The Slippery Slope of Assisted Suicide: Offending the Disabled Community

[ExactlySolved]

There are too many closed minds going over the same arguments we have all heard - no one has even acknowledged the novelty of the arguments I am presenting, which is either dishonest, or unobservant since these ideas, which are obviously not mine, have been extremely fruitful and fertile in the disability rights literature. I don't like to cite names but since Evo is so well liked I will pick on her:

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.

All the people in the statistic I cited actually killed themselves with the help of their doctor in accordance with Oregon's law. Too me it is obvious that in any debate on assisted suicide we should look at how the law is used in places where it is already in effect.

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

We are not talking about 'pull the plug' or 'do not resuscitate', we are talking about 'administer a lethal dose of drugs to someone who is suffering but not imminently dying.'

Anyone that feels they have the right to interfere in someone else's life in this matter are petty and immoral, IMO.

Then I hope you passionately support druggies and hookers, since, compared to people who kill themselves, they treat their bodies and lives with a lot of respect.

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.

So do you support legalizing prostitution and drug use, or do you think that these activities have reprocussions on society but suicide doesn't?

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.

Druggies and prostitutes are less of a burden to society than children, your logic is flawed: no one is thrown out just for being a burden, we also analyze their positive traits.

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

Are you talking to me? I have repeatedly stated that my argument is secular, do you know what that means? (non-religous). My arguments come directly from secular progressive disability rights literature. The arguments are more sophisticated then anything I have seen presented on TV, and I know its just a forum where people don't read posts with much care, so I'm not sure if it's even possible to get this across to such an unreceptive audience.

Can you imagine being a quadropolegic and loving your life? Not wishing your life to be any other way? If it is a dogma for you that this is impossible, then you may as well give up trying to understand my argument. If you can face the fact that there are people who feel this way (who are the ones responsible for these arguments) then proceed. These people don't want there lives to be described as hell/torture/worthless etc, just as no one wants to be called a racial slur. These people want to live normally in society, without everyone seeing their disability (or their race) instead of seeing them for who they are. They want to end the mistaken belief that major impairments should lead a person to commit suicide. Therefore, they oppose state assisted suicide.

me: then I think we all agree that the state should not endorse or assist in that kid commiting suicide.

Gokul: speak for yourself.

I apologize for ascribing to you a typical degree of compassion for a confused youth, or do you just enjoy saying 'speak for yourself' as if you are teaching me some kind of old fashioned lesson?

I already said that I am not attached to the position I'm playing in this thread, that's why it's so boring when people repeat themselves instead of discussing new arguments. In another thread over in politics I am arguing that it is better for us to be killed by radical terrorist than to save our lives by torturing the terrorist. I really believe that, and its closer to my true opinion: most people over value their lives, and especially the lives of their children, aned that unfortunate value judgement makes the very afraid. IMO the fear of being disabled makes people in general act in a very ugly way to strangers who are disabled.

 

[rootX]

Druggies and prostitutes are less of a burden to society than children, your logic is flawed: no one is thrown out just for being a burden, we also analyze their positive traits.

I don't understand what you are doing with children and prostitutes ... you seems to saying that children are more burden but failing to understand the value of investment.
2) As for prostitutes, I just don't understand why you are bringing them here.I really don't see what's wrong with prostitution and why even one should be bothered by it.
3) Druggies: I don't have any strong opinion about these people.

Sorry, Taking this out of context (I didn't go through all of your post - stopped here. It's just too long).

I already said that I am not attached to the position I'm playing in this thread, that's why it's so boring when people repeat themselves instead of discussing new arguments.

I also don't understand what you are trying to get at.

 

[Cyrus]

After reading this thread, I've decided to kill myself.

 

[Gokul43201]

Can you imagine being a quadropolegic and loving your life? Not wishing your life to be any other way?

Sure I can. And that is consistent with why I oppose involuntary euthanasia.

Can you imagine loving your life so much that it pains you no end when a government tells you what you may or may not do with it?

These people don't want there lives to be described as hell/torture/worthless etc, just as no one wants to be called a racial slur. These people want to live normally in society, without everyone seeing their disability (or their race) instead of seeing them for who they are. They want to end the mistaken belief that major impairments should lead a person to commit suicide. Therefore, they oppose state assisted suicide.

Would they be okay with state assisted suicides for the unimpaired?

I apologize for ascribing to you a typical degree of compassion for a confused youth, or do you just enjoy saying 'speak for yourself' as if you are teaching me some kind of old fashioned lesson?

The first part of that makes no sense to me, but to answer your question in the subsequent clause - not that I see how it is relevant to anything being discussed - saying 'speak for yourself' as if I am teaching you some kind of old fashioned lesson does not give me any particular enjoyment, nor was that even the manner in which I said it (I'm not a fan of old fashioned lessons).

 

[phyzmatix]

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.

