Right to Die

[expshare]

I think one of the many evils of society is that we do not give terminally ill people the right to control their outcome in life. What would be the better option when a terminal condition becomes unbearable to live with? One option is to allow that person a peaceful last meeting with their family and loved ones, and a peaceful death that they can self-administer, but which is arranged by medical professionals. The other option is to force them to stay alive through agony, and to also force their family members and loved ones to watch them through their agony. Their actual death is probably not going to be peaceful either.

Christianity has to take some of the blame. I remember as a child being told that people who killed themselves went to hell, a place of eternal pain and anguish. Unfortunately when someone is dying the belief of many people is that they must not die of their own volition, even if they've but a day or two to live, because this will be seen as an act of evil rather than as an act of mercy and planning, which it actually is.

[Slumber]

The Infested, a hardcore/crust ska punk band, echo your sentiments.

Spoiler

Assisted suicide is illegal, we know, so would you take me out to the back streets and fucking slit my throat? No?

Your laws and morals won't stop the killing, so give the people a chance to choose whether they're living,

And the friends and family who assist the deed won't be ashamed of giving what they need.

 

You try to scream but the words don't come out, you try to grab the pills but you can't move about.

You can't drown yourself cause you're being watched, you can't reach for the knife cause they've been locked up.

You can't exercise by yourself, you can't eat or dress your fucking self.

Your dignity's been taken away, you've had enough, your time is up.

 

Why is it so hard to understand that some people don't want that helping hand?

Some people want their independence, and once that has gone they want to quit existence.

But they're incapable of doing this on their own, so they're forced to live and suffer alone.

The laws are sick and twisted, I don't give a fuck if life is sacred.

I agree as well. I think it's kind of screwed up that we force people to live. I definitely agree that we should try to help people get to a point to where they want to survive if that's possible. But a lot of people, especially people who are terminally ill, really shouldn't be forced to live with a painful, emotional burden simply because society deemed that people aren't allowed to die for themselves.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Slumber

[Etrurian emperor]

The Dutch are starting to delve into this subject. There's a big and pretty successful push to grant the elderly a way to arrange a dignified death on their own terms if they desire this. There is pushback from the more Christian streams in society but that pushback is made in a pretty respectful way.  

[Re: The weirdo.]

the last i heard switzerland already has euthanasia legalized, but the original implementation of euthanasia in X state would likely at the very least require changes to medical law inside the relevant state, at most, a new Hippocratic oath, and perhaps even re-training of already verified professionals. honestly, once it would be implemented, it would not be that expensive to keep up, so there are few long-term issues, in a slightly utilitarian way. the most major one i can think of is psychological harm to the doctors and nurses in terminal hospices, but i imagine it would be damaging to just work there, so im not sure if thats a genuine flaw with an argument for euthanasia legalisation.

if euthanasia/ having a right to die/mercy killing became standard in a state,  it should be regulated carefully, and would have to be independent from the family of the patient, in terms of who gets to choose whether or not the patient lives. the patient should generally be able to choose if they their standard of life is to low, and unrecoverable from, without complicated, risky surgery anyway.

this is an issue that, admittedly, i am already decided upon, so i admit i am moderately biased, but i completely believe that euthanasia should be a legal medical practice in the case of absolutely terminal illness.

[Shoblongoo]

I wouldn't rank it particularly high on the list of "many evils of society" in emergent need of redress. The refugee crisis, migrant's rights,  institutional sexism and racism, extreme poverty, police brutality, hypernationalism and militarism,  and over-incarceration all come to mind.

I do think policywise--banning the terminally from selecting euthanasia as an alternative to end-of-life care that has no real prospect of actually curing their disease but can only prolong a slow and excruciating death doesn't make a whole lot of sense and stands on rather shaky moral ground. (The old philosophy student in me wants to say the interests of self-autonomy and self-determination weigh heavily in favor of permitting physician-assisted suicide, and outweigh any competing interests that would weigh in favor of banning the practice)    

8 hours ago, expshare said:

Christianity has to take some of the blame.

I've made my feelings on the use of religious doctrines in the crafting of law and public policy known in other threads; suffice it to say to the extent our euthanasia laws are based on a Christian account of god's supposed will in the matter, the law is not based on sound reason or policy considerations. 
 
But the philosophical considerations predate Christianity and go all the way back to the ancient Greeks, to the beginnings of the concept of the "profession of medicine" and the teachings of Hippocrates and his physician's oath. 

"I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course."

