The debate the right to die (euthanasia)

[echo1 0]

No because then your are not deciding what is good for yourself but what is good for someone else.

Well, you're somewhat missing the point that I was making. Decisions are made on the behalf of children (and grown ups) all the time, and I was questioning the morality of some such decisions. I think in a roundabout way you agreed with the actual point I made.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Well, you're somewhat missing the point that I was making. Decisions are made on the behalf of children (and grown ups) all the time, and I was questioning the morality of some such decisions. I think in a roundabout way you agreed with the actual point I made.

Demagoguery, you excel at it.

Answer us this: How it is it Humane to let a person suffer indescribable pain?

This was the question I originally asked in my first post. I'll be judging your right to life the way you answer that question, and don't go after this sentence before answering, will you.

The sole reason they didn't include A Right to a Humane death, to die without suffering in the Charter of the Human Rights back in 1945, is because of all the death that preceded the years before and it wasn't the right time, or place to do that.

[echo1 0]

Demagoguery, you excel at it.

Now, the last I checked, a demagogue was someone who tugged on people's emotional strings to make people agree with them. It's ironic that you use this term given that you then say -

Answer us this: How it is it Humane to let a person suffer indescribable pain?

Again, you're trying to short circuit any meaningful discussion of the issue by trying to force me into a guilt trip, and make me out to have no empathy. If you can show me where I ever doubted that suffering indescribable pain is a bad thing, please do point it out. The problem is that the issue is far more complicated than just "This person is in pain, they should automatically have the right to get their doctors to kill them", a concept that you appear to have an inability to grasp.

I'll be judging your right to life the way you answer that question, and don't go after this sentence before answering, will you.

You need to lay off the pills. Or perhaps take more of them...

The sole reason they didn't include A Right to a Humane death, to die without suffering in the Charter of the Human Rights back in 1945, is because of all the death that preceded the years before and it wasn't the right time, or place to do that.

If that's an actual fact, I would like to see some sort of citation for it. Else, please stop talking out of your ass.

Edited October 1, 2010 by echo1

[st_dux 26]

Well, you're somewhat missing the point that I was making. Decisions are made on the behalf of children (and grown ups) all the time, and I was questioning the morality of some such decisions. I think in a roundabout way you agreed with the actual point I made.

How is this relevant to the discussion? The argument is that people have the right to make decisions regarding their own life, not someone else's. I would certainly be opposed to people being allowed to make decisions about the life and death of another person; at no point did anyone in this thread argue in favor of that. Your argument is beginning to sound like nothing more than a unsubstantiated slippery slope.

[Big Mac 19]

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.

It's called sarcasm.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Again, you're trying to short circuit any meaningful discussion of the issue by trying to force me into a guilt trip, and make me out to have no empathy. If you can show me where I ever doubted that suffering indescribable pain is a bad thing, please do point it out. The problem is that the issue is far more complicated than just "This person is in pain, they should automatically have the right to get their doctors to kill them", a concept that you appear to have an inability to grasp.

Demagoguery - an art you excel at.

I'm sure the person who is such pain, having expressed his wish to be relieved of it - to die with dignity, would gladly lend his ear to your proposed solutions to the problem we're discussing. But having dealt with that before, I'm confident in this matter, over any shadow of a doubt, that said person would just spit in your face.

If that's an actual fact, I would like to see some sort of citation for it. Else, please stop talking out of your ass.

Logic - not a trait of yours.

I have problems with people like him having any power over matters such as the one we have at hand here; that power being - a right to vote.

I'm not quite sure, if I'm fully represented in the Party spectrum: where can one find a public Party for the shipment of all illiterate plebes off planet Earth?

Edited October 1, 2010 by Iroquois Pliskin

[echo1 0]

Demagoguery - an art you excel at.

I'm sure the person who is such pain, having expressed his wish to be relieved of it - to die with dignity, would gladly lend his ear to your proposed solutions to the problem we're discussing. But having dealt with that before, I'm confident in this matter, over any shadow of a doubt, that said person would just spit in your face.

That's great. You have a lot of pain, spitting at people, breaking people's legs, and dolphins suffocating themselves, but you can't actually say what is wrong with my argument. It's quite funny to watch really.

Logic - not a trait of yours.

I have problems with people like him having any power over matters such as the one we have at hand here; that power being - a right to vote.

I'm not quite sure, if I'm fully represented in the Party spectrum: where can one find a public Party for the shipment of all illiterate plebes off planet Earth?

So in other words you were talking out of your ass? Thanks for answering my question.

And what about the right to vote? I don't recall saying that any one should be denied the right to democratic political representation. Please show me if I suggested otherwise.

---------- Post added at 08:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 PM ----------

How is this relevant to the discussion? The argument is that people have the right to make decisions regarding their own life, not someone else's.

The point is that there are plenty of scenarios where people's freedoms are restricted or denied, even when no one else is affected. Sometimes they are limited to specific circumstances such as the fact that children have very little legal autonomy. Sometimes they are universally applicable, such as the bans and restrictions on various drugs, many of which will have no effect on anyone other than myself if I take them. Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but it's an important starting block to note that people don't get automatic rights until the bigger picture is looked at.

I would certainly be opposed to people being allowed to make decisions about the life and death of another person; at no point did anyone in this thread argue in favor of that. Your argument is beginning to sound like nothing more than a unsubstantiated slippery slope.