I've found that sometimes giving up is the most logical option and that it often also requires a tremendous amount of willpower to do so. Be wary of confusing willpower with stubbornness.

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.

I agree completely with what Ivan says here. The government's views on these matters are still strongly underlined by historically religious ways of determining the morality and/or legality of an issue. It's time we move beyond that.

I have some experience with attempted suicides and where most recovered completely, some can end up pretty nasty.

Too me it is obvious that in any debate on assisted suicide we should look at how the law is used in places where it is already in effect.

Why should we turn to the law when it comes to debating assisted suicide? Laws aren't always logical and open to reasoning and, bringing morality into the issue at hand, laws don't always support what's "right" or "wrong" either.

Then I hope you passionately support druggies and hookers, since, compared to people who kill themselves, they treat their bodies and lives with a lot of respect.

...So do you support legalizing prostitution and drug use, or do you think that these activities have reprocussions on society but suicide doesn't?

I most definitely do support legalised prostitution and drug use, but that is a completely different topic and not under discussion here.

My arguments come directly from secular progressive disability rights literature. The arguments are more sophisticated then anything I have seen presented on TV, and I know its just a forum where people don't read posts with much care, so I'm not sure if it's even possible to get this across to such an unreceptive audience.

I think your prior expectations of this forum is what's causing you a great deal of agony here. On this forum, irrespective of the source, arguments have to be pretty much airtight in order not to be ripped to shreds. Simply because something is "more sophisticated than anything you have seen presented on TV" doesn't mean it's flawless. You're dealing mostly with scientists here. No-one is simply going to take your word for it because [insert source here] said so.

Can you imagine being a quadropolegic and loving your life? Not wishing your life to be any other way? If it is a dogma for you that this is impossible, then you may as well give up trying to understand my argument. If you can face the fact that there are people who feel this way (who are the ones responsible for these arguments) then proceed. These people don't want there lives to be described as hell/torture/worthless etc, just as no one wants to be called a racial slur. These people want to live normally in society, without everyone seeing their disability (or their race) instead of seeing them for who they are. They want to end the mistaken belief that major impairments should lead a person to commit suicide. Therefore, they oppose state assisted suicide.

I've also had quite a lot of exposure to quadriplegic people who loved their lives and I'm very happy for them. But you're reasoning that because there are people with terminal illnesses or in wheelchairs etc who are happy with their lives, then everybody else in similar situations must also be happy whether they like it or not and therefore they may not have the right to feel otherwise!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There are too many closed minds going over the same arguments we have all heard - no one has even acknowledged the novelty of the arguments I am presenting, which is either dishonest, or unobservant since these ideas, which are obviously not mine, have been extremely fruitful and fertile in the disability rights literature.

I thought you were doing a good job. I considered hopping in but didn't want to break your stride.

 

[ExactlySolved]

I don't understand what you are doing with children and prostitutes ... you seems to saying that children are more burden but failing to understand the value of investment.

I am not failing to understand the value of investment, I'm just pointing out that this value is exactly what compensates for the burden of children. When Evo makes the value judgement that druggies can't do what they want with their bodies because they are a burden on society, I am pointing out that children are a burden as well, that she is making here judgement against druggies for some other reason.

In any case, I just find it odd to see so many people going on about having the right to kill their own bodies, when the topic of drug legalization involves the exact same argument of freedom to do with ones body what one wishes, and the people who want to do drugs are doing vastly less harm to their bodies then the people who commit suicide, it seems that anyone who promotes assisted suicide on the grounds of personal freedom must feel even more passionate about helping the personal freedom of druggies: after all there are millions of them in jail right now for doing what they wanted with their own bodies.

Using a principle like "the government can't tell me what to do with my body" is good, but it should be applied consistently across the board.

2) As for prostitutes, I just don't understand why you are bringing them here.I really don't see what's wrong with prostitution and why even one should be bothered by it.

I'm glad, since that means that you are consistent about your views on the government interfering with personal freedom. Evo, for example, is not consistent because she believes in personal freedom to choose suicide but not personal freedom to sell sex, since this creates 'a burden on society.'

3) Druggies: I don't have any strong opinion about these people.

Since in America a neutral opinion means that something is allowed, and it requires a strong opinion to put someone in jail, I presume you support not incarcerating these people. I applaud your self-consistency.

I also don't understand what you are trying to get at.

I'm trying to expound a novel, secular, progressive argument against legalizing assisted suicide. I don't hold a political opinion, I'm just presenting arguments.

Sure I can. And that is consistent with why I oppose involuntary euthanasia.

In my first post in this thread I mentioned that the gas chambers in Nazi Germany were first authorized to be used on mentally and terminally ill patients, against their will. I don't think anyone in the thread is advocating that

Can you imagine loving your life so much that it pains you no end when a government tells you what you may or may not do with it?

