual valuation.

My choosing to terminate my life has noting to do with societal perceptions. I couldn't give a rat's *** what society thinks about me. And I see absolutely no loss of dignity in losing my mental abilities, nor do I care if other people find a loss of dignity in it (though I think you are misinterpreting the source of that loss of dignity) but that's no reason to stop me from doing what I please with MY life so long as I'm not treading on the rights of someone else. And unless I have bequeathed it to someone else, no one but me owns the right to my life.

 

[russ_watters]

Life isn't always precious. That argument is religious, and against the forum guidelines.

The principle has nothing to do with religion. In fact, I would think it more likely to be believed by an athiest than a religious person! It is based on simple, pure logic. And heck, it is actually one of the biggest things I find wrong with most religions, that they don't value life as much as the should!

I can't understand how you can think such things. How can you not understand why people would believe life is precious? Why is a diamond precious? Why is anything precious?

 

[Evo]

My choosing to terminate my life has noting to do with societal perceptions. I couldn't give a rat's *** what society thinks about me. And I see absolutely no loss of dignity in losing my mental abilities, nor do I care if other people find a loss of dignity in it (though I think you are misinterpreting the source of that loss of dignity) but that's no reason to stop me from doing what I please with MY life so long as I'm not treading on the rights of someone else. And unless I have bequeathed it to someone else, no one but me owns the right to my life.

I absolutely agree.

If I were suffering from incurable pain I would choose to die. Nothing could be worse. It's no longer "living a life". That is unending torture. The other reason I would chose death is if I were completely paralyzed and was aware but unable to move or even communicate. That would also be hell and also torture, mental torture.

I could not allow a loved one to suffer either of these things and would definitely suport their decision to call it quits. When life gets to that point, it no longer has value, IMO. To force a person to live at that point because "I" can't deal with the fact that they would be gone is unspeakably selfish. I could never force that kind of tortured hell on anyone.

 

[ExactlySolved]

Gokul, I understand your point, and I am not trying to say that the 'loss of dignity' comes from being worried about peoples opinions of you, that feeling rapidly fades after a certain age anyway. When I say 'society' I'm talking about the culture you live in, the values that people of your culture share. It's not as if we form our opinions in isolation, and by looking at history/anthropology we can see how arbitrary our opinions can be, even when everyone around us thinks the opinion is something self-evident that we all share by virtue of being human.

And I see absolutely no loss of dignity in losing my mental abilities, nor do I care if other people find a loss of dignity in it (though I think you are misinterpreting the source of that loss of dignity) but that's no reason to stop me from doing what I please with MY life so long as I'm not treading on the rights of someone else.

Ok, but if there is no loss of dignity, then why would such a person kill themself? f95 put it this way:

To some extent this is simply because I define "myself" via my intellect; my body without my mind wouldn't be me, so from my point of view I would already be dead.

If there is no loss of dignity, then why kill your former body? There are lots of bodies that aren't you, would you also kill them if you had the right?

doing what I please with MY life so long as I'm not treading on the rights of someone else.

As you know, you can kill yourself in many ways without being bothered by the government. The question is whether the government should approve and or assist you in doing so. To frame the debate as anything else is dishonest, no one can stop you from killing yourself in America, they can only punish you for trying, which implies you failed, which implies you didn't try very hard. And since anyone can visit alt.suicide and get all the info and contacts they need, without any reasonable fear of the law, it is dishonest to claim that assisted-suicide opponents are working to keep suffering people from killing themselves, we are only working to keep the government that we elect, pay for, and pledge to honor and support from approving and assisting in suicide. Suicide != murder. Assisted-suicide = (murder + sends the wrong message to people with lives deemed suicide worthy).

If I were suffering from incurable pain I would choose to die. Nothing could be worse. It's no longer "living a life". That is unending torture.

Luckily this is very unlikely to ever happen, since only 3/60 people who chose state-assisted in Oregon in 2008 listed pain as a reason for ending their lives.

The other reason I would chose death is if I were completely paralyzed and was aware but unable to move or even communicate.

