Port Arthur Killer Martin Bryant & the "Right To Die" (1 Viewer)

[jimmayyy]

how can anyone possibly justify someone like a mass murderer being allowed to euthanize themselves? especially if they were protected from being killed legally by the state via execution for their crimes in the first place.

you can't have it both ways. either they are executed or they live out their life sentence. no easy way out halfway house.

fucking pathetic someone would even propose such crap.

 

[_dhj_]

One thing I would like to ask those who appose euthanasia --> What is the value of life?

Personally I don't see life as being inherently valuable, rather, it is the pleasurable experiences that can be had while alive which are valuable. In other words, life is of instrumental (rather than inherent) value. An analogy would be money, which is valuable because it can buy stuff but may as well be burnt for warmth if it lacks buying power. My argument for euthanasia is that life, like money, can reach a point where its instrumental worth is all but gone. Worse than this, life can facilitate negative experiences (such as pain). Living through weeks of an excrutiatingly painful terminal illness would be akin to carrying cash which leads to repossession of your assets. Does it really make sense to look at life/money as valuable once this point is reached?

I don't think it's a simple case of measuring the total utility of one's remaining life by way of adding up the pains and pleasures one will experience. A few things on the subject to consider:

1) Pain and pleasure are relative. Pain in the present makes future pleasures more pleasurable and future pains less painful. Conversely, present pleasures make future pains more painful and future pleasures less pleasurable.
2) What is most painful is not present pain itself, but the prospect of pain in the future, and vice versa. For example, in the week before going on a holiday, one's enjoyment of ordinary life increases dramatically, although the experience of the holiday itself may be quite ordinary.
3) At any point in time one only considers the present point in time. Note from the above point that probable future is factored in the equation determining present utility, and from the first point that past pain and pleasure are also (albeit inversely) relevant.

Now I support legalising euthanasia for only a limited scope of terminally ill cases where the future of the patient can only deteoriate. In those cases the desire of the patient himself is probably so strong at the present point that they would almost definately commit suicide if they had the means to do so (ironically it is the cause of their pains that prevents them from doing so).

The state of death itself does not lay on the pain-pleasure continuum because the condition precedent for it to do so, the passage of time, is non-existent. It is therefore, objectively speaking not a matter of comparing one's present predicament with the prospect of death, although irrational as we humans are, we would tend to do so when considering ending our lives.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

In general though, the scientific truth and 'human nature' don't come in conflict in the technical sense. There is an objective truth - and imo KFunk correctly states part of it. Another part of the objective truth is that most humans by nature, although peripherally attempt to seek the objective truth, are not troubled by the fact that their actions are generally not taken in reference to that objective truth.

Humans may not generally be troubled by it, but those who wish to think about it in any realistic way will have to deal with this problem sooner or later.

In regard to individual responsibility - objectively, there is no such thing, but it is a necessary fiction in human consciousness for society to not collapse on itself.

Well I think I might be saying something similar, I'm saying that even while there may not be, objectively, any means by which to claim someone has individual responsibility... by that same token there is no means to claim objectively that anyone has done an individual action.

But then what if we consider the notion of an individual to be the sum total of their genetics/upbringing, surely then we could argue that it's silly to say he doesn't have responsibility due to his genetics/environment as that's tantamount to claiming that he doesn't have individual responsibility because of X part of the individual... Shouldn't we be personally responsible for that which we are? Surely some people need to have their freedom taken off them more than others as their limitations are more obvious (i.e. the mentally ill) but I can't yet see another defensible position that I like.

i.e. You have responsibility for all that is you and you are the product of your genetics/environment. You had no choice of what how these may have affected you, but there is no individual 'you' other than that which was created through these two forces.

Now I support legalising euthanasia for only a limited scope of terminally ill cases where the future of the patient can only deteoriate. In those cases the desire of the patient himself is probably so strong at the present point that they would almost definately commit suicide if they had the means to do so (ironically it is the cause of their pains that prevents them from doing so).

I somewhat agree with this, but I'd broaden it to the point where someone might have a less than say 25% chance of survival, especially (and perhaps to the point of allowing up to 50% chance of survival) where there will be continued complications/pain afterwards... OR something along those lines, I just don't feel comfortable saying where it can 'only' deteriorate because we're just not that good at predicting these things.

Maybe the introduction of standard contracts that are signed andd alike, to prove that the patient is consenting to being euthanased. On top of that, I would expect that the "patient" would also have to go through some sort of counseling, to make certain that - (a) they are fully aware of the decision and its consequences and (b) are "serious" (this isn't really the word I'm looking for but shit happens) about the decision.

You're thinking way too complex man Chances are it'd need to be done by a doctor under a rigorously supervised beaurocracy, with a nurse, family/friends watching.