I don't have to imagine, the government already meddles far too much in my life. But meddling is not the same officially disapproving of my actions. If someone commits suicide then the government disapproves, this doesn't mean that they actually meddle in the act of suicide.

Would they be okay with state assisted suicides for the unimpaired?

I like a good hypothetical question, but in this case go back to the analogy about real estate in the 1950s. A white community tries to exclude blacks from moving in using the slogan "Shouldn't you be able to choose who lives in your neighborhood?" At a town hall meeting someone says to a black representative "What if we exclude some white people too?" This is how the disability rights people would respond to your hypothetical: it's besides the point.

I've found that sometimes giving up is the most logical option and that it often also requires a tremendous amount of willpower to do so.

Giving up in certain other contexts perhaps, but dying and being dead don't take any willpower!

The government's views on these matters are still strongly underlined by historically religious ways of determining the morality and/or legality of an issue. It's time we move beyond that.

I agree that we should move beyond religous arguments, but I don't think we should regress to discriminate against a certain group of people as having lives that are suicide-worthy.

I have some experience with attempted suicides and where most recovered completely, some can end up pretty nasty.

Since you have seen so many full and partial recoveries, and at least some of these people went on to not kill themselves, then it seems like you would appreciate that the government had not helped them do the job 'successfully.'

Why should we turn to the law when it comes to debating assisted suicide? Laws aren't always logical and open to reasoning and, bringing morality into the issue at hand, laws don't always support what's "right" or "wrong" either.

No, I'm not talking about reading the wording of Oregon's law, I am talking about looking at the people who are applying it. This is a state where assisted suicide is legal, and so we can look at the statistics of who is opting for assisted suicide. The statistics say that most of these people are terminally ill (cancer is the main one), but that they are not choosing death because of pain. This is important because many people offered horrible pain as an argument in favor of legalizing assisted suicide. If assisted suicide is already legal in Oregon and the people who choose it do not do so because of pain, then the fear of pain is not a good reason to legalize assisted suicide.

I most definitely do support legalised prostitution and drug use, but that is a completely different topic and not under discussion here.

I applaud your consistency. I brought up this topic because some people are offering "we have the right to do what we want with our bodies' as an argument for legalizing assisted suicide, and one way of debating a universal principle is to examine its application to a particular case. Therefore, on the level of particulars the discussion of druggies and hookers is a different topic but on the level of universals it is similar in the way I described above, and hence I believe a valid part of the debate.

On this forum, irrespective of the source, arguments have to be pretty much airtight in order not to be ripped to shreds. Simply because something is "more sophisticated than anything you have seen presented on TV" doesn't mean it's flawless. You're dealing mostly with scientists here. No-one is simply going to take your word for it because [insert source here] said so.

I have been around these forums a long time (5 years). I find that sophistication, and especially novelty, are major detriments to an argument here. I'm not judging the people, I think these shortcomings are inherent in the medium of a forum. Communication on a forum is difficult, misunderstandings are frequent, especially when the material is non-standard. Also, having a science background is a start, but for understanding new arguments that require flexible thinking, philosophy is more important than science, and we all know how philosophy is considered to be a dog on this forum.

But you're reasoning that because there are people with terminal illnesses or in wheelchairs etc who are happy with their lives, then everybody else in similar situations must also be happy whether they like it or not and therefore they may not have the right to feel otherwise!

That is not how the disability rights (DR) argument runs. If you look at who is killing themselves in Oregon, they are mostly doing it because of dignity (92%). Note that they are not killing themselves because of pain, seizures, etc. The DR argument says that if we stop discriminating against people with these conditions, then we can prevent loss of dignity, and these people won't want to die.

If we pass laws allowing people to 'die with dignity' then people will see these conditions as undignified and so more people in this condition will choose to die.

Remember, the laws about assisted suicide don't change anyones ability to kill themself, it is only a matter of whether the government approves or not.

After reading this thread, I've decided to kill myself.

Thanks for the encouragement. Do you need any assistance?

I thought you were doing a good job. I considered hopping in but didn't want to break your stride.

I think my writing style and other things about my character make it impossible for people to agree with what I say, so feel free to jump in and provide an alternate, likely more agreeable, face behind these arguments.

 

[phyzmatix]

Giving up in certain other contexts perhaps, but dying and being dead don't take any willpower!

If you've ever considered suicide (I'm not talking about swallowing some pills or scratching your wrists for attention), then you'd understand what I meant with willpower. It takes a tremendous amount of willpower to overpower the body (and mind's) natural desires to continue living.

I agree that we should move beyond religous arguments, but I don't think we should regress to discriminate against a certain group of people as having lives that are suicide-worthy.

But what if you have a group of people who define their lives as suicide-worthy themselves?

Since you have seen so many full and partial recoveries, and at least some of these people went on to not kill themselves, then it seems like you would appreciate that the government had not helped them do the job 'successfully.'