Fortunately no one in Oregon had it quite that bad, but based on the survey loss of autonomy and decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable were the two biggest reasons for chosing death.

Recovering from a near total loss of actvities is difficult, but it is just a matter of having a flexible brain. After all, children who are born with major impairments e.g. quadropolegia, non-existent limbs, don't miss what they have never had. Having a fossilized brain full of preconceptions about major impairments makes them much more depressing than they need to be.

That is unending torture...That would also be hell and also torture, mental torture...When life gets to that point, it no longer has value, IMO...I could never force that kind of tortured hell on anyone.

The arguments that I am (obviously not doing a good job of) presenting come from academic journals about disability rights. Put aside these intellectual concepts for a second, and look at the above words and remember that we are talking about a human being and their life. What other demographic is it acceptable, for none less than liberals* to speak about this way? How would you feel if someone described your life this way? Suppose you told them that you were happy, that you enjoyed your life despite your ravaged body, and they said they believed you but you could see in their eyes that they didn't? At some point plain sympathy turns to fear and becomes ugly.

*I believe I used the 'none less than' grammar correctly, but what I mean is that it is even more unusual for liberals to be insensitive to disparaging a minority demographic. But isn't it obvious that conservatives and liberals switch their usual arguments on this issue? Normally republicans use libertarian arguments and democrats argue for a tolerant and progressive society! But in this case the republicans fall back to a religious argument and the democrats take a libertarian one. I am presenting neither of the standard arguments, my arguments are secular, progressive, and in total disagreement with the democrats (who morph into libertarians on this issue.

 

[Gokul43201]

If there is no loss of dignity, then why kill your former body?

For any number of possible reasons (and it is still my current body):
1. Because I do not wish to be a drain on others,
2. Because I can no longer derive happiness from living,
3. Because it's a nice day, I feel like it, and I feel no desire to have to explain my actions with my body to anyone else.

There are lots of bodies that aren't you, would you also kill them if you had the right?

It's ironic that you bring this up, because as someone that opposes my right to do with my life what I see fit (if you are such a someone), you are the only one that is deciding what to do with other people's lives, against their wishes.

As you know, you can kill yourself in many ways without being bothered by the government. The question is whether the government should approve and or assist you in doing so.

Jeez! I'd much prefer the Government have nothing to do with it. But they won't, will they? They won't let me get a private doctor to assist me either.

To frame the debate as anything else is dishonest, no one can stop you from killing yourself in America, they can only punish you for trying, which implies you failed, which implies you didn't try very hard.

So now, not trying hard enough is considered criminal behavior? Or did I misunderstand that statement?

 

[ExactlySolved]

1. Because I do not wish to be a drain on others,

What if a teenager or young adult was depressed and wanted to kill themself, and they said "all I do is take my parents money, I'm just a drain on others" then I think we all agree that the state should not endorse or assist in that kid commiting suicide.

The analogy fails, but the analogy is not the point. Think about the things you would say to this confused young adult:

Young Adult: I want to die because I'm a drain on others.

Adult: No that's nonsense, you've got your whole life ahead of you and we'll support you because we love you.

Contrast with:

Person with disabilities: I want to die because I'm a drain on others.

Doctor: If you think it's best, then we could file these do-not-resucitate orders, and I could put you into consideration for a lethal dose of barbituates *exchanges a I-would-want-to-die-too-if-I was-suffering-like-this-miserable-soul look with the nurse.*

2. Because I can no longer derive happiness from living

Again apply the thought experiment with the difference in conversation someone would have with a young adult or a disabled person who was having this thought.

3. Because it's a nice day, I feel like it, and I feel no desire to have to explain my actions with my body to anyone else.

If America passed strict laws against doctor-assisted suicide then you would still be able to kill yourself for the reasons above. Do you really think that the state should condone such an action?

It's ironic that you bring this up, because as someone that opposes my right to do with my life what I see fit (if you are such a someone), you are the only one that is deciding what to do with other people's lives, against their wishes.