Well, I provided examples of people making decisions about the death of others in countries where euthanasia is legal. I also showed how these countries have no problem with letting people who are not in a sound state of mind make the most serious irreversible choice that one person could possibly make. So the slippery slope is not an inherently 'unsubstantiated' piece of scare mongering invented by religious people, it does happen in the real world.

The question of course, is the slippery slope inherent with euthanasia, or is there some way of 'fixing' it? I say that it's an inherent problem (and have explained elsewhere probably a few more times than once). Some might say that it can be made to work in a way that it is only there for the people who really need who are in a position where they can make that choice. There are many valid reasons on both sides. These are the interesting aspects of a euthanasia debate, not dolphins choking themselves, or whether my cat has a soul.

Edited October 1, 2010 by echo1

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Well, I provided examples of people making decisions about the death of others in countries where euthanasia is legal. I also showed how these countries have no problem with letting people who are not in a sound state of mind make the most serious irreversible choice that one person could possibly make.

:pet12:

How would a person being not in a sound state of mind be a benefit to society, or Humanity in general? You're opening a topic of eugenics, I'm up for eugenics.

The only slippery slope is the one being taken by the mind of a person in either physical or mental pain that can't be lessened with painkillers or local anesthesia. :icon_eek:

Edited October 2, 2010 by Iroquois Pliskin

[NeMeSiS 11]

It's called sarcasm.

This is the internet, assuming that people are retarded instead of being sarcastic isnt all that weird. Especially when it comes to topics like these. ;)

[echo1 0]

How would a person being not in a sound state of mind be a benefit to society, or Humanity in general? You're opening a topic of eugenics, I'm up for eugenics.

I think you're missing the point. From a legal perspective, the people who are not in a sound state of mind are often regarded as incapable of making rational decisions. AFAIK, if someone who has threatened or attempted suicide is brought into a hospital, they are deprived of a lot of their rights to make medical decisions about themselves. And of course, you have things like pleas of insanity in criminal law - if someone suffers from a mental illness that affects their judgment in the particular circumstance, the degree to which they are held responsible for their actions is lessened.

I'm sure you'd agree that asking someone to kill you is a pretty serious step to take, and if you have some form of serious depression, you are pretty much automatically incapable of making rational judgments about the value of your own life. So how do you reconcile the ability of such a person to request that their life be ended with the fact that in certain other important matters, the validity of that person's decisions is seen as invalid because of their mental state?

Of course, you could argue (correctly) that someone in extreme pain with nothing to look forward to but their own death is not going to be in a 'sound state of mind', but obviously there are varying degrees and types of these things. What I was saying was a criticism of things like the Swiss system where they give manic depressives the right to ask the health system to kill themselves for them.

This is the internet, assuming that people are retarded instead of being sarcastic isnt all that weird. Especially when it comes to topics like these. ;)

I'm not sure if this sarcasm thing was directed at something that I said. I don't recall being sarcastic. Hyperbolic for effect, sure. The circumcision thing was an example of the latter. Neither was it particularly relevant given that it was example to address a point brought up in relation to something else I had said earlier.

Edited October 2, 2010 by echo1

[Big Mac 19]

This is the internet, assuming that people are retarded instead of being sarcastic isnt all that weird. Especially when it comes to topics like these. ;)

If you thought that I really wanted to sue my folks for having me circumcised at birth rather than me just making a sarcastic comment then sure I guess assuming people over the internet are retarded is a correct assumption..

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

What I was saying was a criticism of things like the Swiss system where they give manic depressives the right to ask the health system to kill themselves for them.

Dignitas is a Swiss assisted dying group that helps those with terminal illness and severe physical and mental illnesses to die assisted by qualified doctors and nurses. Additionally, they provide euthanasia for people with incurable mental illnesses provided that they are of sound judgment and submit to an in-depth medical report prepared by a psychiatrist that establishes the patient's condition as fulfilling the specifications of the Federal Court of Switzerland

And you want people to be jumping in front of cars and off buildings - they won't stop if they've decided to die for a myriad of reasons.

Ludwig Minelli said in one interview [5] in March 2008 that Dignitas had thus far assisted 840 people to die, 60% of them Germans.

Most people coming to Dignitas do not plan to die but need insurance in case their illness becomes intolerable. Of those who receive the green light, 70% never return to Dignitas [5].

21% of people receiving assisted dying in Dignitas do not have a terminal or progressive illness, but rather "weariness of life".[7]

Private death clinic, 5K Euros for suicide, 7K for burial and/or cremation. :)

[4 IN 1 0]

Well, there is many ways to kill yourself by yourself, why bother with hire someone to kill you instead if you still can walk/jump/drink/breath/shoot?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Well, there is many ways to kill yourself by yourself, why bother with hire someone to kill you instead if you still can walk/jump/drink/breath/shoot?

Euthanasia (from the Greek εá½Î¸Î±Î½Î±ÏƒÎ¯Î± meaning "good death": εὖ, eu (well or good) + θάνατος, thanatos (death))

A shotgun to the chin doesn't make up for a dignifying death. :pet12:

[Big Mac 19]

A shotgun to the chin doesn't make up for a dignifying death. :pet12:

True; but I much rather have that then slowly dying in a pool of my own piss. I'm just saying..

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

True; but I much rather have that then slowly dying in a pool of my own piss. I'm just saying..

And the point of Euthanasia is to avoid both scenarios. ;)