The Right to Die – Personal Choice or Public Safety?

[nerf13]

Right to die

A series of high profile and often very moving cases in recent years has made the right to die one of the most keenly contested debates of our time, raising complex medical, legal, legislative, religious and moral issues.

Can helping someone to die ever be justified? If so, in what circumstances? What controls might be required to protect the rights of people making the decision to die as well as those of their family and friends and the medical practitioners and others involved in their care?

If not, who has the right to condemn a terminally ill patient to prolonged suffering and how can that right be justified? What is the difference between assisted dying, assisted suicide and euthanasia and does it matter?

[Sar1n]

If life is inherent human right, so is the choice when to terminate it. Everyone should have the chance to die in the manner they desire, as long as it does not cross another's rights.

[Deathless]

I think a right to die is in many ways an appreciation for life. People want to die in dignity and without prolonged suffering. I think if we want to do this in an organized institutional level a lot of safeguards need to be in place but I think it's possible and should be legal.

[Himster]

The trouble is the people asking for such help may not be of perfectly sound mind.

[Colonel Dax]

The trouble is the people asking for such help may not be of perfectly sound mind.

I'm not sure that being of unsound mind necessarily invaildates one's desire to cease living.

Let's say that someone is insane - a proper nutter, as it were. Tell me, what sort of life is that? If they're aware enough to know of their current sorry state, then they ought to be sensible enough to determine whether or not they deign to continue life, no?

[Himster]

I'm not sure that being of unsound mind necessarily invaildates one's desire to cease living.

Pain may pass, life may endure in the face of adversity, death is so final.

Let's say that someone is insane - a proper nutter, as it were. Tell me, what sort of life is that? If they're aware enough to know of their current sorry state, then they ought to be sensible enough to determine whether or not they deign to continue life, no?

I wasn't really talking about people with actual mental disorders, I was more interested in the sane driven to a temporary precipice from pain such as cancer.

[Valden]

There are so many problems with euthanasia: it belittles respect for life by affirming that some lives are worth more than others, and it affects the rights of others; if one patient chooses to live whilst another chooses to die, the one who chose to live has had his life belittled. Indeed, Kant argued that all human life is intrinsically valuable, and is an end in itself rather than a means to an end. All human life is valuable regardless of gender, age, race, wealth, intelligence or physical condition. Euthanasia is simply inconsistent with this view; if we say that those who are experiencing an excruciating illness are allowed an assisted death, why do we not say all humans are allowed an assisted death at any time irrespective of their health? The former confirms that physically decrepit people are less important, and the latter throws the sanctity of life out the window in its entirety. The only consistent philosophy of life is therefore to either allow any human to have an assisted death regardless of age, wealth, physical condition etc, or none.

But what would be wrong with allowing anyone to have an assisted death at any time? For a start, how would we ascertain whether or not these people are making a sane, rational choice, are there sane, rational reasons for a perfectly healthy individual to want an assisted death? It seems to me that on a purely practical level, this option would be untenable. Do we disallow children and mentally ill people from euthanasia because they are considered unable to bear the responsibility of choice? We then send out the message that children and the mentally ill are more valuable than healthy adults. Of course, I am merely exploring the idea, I am wholly opposed to any form of euthanasia, because all human life is intrinsically valuable.

Besides the utter ethical inconsistency of euthanasia, there are serious practical issues with its application. Euthanasia would in all likelihood become the most cost-effective way of giving 'care' to terminally ill patients, placing immediate financial pressure on them. Indeed, family pressures may also be placed on the patient to 'do the right thing' and spare them all the burden, and patients with no families or next of kin may feel euthanasia is their only 'hope'. Vulnerable people would be placed under pressure to end their lives.

The trouble is the people asking for such help may not be of perfectly sound mind.

This is important; can we even consider someone in that much pain to be capable of making a rational choice? (this is an open question)

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

...if one patient chooses to live whilst another chooses to die, the one who chose to live has had his life belittled.

Doesn't matter.

Indeed, Kant argued that all human life is intrinsically valuable, and is an end in itself rather than a means to an end. All human life is valuable regardless of gender, age, race, wealth, intelligence or physical condition.

The value of life is irrelevant. Property, regardless of it's value, should solely be controlled by it's owner.

Euthanasia is simply inconsistent with this view; if we say that those who are experiencing an excruciating illness are allowed an assisted death, why do we not say all humans are allowed an assisted death at any time irrespective of their health?

Why not let them control their own property without harming others?

