The debate the right to die (euthanasia)

[abs 2]

The road to disaster is always paved with the best of intentions.

Placing an ominous sounding sentence does nothing to counter-argue a point.

I don't think it was ever a question over whether it was 'humane' or not, the issue is whether it is really a good idea when the big picture is looked at.

One of the problems I have with the pro-Euthanasia camp is the strong reliance on straw man arguments, and appealing to people's guilt, and fear of pain and suffering (albeit not necessarily deliberately in the latter two instances). People can churn out stories of situations where euthanasia would have been perfect for someone they knew who was wasting away in agony, and it sort of puts people in a situation whereby if they don't think that the suffering person deserved to chose to end their own suffering, then they look like an asshole, and they feel reluctantly obliged to agree with the idea of euthanasia. But there are a lot of issues, both practical and moral, that these idealized scenarios don't address, and so any meaningful assessment of euthanasia has to look beyond petty name calling and insinuations that people who disagree with you are religious lunatics in order to go anywhere useful.

To labor the point further ...

To summarize:

- We need to look at the big picture.

- Pro-euthanasia debaters use guilt to make people agree by coming up with fictional scenarios.

- There are practical and moral issues that their arguments do not address.

- Then you completely don't back up your last statement by naming the practical and moral issues.

Bottom line is it's your opinion that euthanasia shouldn't be allowed. Great. But a large group of people who disagree with your opinion shouldn't be denied an option that they want just because you wouldn't want it.

No one is making you choose euthanasia. You don't want to do it? Fine. Why stop others from doing it? If you're going to write back to anything in my post, then write back to this paragraph.

Essentially it's like the abortion issue. Abortion is legal. Just because it's legal it doesn't mean it's forced on everyone. It's just an option available to those who want it. Euthanasia should be the same.

Abs

[echo1 0]

I elaborated on why it's a bad idea in general on the first (and possibly second) page in the thread and didn't really feel like typing it all out again. The problem is that when you normalize the idea of killing people, it has a desensitizing effect, and people will start to accept things that really aren't kosher. For example, if it is acceptable for someone wasting away from the effects of terminal stage MS to request that their doctor bump them off, and everyone accepts this as being morally acceptable, what about a scenario where someone is not able to communicate to the doctor properly, and the family has to be involved in the decision process? Is that really such a far jump from letting the patient request death from the doctor themselves? That example may not be bad within of itself, but when you have 'nested' desensitization, you start to get thoroughly unpleasant things.

Switzerland is letting people with depression chose to kill themselves (I thought we were meant to help and prevent people with depression from killing themselves?) and in the Netherlands, you have this mess. Again, go back to my posts on the start where I ruminate on the topic a bit further.

No one is making you choose euthanasia. You don't want to do it? Fine. Why stop others from doing it?

You can have a problem with something without it directly affecting you. The freedom of choice in any matter must be balanced against the potential harms that it does to the people affected, and society as a whole. So saying that people should have a right to choose and that if you're not interested you shouldn't do it is just a poor attempt at trying to finish the debate before it has even started.

---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

I wish to see a society where if you continue to remain ignorant of the obvious, you fall down and never recover.

...

Come back to me when you've hit a 150k paying salary at the age of 28, bought your first Porsche and then got into an accident that wasn't caused by you, which left you paralyzed on both sides: you can still hear, TALK without your lips moving, see with your own eyes... on a hospital bed.

Or that time you've developed HIV and were getting all kinds of COMMON COLDS whenever you opened a window at home.

Ignorance is bliss, until it's not.

...

Furthermore, I would fly over to your place and break some legs to get the point across; but obvious things don't need such measures. And in this case you wouldn't be begging to be euthanized, since you know who the perpetrator is and why he did it. Vengeance would probably be going through your mind, as you lay on a bed, strapped to life-supporting machines.

Thanks for giving an example of the sort of meaningless straw man arguments and guilt trips that I was talking about, and even highlighting them in bold writing and CAPITAL LETTERS for emphasis. You also managed to throw in a few references of what looks like pain being inflicted on me because I don't agree with you (apparently a broken leg requires a life support machine?). Still not proving anything.

---------- Post added at 01:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 PM ----------

The topic at hand doesn't involve atheism.

P.S. Short version: euthanasia and similar 'controversial' practices will become legal in the near future; Christians, Muslims, Chtulhu cult believers can burn a copy of 'On the Origin of the Species', although any rational person would not care.

