Euthanasia (2 Viewers)

[Enteebee]

"The majority of individuals who commit suicide do not have a diagnosable mental illness. They are people just like you and I who at a particular time are feeling isolated, desperately unhappy and alone. Suicidal thoughts and actions may be the result of life's stresses and losses that the individual feels they just can't cope with."
Appleby and Condonis, "Hearing the cry: Suicide Prevention", 1990.

This is contentious... while it is true that many people are not diagnosed as having a problem before their suicide how many people exactly will visit a psychologist for an evaluation? Post-suicide it is often evaluated that something like 90% of individuals who commit suicide were suffering from some form of a psychiatric disorder. Now of course it can be said that such results are biased in that they may just assume someone committing suicide will have an issue, but if it were true this is also the exact result we would expect.

Let's look at the causes for suicide:

Causes of suicide

There are a variety of reasons posited or given for suicide:

* Mental disorders
* Suffering
* Unrequited love
* Stress
* Grief
* Withdrawal or discontinuation of psychoactive substances
* As philosophically or ideologically motivated move
* To escape punishment or an abusive environment
* Guilt or shame
* Playing Russian Roulette
* Catastrophic injury
* Financial loss
* Self sacrifice
* As part of a military or social strategy (e.g. suicide attacks)
* Belief that life has no inherent value (e.g. absurdism, pessimism, nihilism)
* As part of a religious cult
* Loneliness
* To restore honor (e.g. seppuku)
* Curiosity for post-life occurrences
* Fear of aging

A lot of these seem fairly imperminent or like they could be fixed, in cases for instance where there is some sort of physical suffering continually after a long period of time I would be willing to consider suicide is an acceptable outcome.

I think the opposition to legalised suicide comes from a view that suicide is never a rational act, and that if the individual recieved appropriate treatment they would lose their negative feeling. It is a fallacy to my mind to assume that everyone has the potential to live a content life. It is the healthy presuming to know the minds of the discontent.

Nah it can perhaps be rational especially at the time given their circumstances, but sometimes people in situations feel like there's 'no way out' when really there is... If they could come to see that there is hope for the future (i.e. that they'll get over X girl) then perhaps they would not kill themselves. I mean you seem to be suggesting that programs such as beyond blue should be shut down, I mean if people feel like killing themselves who are we to try to stop them/help them?

What is so special about someone else's life, that it must be protected from themselves when they have no wish and no purpose to continue? Simply, without god, what reason is there to force a man to live?

It's for themselves i.e. How many people who don't comit suicide are later glad they did not?

 

[Kwayera]

I am for voluntary euthanasia. If I was dying of some awful cancer like the pancreatic cancer my grandmother suffered atrociously from and died of, fuck it if I am going to let the state force me to live through it. I reserve my right to end my life any way and any time I choose. It's my body, not the state's, and as long as I have no debt owing, the state has no right to dictate how I end my life, if at all.

 

[Graney]

I mean if people feel like killing themselves who are we to try to stop them/help them?

Exactly!

I just think it's the individuals choice. There should be, as there is, a huge range of help and service for those who want it.

It may be temporary, as many undoubtedly are. But by treating all suicidal people as though they need treatment, and forcing them to undertake it, you remove the rights, and enforce the suffering of those who have a genuine and irreversible need to die.

Frankly, even if it is temporary, I would say there should still absolutely be a right to impulsively kill yourself. I see a mans life as his own to use and expend as he pleases. Why do you think a human life is so sacred?

It's for themselves i.e. How many people who don't comit suicide are later glad they did not?

It can equally be against themselves. What about those who attempt and fail, who wish they had succeeded and later complete?

Only the suicidal person should be given the right to decide whether their problems are temporary or permanent.

 

[Enteebee]

It may be temporary, as many undoubtedly are. But by treating all suicidal people as though they need treatment, and forcing them to undertake it, you remove the rights, and enforce the suffering of those who have a genuine and irreversible need to die.

Not all suicidal people need treatment, for example say I have some extremely painful cancer which leaves me in utter agony and there is minimal chance of survival. I think my application to be euthanised should be successful.

