1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Supreme Court upholds assisted suicide law.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Little Raven, Jan 17, 2006.

  1. cgannon64

    cgannon64 BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    19,213
    Location:
    Hipster-Authorland, Brooklyn (Hell)
    Yes, I know that is your opinion.
    You are not harmed when you choose to kill yourself. The role of the state is to protect you from harm - including self-inflicted harm.
    Valid, or coherent? Because you will dismiss any morally-based example as invalid, I'm sure.
    The religious argument is typically that people have no rights over their own bodies, as they did not create them.
    All choices regarding life and death must be made in favor of life.
     
  2. Neomega

    Neomega Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    11,261
    peoples other options could include:

    Pulling the feeding tube, and living for another month, dehydrated and wasting away, slowly starving to death

    Pulling the plug on an artificial lung, and asphixiating in about 5 minutes, causing the blood vessels in their eyes to burst as the body attempt to turn inside out looking for oxygen.

    Shot-gun, if they can pull the trigger. Leaving an aweful and unsightly mess for the kids to clean up, scrubbing daddy from the walls.

    Quitting medications, that could lead to intense amounts of pain, an agonal death.

    Sleeping with the car on in the garage... if you have a garage, and if you can get into a car, and if you can control your muscles at all.

    ...and in Oregon state, you can say your good byes, with your family around, and pull the trigger to release a liquid in you veins as you pass from here to there.
     
  3. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    43,137
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    That view shows no respect for other people's religious views. It is possible to have an internally-consistent religion where suicide is allowed. Especially suicide for the benefit of others, but that's not a requisite.

    Preventing assisted suicide reduces Free Will. Is that not valuable to you?
     
  4. cgannon64

    cgannon64 BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    19,213
    Location:
    Hipster-Authorland, Brooklyn (Hell)
    No, as a rational person, I would obviously not choose an irrational position - unless it is worse than the alternative. This of course does entitle you to take away my free will, unless the situation was grave and the error serious.

    (Personally, any irrational aspects of my religious position are not held - I try to acknowledge all of the problems - but rather not strong enough to bring down the whole structure. I'd rather beleive in a God with a few flaws that are possibly removable than beleive in nothing.)
    I don't want to dismiss the idea offhand, but I am skeptical.
    All political philosophies reduce free will, to some degree.
     
  5. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    43,137
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    You should look into cryonics, and try to force that on everyone.
     
  6. Neomega

    Neomega Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    11,261
    If the root of your logic is faith, it is irrational, and any attempt at logicizing the fruit of your logic fails, because the root is illogical. There is no logical basis for your arguments, they are all based on faith, faith which all others do not share.

    (I mean irrational in the sense that it cannot have any proof by definition)
     
  7. The Yankee

    The Yankee The New Yawker Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    19,467
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    That can be extended into all sorts of things and can put a definite cramp on the decisions a person would like to take.

    Morals are good...though they can clash at times. Nobody is requiring you to have this done if you find yourself in a terrible situation. And for those other people, it is the ease of suffering at last. A suffering that is intense and fatal, as the assisted suicides have mostly or all been.

    So those that hold firm to those beliefs will not undergo it.

    Again, that can be extended to all kinds of government policy, including welfare, medicine, war, etc.
     
  8. IglooDude

    IglooDude Enforcing Rule 34 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    21,421
    Location:
    Igloo, New Hampshire
    You've confused me. If I am not harmed when I choose to kill myself, then why is state protection necessary?

    A morally-based example of morals would be invalid on its face, so I'd settle for coherent. I can't think of any good examples, and am interested to see the ones you have.

    Ah, were it that black-and-white. I'd submit to you that choices between convenience and death are frequently made in favor of convenience.
     
  9. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    43,137
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Okay, I've slept on it, and I realise now why I strongly support the right to a doctor assisted suicide.

    A doctor assisted suicide, ideally, has a patient with a terminal and extremely painful illness. There's no question that the person will die, or that the pain will stop.

    People who resist assisted suicide want to prevent the death (which is noble). However, by preventing suicide, you are FORCING the patient to undergo massive and hopeless and unwanted suffering in order to preserve that life.

    This is a hypocrasy on their part of massive proportions. Why? Because they not only expect, but force, another to undergo massive suffering to prevent a death, however, they are completely unwilling to approach that level of suffering in themselves to prevent death. If a person spent every conceivable effort to prevent death in others, to the point of massive suffering, that person would have a decent case for a moral objection. Everyone else is a hypocrite; because they do not voluntarily attempt to reduce death to the same level of discomfort the patient experiences.

    The assisted-suicide requestor is a person who:
    a) has given up hope that life will get better
    b) has hope that death is better
    c) cannot kill themselves OR wants to die in a manner to reduce the suffering of others

    With regards to c), when my grandmother was dying, she made every effort to let us know that she believed in Heaven and that she didn't mind dying. I think that this was the moral choice. She was trying to comfort us regarding her death, and reduce the impact of her death. A clinical suicide CAN be less traumatic on the family than finding a shot-gunned corpse or watching someone whither for months, knowing they want to die.

    To sum up, suffer to prevent death before forcing someone else to. Anything else is hypocrisy.
     
  10. Kayak

    Kayak Partisan

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,236
    Location:
    Upside down
    I also support assited suicide for terminally ill people, I think, however that to wish to die for the comfort of others is exactly the wrong reason. This could esily lead to wanting to die to prevent financial loss or similar. Comforting others by assuring them you wish, or don't mind, dying is good. But I don't think the "needs" of others should be an important factor here.
     
