Assisted Suicide

[Jassman]

laetus, I agree fully with your entire post (which sucks, because agreeing doesn't make for as much interesting discussion haha).

[MommaSquid]

laetus,

Thanks for answering my questions.  You are wise beyond your years.

[Whitney]

laetus, I agree fully with your entire post (which sucks, because agreeing doesn't make for as much interesting discussion haha).

, ya it can be more interesting when there are people who disagree.  Allows us all to flex our debate muscles over something other than religion.

Thanks for answering my questions. You are wise beyond your years.

No problem, and thank you.

[Amor Fati]

Ok, so as i see it, there is one and only one legitimate (rational) secular argument for maintaining the illegality of assisted suicide: the slippery slope.  The argument goes as follows.

1) Legalizing assisted suicide opens up the possibility that organizations  
 (government, HMO's, etc.) with financial interests in medical costs will eventually gain some decision power in these deaths.  

2) Such organizations mentioned in premise 1 are highly likely to abuse such power.

3) The only preventative guarantee of such abuses of premise 2 is to maintain the illegality of assited suicide.

Therefore 4) Assisted suicide must remain illegal.


It's a little sloppy here, but essentially the worry is that the initial step towards more freedom for the individual (the freedom to kill yourself with help) will, down the road, lead to your freedom being taken away (others will decide when it's time for you to go).  Looking at the premises, I think 2 is pretty solid.   When organizations are given power, abuses and oversights are bound to happen.  The only problems are how likely it is that interested organizations will gain influence, and what other sorts of preventative guarantees can be developed.  IF there is a significant possibility that voluntary euthanasia will slip to involuntary euthanasia then we should be seriously concerned about legalization of the former.  And to figure this possibility out, looking at current trends and past abuses will help a little.  

If you're highly suspicious of goverment and corporate power, then you find yourself in a bind here.  What at first seems an essential liberty, the liberty to chose your own death, just might lead to that liberty being removed later on in ways that are far worse than not having the liberty in the first place.  

Not that I agree with the above argument, but the anti-legalization proponents aren't completely whacky.

[Jassman]

It's a little sloppy here, but essentially the worry is that the initial step towards more freedom for the individual (the freedom to kill yourself with help) will, down the road, lead to your freedom being taken away (others will decide when it's time for you to go).  Looking at the premises, I think 2 is pretty solid.   When organizations are given power, abuses and oversights are bound to happen.  The only problems are how likely it is that interested organizations will gain influence, and what other sorts of preventative guarantees can be developed.  IF there is a significant possibility that voluntary euthanasia will slip to involuntary euthanasia then we should be seriously concerned about legalization of the former.  And to figure this possibility out, looking at current trends and past abuses will help a little.

I don't see how you think that assisted suicide is something that a large corporation is likely to force on someone.

No company has ever forced me to sign into a contract that I didn't want to sign. No company has made me do anything that I didn't really want to do.

If you're highly suspicious of goverment and corporate power, then you find yourself in a bind here.  What at first seems an essential liberty, the liberty to chose your own death, just might lead to that liberty being removed later on in ways that are far worse than not having the liberty in the first place.

I just don't see it happening... Can you explain how you think it is likely to occur?

[MommaSquid]

Jassman, you've obviously never had a medical procedure denied by your health insurance company.  

I realize that's the reverse of forcing a procedure on someone, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.    It's very expensive to get medical treatment, and if the big corporations can find a way to stop treating people, they will.  Insurance companies have a huge lobbying machine in D.C. and more lawyers than you can shake a stick at.

In this country, we have steadily been losing liberties.  Voter I.D. laws, the Patriot Act, DHS, airport security, eminent domain land seizures, etc.

We are already sliding down the slippery slope.

[Jassman]

In this country, we have steadily been losing liberties.  Voter I.D. laws, the Patriot Act, DHS, airport security, eminent domain land seizures, etc.

We are already sliding down the slippery slope.

That's right. So isn't the answer fighting for those liberties? Stress all constitutional rights and try to gain other logical freedoms (the freedom to die). The fact that there could be a risk doesn't mean that it's not worth fighting for.

I guess I tend to see things in ideals. To me, a simple risk doesn't justify a restriction of rights.

