Assisted suicide

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Are any of you opponents of assisted suicide. Why?

[Helm]

I don't think there's any real need for it if you can keep terminally ill people fully sedated and unconcious and just wait for nature to take it's course, which may happen a little more quickly if they're sedated and unconscious. Though not everyone who has it done are terminally ill they just have an unbearable life for whatever reason, so I'm undecided there. The problm is people may take liberties and bump someone off for their money or whatever then claim it was an assisted suicide.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I don't think there's any real need for it if you can keep terminally ill people fully sedated and unconcious and just wait for nature to take it's course

what's the difference apart from your method increasing suffering for loved ones?

[Helm]

what's the difference apart from your method increasing suffering for loved ones?

Doctors are technically meant to treat people rather than end lives, at least this way they are technicaly treating the symptoms, and if say the treatment involves a lethal dose of morphine then so be it. And I should think a gradual fade out would be easier for family members than a sudden death.

[Mangalore]

... just wait for nature to take it's course, ...

Mainly quoting you because imo the above the main flaw in thinking overall concerning life and death: Our level of medicine already prevented nature from taking it's course usually years ago for these people! The natural course concerning terminal diseases usually would have meant the person would have died far more rapidly.
It's the actually the capabilities of our modern medicine which creates the issue to begin with because it can prolong a life beyond the capacity of a person to actually "live" it.

I just have to compare my late grandmother who became 96, had a stroke and died within a space of 2 days but had lived until then on her own with just a little assistance in her own apartment to any of those other cases I saw during my civilian service who were stuck in their beds completely dependant on foreign aid to survive just the next day for years. Since then I can't call just breathing "living" anymore and I see a problem of still applying absolute morales of our ancestors to our society when our technology has reached a level of sophistication where it has altered our lives to an incredible degree to even 150 years ago.


I'm not saying assissted suicide should be unregulated but mainly want to point out that our modern society is scratching off the paint of alot of our morale constructs that lay behind statements like "let nature take it's course" and at the speed our society goes it will soon come a time it won't work anymore at all.

I'd say in a way alot of today's deaths are solely due to our medical systems, relatives etc. already limiting the capacity of what they could do to preserve life if they didn't care about the opinion of a patient and would simply dump all they had into it (iron lungs, forced nutritions, artifical blood cleaning and pumping, patient drugged up, the brain might have turned into mush years ago and this could still keep a body - or parts of it - running for another couple of years... we are not doing something like that ) so I'd say we would simply become more honest if we talked about the topic more openly instead of redtaping it by quoting absolute "truths" which exist in their own equilibrium without interaction with reality.

[Tuor]

Are any of you opponents of assisted suicide. Why?

That is a very good question. It's not one I normally ask myself, anyway.

Given some thought, I would have to say that I'm not opposed to it in some cases. The cases would require that there be no way to alleviate a person's pain, whether physical or emotional, with medication or some other means. This is not to say that I'm all for helping a depressed person off himself or herself, of course. I would only offer help when there is no other way around it -- absolutely none.

[Kurtz]

The right to die is a fundamental human right.

[maerd2003]

The right to die is a fundamental human right.

the right to demand assist from sb in order to be killed is not..

[Kurtz]

the right to demand assist from sb in order to be killed is not..

If you cannot take your life on or own because of physical or psychological reasons. ( Although I don't think they should if it's psychological) Why do you expect them to continue living? If someone is in unbearable pain and agony then why should we demand that they continue living? It's their life, and it's their choice to end it if it's their choice.

[Marcus Publius]

Since I'm against suicide.I suppose I'm opponent of assisted suicide.I would personally never assist person to kill himself.

[chriscase]

I would oppose legalized euthanasia for the same reason I oppose capital punishment: I don't trust the State or its legal agents with the power to end the life of its citizens. There may be compelling cases to make that the ending of a person's life is just, right, or merciful, but it's terribly dangerous to grant that right to the State.

[Tuor]

If this is in the context of giving that right to the State, I'm afraid I'm opposed to that. I was under the impression that this was just on an individual to individual basis.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I would oppose legalized euthanasia for the same reason I oppose capital punishment: I don't trust the State or its legal agents with the power to end the life of its citizens. There may be compelling cases to make that the ending of a person's life is just, right, or merciful, but it's terribly dangerous to grant that right to the State.