A very valid point, but I brought up this example of my personal experience mainly as support for Ivan's comment regarding the potential horror of failed suicides. Also, there is always the case of "hindsight is 20/20" and not one of the cases I've been involved with were terminally ill/mentally disabled (the vast majority were love-life issues and/or money related).

No, I'm not talking about reading the wording of Oregon's law, I am talking about looking at the people who are applying it. This is a state where assisted suicide is legal, and so we can look at the statistics of who is opting for assisted suicide. The statistics say that most of these people are terminally ill (cancer is the main one), but that they are not choosing death because of pain. This is important because many people offered horrible pain as an argument in favor of legalizing assisted suicide. If assisted suicide is already legal in Oregon and the people who choose it do not do so because of pain, then the fear of pain is not a good reason to legalize assisted suicide.

OK.

Communication on a forum is difficult, misunderstandings are frequent, especially when the material is non-standard. Also, having a science background is a start, but for understanding new arguments that require flexible thinking, philosophy is more important than science, and we all know how philosophy is considered to be a dog on this forum.

I agree that forum communication can be difficult at times but I don't think a philosophical approach to new arguments is in itself effective if the reasoning behind it is illogical.

If we pass laws allowing people to 'die with dignity' then people will see these conditions as undignified and so more people in this condition will choose to die.

Remember, the laws about assisted suicide don't change anyones ability to kill themself, it is only a matter of whether the government approves or not.

I see what you mean. So the problem here is mostly with the wording of the laws then? If there's a wordmonger amongst us who can re-phrase the laws so as not to imply that one's life under these conditions is less dignified etc etc than another's then everything's ok?

 

[Evo]

When Evo makes the value judgement that druggies can't do what they want with their bodies because they are a burden on society, I am pointing out that children are a burden as well, that she is making here judgement against druggies for some other reason.

That's a ridiculous statement. Someone ending their life that places no burden on anyone has nothing to with someone addicted to illegal drugs that becomes a burden to society.

In any case, I just find it odd to see so many people going on about having the right to kill their own bodies, when the topic of drug legalization involves the exact same argument of freedom to do with ones body what one wishes, and the people who want to do drugs are doing vastly less harm to their bodies then the people who commit suicide, it seems that anyone who promotes assisted suicide on the grounds of personal freedom must feel even more passionate about helping the personal freedom of druggies: after all there are millions of them in jail right now for doing what they wanted with their own bodies.

see above

Evo, for example, is not consistent because she believes in personal freedom to choose suicide but not personal freedom to sell sex, since this creates 'a burden on society.'

No, I have made no such comment. I suggest you go back and check, then retract your statement.

If assisted suicide is already legal in Oregon and the people who choose it do not do so because of pain, then the fear of pain is not a good reason to legalize assisted suicide.

Again, that is a ridiculous statement.

 

[ExactlySolved]

If you've ever considered suicide (I'm not talking about swallowing some pills or scratching your wrists for attention), then you'd understand what I meant with willpower. It takes a tremendous amount of willpower to overpower the body (and mind's) natural desires to continue living.

That makes sense, it would take a lot of willpower to kill yourself if you did not want to die. For example, someone who sacrifices themselves to save others.

But what if you have a group of people who define their lives as suicide-worthy themselves?

Like I said earlier, no one makes decisions in a vacuum, these people have been an influenced by the culture around them all their lives. It turns out that if you look at our culture critically it is constantly sending the message that death is a good option for people who are permanently disabled by major impairment or disease --- TV, movies, novels, if you just go out and look you will find these archetypical disability dramas where 'ruined'/'worthless'/'torture'/'hell' pepper the script and resolution of the plot involves the patient dying. One example is the ~1980 Richard Dreyfuss film 'Whose life is it anyway?', watch it for the disability cliches to see how culture influences our opinions on this subject.

I agree that forum communication can be difficult at times but I don't think a philosophical approach to new arguments is in itself effective if the reasoning behind it is illogical.

In order to understand these arguments it is important to have a flexible mind in a way that only those who are willing to consider any question without *shutting down into dogma town* can do.

(1) The first major supposition is that healthy/normal does not exist as a natural category in the biological sense, that it consists entirely of value judgements. citation:

Amundson, R. (2000). Against normal function. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical. Sciences, 31C, 33–53

(2) The next thing to suppose is that disabilities are a social condition that arises from a societal response to an impairment e.g. not being able to walk is an impairment, not being able to get around town is a disability (remember, there is nothing 'normal' about walking because there is no such thing as physical normalcy as per (1) ). This is the disability/impairment distinction.

Now, what I have been proving with the Oregon statistics is that people are not choosing death because of anything inherent to their impairment, but rather because of the societal issues which are surrounding them. Allowing for assisted suicide only further worsens these societal issues.

I see what you mean. So the problem here is mostly with the wording of the laws then? If there's a wordmonger amongst us who can re-phrase the laws so as not to imply that one's life under these conditions is less dignified etc etc than another's then everything's ok?