A common argument against euthanasia you will often hear from doctors is that physician assisted suicide violates the Hippocratic Oath.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[EricaofRenais]

I think it should be an option given to people who are going to be in extreme pain before they die.  My granddad died from cancer and his doctor would not even give him pain meds so he died in extreme pain (this happened before I was born but it bothers me).  I think if someone has no chance of getting better and will be in pain they should have the right to not have to go through all the pain that they would have to deal with.

[Rapier]

I'd normally be inclined to agree with one's right to die in dignity and end their suffering in extreme cases, but I think that it's a too desperate decision to simply go with it without considering other factors, such as the possibility of recovery despite the negative odds, as well as other factors that may be influencing the patient to seek death rather than face their illness, such as extreme pain and/or loss of will. I also believe it is morally better for a doctor to assist their patient on whichever way they can to reduce pain and find ways to deal with their handicaps, rather than accept it is a lost cause and assist a suicide, unless there really is no way.

My answer is yes, euthanasia should be allowed as an option for extreme cases, but also regulated to avoid misuses.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Rapier

[Truebladee]

This is a very difficult subject which I personally don't have a straight-forward answer or opinion about it.

Yes, every person should have the right to have as much control over their own body as possible. 

But if I look at the bigger picture than we should really be careful of making suicide a possible option.

 

My worry is: 'what becomes next?'

If suicide becomes an option, then it should be under very strict circumstances. But people could forget that suicide was a taboo for a very long time. So the strict circumstances, will be less, further along the way. Making it easier to commit euthanasia.

For example, in the tolerant Netherlands,  there was a teenager would didn't want to live anymore. Then what? Just give her the powder?

There was also a teenager who got the suicide-powder online. If we let euthanasia just go further, then this suicide-powder will get in more hands.

 

 

43 minutes ago, Rapier said:

I'd normally be inclined to agree with one's right to die in dignity and end their suffering in extreme cases, but I think that it's a too desperate decision to simply go with it without considering other factors, such as the possibility of recovery despite the negative odds, as well as other factors that may be influencing the patient to seek death rather than face their illness, such as extreme pain and/or loss of will.

My answer is yes, euthanasia should be allowed as an option for extreme cases, but also regulated to avoid misuses.

I am also agreeing with Rapier

[Slumber]

1 hour ago, Truebladee said:

This is a very difficult subject which I personally don't have a straight-forward answer or opinion about it.

Yes, every person should have the right to have as much control over their own body as possible. 

But if I look at the bigger picture than we should really be careful of making suicide a possible option.

 

My worry is: 'what becomes next?'

If suicide becomes an option, then it should be under very strict circumstances. But people could forget that suicide was a taboo for a very long time. So the strict circumstances, will be less, further along the way. Making it easier to commit euthanasia.

For example, in the tolerant Netherlands,  there was a teenager would didn't want to live anymore. Then what? Just give her the powder?

There was also a teenager who got the suicide-powder online. If we let euthanasia just go further, then this suicide-powder will get in more hands.

I really think we need to stop with these "slippery slope" scenarios when people bring up the subject of treating people better. It's the same thing people do when gay rights are brought up, asking if incest, pedophilia or bestiality is next.

We're talking about giving people who are terminally ill, or are otherwise struggling to survive, an option for assisted suicide. These kinds of things would be insanely monitored. They're not just going to give out "suicide powder", since giving people a drug designed to kill would be insanely dangerous. It could get out, but this has happened before. Nobody nowadays argues that we shouldn't use morphine to treat people in pain, even though it's essentially just medical grade heroin, and manages to get on the streets.

A teen who wants to die simply because they're an emotional wreck over something isn't going to commit suicide because they can get a pill or powder that does it. If you look 10-feet in any direction, you can probably find a handful of things that any able-bodied person can use to kill themselves. A teen's also not going to get a prescription like that without the consent of their guardians.

The hypotheticals we're talking about here are the people who are unable to do so on their own.

[expshare]

Suicide is easier to do in theory than in practice for most people. I think the idea that if someone wants to kill themselves then they will is a myth. In America the ratio of attempts to completions is something like 25:1.

[Slumber]

8 hours ago, expshare said:

Suicide is easier to do in theory than in practice for most people. I think the idea that if someone wants to kill themselves then they will is a myth. In America the ratio of attempts to completions is something like 25:1.

I don't disagree, but, correct me if I'm wrong, the reason they fail is usually due to many reasons that AREN'T the availability of means to do so.

I don't think the hypothetical of a "suicide powder" getting out to the public is going to cause the rate of teen suicide to rise.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Slumber

[expshare]

When lethal means are easily available, more people complete suicide. Right to die methods are especially dangerous because they are designed to be easy and painless.