It's not being granted to the state, it's being granted to the individual. The state already has to the power to end the life of whomever it pleases.

I oppose it for the same reason as chriscase. Further even pulling the plug seems wrong to me as we've learned so much in the last 10 years alone that no brain activity in many cases might not actually be death as we've assumed it was. If I'm ever in a coma I want to live as long as possible, at the current rate of medical advancement it seems utterly premature for me to decide I want the plug pulled or to allow anyone to pull the plug. Orders not to resuscitate and orders not to treat annoy me whole heartedly as well. I also oppose it on an individual basis, even doctors are pretty much guessing when someone is 'brain dead' or a in a persistent vegetative state.

Tell me that when you're in teh late stages of huntington's disease.

[Elfdude]

Tell me that when you're in teh late stages of huntington's disease.

I can't but I know people who can. When it comes to people who are suffering from diseases and chronic barely treatable ones like Huntington's you have a dynamic gradient of those who are depressed and lose all motivation and those who despite logic become happy and gain boundless energy. To me this reflects the idea that those who do wish for assisted suicide or what not are making a decision based off of their perception. A perception that doesn't allow them to consider advances in medicine. Until your body stops working I think you should stubbornly try and live at all costs. Further with dementia its hard to tell if its the person talking or if its the dementia and to be honest we don't really know if dementia is treatable or even curable. We're really only starting to unlock those mysteries but at the rate anyone who has huntington's today and isn't yet suffering from their dementia are likely to treatments available for it by the time it sets in.

Until then Huntington's patients would do good to look into marijuana, not only does it actively help to protect the mind, and reduce chorea it results in neurogenesis. It has further evidence in slowing down the progress of alzheimer's which is a similar mechanism to the dementia in huntington's.

[chriscase]

It's not being granted to the state, it's being granted to the individual. The state already has to the power to end the life of whomever it pleases.

Not according to me. When we talk about legalizing euthanasia, there is no way to avoid complicity of the State. The State must take a position on the death of its citizens. If we start stipulating that, under one circumstance or another, the State can turn a blind eye or connive in the death of its citizens, we are heading down a path frought with peril.

With both capital punishment and euthanasia, we move significantly closer toward territory where the routine execution of citizens is legal, subject only to the fulfillment of some bureaucratic procedure (or the credible appearance of one).

In my view, the State and its agents should be legally obliged, under all circumstances, to protect the lives of citizens. That should be the stance of the Law, so that, when unfortunate violations of this principle inevitably occur, there is no "wiggle room" whatsoever for the perpetrators.

[Khassaki]

I would oppose legalized euthanasia for the same reason I oppose capital punishment: I don't trust the State or its legal agents with the power to end the life of its citizens. There may be compelling cases to make that the ending of a person's life is just, right, or merciful, but it's terribly dangerous to grant that right to the State.

Yep, the figures coming out of the Holland, which has had it for a while now, is that the safeguards are slipping and that a significant number of people are having their lives ended without their consent. Ending a life without consent is supposed to only be granted by a panel of three doctors, but it appears in some hospitals it is the practice to leave the decision to nurses and family while a single doctor signs off on the procedure - often without attending the patient.

[Denny Crane!]

I would oppose legalized euthanasia for the same reason I oppose capital punishment: I don't trust the State or its legal agents with the power to end the life of its citizens. There may be compelling cases to make that the ending of a person's life is just, right, or merciful, but it's terribly dangerous to grant that right to the State.

Argument from apocalypse? Don't buy it.

Known a surprising amount of people die from muscular dystrophy or other living death cases. To make it illegal for people to seek assistance does actually stop people who want to do it from doing it - wouldn't stop me but there you have it. So because of your fear you would support condemning people to tortorous horrendous pain and psychological nightmares that are terrifying beyond belief.

Poor choices man.

[chriscase]

Argument from apocalypse? Don't buy it.

Known a surprising amount of people die from muscular dystrophy or other living death cases. To make it illegal for people to seek assistance does actually stop people who want to do it from doing it - wouldn't stop me but there you have it. So because of your fear you would support condemning people to tortorous horrendous pain and psychological nightmares that are terrifying beyond belief.

Poor choices man.

The rule of Law and the State are not absolute. According to me, they should be significantly less. My point is that where the State is concerned we should be very careful what we permit.

I wonder, though, about these people you have known. I understand that treatment for pain has advanced significantly, but in many cases it's not used. I don't know specifically about muscular dystrophy. Is the pain treatable?