  11. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    43,137
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    These people don't wish to die for the comfort of others. Their death is predetermined and unavoidable. It's the manner of death that can be a comfort for others. A fine distinction, but an important one.
     
  12. nonconformist

    nonconformist Miserable

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    18,740
    Location:
    Canterbury
    Well, obviously the religious are much better informed than we.
     
  13. Tank_Guy#3

    Tank_Guy#3 Lion of Lehistan

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,917
    Location:
    Vivat Sobieski!
    Hey if the person is stage 4 cancer and there is no way in hell he or she can survive and she wants to take her own life, who are we to tell her she can't.
     
  14. The Yankee

    The Yankee The New Yawker Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    19,467
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    If you want to look at it from a money point of view, many of the continued, and futile, and painful treatments would cost a lot of money, which would probably be passed on to insurance or taxpayers.

    Yes, it's a cold argument...but I'm certain there are some that would find some appeal in it.
     
  15. cgannon64

    cgannon64 BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    19,213
    Location:
    Hipster-Authorland, Brooklyn (Hell)
    Faith is not an irrational or an illogical basis, it is merely an unprovable one.
    Depending on what extensions you mean, I don't see anything wrong with that.
    Morals, if they are worth anything, apply to all.
    Indeed, it can.
    Why are harmed.
    Why would it be invalid? We are both asserting laws based on moral codes. Yours is that an action is wrong and illegal if it violates the rights of others; mine is that, with qualifications.
    Frequency is a good indication of immorality. ;)
    Once again, this is coming down to two assertions that I reject:

    1. Force is always invalid when regarding moral questions. (You reject that also.)
    2. Suffering is better than death.

    I don't expect you to beleive these; I do expect you to accept my position and yours as equally valid, for they are the same thing, but with different premises.
    This is nothing but an ad hominem attack.
    Let's analyze these in detail:

    a) The person deserves the right to suicide because they want it.
    b) The person deserves the right to suicide becaues they are convinced they need it.
    c) The person deserves the right to suicide because suffering is disturbing.
    My grandfather died recently, the first person in my family I was close to that died. He had a mostly peaceful death, as his cancer luckily knocked out his nerves as it attacked his body, so he was mostly without pain. That does not mean he was without suffering: it gave me great shock to see a man who was always peaceful and decent and kind snap at my grandmother, as he was clearly overwhelmed by his own impending death. We suffered as well - I remember being in the room with him when my grandmother started to clean and bandage his bedsores, horrible looking wounds that he couldn't feel - I could barely imagine what that was like for her.

    Of course the story is not so simple as that. I found out after his death that he had learned he was probably going to get colon cancer ten years beforehand. He also learned that he would still have a decade or so of life, but if he got treatment that might be extended a bit further. He decided that he would rather enjoy his last decade with my grandmother without disturbing her, and so he let it go untreated for all that time.

    Was this suicide? I don't know. All I know is, actively causing one's own death is not the same as refusing treatment when treatment seems irrational. A "natural" death is best, but what exactly that is immensely hard to pin down. There is clearly a wide grey area - but that does not mean there aren't clear-cut examples at either end.
     
  16. The Yankee

    The Yankee The New Yawker Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    19,467
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    It seems to be decided by law then. And Oregon passed theirs.

    Whose morals, though? We can generally all agree on no stealing, no lying, no murder (in the most general sense of, say, stabbing someone else to death). You dive in deeper, and this is where opinions, and morals, can conflict. Whose ideas are paramount?
     
  17. Neomega

    Neomega Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    11,261
    That is pretty much what I said. But how can it be logical, if it cannot be proven? I mean you can study enormous texts on metaphysics, like my once very catholic uncle did, but in the end, it is all theology.


    "natural" -humans are far above natural in everything they do. A natural death would be about 40 years old from exposure. We have food, clothes and shelter, nothing else in the natural world even does that.

    Nor will you find animals extracting galladium and nitric acid tinctures to inject and bombard with x-rays to make precision strikes on tumors. Humans, by nature, are quite "unnatural".
     
  18. The Yankee

    The Yankee The New Yawker Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    19,467
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    A natural death would also mean telling the doctor to cease the medications and the life supports. We see this as being okay and the patient's (or next of kin's) right to do. So how different is this?

    Honest question.
     
  19. cgannon64

    cgannon64 BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    19,213
    Location:
    Hipster-Authorland, Brooklyn (Hell)
    Indeed, and I'm crossing my fingers that Republicans, you know, maybe act on their culture of life talk. It'd be nice to see them do something, just once, before we say goodbye. ;)
    The true ones.
    Logical does not mean 'provable'. Unprovable things can be perfectly logical; in fact, that is the only means we have of examining unprovable assertions.
    I know this, which is why I acknowleged that 'natural' was a vague term. Arguably, natural could be construed as following our natural instincts - that is, life over death.
    How different? I am not sure, but they are different. Actively choosing death and passively choosing death are different things.

    Not to mention that it'd be hard to legislate against passively-chosen death - mandatory cancer treatment?
     
  20. Kayak

    Kayak Partisan

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,236
    Location:
    Upside down
    This is an interesting statment to me. I don't dissagree, but it occures to me that we do much that hastens death each day. We overeat, smoke, drink, use poisons around the house, etc. Could we legislate agaist those by this logic?
     

Share This Page