By not forcing people who have short-term problems to get help you are not paying credence to the wishes of that person before they were placed in a state of mind whereby they are not being anything like 'reasonable', i.e. someone whose girlfriend dumps him and decides he wants to drive off a bridge, I think we should stop him, he is suffering from a temporary loss of 'control' and this should be treated no different to a mental illness.

Frankly, even if it is temporary, I would say there should still absolutely be a right to impulsively kill yourself. I see a mans life as his own to use and expend as he pleases. Why do you think a human life is so sacred?

I don't think I should need to justify the importance of living, it is something that I'd say seems innate to human beings. Like I said, death seems to always be an 'evil' though it can occasionally be the lesser of two evils. I mean, why do you think 'free agency' is so sacred?

It can equally be against themselves. What about those who attempt and fail, who wish they had succeeded and later complete?

I see the cost of their pain to be less than the cost of losing lives which otherwise could have gone on to see much joy.

 

[Serius]

I don't see why the reason they are killing themselves is such a big issue. If we are using the argument that it is their life and they have the right to choose how they die, then they should be able to get injected with death drugs for the most flippant of reasons.

I don't really support euthanasia, for me it seems like a cop out to the suicide argument. Also it totally goes against the Hippocratic oath.

 

[HalcyonSky]

none of us can rightfully dispute euthanasia until we have experienced the agony and impending doom of this french woman. Or rectal cancer.

Arguing purely on morals and religion does not cut it for this question.

 

[*TRUE*]

I dont know what i think here. Ive heard my pastor talk about it being totally wrong , but i dont know , he has never really said why.
The only problem i know for sure that i have , is that voluntary Euthanasia could end up involuntary (those very ill being killed to free up resouces etc.)

 

[iamsickofyear12]

The only problem i know for sure that i have , is that voluntary Euthanasia could end up involuntary (those very ill being killed to free up resouces etc.)

Voluntary euthanasia would not lead to involuntary euthanasia... people are too moral these days. They consider everyone to be equal even though they aren't. It just wouldn't be allowed to happen.

 

[sam04u]

Euthanasia should be seperated into categories.
If somebody is incapable of making a rational decision (e.g; vegetative state) it should remain totally illegal.

But in certain other cases, where a rational argument can be made (with proper testing of patient's mental health and mental state), that person should have a right to end their life.

 

[*TRUE*]

Voluntary euthanasia would not lead to involuntary euthanasia... people are too moral these days. They consider everyone to be equal even though they aren't. It just wouldn't be allowed to happen.

But is HAS happened and i think it will.

It will start as only those in a vegetative state ( and the doctors think they have no chance of surviving or leading a happy life) i think it will progress and progress...
They would end up with a moral argument. Save the lives of those we can etc etc.
Keeping alive this old bat whose had 80 years and is dying anyway is preventing us from saving little Ella who is 3...theres already people for involuntary euthanasia in some cases, they dont believe they are at all immoral. They believe they are highly ethical.

 

[*TRUE*]

It just shows the threats of utilitarianism.

Diana, slippery slope arguments don't constitute arguments.

But dont you think we ought to consider the possible implications ( and i sort of think they are more than possible) of decisions we make, you know , apart from the obvious and first up effect?

 

[*TRUE*]

It's not going to happen because they exist in two different moral and ethical spheres.

I see what you mean. I do however think that much of the same reasoning that goes into support of enthanasia and abortion etc ( and recall havent stated much on either) could become reasoning in support of involuntary enthanasia.
You know , that the value in different human lives can be differentiated.
Still i know what you are saying , it is a big leap , esp. when euthanasia actually deal with the right of people to CHOOSE what to do with their life.

 

[spiny norman]

But dont you think we ought to consider the possible implications ( and i sort of think they are more than possible) of decisions we make, you know , apart from the obvious and first up effect?

IF WE LET GAYS MARRY THEN WHAT'S TO STOP PEOPLE MARRYING FAMILY MEMBERS AND THEN LIKE OLD MEN MARRYING CHILDREN AND THEN LIKE PEOPLE MARRYING ANIMALS?????????????????////////////


Euthanasia should be legal. Meh.

 

[Ennaybur]

Actually yeah, can we split this into two catagories?

Those who are for/against it on theoretical and philosophical grounds, and those who are for/against it for practical/empathetic reasons.

I realise that if you are for it in the latter then you'd kind of have to be for it on theoretical grounds, but to be honest I'm not sure.

My personal opinion probably leans towards: theoretically I don't think it's ever okay, but in practice when someone is in so much pain at the end of their lives I think it's cruel to keep them alive.

I'm not sure if that means that morally I'm in favour of a cruel necessity.

 

[Ennaybur]

No man, the thing is that if you have a debt and you die, the collection of that debt goes onto the person you provided as a guarantor. She's making a logical point.

But on the other hand, if you're willing to commit suicide then you're probably not in the state of mind to concern yourselves with your friends/family's wellbeing.
(this refers to young suicide rather than end of life, deathbed scenarios)

 

[Ennaybur]

I don't see why the reason they are killing themselves is such a big issue. If we are using the argument that it is their life and they have the right to choose how they die, then they should be able to get injected with death drugs for the most flippant of reasons.

I think most people that argue that people have the right over their own bodies do so under the assumption that it is when they are fully rational and capable. It would appear that someone wanting to commit suicide because of a break up or something is not rational or capable of that kind of decision-making.

Another point to consider is that if we legalise suicide in itself, that would open up many avenues of exploitation, which I just don't think would ever be practical.

In the case of euthanasia, the suicide is agreed upon and afaik they do the upmost to ensure that it is a rational decision, devoid of any influence.

I don't really support euthanasia, for me it seems like a cop out to the suicide argument. Also it totally goes against the Hippocratic oath.

What does the hippocratic oath have to do with anything? Unless you're using it in the same way as a religious person would use the bible: 'it's wrong because this text says it's wrong'.
As society's morals change, so do the practices and the guidelines that doctor's adhere to.

none of us can rightfully dispute euthanasia until we have experienced the agony and impending doom of this french woman. Or rectal cancer.

Arguing purely on morals and religion does not cut it for this question.

I'm sure there'd be many instances in life where we accept the awful consequences, and yet understand that the moral/philosophical/ethical basis for it must be upheld?

Euthanasia should be seperated into categories.
If somebody is incapable of making a rational decision (e.g; vegetative state) it should remain totally illegal.

But in certain other cases, where a rational argument can be made (with proper testing of patient's mental health and mental state), that person should have a right to end their life.

If they're in a totally vegetative state, why does that make any difference? They are arguably not really 'alive' and prior to modern medicine would not have survived. Does it really make a difference? Is your stance grounded purely in autonomy?

 

[bigboyjames]

how can anybody be against ending the life of someone who is suffering severely in a careful and dignified way? Because the bible says it's a sin? What kind of medieval argument is that? fuck that.


/rant

 

[Ennaybur]

how can anybody be against ending the life of someone who is suffering severely in a careful and dignified way? Because the bible says it's a sin? What kind of medieval argument is that? fuck that.


/rant

You can argue against it from an atheist perspective: If we only have this one life, then surely any life, albeit one of pain, is better than nothing now and ever.

Also add to that the possibility of recovery or other significant events occurring before your time.

 

[bigboyjames]

You can argue against it from an atheist perspective: If we only have this one life, then surely any life, albeit one of pain, is better than nothing now and ever.

Also add to that the possibility of recovery or other significant events occurring before your time.

this shouldn't be an atheist perspective, Abrahamic religions perspective, Hindu perspective...or any religion perspective...... its a fucking common sense perspective, which seems to me you fucking lack.

edit: how can you claim the atheist card and "we only have one life"..... are you now stating that people of other religions actually DO have a second life? its only faith based that people actually believe in heaven. not factual, therefore this argument doesn't stand on 2 legs.

 

[Ennaybur]

this shouldn't be an atheist perspective, Abrahamic religions perspective, Hindu perspective...or any religion perspective...... its a fucking common sense perspective, which seems to me you fucking lack.

uh, well if we make this decision in the absence of a religious perspective, then it kind of follows that it's an atheist one.

Can you please explain why you're against it?


edit: and it makes the world of difference which religious (or lack thereof) background you are coming from.