No, the wording is irrelevant because these people are on a list that is considered ok for assisted suicide. What if 'black' or 'hispanic' were also included as conditions that qualify someone for assisted suicide? Wouldn't that be insulting to minorities? A similar problem occurs for whatever you put on the list, it is insulting to people who meet that description.

Now, if anyone is going to say that 'black' and 'hispanic' have nothing in common with the kind of categories that are put on the list e.g. terminally ill, then they fail at supposition (1) above.

That's a ridiculous statement. Someone ending their life that places no burden on anyone has nothing to with someone addicted to illegal drugs that becomes a burden to society.

Correction, you don't see what one has to do with the other. I'm nice so I will repeat myself and explain again: people who commit suicide treat their bodies worse than drug offenders. Therefore, anyone who thinks assisted suicide should be legal on the grounds that what we do with our bodies is our right, cannot favor laws against drug use on the grounds that drugs are bad for someones body or mind.

Also, note that the law forbids citizens from using drugs, and their guilt under these laws is not conditional on their value to society. For example, Richard Feynman or Carl Sagan are valuable people who would have gone to jail like anyone else if they had been caught by our nation's drug laws!

No, I have made no such comment. I suggest you go back and check, then retract your statement.

Yeah, I was just being nasty, I regret and retract my statement.

Again, that is a ridiculous statement.

You calling my statements ridiculous (3 times) is, needless to say, not an argument. The very least you could do is to ridicule my ridiculous statements!

 

[Sorry!]

Exactly, (lol) how do you plan on STOPPING people who would like to commit suicide from doing so. I do not think that the inability to adapt to society is the MAIN reason for assited suicide.
Of course society (at least where I live) would be FULLY willing to accept a person who was disabled-- aside from the children of the society because generally speaking they are very investigative so sometimes may seem rude to something that doesn't seem 'normal'. Living in Toronto and living with disabled people (in my family) I have noticed that most people will BEND OVER BACKWARDS to ASSIST a disabled person of any sort... whether it be they are amputees or mentally challenged. Of course sometimes people are scared of them... but that doesn't mean if they saw this person going to jump in front of a train they just wouldn't care or maybe push them in front or cheer them on... You have this ALL mixed up. Supporting euthanasia is not telling people to kill themselves. It's giving them the freedom to decide when they would like to end their lives.

I think that the reason people decide to use assisted suicide is because they DO NOT WANT TO LIVE. Like how is that hard to understand? It's a personal choice and I certainly do not think YOU should be making the choice for the 6 billion people of this planet.

 

[ExactlySolved]

Exactly, (lol) how do you plan on STOPPING people who would like to commit suicide from doing so.

I'm not saying we should stop them, I'm saying we should not help them.

I do not think that the inability to adapt to society is the MAIN reason for assited suicide.

I've been trying to provide links to an ongoing scholarly discussion that says it is the MAIN reason.

Living in Toronto and living with disabled people (in my family) I have noticed that most people will BEND OVER BACKWARDS to ASSIST a disabled person of any sort...

This is a difficult issue. Of course assistance is good, but it often comes with disrespect from deeply held prejudices, even if this is far from intentional. For example, a wheelchair riding professor I had used to tell anecdotes about going to dinner with his wife at resteraunts and having the waitress address his wife with the question "does he know what he wants?" --- presuming that just because he is in a wheelchair that his wife makes decisions for him. It's just an example but it shows you how bending over backwards can be insulting, especially when the person looks down on your condition as a fate worse than death.

You have this ALL mixed up.

The views I'm expressing are nonstandard, but I'm also familiar with yours. I would call your view 'ordinary' in the sense that you have not yet examined it critically, for example against the things I am saying.

Supporting euthanasia is not telling people to kill themselves.

Of course not, it just sends the message "everyone will understand if you just want to end you life, since, you know, your life sucks."

It's giving them the freedom to decide when they would like to end their lives.

A choice made under pressure is not always free.

I think that the reason people decide to use assisted suicide is because they DO NOT WANT TO LIVE.

The question is why they don't want to live. If you look at the statistics, its not because of pain. It's because people don't want them, because people are embarassed of them, because people are afraid of becoming like them. They are made to feel that there lives should be ended.

Like how is that hard to understand?

It's trivial to understand, like I said that is the ordinary view that most non-religous people hold. But the arguments I am presenting are non-standard, these are the ones that are hard to understand but it is important to examine them in case they are right.

It's a personal choice and I certainly do not think YOU should be making the choice for the 6 billion people of this planet.

Of good, another believer in personal choice, then for consistency sake you must believe in the legalization of all drugs, and in the legalization of prostitution, since harming our bodies with chemicals is A-OK, it's our body so it's our choice. If you think that drugs are not A-OK, that the government has a right to interfere, then it's not much different if the government interferes with your suicide either, since either way they are interfering with personal choices for your body.