No, I don't oppose anyone killing themselves. What I oppose is for the government to say that's ok under some circumstances.

Jeez! I'd much prefer the Government have nothing to do with it. But they won't, will they? They won't let me get a private doctor to assist me either.

If you are actually dying then the state will not keep you alive against your will. The question is whether the state should allow licensed doctors to kill you. I think this sends a terrible message, in particular to those people who have conditions that are considered suicide-worthy.

So now, not trying hard enough is considered criminal behavior? Or did I misunderstand that statement?

No; attempting to commit suicide is always criminal behavior, not trying hard enough leads to getting caught.

I hope everyone in this thread who thinks that we should be able to do whatever we want with our bodies to the point of destroying them completely also thinks that all drugs should be unconditionally legal for home use, at least if prescribed by a physician. Note that I am not advocating this at all, just hoping for consistency in your opinion system.

 

[Cyrus]

I fail to see your point on why someone can't kill themselves. Religious reasons on your part, perhaps?

 

[Evo]

Luckily this is very unlikely to ever happen, since only 3/60 people who chose state-assisted in Oregon in 2008 listed pain as a reason for ending their lives.

No, actually, if euthanasia is universally legalized, that most likely will be chosen by people in incurable pain.

The study you cite was of 56 people that were asked why they would apply for the "Death with Dignity" option. "Death with Diginity" is not about people in extreme pain, total paralysis, or terminal illness. It's about people that want to commit suicide because they don't want to change their lifestyle, in a way they don't deem acceptable.

This has nothing to do with people that are going through hell every day. It's more a law for people that can't cope with a diminished lifestyle.

As long as the law allows people to decide for themselves, or in the case that they have designated someone to make that decision for them, (in the event that they are unable to I have signed such a legal document naming my daughter), then there is no problem. If you don't want to allow someone to make that decision, based on criteria you have specified, then it's your own fault if you are subjected to unending torture.

Anyone that feels they have the right to interfere in someone else's life in this matter are petty and immoral, IMO. How and when I choose to end my life, as long as it does not impose hardship on anyone, is no one's right other then mine. Unfortunately there are delusional control freaks all around that think they should decide these things for you.

It appears that you want to discuss Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law and not the benefits of euthanasia in general.

 

[Gokul43201]

What if a teenager or young adult was depressed and wanted to kill themself, and they said "all I do is take my parents money, I'm just a drain on others" then I think we all agree that the state should not endorse or assist in that kid commiting suicide.

Speak for yourself. In any case, I never said anything about the state having to endorse or assist anyone. All I ask is that the state not oppose it.

If you are a teenager, you are not an adult you do not have the right to decide what happens with your life; your parents/guardians do. Once you've become an adult, you should be the only one with the right to determine what to do with your life.

Young Adult: I want to die because I'm a drain on others.

Adult: No that's nonsense, you've got your whole life ahead of you and we'll support you because we love you.

Contrast with:

Person with disabilities: I want to die because I'm a drain on others.

Doctor: If you think it's best, then we could file these do-not-resucitate orders, and I could put you into consideration for a lethal dose of barbituates *exchanges a I-would-want-to-die-too-if-I was-suffering-like-this-miserable-soul look with the nurse.*

I couldn't care less for the drama between the doctor and the nurse so long the doctor can legally give me what I asked for. Young adult, old adult, middle aged adult - it doesn't matter.

Again apply the thought experiment with the difference in conversation someone would have with a young adult or a disabled person who was having this thought.

The thought experiment has failed so far. I see no point in applying to more and more examples. If I am an adult, then however misguided, depressed, stupid or imbalanced I am, I ought to be the only one with the right to determine what to do with my life. You can require a doctor to offer me counseling, but I should be able to choose to refuse it.

If America passed strict laws against doctor-assisted suicide then you would still be able to kill yourself for the reasons above. Do you really think that the state should condone such an action?

Yes I do. And America already has laws against doctor-assisted suicide. Only three states just barely allow it in some circumstances.

No, I don't oppose anyone killing themselves.

Okay.