Maybe not atheism, but you seemed to insinuate that an anti-Euthanasia stance is inherently intertwined with religious beliefs. The insinuation that inevitably arises out of that one way or another is that only demented Catholic grannies and deranged Islamic suicide bombers would object to euthanasia.

Edited September 25, 2010 by echo1

[BF2_Trooper 0]

Maybe not atheism, but you seemed to insinuate that an anti-Euthanasia stance is inherently intertwined with religious beliefs. The insinuation that inevitably arises out of that one way or another is that only demented Catholic grannies and deranged Islamic suicide bombers would object to euthanasia.

Heehee, see, this is what I tried to point out in the first place. Saying that one does not even need to be religeous or believe in souls to see the value of innocent human lives. But apparantly some people still see us as religeous nut jobs for thinking that human life is "special". I don't think this is going to get anywhere, at least here it won't. We're not going to change anyone's minds about human life, the way it's treated, and where state sponsored euthanasia will lead society. There are those of us who strongly believe in humanity and value the life of fellow human beings, and then there are those who are pretty damn self centered and think they're doing society a favour by encouraging an innocent person to give up on life instead of facing up to the challenges of life.

Oh, and to get back to Abs point about "life is life", sorry but I have to say that that's total BS. Which would you rather give time and money to? Indangered species or starving kids in Africa? Sorry to get back on that other sub-topic, but I think that statement needs to be addressed.

Edited September 25, 2010 by BF2_Trooper

[HyperU2 11]

We need to stop pumping life sustaining drugs into terminal cases while we're at it. Comfort measures should be all that are taken.

[BF2_Trooper 0]

We need to stop pumping life sustaining drugs into terminal cases while we're at it. Comfort measures should be all that are taken.

I'm all for natural death, letting nature take that person's life and with today's pain killing treatments, I can't see why state sponsored euthanasia makes sense. There is something very admirable about someone suffering from old age who does his/her best to over come the challenges of pain and sickness rather than just simply give up on live and let pain and sickness overcome that person. If everyone thought like pro-euthansia people, then we might as well give up the research to fight cancer and aids. Hell, why should "suffering and pain" even need to be the reason for euthanasia? How will that reasoning be any different having the right to die because of depression? Or losing your job? Or just plain not having the will to get up in the morning? You say life is life, well Human life is facing up to the challenges of life whether it be overcoming sickness or looking for work, it makes no difference.

Edited September 25, 2010 by BF2_Trooper

[HyperU2 11]

Just because when the time comes someone should be able to make the choice to end life on their terms doesn't mean we should stop research. There are plenty of cancer survivors and Magic Johnson's out there. Nature should be allowed to take its course in a lot of the dementia cases I see. Instead they're pumped full of drugs to treat their ailments so they can continue to live a non ambulatory, non communicative life.

Edited September 25, 2010 by HyperU2

[Yoma 0]

I'm all for a euthanasia choice.

The world is overpopulated anyway :D

People should have a humane exit out of this world when they want to take it.

I would even go further and allow the exit option to people that have been suffering big mental illnesses (depression for example) for years.

In my country suicide is actually the main cause of death for men between 25 - 40.

If we'd legally allow people to commit suicide in a humane way (as in not jumping in front of trains, from buildings, hanging, cutting wrists, shooting themselves) we'd also cut out a lot of trauma's with people finding them.

Besides that, a guided medical death could allow these people to at least talk to someone before they take harsh measures. The worst thing about a suicide is not being able to say goodbye, euthanasia enables people to say goodbye and confronts them with themselves.

[froggyluv 2136]

An interesting debate to say the least. Again, a very touchy subject with infinite amount of grey areas.

One thing that would concern me is the financial interests and bottom line of hospitals. They may urge under-financed and under-insured patients that suicide is a viable option only to serve there own interests and save costs.

[echo1 0]

We need to stop pumping life sustaining drugs into terminal cases while we're at it. Comfort measures should be all that are taken.

In most places, you are legally entitled to refuse such treatment. But there is of course a difference between letting someone die, and making someone die. I have no issues with the former, the latter makes me nervous.

---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------

I would even go further and allow the exit option to people that have been suffering big mental illnesses (depression for example) for years.

