Assisted Suicide

[Tsunami]

Assisted suicide is the process by which an individual, who may otherwise be incapable, is provided with the means (drugs or equipment) to commit suicide. In some cases, the terms aid in dying or death with dignity are preferred.[1] These terms are often used to draw a distinction from suicide; in some legal jurisdictions, "suicide" (whether assisted or not) remains illegal, however "aid in dying" is permitted

Our class is currently debating the legal, moral, and ethical issues of assisted suicide. I would enjoy hearing your thoughts and opinions, given the number of intelligent responses in Cong.

Is assisted suicide ethical? Should a society go out of its way to help another person die?

Free will is a major factor. One should have the ability of dying on one's terms. However what is the difference between a murderer and someone who loves a person so much they blindly follow their requests?

In recent months, a string of high-profile cases has highlighted the moral ambiguity in cases of assisted suicide and mercy killings. A BBC presenter, Ray Gosling, was arrested last week after he confessed -- during a program aired on the BBC -- to having once suffocated a lover who was terminally ill with AIDS. Another Briton, Kay Gilderdale, was acquitted of attempted murder after helping her daughter, who suffered from myalgic encephalomyelitis, take her own life.

 

[Obsessed]

However what is the difference between a murderer and someone who loves a person so much they blindly follow their requests?

The solution to this is simple. Only allow medical professionals to do it.

 

[Mike B]

Drawing out an inevitable process that sucks ass to live through, would be considered assisted torture to me as well.

And Dear God let the professionals do it at least...


Cried a bit reading the Kay Gilderdale story

 

[Tsunami]

How many medical professionals would assist in suicide anyway? Isn't it their aim to save lives?

 

[Mike B]

An argument can be said that a life with no possible way to be meaningful, without any means to get better, would be hopeless to keep.


It's essentially coming down to keeping the heart beating for many people, regardless of what's going on.

I have no idea what meaning could come from supporting a life that isn't good to live at all.

 

[Stylish Interval]

Assisted suicide. Firstly, I think suicide altogether is a horrible thing. There are people who love you, want to be around you, and that will care for you always. Killing yourself is a selfish act, in my opinion. You're doing it for yourself, so that you don't have to suffer, and instead other people suffer for you. Most people probably don't even think about that. You hear it all the time in suicide news. The dad or mom will say "I wish they had only known how much I loved them. Now instead of them suffering it's me" or something along those lines. It's a horrible thing to do and no one should do it, as there is literally not a single good reason to take your life and plenty of good ones to keep it. Eliminating suffering certainly isn't one, as there is always someone who is putting up with worse circumstances.

As for helping, it's yes, unethical. You are helping TO KILL, KILL the person that you care so much about. Why the fuck would anyone do that? What's the difference between shooting someone and helping someone shoot themselves? There isn't one. In both cases you killed a person, and it isn't right. There is no difference between either, they both killed a person. A cold blooded serial killer is in the same boat as an assistant to suicide. No difference between them. They both consciously killed a person.

So yeah, I think it's wrong and horrible.

 

[tape]

Assisted suicide. Firstly, I think suicide altogether is a horrible thing. There are people who love you, want to be around you, and that will care for you always. Killing yourself is a selfish act, in my opinion. You're doing it for yourself, so that you don't have to suffer, and instead other people suffer for you. Most people probably don't even think about that. You hear it all the time in suicide news. The dad or mom will say "I wish they had only known how much I loved them. Now instead of them suffering it's me" or something along those lines. It's a horrible thing to do and no one should do it, as there is literally not a single good reason to take your life and plenty of good ones to keep it. Eliminating suffering certainly isn't one, as there is always someone who is putting up with worse circumstances.

You know what I think? That it's really self-fish for people to think only about them when someone else suicides; that person wasn't happy at all with his life, should he live because of you? Just because you wouldn't be able to bear it?

You even clearly outlined it in your post yet you don't seem to see it.

Killing yourself is a selfish act, in my opinion. You're doing it for yourself, so that you don't have to suffer, and instead other people suffer for you. Most people probably don't even think about that. You hear it all the time in suicide news. The dad or mom will say "I wish they had only known how much I loved them. Now instead of them suffering it's me" or something along those lines.

I'll wait for more answers and elaborate a bit more on it later on.

 

[Stylish Interval]

Think about it, first. If your mother got cancer and has a year to live, she might kill herself. Let's say she does. You were probably already sad that your mother only had a year to spend with you, but then she kills herself the next day and you didn't get to say good bye, tell her how much you love her, or share secrets you were waiting to share with her. In fact, you might be guilty for something and you meant to tell her, and now you will suffer for your life for it (unrelated, but still).