 

[Gokul43201]

Exactly Solved, if you will pardon the seemingly off-topic nature of what's to follow, can you tell me if you find it justifiable that a person be opposed to dog-fighting, yet not be vegetarian? How would such a person justify such a seeming contradiction in values?

 

[turbo]

Also, note that the law forbids citizens from using drugs, and their guilt under these laws is not conditional on their value to society. For example, Richard Feynman or Carl Sagan are valuable people who would have gone to jail like anyone else if they had been caught by our nation's drug laws!

You might want to reconsider that belief. If you are rich and/or famous, you will NOT go to jail for violating drug laws. Instead, you plead to a lesser charge and agree to attend rehab. How much prison time did Rush Limbaugh do? I'd like to see some poor person with an Oxycontin habit like his get off. Ain't happening. Laws apply very differently to people of different social status, prominence, and wealth (or lack of).

You don't have to be important to society in any meaningful way to avoid jail, either. If you're a musician, professional athlete, or someone else in the public eye, you apologize for "letting down" your fans, record a couple of PSAs and agree to rehab and you're off. Meanwhile, the prisons are full of poorer people who broke drug laws.

 

[ExactlySolved]

a person be opposed to dog-fighting, yet not be vegetarian...how would such a person justify such a seeming contradiction in values?

Good question, this is the best counter attack so far on my (suicide is a personal choice) <=> (drugs are a personal choice).

Here are three justifications I could imagine such a person offering:

1. I think dog fighting should be illegal because I don't like dogs to be killed because they are cute and friendly pets, but I don't mind cows and pigs being raised for slaughter because they are not pets, and not as cute.

2. I think dog fighting should be illegal because it is associated with gambling, and I don't like gambling. Eating animals is not associated with gambling so that's fine.

3. I think dog fighting should be illegal because the animals are terribly abused, to a much greater extent than occurs for the farm animals that I eat.

can you tell me if you find it justifiable

Since you asked, I don't see any good secular reasons to single out dog-fighting in the law. Obviously (1) is a bad reason, since the cuteness of dogs should have no legal bearing. The reason (2) is a failure is that if you don't like gambling you should outlaw gambling, not things that are associated with it some of the time, since otherwise you will sometimes put people in jail who were not gambling at all. Reason (3) fails for the same reason, if what you don't like is animal abuse beyond a certain point then you should make animal abuse illegal, rather then ilegallizing something that is only associated with animal abuse some of the time.

I'm not claiming to have found all the possible anti-dog fighting / pro-carnivore justifications of course.

 

[ExactlySolved]

If you are rich and/or famous, you will NOT go to jail for violating drug laws.

Oh yeah, I agree that this kind of coruption is prevalent, but since it doesn't appear in the law I left it out. In general I totally agree, but this is the case of two wrongs (poorly written laws plus corruption) making a right (productive druggies getting away with it).

 

[drankin]

After reading this thread, I've decided to kill myself.

Would you like some assistance?


j/k

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not saying we should stop them, I'm saying we should not help them.

So do you or do you not support criminalizing assisted suicide? I'm not sure if you made this clear along the way - I might have missed it.

Of course not, it just sends the message "everyone will understand if you just want to end you life, since, you know, your life sucks."

So, should we remove all individual rights that might send a "poor" message to people? How about criminalizing plastic/cosmetic surgery, since you know people might get the idea that being possessed of certain appearances, you know, sucks? Let's criminalize dieting, since that sends the message that, if you weigh more than bumblety goop, that totally sucks. And while we're getting starting down this road, let's impose limits on how many hours a week you are allowed to spend in a gym (geez, how sucky is it that you don't have six-pack abs), how much wealth you are allowed to accumulate (aww shucks, how can we let people think that being poor, you know, sucks), how much you can get yourself educated ('cause, you know...) ...

A choice made under pressure is not always free.

You heard this argument from secular groups opposing state-assisted suicide, or from your friendly neighborhood dictator? =D

So many of the decisions made by people about different aspects of their lives are not always made freely; let's help them out by making all their choices for them.

 

[Gokul43201]

Reason (3) fails for the same reason, if what you don't like is animal abuse beyond a certain point then you should make animal abuse illegal, rather then ilegallizing something that is only associated with animal abuse some of the time.

(emphasis mine, purely for identification)

The "something" above is eating meat? In that case, shouldn't reason (3) succeed? It justifies preventing animal abuse by criminalizing abusive treatment such as dog-fighting (I picked that as just one example), but not criminalizing meat eating, which needn't always be abusive. Did I misunderstand you?

Or are you saying that you can find no argument that justifies permitting meat eating while criminalizing say, dog-fighting?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So do you or do you not support criminalizing assisted suicide? I'm not sure if you made this clear along the way - I might have missed it.