 

[KFunk]

The state of death itself does not lay on the pain-pleasure continuum because the condition precedent for it to do so, the passage of time, is non-existent. It is therefore, objectively speaking not a matter of comparing one's present predicament with the prospect of death, although irrational as we humans are, we would tend to do so when considering ending our lives.

Thinking in terms of a pleasure-pain continuum (x axis = time, y = pleasure/pain) death could be taken to be absolute neutrality. It is neither pleasureable nor painful (it's nothing really). However, if you compare death to an overall positive stretch of experience then it seems like a bad thing (deprivation argument) while looking at a negative stretch of experience it would be 'preferable' (in a loose sense of the word).

Personally, I do think that it is simply a matter of measuring the utility of one's remaining life, however I do not think that the matter of measurement itself is simple. As you have pointed out, it is incredibly difficult to quantify pain/pleasure. The biggest stumbling block, to my eye, is subjectivity and personal preference - e.g. how on earth do we judge the case of a masochist?? Given the inherent difficulties I too would push for restricting euthanasia to clearer cases (e.g. the painfully, terminally ill) and measures to prevent malpractice, e.g. counselling and proper gain of consent.

 

[Justin]

Let him rot in jail. He wants euthenasia to escape the unbearable pain of prison life?

That's a good sign. No euthenasia for him.

 

[_dhj_]

Humans may not generally be troubled by it, but those who wish to think about it in any realistic way will have to deal with this problem sooner or later.

You'd think so, but even determinist philosophers are able to live their normal lives based on 'false' human perception. It is doubtful that the worlds will ever collide for an ordinary person. Of course, there is the possibility that the objective world may influence human perception, but they are so far apart that the influence will only ever be negligible and peripheral. The fact that an idea or a movement in art of philosophy - such as posthumanism, is 'in' does not even remotely influence human perception in the everyday sense.

Well I think I might be saying something similar, I'm saying that even while there may not be, objectively, any means by which to claim someone has individual responsibility... by that same token there is no means to claim objectively that anyone has done an individual action.

I think it's acceptable to take action as only movement, whereas responsibility implies culpability. So it's reasonable to interpret individual action, without further context, as the movement of one person, himself not necessarily being responsible for it.

But then what if we consider the notion of an individual to be the sum total of their genetics/upbringing, surely then we could argue that it's silly to say he doesn't have responsibility due to his genetics/environment as that's tantamount to claiming that he doesn't have individual responsibility because of X part of the individual...

i.e. You have responsibility for all that is you and you are the product of your genetics/environment. You had no choice of what how these may have affected you, but there is no individual 'you' other than that which was created through these two forces.

I think I see what you are saying, and it's an interesting point. Ordinarily though, we define responsibility of that which is created through human agency and consciousness. Semantically your definition is correct since the 'individual', technically speaking is the physical being, but I don't think that's the ordinary definition in that context.

I somewhat agree with this, but I'd broaden it to the point where someone might have a less than say 25% chance of survival, especially (and perhaps to the point of allowing up to 50% chance of survival) where there will be continued complications/pain afterwards... OR something along those lines, I just don't feel comfortable saying where it can 'only' deteriorate because we're just not that good at predicting these things.

It's hard to find a balance because there are external factors like cost to keep the patient alive. If we assume that these costs don't exist though, from the patient's perspective, it's quite possible to derive pleasure from a slight improvement or a spiritual epiphany at a future point. Of course external costs do, despite the rhetoric, come into it.

 

[_dhj_]

Thinking in terms of a pleasure-pain continuum (x axis = time, y = pleasure/pain) death could be taken to be absolute neutrality. It is neither pleasureable nor painful (it's nothing really). However, if you compare death to an overall positive stretch of experience then it seems like a bad thing (deprivation argument) while looking at a negative stretch of experience it would be 'preferable' (in a loose sense of the word).

I don't think you can compare them because in death there is no consciousness (which I referred to as 'time').

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You'd think so, but even determinist philosophers are able to live their normal lives based on 'false' human perception. It is doubtful that the worlds will ever collide for an ordinary person. Of course, there is the possibility that the objective world may influence human perception, but they are so far apart that the influence will only ever be negligible and peripheral. The fact that an idea or a movement in art of philosophy - such as posthumanism, is 'in' does not even remotely influence human perception in the everyday sense.

Oh I see what you mean here. Yea, I don't doubt that everyone can live without really being too bothered, but when it comes to looking for an answer at the very least at that time if you care you will probably bother to try to solve the problem.

I think it's acceptable to take action as only movement, whereas responsibility implies culpability. So it's reasonable to interpret individual action, without further context, as the movement of one person, himself not necessarily being responsible for it.

I agree, but without an outside force to claim as culpable (in this case I'm saying that environmental factors/genetics are not outside forces) then you should be responsible for all your actions.

Ordinarily though, we define responsibility of that which is created through human agency and consciousness.

I don't want to get into an argument about consciousness too much, but for me at least I'd say once you have the biological (genetic) factors and environmental ones sorted out, you basically have the 'inner' being/conscious or whatever we'd like to call it. I.e. If a computer knew everything about someone's environment/genetics it could very accurately guess their conscious decisions.

 

[KFunk]

I don't think you can compare them because in death there is no consciousness (which I referred to as 'time').

But don't we have to compare them if we are to judge which is the better of two alternatives? If a person in pain chooses euthanasia then they are making the judgement that death is preferable to a painful existence. How can they claim death as a better option if such a comparison is impossible?

Similarly for our respect/reverence for life - without a comparison how can we judge death to be bad? (Here I would encourage you to disregard effects of a person's death on the living... take the hypothetical of an isolated person living a pleasureable life. If killed would the person's death, in itself, constitute a bad thing?)

 

[KFunk]

I agree, but without an outside force to claim as culpable (in this case I'm saying that environmental factors/genetics are not outside forces) then you should be responsible for all your actions.

I tend to find myself agreeing with this perspective as a reasonable, practical basis for responsibility. You can say that person X is responsible for a given action while still admitting that X is not responsible for his/her own character traits. Mind you, this still leaves me hesitating when it comes to doling out painful punishment.

 

[_dhj_]

But don't we have to compare them if we are to judge which is the better of two alternatives? If a person in pain chooses euthanasia then they are making the judgement that death is preferable to a painful existence. How can they claim death as a better option if such a comparison is impossible?

They can try to compare the two states but a real comparison is impossible because nobody has experienced death before making the choice to die. It's arguable that death can be compared with sleep, but sleep always ends in the person waking up, and is only assessed when the person wakes up. But then, they are not assessing sleep itself but the experience of waking up from it. If the person never wakes up the experience of eternal sleep cannot be assessed.

Similarly for our respect/reverence for life - without a comparison how can we judge death to be bad? (Here I would encourage you to disregard effects of a person's death on the living... take the hypothetical of an isolated person living a pleasureable life. If killed would the person's death, in itself, constitute a bad thing?)

The experiences of a prospective future factored in the present experience, even if that future eventuates, does not equate to actual experience of the future. Still, if you compare the predicament of a person in depression with that of a terminally ill person, the difference is that things will probably not get better for the terminally ill person. However, it's still a possibility that a few moments in time for that person in the future will be 'positive'. In those moments the past is forgotten (not that it is erased from memory, but that is not experienced). Of course, most moments are of pain, but you can't just add up all the moments of pain and pleasure, because decisions are only taken in reference to the present moment.

 

[KFunk]

Of course, most moments are of pain, but you can't just add up all the moments of pain and pleasure, because decisions are only taken in reference to the present moment.

A decision will be made in a particular moment but that doesn't mean that it isn't influenced by the past or the predicted future (given the nature of learning the past will inevitably play a major role in any present decision making). In terms of the future: I have negative experiences myself, but suicide is never a dominant reflex or consideration because I anticipate that the future is likely to yield a net positive experience - I thus judge that life is worth living.

They can try to compare the two states but a real comparison is impossible because nobody has experienced death before making the choice to die. It's arguable that death can be compared with sleep, but sleep always ends in the person waking up, and is only assessed when the person wakes up. But then, they are not assessing sleep itself but the experience of waking up from it. If the person never wakes up the experience of eternal sleep cannot be assessed.

Certainly, we take a gamble in judging that death is a matter of 'nothingness', but it is the outcome that seems most likely according to science (the situation will be seen differently by a religious individual). If we run with the hypothesis that death involves the absence of any experential content then I think we are safe in saying 'being dead' involves neither pleasure nor pain. Sure, we can enter a debate about whether 'death' is truly attributable as a state, in a metaphysical sense, but I still think that it can be reasonably (or at least practically) regarded as a neutral value on a pleasure-pain continuum. Providing, of course, that the above hypothesis holds true.

 

[sam04u]

0 brain activity is NOT like sleep.

 

[_dhj_]

A decision will be made in a particular moment but that doesn't mean that it isn't influenced by the past or the predicted future (given the nature of learning the past will inevitably play a major role in any present decision making). In terms of the future: I have negative experiences myself, but suicide is never a dominant reflex or consideration because I anticipate that the future is likely to yield a net positive experience - I thus judge that life is worth living.

Even though the perception of the present is dependent on past and future, as I have acknowledged, a present which already factors in the past and the future in determining it should not be factored into a greater equation combining all 'present' moments in time.

So whereas you and I in most of the 'present' moments will not consider suicide as 'dominant reflex' in those moments, there may be a few 'present' moments, in times of weakness or depression, in which we might. For a terminally ill patient it is probably the opposite - so that in a few 'present' moments in their natural remaining lifespan, consideration of suicide will not be a 'dominant reflex'. But if they are to act on the prevalent dominant reflex of the majority of their remaining moments (that is to commit suicide), they deny themselves experience of the (albeit few) moments in the minority. During those few moments their experiences are positive, having already factored in the past and the prospective future in those moments.