[Amor Fati]

I'm not sure that i think that the scenario is likely, but it's a perfectly rational argument if the premises turn out to be true.  However, Texas already has a law that allows health care providers to terminate lifesaving care if it is determined that the patient  has a sufficiently low probability of surviving.  Here's a link.

[MommaSquid]

Jassman, you said "a simple risk doesn't justify a restriction of rights" but that's exactly what's happening in the US ever since 9/11/2001.  Our rights are being restricted because we are at risk.  Justified or not, it's happening.

I think I'll read "Brave New World" and "1984" again.

[JNTB]

While there are people who are insane and commit suicide, not everyone who commits suicide is insane. I think that most people who commit suicide are sane. In my view it takes a great deal of courage to commit suicide. Many say they want to, but few actually go through with it.

I think desperation is more at work when it comes to suicide. People are desperate to resolve a problem and only see one way out.

[Simone]

Well in the first place, I find it sad if someone feels the need to be driven to something such as suicide for an alternative to something, or even nothing. I myself have had experience with the term "suicide" first hand, but, to me, before I had attempted it the first time, I was thinking a whole rush of things, "what will society call, or think of my family?" "will my family be angry at me?" "why do I even care if they are?", so on and so forth. But, at the end, I think that it's not only first off the individuals decision, but the problem with that would be the reason for them wanting to end their life. Maybe it would be for a trend, maybe because of abuse, or maybe because they have a psychological. Some reasons have resolutions, and some don't, but they don't always necessarily see that, and that's a major problem, so I think that it all depends on the certain case. But then the problem with that is, that when someone wants to end their life, there isn't always a judge sitting there besides them reviewing their particular "case".

[Simone]

Follow:



But to assist one in suicide, then that would not only a whole different story, but also a whole different outcome, the "assister" would not only have to face the rest of their lives with the consequences, but some might even label them with "murderer" or something. But if they're ready to face this, and they know that they're helping a "worthy cause" then they may as well help them. But when you say "assisted suicide" then would this exclude individuals of perfectly good health? Because I would see any reason why they would need any help. But if it were to be someone who has a mental disorder, or isn't in a position to make this decision, then that's a huge risk, for not only the assister, but the assisted, because possibly it was only the illness driving them to that? But if someone were physically disabled, and that was stopping them from ending their life on their own, and then they were to ask someone for assistance, then I would see that as fine in my point of view. But is it not possible that if someone were physically handicapped and that then in return rendered them depressed, and that drove them to suicide, then could they not seek therapy, and then need not go to such lengths? But if someone were say mentally depressed, then if they were to think of killing themselves, and say got help from someone to succeed, then I feel that it would be wrong for the one who is helping them to help them. Because when it comes to things of the mind, therapy and meds can really go a long way. So I guess what I'm trying to convey through my long posts it that, whoever is to assist someone in this life changing decision, then they should throughly put into perspective the situation, and accept the consequences of their actions that will come.

[Whitney]

Any legal form of assisted suicide will likely always be only for those who are terminally ill (they are dying anyway and suicide would just quicken an otherwise long and painful process) it will also probably only be allowed for those who are either able to give consent verbally or have witten out prior instructions for what should be done if they are terminally ill and unable to communicate.  Helping people kill themselves who are either incapeable to making a decision (mentally ill) or unable (incompasitated) would bring up questions about at what point it would be appropriate for a medical practicioner to take a life...without consent it really isn't assisted suicide anymore, just killing.

Oregan has an assisted suicide program in action and those who want to kill themselves have to fill out a form and be evaluated by a board of professionals prior to being given permission to have assisted suicide....the last I read only a small handful had taken advantage of the program and it had been operational for a few years; they have also turned people down.

[G0D]

You're the racist bigot, banning someone just for being a nigger.

[brainshmain]

Like most of you, I think when someone is in the process of dying and doesn't want to be in pain anymore, they should have the right to go peacefully.  I think it's ironic how theists use the excuse that when someone chooses physician assisted suicide, they are playing God and not "following God's plan" and that it's not natural, and yet their idea of an alternative to that is to hook them up to tubes and machines to breathe for them and all that crap, which is far less natural.  If they really wanted people to follow God's plan and do things the way he directs, we shouldn't have firefighters, (we should just let the houses burn down), doctors (let the kid with the collapsed lung die painfully, as god intended), hair dye, concrete, or anything else that could alter the world that "God" created.  But that option seems a bit inhumane.