I believe he is responding to the continued argument against not allowing people to commit suicide. He has not argued against people killing themselves (which is not illegal and can not really be punished if one succeeds) only against helping people commit suicide. The thread is about physician assisted suicide. You may ask the difference and he has already been attempting to explain the difference but unfortunately everyone seems to keep getting caught up on the idea that he is supposedly saying people should not be allowed to kill themselves.

So, should we remove all individual rights that might send a "poor" message to people? How about criminalizing plastic/cosmetic surgery, since you know people might get the idea that being possessed of certain appearances, you know, sucks? Let's criminalize dieting, since that sends the message that, if you weigh more than bumblety goop, that totally sucks. And while we're getting starting down this road, let's impose limits on how many hours a week you are allowed to spend in a gym (geez, how sucky is it that you don't have six-pack abs), how much wealth you are allowed to accumulate (aww shucks, how can we let people think that being poor, you know, sucks), how much you can get yourself educated ('cause, you know...) ...

It is illegal (and generally considered unethical) to influence a person to commit suicide. It is not illegal to influence a person to diet, get breats implants, work out, or make more money. If we accept that legalizing physician assisted suicide may unduely influence patients to make that decision then we find ourselves in an ethical and legal dilemma. So maybe we can focus on this 'If' instead of silly strawman 'If's?

Consider... A child is born with a severely debilitating and painful disorder. Should it be killed? Post natal abortion? It apparently should not have to live through this problem but can't make the decision itself so can the parents? Maybe we have to wait until the child is older and can make the decision itself. Technically, legally, that would not happen until the age of 18 (if it lives that long), at least not without an injunction. Should the parents be able to ask for assisted suicide for their child before they are 18? At around what age? And at what age do the parents begin to discuss this with their child? Do you think there is any way to have that discussion without it constituting an undue influence? Even if we wait until the child is 18 at what point does someone sit down and discuss the decision with them? How do you prevent undue influence from that discussion?
And besides if you do not allow the post natal abortion then you have already consigned the child to how ever many years of "living hell" so that if they survive they may or may not be capable of an uninfluenced decision of physician assisted suicide.

 

[Gokul43201]

I believe he is responding to the continued argument against not allowing people to commit suicide. He has not argued against people killing themselves (which is not illegal and can not really be punished if one succeeds) only against helping people commit suicide. The thread is about physician assisted suicide. You may ask the difference and he has already been attempting to explain the difference but unfortunately everyone seems to keep getting caught up on the idea that he is supposedly saying people should not be allowed to kill themselves.

No, I am not caught up on that idea at all. From what I've read, I have seen ExactlyS state directly that he opposes state-assisted suicide (but have not yet seen such a direct admission in general for all assisted suicide). I wanted to have this made clear.

It is illegal (and generally considered unethical) to influence a person to commit suicide. It is not illegal to influence a person to diet, get breats implants, work out, or make more money.

But why should only the first thing be illegal and not the others? ExactlyS made the case for the first on the basis that it sends the wrong message to people. I was pointing out that the same argument could be used for the others too.

If we accept that legalizing physician assisted suicide may unduely influence patients to make that decision then we find ourselves in an ethical and legal dilemma.

Then we already begin by insulting all adult human beings. Anyway, what determines whether it unduly influences or duly influences patients? And going by that argument, legalizing alcohol and cigarettes unduly influences people to drink and smoke. Perhaps we should criminalize them too.

So maybe we can focus on this 'If' instead of silly strawman 'If's?

It's not a strawman argument; it is a pretty straightforward 'slippery slope' argument.

Consider... A child is born with a severely debilitating and painful disorder. Should it be killed? Post natal abortion? It apparently should not have to live through this problem but can't make the decision itself so can the parents? Maybe we have to wait until the child is older and can make the decision itself. Technically, legally, that would not happen until the age of 18 (if it lives that long), at least not without an injunction. Should the parents be able to ask for assisted suicide for their child before they are 18? At around what age? And at what age do the parents begin to discuss this with their child? Do you think there is any way to have that discussion without it constituting an undue influence? Even if we wait until the child is 18 at what point does someone sit down and discuss the decision with them? How do you prevent undue influence from that discussion?
And besides if you do not allow the post natal abortion then you have already consigned the child to how ever many years of "living hell" so that if they survive they may or may not be capable of an uninfluenced decision of physician assisted suicide.

I have not made any statements yet about what do with non-adults or adults with severe mental disabilities (I have different responses for those two cases, but they both derive from the same fundamental argument), and unfortunately, do not wish to be drawn into this discussion (relevant though it is, primarily because I foresee not being able to spend much time on the forums for a while after this post. I will make time, however, to respond to one final post by ExactlyS, if he chooses to answer the questions I have posed him about animal abuse.)

 

[neu]

I say yes.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

But why should only the first thing be illegal and not the others? ExactlyS made the case for the first on the basis that it sends the wrong message to people. I was pointing out that the same argument could be used for the others too.
...
It's not a strawman argument; it is a pretty straightforward 'slippery slope' argument.