But what would be wrong with allowing anyone to have an assisted death at any time? For a start, how would we ascertain whether or not these people are making a sane, rational choice, are there sane, rational reasons for a perfectly healthy individual to want an assisted death? It seems to me that on a purely practical level, this option would be untenable. Do we disallow children and mentally ill people from euthanasia because they are considered unable to bear the responsibility of choice? We then send out the message that children and the mentally ill are more valuable than healthy adults. Of course, I am merely exploring the idea, I am wholly opposed to any form of euthanasia, because all human life is intrinsically valuable.

All it says is that the mentally ill and children are not capable of making decisions for themselves. Value is subjective. I think it makes them less valuable as they're less capable.

Besides the utter ethical inconsistency of euthanasia, there are serious practical issues with its application. Euthanasia would in all likelihood become the most cost-effective way of giving 'care' to terminally ill patients, placing immediate financial pressure on them. Indeed, family pressures may also be placed on the patient to 'do the right thing' and spare them all the burden, and patients with no families or next of kin may feel euthanasia is their only 'hope'. Vulnerable people would be placed under pressure to end their lives.

If the patients would rather die quickly than burden their families, then why not let them? If they're being pressured by their families to die quickly, provide compulsory counselling for anyone considering euthanasia.

This is important; can we even consider someone in that much pain to be capable of making a rational choice? (this is an open question)

They're more capable of making a rational decision about it than somebody who isn't experiencing what they are. If you haven't experienced what they have, you've got no idea what you're talking about.

Brain Dead Student Awakens Hours After Doctors Suggest Pulling the Plug

Then make it illegal to pull the plug without the consent of the patient. Family and doctors have no right to make the decision.

[Valden]

Doesn't matter.

Well it does, because the life of the patient who chose to live has been belittled by the patient who chose to die. In a system with institutionalized euthanasia for the terminally ill, 'living' becomes an expensive alternative to cost-effective lethal drugs.

The value of life is irrelevant. Property, regardless of it's value, should solely be controlled by it's owner.

You're clouding the issue, we are not talking about suicide here, but the right of someone to demand active help from others to die. I also completely reject your claim that the value of life is irrelevant, that is the entire issue! You're going against the consensus of pretty much every western government and the UN if you think human life is not intrinsically valuable, and this raises serious questions about the legitimacy of euthanasia, as I explained in my previous post.

Why not let them control their own property without harming others?

As I have explained, financial and social pressures would be placed on the terminally ill to end their lives, and the sanctity of life would be undermined, harming all of us.

All it says is that the mentally ill and children are not capable of making decisions for themselves. Value is subjective. I think it makes them less valuable as they're less capable.

I hope you are away you just made the claim that mentally ill people and children are less valuable than you are, I refer you back to my original contention, which was based on the view that all human life is intrinsically valuable, regardless of race, age, wealth or physical/mental condition. Your position instead is instead one of prejudice against children and the mentally ill. They are no less valuable because they are not considered capable of making such powerful choices. Is a half starved Belsen victim less valuable because he cannot make a rational choice when asked which of his two children should live? The ability to make a rational choice does not determine human value, instead we are all intrinsically valuable.

If the patients would rather die quickly than burden their families, then why not let them? If they're being pressured by their families to die quickly, provide compulsory counselling for anyone considering euthanasia.

You are reducing the issue beyond meaningfulness, the entire problem is that we don't really know if the patient does want to die, or if they feel compelled to by external obligations, be they social, familial or financial. And compulsory counselling? What will that achieve? It would be an expensive waste of time, it would become a mere formality "you need to get your certificate saying you have had your compulsory counselling session before we can kill you". The same problem with compulsory counselling for women wanting abortions. They don't go for the counselling, they go to get their certificate that will allow them to get an abortion. Similarly, patients who have succumbed to external pressures to end their lives would enter the counselling session in a similar mindset. This isn't an issue you can instantly solve with counselling, the only consistent route is to affirm the sanctity of life and euthanise no one.

They're more capable of making a rational decision about it than somebody who isn't experiencing what they are. If you haven't experienced what they have, you've got no idea what you're talking about.

Is a drunkard more capable than a non-drinker of making a rational decision about drinking? Under your logic he is, but the entire point is that drunkenness renders the man incapable of making a rational choice, just as the vulnerability and pain of the patient renders them incapable of making the choice. You would put the catastrophic power of self-destruction into the hands of those we should be protecting.

[Himster]

This is important; can we even consider someone in that much pain to be capable of making a rational choice? (this is an open question)

The flip side is: by not complying with our loved-ones' wishes to end their suffering we are vicariously causing them to suffer. We spare ourselves the trauma of killing a loved one and our loved ones' pay for our high-minded humanism with agony and helpless despair.

There is no easy answer, to think there is would be folly of the highest order.

[Denny Crane!]

There are so many problems with euthanasia: it belittles respect for life by affirming that some lives are worth more than others,

Value judgement, subjective, ie. matter of opinion and as such false.

Lives worth more than others, automatic assumption that the ending of a life devalues it - unproven.

Automatic assumption that it makes other lives continued worth more - unproven.

Basically pure conjecture and opinion.

And belittling is a problem for others as we can see a subjective opinon based problem that shouldn't impinge on personal liberty.

and it affects the rights of others; if one patient chooses to live whilst another chooses to die, the one who chose to live has had his life belittled.

A random unproven assumption based on the previous random unproven assumptions one of pure opinion or to go all 1930's, BALDERDASH, gosh I love old vernacular.

But yes an opinion founded on a previous opinion holds little weight anywho.

Indeed, Kant argued that all human life is intrinsically valuable, and is an end in itself rather than a means to an end. All human life is valuable regardless of gender, age, race, wealth, intelligence or physical condition.

The fact that a philosopher randomly argued something is rather irrelevant unless you give us his reasoning but then again none of that intrinsic value is eroded by the free choice to end such a value. Value is intrinsic and inherent in itself not something that can be taken away by an action upon it. It is merely a temporal issue with the proposed amount of time such a thing should have which is the disagreement, that it will end is not up for debate.

Engaged in a false dilemma on apparently a false interpretation unless you can provide more.

Euthanasia is simply inconsistent with this view;

What view?

if we say that those who are experiencing an excruciating illness are allowed an assisted death, why do we not say all humans are allowed an assisted death at any time irrespective of their health?

Oh you mean what if there was some slippery slope and if we set foot upon it we'd all of a sudden not be able to stop? Is that an appropriate fall-cough-analogy?

That is like saying if we allow capital punishment, what is to stop government killing all of its people. Quite simple, the will of the people to allow the best possible outcome for all other people. Regardless of what you agree in whether it is euthanasia or capital punishment the founding idea of our collective action and collective wishes expressed less coherently through politics but much more coherently through media and mass communication is the best outcome for all.

Slippery slope works both ways though. If no freedom to die then what freedom to live. If we will deny people that choice why should they be allowed to choose what food they eat or how many children to have or any other rational choice? Why? Why do we have any kind of freedom of choice? Where is the right to live?

If not right to die then where is the right to anything and where do our rights come from if personal liberty is a myth?

The former confirms that physically decrepit people are less important,

Or that their own personal wishes are the most important, to them. That a destruction of personal liberty is a spit in the face of any respect for human life, dignity and quality that any reasonable human could ask for.

and the latter throws the sanctity of life out the window in its entirety. The only consistent philosophy of life is therefore to either allow any human to have an assisted death regardless of age, wealth, physical condition etc, or none.

Oh absolutes they always work well.

For a start SUICIDE is legal for anyone, assisted suicide requires the consent of the medical bodies who all have either no tolerance or tolerance within specific limits. If you require the help of someone trained then it is up to the training body or groups within that to give it to you.

If you just want random suicide, legal now baby.

But what would be wrong with allowing anyone to have an assisted death at any time? For a start, how would we ascertain whether or not these people are making a sane, rational choice, are there sane, rational reasons for a perfectly healthy individual to want an assisted death? It seems to me that on a purely practical level, this option would be untenable. Do we disallow children and mentally ill people from euthanasia because they are considered unable to bear the responsibility of choice? We then send out the message that children and the mentally ill are more valuable than healthy adults. Of course, I am merely exploring the idea, I am wholly opposed to any form of euthanasia, because all human life is intrinsically valuable.

Besides the utter ethical inconsistency of euthanasia, there are serious practical issues with its application. Euthanasia would in all likelihood become the most cost-effective way of giving 'care' to terminally ill patients, placing immediate financial pressure on them. Indeed, family pressures may also be placed on the patient to 'do the right thing' and spare them all the burden, and patients with no families or next of kin may feel euthanasia is their only 'hope'. Vulnerable people would be placed under pressure to end their lives.



This is important; can we even consider someone in that much pain to be capable of making a rational choice? (this is an open question)

Not seeing a whole lot of logical inconsistency not to mention very basic assumed principles like all human life is intrinsically valuable, you said it but I didn't see a reason why.

[Ummagumma]

I'd sign up for it.

[Elfdude]

No. Someone who wants to die is not wanting to die for themselves. I would encourage a heavy dose of therapy and restrict them from sharp objects. The survival mechanism is hardwired into our heads. The two things that can cause someone to willfully give up are mental problems (about 90% of the case) or conceptual problems (the other 10%) whereas mental problems can be managed, conceptual problems can be altered via learning. No one should have the right to kill themselves. No one should have the right to take another's life. I know practical concerns like, is he dead on the machine etc? But in my mind someone's head is more important than their body and as long as it's in tact and has a hope in hell of working properly I would do anything in my power to maintain that person's life.

[Ummagumma]

Someone who wants to die is not wanting to die for themselves.

Wanting to die is totally something for themselves. It is amazingly selfish. Life sucks and then you die, so why wait? There is more than enough other people breeding like rabbits to cover the (bleak) future of the species. So, why force folks into an unwanted consciousness if they have had enough of it? A tiny, tiny fraction of people ever do anything meaningful or beneficial to wider society, most of us are just statistics. Humanity loses nothing by us not being here. The least we can do is provide a nice, easy, efficient way for folks to depart. Living is a life sentence, after all. Can we not get an early release for good behaviour?

[Elfdude]

Wanting to die is totally something for themselves. It is amazingly selfish. Life sucks and then you die, so why wait?

Which is the case in 10% of suicides where someone has literally talked themselves into death no doubt due to confusion, disillusionment or other pain they can't see past. This is biologically expected and you really can't blame the individuals as selfish. Frankly this viewpoint is more than a little offensive. Further the fact that it's hard to get out of isn't so much the logic or rationality of it but simply the biochemistry that occurs as a result of thoughts like this.

There is more than enough other people breeding like rabbits to cover the (bleak) future of the species. So, why force folks into an unwanted consciousness if they have had enough of it?

You're view is so incredibily oversimplified it's almost impossible to even discuss. Case in point MOST people are not in a state of mind to make that decision when they do. It's negligent as a species to allow them to do so.

A tiny, tiny fraction of people ever do anything meaningful or beneficial to wider society, most of us are just statistics. Humanity loses nothing by us not being here. The least we can do is provide a nice, easy, efficient way for folks to depart. Living is a life sentence, after all. Can we not get an early release for good behaviour?

The metaphor while being quite hilarious again has no bearing on the question at hand. How you view the meaning of life or the value of human life is irrelevant. It's very easy to present an argument for death, it's very difficult for one to provide an argument for life. However MOST of us provide that argument somehow. Anyone who does not is likely broken somehow.

Just for the sake of the debate:"Brain Dead Student Awakens Hours After Doctors Suggest Pulling the Plug , media link - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/brai...ling-the-plug/. Not sure how accurate it is ...

Steven Thorpe:
‘I feel so lucky that my parents wouldn’t take no for an answer.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-recovery.html

This is exactly what I think when someone kills someone else who is 'essentially a vegatable'. It's so difficult to know anything about how healthy a person's mind is or if it can even fix itself. There's countless instances I've already seen which break conventional rules regarding death. Life is potential, there's never a good reason to get rid of potential.

[Ummagumma]

Frankly this viewpoint is more than a little offensive.

Well, sorry, but it is my view. And more than a little self-established.

You're view is so incredibily oversimplified

It is simple. It is totally simple. It is just over-thought, over analysed. If someone ~wants~ to die, (with reason, and determination, not a spur of the moment reaction) then let them.

It's very easy to present an argument for death, it's very difficult for one to provide an argument for life. However MOST of us provide that argument somehow. Anyone who does not is likely broken somehow.

Meh. I guess I'm broken then. I'm sick of it, it is only a (misplaced?) sense of responsibility that makes me get up in the morning, for the last few years.

[nerf13]

Just for the sake of the debate:"Brain Dead Student Awakens Hours After Doctors Suggest Pulling the Plug , media link - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/brai...ling-the-plug/. Not sure how accurate it is ...

Steven Thorpe:
‘I feel so lucky that my parents wouldn’t take no for an answer.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-recovery.html

[Denny Crane!]

There are many cases of definite death though. This is not a medical debate though it is a personal liberty debate.

[Col. Tartleton]

You can kill yourself, if you leave me your property.

Got to love to be loved.

[Elfdude]

What you are describing are serious depression related issues Umma, suicidal ideation is not something to 'meh' at. I would recommend speaking to your doctor or parents or someone in authority as soon as possible.