[MacLovin]

I only believe in the right to die if it's at the last, painful stages of a disease that has no hope for a cure or ongoing research that's made headway.

 

[Rapier]

On 07/08/2018 at 8:35 PM, expshare said:

When lethal means are easily available, more people complete suicide. Right to die methods are especially dangerous because they are designed to be easy and painless.

Do you have data about this? Because as far as suicide rates go, places where it isn't as easy and painless to commit suicide have a bigger number of suicides, like in Africa.

I don't have much reason to believe that a person who's set on going through suicide will stop doing so because a method isn't as easy and painless. If their lives become unbearable to that point, what would stop them? Although I think it's pointless to follow this reasoning path since these methods wouldn't be easily accessible, even if they existed.

Also, a healthy minded individual would not contemplate suicide, regardless of "suicide powders" being easily accessible. Working on campaigns to help those who feel like commiting suicide would be much more helpful than prohibiting "suicide powders" or easy methods for euthanasia.

Suicide also kills less people (in America, at least) than we're led to think from how impactantly presented it is on the news.

[expshare]

On 8/9/2018 at 2:31 PM, Rapier said:

Do you have data about this? Because as far as suicide rates go, places where it isn't as easy and painless to commit suicide have a bigger number of suicides, like in Africa.

I don't have much reason to believe that a person who's set on going through suicide will stop doing so because a method isn't as easy and painless. If their lives become unbearable to that point, what would stop them? Although I think it's pointless to follow this reasoning path since these methods wouldn't be easily accessible, even if they existed.

Also, a healthy minded individual would not contemplate suicide, regardless of "suicide powders" being easily accessible. Working on campaigns to help those who feel like commiting suicide would be much more helpful than prohibiting "suicide powders" or easy methods for euthanasia.

Suicide also kills less people (in America, at least) than we're led to think from how impactantly presented it is on the news.

It's a matter of simple mathematics. If suicide method A has a 10% success rate, and suicide method B has a 90% success rate, then you're going to have more suicide completions if method B becomes more popular. One of the biggest advocates for right to die from Australia admitted that the information being dispersed on euthanasia would lead to some unnecessary deaths by falling into the wrong hands. He said so because he was concerned with reality.

Every suicidal person is different. You never know what is going on until you talk to them. The kinds of false conceptions you're pushing here increase mental health stigma. It leads to the old saying, "Well, they didn't die so they must have just been looking for attention," or "Well, they must not have really wanted to die so there's not a lot to worry about." That kind of attitude increases the chance of a future attempt or completion.

You shouldn't say  that someone "committed suicide" because suicide is not a crime, is not illegal, and is almost always the result of a medical condition plus whatever is going on in that person's life. 

It's your homework to figure out why the suicide rate in some parts of Africa is higher than America's, not mine. It certainly does not make the case that the lethality of a suicide method is irrelevant though, unless you meant to be making a fallacious argument. If you were then I promise you that it would have your paper thrown out of any respectable journal. If not then that's fine, although I do wonder what your point was supposed to be. 

Edited August 11, 2018 by expshare

[Moblin Major General]

7 hours ago, expshare said:

You shouldn't say  that someone "committed suicide" because suicide is not a crime, is not illegal, and is almost always the result of a medical condition plus whatever is going on in that person's life.

Actually, it is still on the books as a criminal offense to attempt to kill yourself. Granted, I think it would only ever be tacked on in modern times if the person is already suspected of a serious crime and the act is an attempt to avoid prosecution. Killing yourself to get out of punishment is sickening. That's one thing that would have to be accounted for is that one restriction for euthanasia would be that no one suspected of a Class B felony or higher would be able to go through the procedure.

[Rapier]

8 hours ago, expshare said:

It's a matter of simple mathematics. If suicide method A has a 10% success rate, and suicide method B has a 90% success rate, then you're going to have more suicide completions if method B becomes more popular. One of the biggest advocates for right to die from Australia admitted that the information being dispersed on euthanasia would lead to some unnecessary deaths by falling into the wrong hands. He said so because he was concerned with reality.

No, it's not a matter of simple mathematics. Do you have any evidence backing up your claim that more people will commit suicide if easier means of suicide become available? Theory alone won't get you much far, if anywhere. My link, which you seemed to ignore, shows that places that lack such easier means of suicide have higher suicide rates than the ones who do. I know that suicide has complex causes and influences, such as heavy workload and bad conditions to live in, but if less people are dying in places where it is easier to commit suicide (suicide is one of the lesser causes of death in America, as I pointed out), it begs the question if there would be such a suicide rate increase with easier means.