What I oppose is for the government to say that's ok under some circumstances.

Why? You don't want the government to have the same good sense that you do?

But to be specific, I'm not asking the government to say that it's ok. I'm not asking it to say anything. In fact, I'm very specifically asking the government to not say anything about what I may or may not do with my life.

I hope everyone in this thread who thinks that we should be able to do whatever we want with our bodies to the point of destroying them completely also thinks that all drugs should be unconditionally legal for home use, at least if prescribed by a physician. Note that I am not advocating this at all, just hoping for consistency in your opinion system.

Yes, for all adults, so long as you do not tread upon the rights of others.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If America passed strict laws against doctor-assisted suicide then you would still be able to kill yourself for the reasons above. Do you really think that the state should condone such an action?

Up until recently, doctor assisted suicide was illegal in all States, and it is only legal now in a few States, though the Federal government still considers it a crime.

What right does the government have to demand that a terminal patient suffer a painful and miserable death? The point of assisted suicide is to ensure that it is available to those who are no longer capable of choosing to die due to physical limitations. There is also the issue of failed suicides. Many people try to kill themselves but fail because they don't know what dosages of what drugs to take, nor do they have access to the proper drugs.

What you need to justify is why the government has a right to demand that people suffer for many years when there is no hope of recovery and they want to die. I treat my dogs and cats better than that. I would never let them suffer for months or years when there is no hope. That would be cruel. Doesn't a human deserve the option to be treated as well as I would treat a dog?

 

[Cyrus]

Mr Gokul, Build up that wall!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So now, not trying hard enough is considered criminal behavior? Or did I misunderstand that statement?

No; attempting to commit suicide is always criminal behavior, not trying hard enough leads to getting caught.

Just to repeat and clarify: It is not illegal to commit suicide in most places and never has been in the US. If you attempt suicide you are considered a danger to yourself and others so will be placed in a psych ward for evaluation (if you don't die). You will not be sent to prison, you will not have a criminal history, and you will not have to pay fines though you may be billed for the expense of treatment and evaluation.
The police must intervene if they see a person dying or attempting to kill themselves and can be brought up on charges of negligence or failure to preform their duty if they do not. There is no way for them to know that a person has made a reasoned and rational decision to kill themselves and the vast majority of people who attempt suicide have not so it is only logical that they intervene. Finding a person dying they can only guess at what happened, they don't even know if it was suicide, homicide, or accident.

 

[Evo]

If America passed strict laws against doctor-assisted suicide then you would still be able to kill yourself for the reasons above. Do you really think that the state should condone such an action?

What are you asking? Are you asking if the state should condone making doctor-assisted suicide illegal? Of course not.

No, I don't oppose anyone killing themselves. What I oppose is for the government to say that's ok under some circumstances.

So you want the government to decide what a person can do concerning their life. List a valid reason why government intervention to prevent a person from making this decision is a good thing.

If you are actually dying then the state will not keep you alive against your will.

Not true. I had to sign a legal document stating that I refused to have any life sustaining resusitive actions where my condition might leave me brain dead or on artificial life support.

The question is whether the state should allow licensed doctors to kill you. I think this sends a terrible message, in particular to those people who have conditions that are considered suicide-worthy.

Sends a terrible message? That a doctor can show compassion in helping a person that has made the choice not to continue their torture? You've obviously never had to deal with extreme pain or a terminal illness.

No; attempting to commit suicide is always criminal behavior, not trying hard enough leads to getting caught.

That's the problem isn't it? Suicide should not be illegal. And no, it's not a case of not trying hard enough. You are making some rather ridiculous statements.

I hope everyone in this thread who thinks that we should be able to do whatever we want with our bodies to the point of destroying them completely also thinks that all drugs should be unconditionally legal for home use, at least if prescribed by a physician. Note that I am not advocating this at all, just hoping for consistency in your opinion system.

If a physician prescribes needed drugs for a patient, it is entirely consistent This is not anything like drug abuse that makes a person a burden on society. So, I don't get what your argument is supposed to be here. Your logic is flawed.