To begin with the first is illegal and the others are not, regardless of any opinions on whether or not they ought to be. Comparing something that is illegal to things that you may conceivably be able to argue ought be illegal makes it a strawman hidden perhaps in a slipery slope.
The other difference, and a fairly big one, is that only one of these messages (if successful) invariably results in death. Not something generally taken very lightly on the scale of ethical consequences.

Then we already begin by insulting all adult human beings. Anyway, what determines whether it unduly influences or duly influences patients?

Right because the vast majority of Americans who drink either coke or pepsi, are christian, believe in angels, believe in ghosts, believe in creationism or intelligent design, ect are all going to be terribly insulted by the idea that they may be influenced by a shift in cultural norms. Seriously Gokul, I have never known you to be the champion of the intelligence and unrelenting individualism of the average man.
As for due vs undue influence, I think that's the point of debate with Exactly isn't it?

And going by that argument, legalizing alcohol and cigarettes unduly influences people to drink and smoke. Perhaps we should criminalize them too.

We've seen the consequences of illegalizing alcohol and marijuana. I don't doubt that we would see something similar though perhaps lesser in the case of tobacco.
Do you think we will see a significant drop in crime if assisted suicide is legalized? Maybe fewer doctors jailed for assisting I'll grant. What of the number of suicides in general? You know in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, suicide rates in general have increased yearly for the last decade and are much higher than the national average.

I have not made any statements yet about what do with non-adults or adults with severe mental disabilities (I have different responses for those two cases, but they both derive from the same fundamental argument), and unfortunately, do not wish to be drawn into this discussion (relevant though it is, primarily because I foresee not being able to spend much time on the forums for a while after this post. I will make time, however, to respond to one final post by ExactlyS, if he chooses to answer the questions I have posed him about animal abuse.)

Ok. I was using it as a lead in and of course most laws can not be tailored to descriminate with regard to age. The matter of young people opting for suicide and the manner in which we would let them know of the option is certainly a problem.

Hope what ever you will be busy with will be more fun than discussing suicide. :-)

 

[ExactlySolved]

So do you or do you not support criminalizing assisted suicide? I'm not sure if you made this clear along the way - I might have missed it.

No, I am not caught up on that idea at all. From what I've read, I have seen ExactlyS state directly that he opposes state-assisted suicide (but have not yet seen such a direct admission in general for all assisted suicide). I wanted to have this made clear.

It's not just the assistance from the state that's wrong, but also the approval, therefore the Disability Rights (DR) position is that assisted suicide is always wrong no matter who is doing the assisting.

So, should we remove all individual rights that might send a "poor" message to people? How about criminalizing plastic/cosmetic surgery, since you know people might get the idea that being possessed of certain appearances, you know, sucks? Let's criminalize dieting, since that sends the message that, if you weigh more than bumblety goop, that totally sucks. And while we're getting starting down this road, let's impose limits on how many hours a week you are allowed to spend in a gym (geez, how sucky is it that you don't have six-pack abs), how much wealth you are allowed to accumulate (aww shucks, how can we let people think that being poor, you know, sucks), how much you can get yourself educated ('cause, you know...) ...

The difference is that in the case of assisted suicide there is an active minority, the DR activists, who claim that these 'rights' to kill yourself if you beome disabled are offensive to them. This is unlike the groups of poor people, ugly people, fat people, etc who have not yet become a political force. The DR activists are the same ones who got the 1992 ADA act passed in America, so they have already demonstrated that their arguments can potentially convince Washington.

The "something" above is eating meat? In that case, shouldn't reason (3) succeed? It justifies preventing animal abuse by criminalizing abusive treatment such as dog-fighting (I picked that as just one example), but not criminalizing meat eating, which needn't always be abusive. Did I misunderstand you?

Actually the 'something' in that clause was "animal abuse", sorry for my awkward writing. If you are running low on time to post, and so am I, we can pick that argument back up later.

You heard this argument from secular groups opposing state-assisted suicide, or from your friendly neighborhood dictator? =D

The argument comes directly from:

Amundson, Taira, The Effect of Life Experience on the Perceived
Morality of the Policy of Physician-Assisted Suicide JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL. 16/NO. 1/2005/PP. 53–57

My line is from this excerpt from the conclusion:

“Your money or your life” is a forced choice, not a true choice,
and neither is “Drive your family into bankruptcy or else ac-
cept assisted suicide.”Or “Accept the help of caregivers who re-
sent and despise your life, and would rather die themselves
than live like you . . . and are willing to tell you that to your
face ...or else accept assisted suicide.”

But why should only the first thing be illegal and not the others? ExactlyS made the case for the first on the basis that it sends the wrong message to people. I was pointing out that the same argument could be used for the others too.

Just to make sure I'm clear, it's the difference between offending some people in theory and offending real people right now who have actively spoken up about the offense.