 

[KFunk]

So whereas you and I in most of the 'present' moments will not consider suicide as 'dominant reflex' in those moments, there may be a few 'present' moments, in times of weakness or depression, in which we might. For a terminally ill patient it is probably the opposite - so that in a few 'present' moments in their natural remaining lifespan, consideration of suicide will not be a 'dominant reflex'. But if they are to act on the prevalent dominant reflex of the majority of their remaining moments (that is to commit suicide), they deny themselves experience of the (albeit few) moments in the minority. During those few moments their experiences are positive, having already factored in the past and the prospective future in those moments.

Yes, I agree - someone with a 'net' negative stretch of experience can have positive moments of experience. My basic position is that:

It is not the case that the pleasure is always worth the pain.

Are you trying to argue against this position or are you simply trying to establish the fact that people with a net negative experience can have positive moments of experience?

 

[_dhj_]

Yes, I agree - someone with a 'net' negative stretch of experience can have positive moments of experience. My basic position is that:

It is not the case that the pleasure is always worth the pain.

It's hard to determine whether it is. In moments of pain, it's not worth it. But in moments of pleasure, one might see the past pain (it's already in the past) as worth the pleasure during that particular moment. I just think, in determining whether or not to permit euthanasia for a particular individual, there needs to be a degree of restriction on the choice of the individual in favour of discouraging the option of death.

 

[KFunk]

It's hard to determine whether it is. In moments of pain, it's not worth it. But in moments of pleasure, one might see the past pain (it's already in the past) as worth the pleasure during that particular moment. I just think, in determining whether or not to permit euthanasia for a particular individual, there needs to be a degree of restriction on the choice of the individual in favour of discouraging the option of death.

Do you meant that it's hard to determine in an absolute sense or in an individual sense? On the individual level I'm inclined to agree - which is why I would support the idea of integrating counselling into any system of euthanasia.

 

[_dhj_]

Do you meant that it's hard to determine in an absolute sense or in an individual sense? On the individual level I'm inclined to agree - which is why I would support the idea of integrating counselling into any system of euthanasia.

Yeah I was referring to the individual's perspective. I think probably the most difficult thing about euthanasia is that regardless of the form that it takes, its legalisation will influence the decision of the individual in question. If we make it legal, on the one hand the process safer, but on the other hand the value of the individual's life to society - from that individual's point of view, is diminished. We might have more elections influenced, decisively in some cases, by the feeling of guilt for burdening family and society.

 

[SunkistAngel]

"Let him rot in jail. He wants euthenasia to escape the unbearable pain of prison life?

That's a good sign. No euthenasia for him"
Quote: Justin

I find this comment, and some which preceded, rather ignorant of the true issues in this case. The issue is not to legalise euthanasia and allow Bryant to die without intervention, but the way our country, supported by the legal system, tends to deal with issues presented to us. Our most common reaction to crime at the moment is to put people behind bars and isolate them from society. Rates show that this does not work as recidivism (re-offending) is increasing.
It is people like Byrant who become caught up in an society unwilling to offer support for how he suffers. Gaol is not the place for him, regardless of the people he has murdered or crimes he has committed. We have to look at the bigger picture and the reasons why people commit such crimes. Not everyone follows the same mindset the majority of society share, which does not make them wrong however with proper treatment mentally ill people such as Bryant could be happier and society would be safer. It is our responsibility to care for people who can not care for themselves. Our methods of ‘dealing’ with these cases show how ignorant we can be as a society and how much we are letting down those who need our support and not the other cheek.

http://community.boredofstudies.org/members/justin/

 

[Serius]

You do realise he murdered 35 people right? he was sentenced to life without parole. 35 life sentences infact. Sure we might want to reform theives, drug addicts and other petty criminals, but this guy got life. We dont want to reform him, we want to punish him. Even if he was reformed he still has the rest of his life to spend in prison, so its kind of pointless taking the effort to reform him to make him fit to return to society when thats never going to happen.

Reform is a great thing and cutting edge programs really make a difference with some types of crime. Imo murderers, rapists and pedophiles are three crimes that can never be reformed. I might be willing to give the bennefit of the doubt to a murderer because we dont know the situation and despite what you might think, not all murders are equally bad, but rapists, pedophiles... in order to commit those crimes the person has vastly different ideals to the rest of society, and research shows that those ideals never change. The best you can do is make them so scared of going back to prison that they wont reoffend. They will always want to though, and will in a heartbeat if they think they can get away with it.

In short, reform = good for petty crime, just not for homocidal maniacs who slay 35 people in cold blood.