In my country suicide is actually the main cause of death for men between 25 - 40.

If we'd legally allow people to commit suicide in a humane way (as in not jumping in front of trains, from buildings, hanging, cutting wrists, shooting themselves) we'd also cut out a lot of trauma's with people finding them.

Besides that, a guided medical death could allow these people to at least talk to someone before they take harsh measures.

I know a few people who've went through phases of severe depression that left them suicidal. Given that some of them are close friends of mine, I'm quite happy not to live in a world were we facilitate people killing themselves so to not inconvenience bystanders.

The worst thing about a suicide is not being able to say goodbye, euthanasia enables people to say goodbye and confronts them with themselves.

If they're not interested in saying goodbye, they're going to kill themselves anyway aren't they? Think about it. I just don't think that legislation should suggest that people who are not thinking straight should be free to kill themselves is necessarily a desirable thing.

---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------

An interesting debate to say the least. Again, a very touchy subject with infinite amount of grey areas.

One thing that would concern me is the financial interests and bottom line of hospitals. They may urge under-financed and under-insured patients that suicide is a viable option only to serve there own interests and save costs.

That, and if you consider diseases like MS that tend to be the disease in question in many high profile cases of euthanasia - if it becomes the 'done thing' for people with such conditions to kill themselves off, where's the incentive to search for a cure or suitable treatment? Research expertise is few and far between, and costs a lot of money. They cater to the interests of the people who give them money, and they tend to favor diseases in which there is sufficient interest in curing, so the sad fact is that unless there are people suffering from these things, the people with the potential power to fix them cant and/or wont care.

Edited September 25, 2010 by echo1

[Yoma 0]

I know a few people who've went through phases of severe depression that left them suicidal. Given that some of them are close friends of mine, I'm quite happy not to live in a world were we facilitate people killing themselves so to not inconvenience bystanders.

If they're not interested in saying goodbye, they're going to kill themselves anyway aren't they? Think about it. I just don't think that legislation should suggest that people who are not thinking straight should be free to kill themselves is necessarily a desirable thing.

I'm not talking about inconveniencing bystanders, i just honestly think that giving desperate people that last straw to draw is not a bad thing. It could get people that want to do it in touch with the right professional people that can help them (on a psychological level), rather then leave them on their own to take matters into their own hands.

If you go see a doctor and tell him "i want to die" there is stuff he can do. If one of these things is actually getting you dead then suicidal people will get in touch. And getting in touch is the first thing you need if you want to live.

A good talk with the right person can save a suicidal's life. It introduces a dilemma in the suicidal state of mind. Do it yourself the hard way, or do it "officially" and get at least a chance for getting help.

It would motivate suicidal people to seek medical aid.

That in itself is way better then just letting them fend for themselves.

[echo1 0]

I can see where you're coming from, but at the same time, psychotherapy or counseling isn't like treating an infection, the success depends entirely on how the person interacts with the process, so if you get someone who has sold themselves on the idea of suicide, they're probably going to resist the process so that they will skip to the bit where they get to die.

The other issue is that unlike someone rotting away from a debilitating paralysis, a person with suicidal tendencies likely has the means to kill themselves by their own hands. So telling them to go to a doctor so they can die doesn't necessarily offer advantages, especially if they know that someone might try and talk them out of it or hospitalize them. You talk about dignity and humanity, but if you're going to be dead, you probably wont care about that kind of thing. In fact, some people go out in deliberately gruesome ways in order to send a sort of final 'fuck you' to the world. On the flipside, if you care about what happens to others after you die, the odds are that you may have doubts and stop short of going through with suicide.

I'm all for getting help to people who are in these situations, but I'm not sure if this sort of 'scamming' of suicidal people in order to get them to seek psychiatric help is really the best idea, either on principle or in practice.

Edited September 25, 2010 by echo1

[callihn 10]

You have no right to die and you have no right to live, only the right to suffer trying to do either.

[Zipper5 74]

You're going to have very miserable life if you go by that statement, callihn.

[echo1 0]

The last I checked, the right to life is enshrined in the laws of most developed countries.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I believe that is the motto of echo1 and, callihn was in sarcasm mode after reading this thread. Or perhaps not.

echo1 has convinced me: I'm anti-euthanasia from now on; it's so refreshing to see a persons guts on your windscreen when he jumps in front of the vehicle, or that time when you find your friend or relative hanged in his/her room, after 24 hours, or maybe I'll come to like the notion of denying the most basic right that a person has with his life - to end it.