 

8 hours ago, expshare said:

Every suicidal person is different. You never know what is going on until you talk to them. The kinds of false conceptions you're pushing here increase mental health stigma. It leads to the old saying, "Well, they didn't die so they must have just been looking for attention," or "Well, they must not have really wanted to die so there's not a lot to worry about." That kind of attitude increases the chance of a future attempt or completion.

You shouldn't say  that someone "committed suicide" because suicide is not a crime, is not illegal, and is almost always the result of a medical condition plus whatever is going on in that person's life.

You won't earn any points by misrepresenting others' arguments (first paragraph - I wouldn't know where to start with this since I never spoke such things on the first place) or by cherrypicking terms ("committed" isn't exclusively associated with practicing crimes).

8 hours ago, expshare said:

It's your homework to figure out why the suicide rate in some parts of Africa is higher than America's, not mine. It certainly does not make the case that the lethality of a suicide method is irrelevant though, unless you meant to be making a fallacious argument. If you were then I promise you that it would have your paper thrown out of any respectable journal. If not then that's fine, although I do wonder what your point was supposed to be. 

It's your homework to show data backing up your claims.

I'm not speaking of the lethality of a suicide method. Jumping off a high bridge (or any other common suicide method that we can think of without requiring much creativity) and taking in suicide pills have arguably the same lethality. The question is if easier, painless methods for suicide would result in an increase of suicide attempts. You argued it does, but didn't show any evidence to convince us on the truth of your claims, which is why I am asking you for data on the first place. Claims without citations don't even fit for wikipedia articles, I'm afraid.

[expshare]

Sorry, the fact that you think that link demonstrates your point is not going to get a response from me.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/

Link: Just some general information.

Edited August 11, 2018 by expshare

[Rapier]

Ok, nevermind. Another link from the site you just posted gave me my answer. Carry on, I guess.

[Strullemia]

People who are suffering because of an illness deserve a way out. I've seen my grandfather die to lung cancer. If at some point in his last years with cancer he wanted to have a doctor commit euthanasia I wouldn't have held it against him.

Luckily, Belgium has good laws in regards to euthanasia. There has even been a case here where a 9 year old who had a brain tumor was allowed to die through euthanasia. 

[expshare]

2 hours ago, Rapier said:

Ok, nevermind. Another link from the site you just posted gave me my answer. Carry on, I guess.

Good job finding it. Sorry for my irritability earlier.

[Rapier]

5 hours ago, Hekselka said:

People who are suffering because of an illness deserve a way out. I've seen my grandfather die to lung cancer. If at some point in his last years with cancer he wanted to have a doctor commit euthanasia I wouldn't have held it against him.

Luckily, Belgium has good laws in regards to euthanasia. There has even been a case here where a 9 year old who had a brain tumor was allowed to die through euthanasia. 

Lung cancer isn't always lethal and hopeless, though. I have an uncle who fought against it for very long, and although it left him nasty scars (they *had* to open his throat, after all, and chemotherapy does terrible things to your body), he managed to pull through it. I'd say it depends on the case for that one.

[Strullemia]

3 hours ago, Rapier said:

Lung cancer isn't always lethal and hopeless, though. I have an uncle who fought against it for very long, and although it left him nasty scars (they *had* to open his throat, after all, and chemotherapy does terrible things to your body), he managed to pull through it. I'd say it depends on the case for that one.

Yes but in my grandfather's case we knew there wasn't anything we could have done. Chemo eventually didn't help anymore and trying to get rid of it through an operation was never an option according to the doctors.

[expshare]

I don't think people should only be given the option of a peaceful controlled death when they are surely going to die from their disease. What if someone has a 99% chance of dying from their disease? Must they continue to live until the last hopeless moment, or should they be given control over their own fate? What if someone doesn't want to grow to become crippled? Just because the medical technology is improving every year doesn't mean everyone should be tied to the train tracks of living out every second of their potential longevity. Life is not infinitely valuable. Sometimes it can have negative value to the person living it. 

Edited August 12, 2018 by expshare

[eclipse]

52 minutes ago, expshare said:

I don't think people should only be given the option of a peaceful controlled death when they are surely going to die from their disease. What if someone has a 99% chance of dying from their disease? Must they continue to live until the last hopeless moment, or should they be given control over their own fate? What if someone doesn't want to grow to become crippled? Just because the medical technology is improving every year doesn't mean everyone should be tied to the train tracks of living out every second of their potential longevity. Life is not infinitely valuable. Sometimes it can have negative value to the person living it. 

Just which side are you arguing?