I don't think it's selfish at all to wish someone hadn't killed themselves for your sake, as they probably wish it for other's sakes as well. Following my example above, you would wish she hadn't died so your father, siblings, relatives, her close friends, co-workers, etc. would also not be sad and forced to accept that a person close to them died.

What's even a good reason for killing yourself, as opposed to living? What's even a good reason for helping someone kill themselves?

Edit to Ferrouswheel: I suppose if you think about it like that, maybe. But still, did the person really not have the logic to think through this, knowing that they would kill someone they knew instead of help them, or seek help for them? Or to show them reasons that they shouldn't kill themselves? Why would anyone help someone kill themselves? I still don't see any good reason for that to happen. Although I guess they differ in motivation, yes.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

I agree mostly with Stylish Interval. If say the person is depressed then they should get mental help instead of assisted suicide. Certainly no minor should be able to get assisted suicide.

I would make an exception for people in the late stages of irreversible diseases, but even then it would be a rare event. Simply in this case, I would allow for the right for the person to be selfish, I won't regulate my morality on another person.

However, the place where I really differ from you, Stylish, is that a serial killer is not in the same boat. A serial killer is a person killing people from a number of various reasons not related to helping out the victim. An assistant to suicide is normally a misguided attempt to help a person out. There is a significant difference in motivation between the two.

 

[Electrode]

I agree with Ferrouswheel on this one; people shouldn't be able to commit suicide if they aren't under the effect of some horrible disease, and even then, it shouldn't be allowed very oftern.

Reguarding non-diseased, emotionally distressed people: There are other ways to help them get through their problems besides letting them off themselves (or helping them) at the first sign of a problem.

With a crippling disease: I'd say it depends on how deep they would be into the disease. For instance, I don't think somebody should be able to kill themselves (or help someone) the second they find out that they have a disease. ("You have cancer." "Whelp, better go kill myself!") In this instance, death is not the only option, and thusly should not even be considered. However, if this person has been battling cancer for years, only to get worse, and they are on their last leg, I don't see how it could be that bad. If a horrible painfull death is surely imminent, then yes, I don't see anything wrong with them killing themselves, or somebody helping them do so. (As long as it's at their consent, of course.)

 

[Slyguy46]

First, if we're going to talk about this, I think we should at least bring up the most controvertial case dealing with this ... Terri Schiavo.

Is it wrong to give someone the chance to die with dignity? No.
Is it wrong to oppose such actions if you have personal interest in the case? No.

Overall, it really is about each individual case. If there is no hope whatsoever for recovery, but the person is still capable of proper thought, it truly is their decision. On the flipside, if a person does not have proper control of themselves, how does one decide what is right or wrong. In the end, no one has the right to such a decision, but such a decision must sometimes be made.

I can't support or go against either case, as I have not experienced such an event, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the subject, and neither side is truly wrong.

 

[ivar]

If the choice of life or not is robbed from us then what do we have reasonable control over? I consider such a decision sacred and up to the individual, regardless of how you, my dad or my mom feels about it (not to say I am considering suicide). I can't live my life through someone else with every decision I make and it is selfish to say suicide is selfish because of the impact it has on YOUR life.

We have life forced upon on us in birth... and we MUST accept it. But to be deprived of leaving life is a twisted joke. It's like being forced to do something you have no interest in doing (listening to Backstreet Boys repetitively for eternity) and not being allowed to ever stop.

And you can't say that somehow life is different or an exception to the above example, regardless of its absurdity: every moral decision must be done according to either a strict axiomatic system (do as so under such a case, without exception) or it must be deemed irrational (the decision or morality in general). If you do not support assisted suicide or suicide, then you support being forcibly tortured and never allowed to have said torture stop--do not let your preconceptions of the value of life dilute you from this fact. Maybe their lives will later improve, but this is a baseless and inappropriate assumption.

I honestly think there isn't much of a debate to be had and the right choice is obvious: those who argue against assisted suicide almost always end up contradicting their overall moral compass. The only argument I conceive of is maybe a practical one... but I don't see how the terminally ill can be productive.

 

[tape]

We have life forced upon on us in birth... and we MUST accept it. But to be deprived of leaving life is a twisted joke. It's like being forced to do something you have no interest in doing (listening to Backstreet Boys repetitively for eternity) and not being allowed to ever stop.