Animals commit suicides: dolphins only breath consciously and whenever a dolphin decides not to go on living, he (I'm not calling him 'it') just stops breathing.

I'm sure you'll figure out where the sarcasm, where's the argument(s).

P.S. RIGHT TO LIFE - One's life not to be taking by another person or being. Jesus fucking Christ.

[echo1 0]

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Definitely, keep it up; keep enjoying a quiet life in some suburban town north of DC or similar, while 'things' keep on happening in the world for the vast majority of people.

You ain't missing much by the looks of it.

P.S. Certain things can not be discussed with a lot of people, those people can not be reasoned with rational arguments until they witness the suffering and violence for themselves. World War 2 is the best example of it to this day.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Iroquois Pliskin

[echo1 0]

I'm not American. Thanks for the assumption.

If you're making a rational argument, I don't see it. All you're doing is throwing out some semi-illegible rants that about breaking my legs and dolphins suffocating themselves. What this has to do with anything is anyone's guess.

[st_dux 26]

The problem is that when you normalize the idea of killing people, it has a desensitizing effect, and people will start to accept things that really aren't kosher.

What does this mean? Since you have identified yourself as an atheist, I doubt you are referring to the religious laws of the Jews, but this statement begs the question: What are you referring to? Who draws the line between what is "kosher" and what isn't? You?

For me, there is only one person who can draw that line: the person whose life is on the line. I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to end their own lives for whatever reason they see fit, even if it would seem to an outside observer to be wholly unreasonable. A suicide may seriously disrupt a family and make a whole lot of people sad, but beyond that it isn't injurious to anyone except the person who chose to die, and I believe the right of an individual to end his or her life far surpasses anyone's right not to be depressed (if it can be said that such a right even exists at all).

[echo1 0]

I use "kosher" as a figure of speech for something that is acceptable. As far as I know, this is a relatively common phrase and not necessarily limited to Jewish people. In this circumstance, I'm using it to refer to things that could be considered objectively wrong - things such as people being killed without their explicit permission/consent by their doctors or families. Elsewhere I've shown that the former was quite common place in at least one country that allows euthanasia. I'm sure the latter has happened more than a few times, I just am unaware of any noteworthy examples or studies into the matter.

For one thing, suicide is not illegal in most countries (I saw 'not illegal' as opposed to 'legal', as it's hardly encouraged, and if you threaten or attempt suicide, you'll probably be hospitalized which seems to me as a pretty logical thing to do). The issue is that euthanasia is of course assisted suicide. And once you drag other people into the process of doing the killing, it raises a multitude of ethical issues, some of which I have discussed above.

Edited September 27, 2010 by echo1

[st_dux 26]

In this circumstance, I'm using it to refer to things that could be considered objectively wrong - things such as people being killed without their explicit permission/consent by their doctors or families.

I don't see why anyone should need permission to voluntarily have himself killed. As long as it can be reasonably ascertained that the person in question is aware of what he or she is asking for, then any disagreement from that person's family or doctor should be inconsequential. Moreover, I don't believe that the phrase "objectively wrong" has any meaning. There is no such thing as objective morality. Morality has always been a matter of perspective; it varies from culture to culture, person to person. For this reason, it should be up to each individual to decide what is right for him or her.

[echo1 0]

For this reason, it should be up to each individual to decide what is right for him or her.

If I decide that my morality and culture dictates that I should carry out female circumcision against young girls, should the law accommodate to this?

[NeMeSiS 11]

If I decide that my morality and culture dictates that I should carry out female circumcision against young girls, should the law accommodate to this?

No because then your are not deciding what is good for yourself but what is good for someone else. Feel free to circumcize yourself though. ;)

[Big Mac 19]

Feel free to circumcize yourself though.

I was denied that choice at birth, should I sue my parents?

[NeMeSiS 11]

I was denied that choice at birth, should I sue my parents?

Unless they completely cut it off at birth, or are a woman, there is no reason why you cannot get a circumcision now. I dont really see your point.

If you got circumsized at birth and now disregret your parents decisions its is a different case. Sueing them would go a bit far, but i do believe that parents shouldnt make such decisions for their children.

Edited September 28, 2010 by NeMeSiS