[Denny Crane!]

The rule of Law and the State is not absolute. My point is that where it's concerned we should be very careful what we permit.

When it is peoples bodies, lives, self determination and the ability to be free of unbelievable torture there is nothing in the consideration of what we permit - there is only what we are willing to inflict on people through the rule of law in order to satisfy our fears. Having witnessed this, it is infliction not permission. Pedantic framing but that is how I feel about it.

I wonder, though, about whether these people you have known. I understand that treatment for pain has advanced significantly, but in many cases it's not used. I don't know specifically about muscular dystrophy. Is the pain treatable?

Specifically with many muscle wasting diseases pain can usually be managed though not always, the pain from these diseases come when you lose the ability to blink your eyelids. You become a living corpse unable to breath or blink unassisted and while you can think normally you can't move at all it becomes similar to locked in syndrome. The emotional pain and torment are beyond belief and terrifying to those involved.

But you know swap this out for motor neurone, parkinsons, MS, ME, terminal cancer and a host of other things. For me it isn't a problem as I'd have the strength to do it myself. Some people leave it to long because they aren't strong enough, and I don't mean that pejoratively, and leave it to the point where they can't even open up a pack of tablets unaided and so no longer have the option to do it themselves - I've discussed that with someone who made an unsuccessful attempt at suicide but lost the strength to open the tablets after taking 10 or so.

We have to accept that some people will want to make this choice, and it is not a choice made out of weakness because there is no value judgement here and it isn't societies choice to force a death we deem fitting but they don't because we fear the consequences. The very fact that we have a country who has created fitting and safe procedural practices to create safe non exploitative environments where people can make these decisions amid a host of safeguards tells me that the arguments from fear are not compelling and that there is certainly arguments from morality to make the case.

[chriscase]

When it is peoples bodies, lives, self determination and the ability to be free of unbelievable torture there is nothing in the consideration of what we permit - there is only what we are willing to inflict on people through the rule of law in order to satisfy our fears. Having witnessed this, it is infliction not permission. Pedantic framing but that is how I feel about it.

Specifically with many muscle wasting diseases pain can usually be managed though not always, the pain from these diseases come when you lose the ability to blink your eyelids. You become a living corpse unable to breath or blink unassisted and while you can think normally you can't move at all it becomes similar to locked in syndrome. The emotional pain and torment are beyond belief and terrifying to those involved.

But you know swap this out for motor neurone, parkinsons, MS, ME, terminal cancer and a host of other things. For me it isn't a problem as I'd have the strength to do it myself. Some people leave it to long because they aren't strong enough, and I don't mean that pejoratively, and leave it to the point where they can't even open up a pack of tablets unaided and so no longer have the option to do it themselves - I've discussed that with someone who made an unsuccessful attempt at suicide but lost the strength to open the tablets after taking 10 or so.

We have to accept that some people will want to make this choice, and it is not a choice made out of weakness because there is no value judgement here and it isn't societies choice to force a death we deem fitting but they don't because we fear the consequences. The very fact that we have a country who has created fitting and safe procedural practices to create safe non exploitative environments where people can make these decisions amid a host of safeguards tells me that the arguments from fear are not compelling and that there is certainly arguments from morality to make the case.

But how are we supposed to know that a suicide has not been "assisted" against someone's will? The reality is that there is always ambiguity, always a margin of error. I don't think that constraining the capability of the State to kill its citizens amounts to "infliction" of horrible pain. As you point out, anyone who prepares sufficiently can put himself out of his own misery. Any sanctions the State might bring to bear on that person would obviously be moot.

But imagine the loopholes that are possible when it's legal to "assist" in the suicide of someone who is ill. How much more difficult does it become to investigate an apparent suicide when "assistance" by an external party is not necessarily indicative of malfeasance?

You speak of "argument from fear" or "argument from apocalypse" as if the concerns I express about the powers of the State are the ravings of a lunatic fringe. Don't you think that is a bit of an unfair characterization? It's not like I'm saying I want to take away a person's rights to put himself out of his own misery. I don't want to give the State more powers to kill its own citizens. I don't think these two positions are neccesarily linked.

Take Kevorkian's case, for example. IIRC he never got in to trouble simply for sharing information about how to off oneself; he only got in trouble for showing up in person and actually helping in the act.