This was one of the stuff I wanted to point out, too; You are forced to have a life. No one ever asked you if you actually wanted to live or not. It baffles me when people question other people about why they would want to suicide.

Think about it, first. If your mother got cancer and has a year to live, she might kill herself. Let's say she does. You were probably already sad that your mother only had a year to spend with you, but then she kills herself the next day and you didn't get to say good bye, tell her how much you love her, or share secrets you were waiting to share with her. In fact, you might be guilty for something and you meant to tell her, and now you will suffer for your life for it (unrelated, but still).

Ok, this is on baseless assumptions and generalizations and shit, so I'll pay with the same coin.

I know my mother and she actually wouldn't leave me without saying at least good bye. It'd also be my fault to wait until the last moment to tell her a "secret" or "something of guilt". I also wonder why I would make her life even more miserable by telling her this when she's dying, sounds cruel. :)

I really wouldn't want anyone to (unwillingly) go through chemo, or cancer alone. I would be really understanding about their incredible pain and wish they passed on to a better life, or eternal sleep or whatever there is after.

 

[cantab]

every moral decision must be done according to either a strict axiomatic system (do as so under such a case, without exception) or it must be deemed irrational (the decision or morality in general).

Morality in general is not rational. I have to come across any 'strict axiomatic system' for morality that actually works. As for the original question. While in principle I feel it is the correct thing to do, my fear is it is too easily abusable. Once you have the system in place to allow assisted suicide, it could be used for murder. So I'm not sure such a system should be in place.

 

[tape]

Everything invented and created by humankind can and will be used for "evil", so I think it's a bit aside the point to say "oh yeah they'll do bad shit with that every once in a while", no?

 

[Electrode]

Everything invented and created by humankind can and will be used for "evil", so I think it's a bit aside the point to say "oh yeah they'll do bad shit with that every once in a while", no?

You're right; a lot of people get freaked out about assisted suicide because that was a big excuse for killing the mentally/physically handicapped in the Holocaust. I'm not sure if the people gave consent or not, or were tricked into thinking they were recovery hospitals (which I think is what they were promised).

However, I agree with you, as America has freedom of the press, etc, so the second any bad guy tried hauling off the handicapped enmass, the people would flip. It couldn't happen unless we lived in a totalitarian state.

 

[cantab]

Everything invented and created by humankind can and will be used for "evil", so I think it's a bit aside the point to say "oh yeah they'll do bad shit with that every once in a while", no?

While that's true, we're not talking an invention here. We're talking laws and policies. An invention needs only one inventor, and it cannot be un-invented. Policies and laws require the consent of many, and can be reversed. Thus, it is futile to try and stop the emergence of inventions usable for evil, but it is very possible - and indeed essential - to consider the risk of misuse of laws before passing them, and scupper them if that risk is deemed too great considering the benefit. And I'm not worried about Holocaust 2.0, I'm worried about individual cases. People getting family members done in, motivated most likely by greed for inheritance, or perhaps grudges.

 

[tape]

Then you can use the second word I gave; creation

I sorta should've known inventing was too much

 

[Electrode]

While that's true, we're not talking an invention here. We're talking laws and policies. An invention needs only one inventor, and it cannot be un-invented. Policies and laws require the consent of many, and can be reversed. Thus, it is futile to try and stop the emergence of inventions usable for evil, but it is very possible - and indeed essential - to consider the risk of misuse of laws before passing them, and scupper them if that risk is deemed too great considering the benefit. And I'm not worried about Holocaust 2.0, I'm worried about individual cases. People getting family members done in, motivated most likely by greed for inheritance, or perhaps grudges.

That is the tricky thing to figure out. 'Would we know if the hurting are actually signing up their rights to die, or is it a family member out for stuff or revenge?"

I suppose the signing could be watched and the dying would have to be done at a hospital, not at the home. Do you think this would help?

 

[tape]

I thought it was a given this would be done by the government and professionals, not just... whatever the fuck cantab is thinking.

Of course it would have to be the person willing to die that does the stuff, jesus.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

I thought it was a given this would be done by the government and professionals, not just... whatever the fuck cantab is thinking.

Of course it would have to be the person willing to die that does the stuff, jesus.

Lol at the thought that the government doesn't ever screw up. I mean, I'm a fan of a lot of government run things, but assuming that this post wasn't sarcastic, the government actually having death panels outside of Palin's bizarre reality, would not be a good thing.

