The Assisted Suicide debate

Original post by TorpidPhil

What a terribly selfish person you are.

It's selfish wanting to forcefully hold onto someone who wants to go. It;s something we give our pets. A vet is going to think poorly of you if you are keeping your pet cat alive when his back legs no longer work due to a blood clot and he is being sick all the time. Just going to wait until his legs get Gangrene and slowly poison his entire body. Just so you could hold on to that curdling christian notion of "sanctity of life" above all else and reason.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 22

Original post by futbol

The real debate is should companies like dignitas be allowed to advertise?

I'm fine with assisted death. But it is something that shouldn't have a profit motive.

Reply 23

Original post by 156

Ecclesiastes 7:17 - Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?

This is the problem. You can take your religion/spiritualism or what have you and stick it where the sun don;t shine. Your fairy tales and fables have no monopoly on morality. You don't own my life force.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 24

Original post by TheDefiniteArticle

I'm in favour, but the main argument against is that it's very very very difficult to properly identify a free choice to die, especially given the state people will be in when they actually want to die may well be one in which they're less capable of giving expression to their own thoughts and desires. This might in turn see people pre-emptively choosing this route because they're scared of a doctor or whatever not believing that they're making a free choice because of the state they might be in later.

I'll posit this question: can a person with very serious Alzheimer's disease choose to die? How are we to be certain that it is them, and not their family who is making the choice? Should we consider extrinsic evidence like the financial resources available to the family?

There are lots of people who do choose to die and have a sound enough mind to do it. As are there those who want to but can not. You can have tests in place to determine that the person is of sound mind. Regulate, debate about all of this. But to outright ban it based on that is stupidity and based on ignorance.

Reply 25

miser

If we truly have the right to life, then we have the right from life as well.

Reply 26

username878267

OP

15

Imagine one of your close family members was suffering immensely, that they were in constant pain with no hope of recovery.
The idea they shouldn't be allowed to go on their own terms and go with dignity is ridiculous and it's awful that those who assist their loved ones out of love and compassion face jail.

Reply 27

username878267

OP

15

Original post by yelllowribbon

I really don't know about this tbh...what about if people feel like they're under pressure from those around them to end their lives, to relieve the burden on their families?

That's certainly an issue but that alone shouldn't negate the argument for having the practice in the first place.
Proper regulation and checks can certainly mitigate that potential problem very effectively.
Sure it won't be perfect but nothing is.

Reply 28

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

It's selfish wanting to forcefully hold onto someone who wants to go. It;s something we give our pets. A vet is going to think poorly of you if you are keeping your pet cat alive when his back legs no longer work due to a blood clot and he is being sick all the time. Just going to wait until his legs get Gangrene and slowly poison his entire body. Just so you could hold on to that curdling christian notion of "sanctity of life" above all else and reason.

You know that I'm not religious surely CB?

There are many secular reasons to oppose assisted suicide. I'm not and never did claim that all actions of assisted suicide are selfish. I said, that the first responder to the OP was selfish since he literally just said, paraphrased "I should be able to do it because it's my body and my life", essentially he doesn't care how it affects anyone else, to him merely because it's his body and life he thinks he should be able to do it.

Well, it's your body and your life, should it be legal for you to take hard drugs? You can use the analogy all over. It isn't a good argument because at the very least it's extremely selfish. I mean, look at taxes. "It's my life and my earned money, why should I be forced to give it away to those who are poorer if I don't want to?". Well, because it leads to a better society if you do. We have these rules because it leads to a better society.

So, with no further ado let's give some secular arguments for keeping assisted suicide illegal. Now, I'm not fully convinced by these arguments myself I must admit. I'm not deeply emotionally invested in them, but I think they're a bit stronger than those of the legalise-assisted-suicide-faction.

Firstly, the legalisation of assisted suicide will mean that there will be a smaller percentage of people who are in tremendous pain. While seemingly a good thing, upon closer examination this only appears to be the case in the short term.

Less people in pain means
Reduced demand for pallliative care means
Less funding for reseearch into improving palliative care means
In the long run the world in which assisted suicide is legal ends up having a lower life expectancy and quality of life than the one which keeps it illegal.

Long run being about 3 generations or so I'de say. Sure it sucks to be in those generations, but it also sucks how students now pay so much more than those only a few years older for uni and there are numerous other examples... Some people have to die because the NHS can't afford their cancer drug, then it suddenly realises how to get it cheaper or a better alternative and now that person who died would live if only they were 5years younger...

Life isn't fair. That sucks, but it's reality. The job of the government is to create the optimal society IN THE LONG RUN. Of course, moral value falls off over time, I admit that. It would be absurd to do 90% taxes now and let everyone living now suffer to completely alleviate global warming or something silly like that. But nevertheless the government needs to look further ahead than it's main term. Of course, democracy and the nature of politics does actively hinder the governments ability to do that. Why make plans that only come into affect decades after your term ends and you may lose power? Wouldn't it be better to spend spend spend to get votes? Sure is, doesn't mean that's optimal for the country. In fact, doing what the voters want very rarely is because the voters are selfish bastards themselves who just vote for the party which benefits them the most rather than that which benefits the country the most.

That's just one argument, I'm not going to write anymore as I've wrote enough here already.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 29

Original post by miser

If we truly have the right to life, then we have the right from life as well.

One doesn't have a right to life. China's policy to cap the children a family may give birth to is/was not immoral.

Reply 30

username878267

OP

15

Original post by TorpidPhil

Well, it's your body and your life, should it be legal for you to take hard drugs?

Yes, of course it should.

Reply 31

illegaltobepoor

Voluntary Euthanasia should only be allowed if the person has given 3 signatures over a certain time period. This is to make sure Families and Government can't force a disabled person to take their own life. There should also be barriers in place to make sure the individual isn't ending their life do mental illness or depression etc.

As for the religious side I say screw the Church.

Its rather hypocritical when anyone starts using scripture from the Bible to prohibit someone from choosing their own destiny when the Christian religion has been responsible for dozens of war and death across Europe & the Middle East.

Suddenly the Church is moral? I'm sorry but I'm not someone who will bow down to religious fundamentalists and their self gratification.

Reply 32

Original post by illegaltobepoor

Voluntary Euthanasia should only be allowed if the person has given 3 signatures over a certain time period. This is to make sure Families and Government can't force a disabled person to take their own life. There should also be barriers in place to make sure the individual isn't ending their life do mental illness or depression etc.

As for the religious side I say screw the Church.

Its rather hypocritical when anyone starts using scripture from the Bible to prohibit someone from choosing their own destiny when the Christian religion has been responsible for dozens of war and death across Europe & the Middle East.

Suddenly the Church is moral? I'm sorry but I'm not someone who will bow down to religious fundamentalists and their self gratification.

Why do you treat mental pain as less serious than physical pain? Both can be cured. Both need more research into them to cure them. The pain of the mentally ill is very sincere.

Reply 33

Davij038

13

Strongly in favour - as it's going to be harming no one but the individual involved who are likley to do it anyway.

Reply 34

miser

Original post by TorpidPhil

One doesn't have a right to life. China's policy to cap the children a family may give birth to is/was not immoral.

I think you're talking about non-existant persons having/not having a right to life. If a person already exists, then they (generally speaking) have a right to continue living. Non-existant persons have no rights (they can't 'have' anything, because they don't exist).

Reply 35

Original post by Bornblue

Imagine one of your close family members was suffering immensely, that they were in constant pain with no hope of recovery.
The idea they shouldn't be allowed to go on their own terms and go with dignity is ridiculous and it's awful that those who assist their loved ones out of love and compassion face jail.

Never mind that. What about my cats? :colonhash:

Reply 36

Original post by miser

I think you're talking about non-existant persons having/not having a right to life. If a person already exists, then they (generally speaking) have a right to continue living. Non-existant persons have no rights (they can't 'have' anything, because they don't exist).

Considering rights are contrived by humans I can't see why they can't have a right. Ultimately people say it is immoral to act in such a way that hurts future generations, unborn generations. Surely you would agree that the act which causes outcome A and hurts future unborn generations is worse than the act that causes outcome A and nothing else? Therefore unborn people do have moral value, although the time constraint weakens their moral value compared to those that are alive.

But no, people don't have a 'right to live'. If you are a sufficient terrorist threat it is moral for a state to kill you. Same applies to people who are insane/dangerous. Similarly if treatment for your illness is too expensive then it is fine for the state to refuse to treat your problems for free, and thereby indirectly killing you. If you get abducted and a terrorist demands a ransom in turn for your life the state isn't immoral if it refuses and thereby indirectly kills you.

Reply 37

kbw

I'm against. It's too risky, and you'll inevitably have numerous people choosing to take their life for fear of being seen as a burden. It's also bad enough when you feel that you're a burden on your family, but if assisted suicide were to be legalised, I suspect in a few decades the narrative about the smokers and the obese being "burdens" on the NHS would all to swiftly move to cover 99 year old Doris who has pneumonia. Better we convince her to shuffle off now than to be taking up valuable NHS time and resources for the next few years eh?

Reply 38

miser