 

[tape]

Once again this is not the effing point jesus christ.

Hey we shouldn't have X government shit because they're bound to make mistakes lololol

 

[Ferrouswheel]

Once again this is not the effing point jesus christ.

Hey we shouldn't have X government shit because they're bound to make mistakes lololol

The idea was that people could get family members/others "done in" even if the government was in charge, so your argument that if the government does it, there won't be abuse of assisted suicide doesn't hold water.

 

[Fishy]

Well I've read through everything, and my own opinion remains unchanged: Despite a person having life pushed onto them in general, it is their life, and theirs alone. Not everyone has a family that cares about them, or friends, or anything. And that's not even a point, even if people do, who cares? I have reflexively thought about suicide like others do, in that "Why would someone ever do that, they're just taking the easy way out and hurting the people that care about them simultaneously." I still feel that way, but that's in the case of just silly teenagers/people that aren't dying and are just ignorantly believing that death is the only way to end their "suffering." I don't think suicide is really merited for any person unless they are already very quickly dying (terminally ill). Which brings us very closely to assisted suicide!

I'm not very well read, but the basis is that the person dying must give consent to be injected/unplugged/whatever to end their life, yes? So, they are making their own "rational" decision about what they want to do with their life. Plus, how can you not empathize with someone who is in so much pain, or just so desperate to die that they have to ask for help to kill themselves? I really think that if a person is willingly asking for someone to take their life into the helper's hands, there's no turning back in their minds. So let them be. It's utterly selfish for someone to believe that "my mother killed herself before I could tell her x, before I could do y, etc." It's your own fucking fault over that shit, you can't be like WOW she just tore that rug out from under me!

I also believe that some people are capable of suicide, and the rest simply aren't. I watched my grandfather slowly become more emaciated which each day, from the cancer in his liver slowly sucking the life out of him. He was rendered so weak that to get his wife's, my grandmother's, attention, he would raise the volume of the television show he was watching. I'm sure he was suffering, and every day of his short time left seemed like the longest day of his life, but I'm sure he also lived just to see his wife's face, even if it was full of tears because of the knowledge of her husband's too-soon, impending passing. Of course, he was kept at home, bed-ridden, and refused to die in a hospital. I only bring this up because I believe that the people in these situations who are capable of suicide, who believe that ending their life when they want to is a great privilege and a release, shouldn't be blamed at all. Of course they realize that making this decision, they won't be seeing their family and friends again. They will be leaving everyone that they love, even sooner than nature had intended, terminal illness considered. I feel that in these cases, if you still feel like the person who has agreed to assisted suicide is selfish, then you're just an idiot. You either did not appreciate their existence as you've been able to enjoy it, or you couldn't sympathize/empathize with the pain that they were in, and how if you care about them it should ONLY matter what they want, what they want to do to stop their awful suffering.

And yes, I keep talking about suffering involving pain and the like, but in cases of just being brain dead or a vegetable, I really have no qualms about assisted suicide in those cases either, even if that's more of a family member's decision than the patient's. Yes, you could be ending someone's life without their consent, but what sort of life are you living if you're not even aware of living it anymore? I personally feel that worthwhile lives are only ones that you can enjoy, and if I were a brain-dead vegetable drooling over myself and completely unaware that I even existed anymore, I trust that my family would have enough sense to know that I'd rather die and save my family any more sadness by viewing my useless body (with no hope of recovery) than spending money on a lost cause that would inevitably, and expectantly, die in this exact state.

edit: and I don't mean to contradict myself, I know I said that I frown upon teenagers/non-terminally ill people killing themselves, but that's merely how I personally feel about it. Ultimately, people have the right to end their lives whenever they want, I just feel that assisted suicide shouldn't be an ethical issue at all.

/BREATHE

 

[ivar]

Morality in general is not rational. I have to come across any 'strict axiomatic system' for morality that actually works. As for the original question. While in principle I feel it is the correct thing to do, my fear is it is too easily abusable. Once you have the system in place to allow assisted suicide, it could be used for murder. So I'm not sure such a system should be in place.

Written consent.

Plus, saying that we should not have systems of assisted suicide because it may be abused is ludicrous: who is to say that is true or that it will ever be a significant enough problem... I'm sure there are plenty of systems that have great benefit but are abuse-able as well... does not mean they should be completely disregarded.

Police is an example. We should have government provided protection... oh but wait it's corruptible and could be used to falsely imprison someone. I'm not sure such a system should be in place. :naughty: