Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide

[jdobbin]

Would you then let the government butt out of a domestic dispute? For example, Dad kills Mom and then presents a paper with Mom's signature showing that Mom wanted to die. Case closed?

You are going to have to make your mind up about whether you like the government or not.

[Riverwind]

Would you then let the government butt out of a domestic dispute? For example, Dad kills Mom and then presents a paper with Mom's signature showing that Mom wanted to die. Case closed?

If you read through the thread you will see that I did say that the dying person had to 'pull the trigger' and that there would need to be independent evidence of this (video/neutral third party). In your scenario, the Dad would still be charged with murder if the he actually did the killing or failed to provide clear evidence that she did committed suicide.

If a person can give the decision of their death to another person, what happens? More people die.

My entire argument is the assistant can do nothing more than provide the means (e.g. a doctor pescribing a lethal dose of medication). Ultimately, the person dying has to knowingly make the choice to end his/her life. That said, it would likely mean that more people commit suicide but lwe make those trade offs all of the time and generally decide that an individual's freedom to choose is more important when the only person who gets hurt is the individual.

I do not support euthenasia where someone else makes the decision because I cannot think of a way to ensure that it does not become a cover for murder. OTOH, as health dollars become stretched I think it will be come increasing difficult to justify keeping people alive when that have no hope of recovery when people who do not require as extreme interventions go without.

For example, the government health care plans refused to pay for an extremely expensive autism treatment for 3 year olds because the cost did not justify the return yet it thinks nothing of spending a much greater sum keeping 90 year old alive for an extra 6 months in intensive care.

If we has a system where a family had to choose between keeping granny alive a bit longer or giving junior a better chance in life then there would be no question. In fact, granny would likely fully support the sacrifice. These kinds of decisions have only become difficult because we have depersonalized the cost of healthcare.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[Malaclypse the Younger]

You are a fool if you think that an animals will to live is so weak as yours. Have you never heard that some animals, when stuck in a legtrap, will CHEW THEIR OWN LEGS OFF in order to escape?

A horse is not a rabbit or a squirrel. I doubt a horse could chew off its own leg, much less walk very far once it had done so.

And you think a horse with a broken leg in the care of people, not out in the damn wild on its own, has it rough?

With a broken leg? Definitely. A horse that can't walk is a pretty unhappy horse, no matter where it is.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

"People are not that important" is a self defeating argument in any moral debate.

In the scope of this argument, it isn't. There are no grand reasons for our existence other than the ones we've made up to make ourselves feel comfortable.

If an asteroid hit our planet tomorrow and wiped out the entire human race, do you think it would matter?

[Malaclypse the Younger]

It may also allow the clever to get away with murder. And, Riverwind, you must have a really messed up view of the world if you think watching a family member kill themselves is not traumatic. There will never be anything graceful about it.

Having a family member die in any fashion is pretty traumatic for most people. Especially in our society, where death is a taboo subject. If we had more Buddhist principals in our society, we might not be so traumatised by family members dying.

But the subject is not how you feel about someone else dying, it is how a person who must live with incurable pain feels about continuing to live.

[lictor616]

In the scope of this argument, it isn't. There are no grand reasons for our existence other than the ones we've made up to make ourselves feel comfortable.

If an asteroid hit our planet tomorrow and wiped out the entire human race, do you think it would matter?

its true we humans are mere epiphenomena in a universe vastly more complex then we.

[Bonam]

In the scope of this argument, it isn't. There are no grand reasons for our existence other than the ones we've made up to make ourselves feel comfortable.

If an asteroid hit our planet tomorrow and wiped out the entire human race, do you think it would matter?

Not to you perhaps, seeing as how you view yourself as irrelevant and insignificant, but to me it certainly would matter.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

Not to you perhaps, seeing as how you view yourself as irrelevant and insignificant, but to me it certainly would matter.

Pray tell, how would you care, having ceased to exist and all that?

Edited August 26, 2009 by Malaclypse the Younger

[Guest TrueMetis]

Not to you perhaps, seeing as how you view yourself as irrelevant and insignificant, but to me it certainly would matter.

Why would it matter you dead. you don't have a say in anything anymore.

[August1991]

If you read through the thread you will see that I did say that the dying person had to 'pull the trigger' and that there would need to be independent evidence of this (video/neutral third party). In your scenario, the Dad would still be charged with murder if the he actually did the killing or failed to provide clear evidence that she did committed suicide.

Yes, I read through the thread.

Riverwind, how do you answer Krauthammer's column? IMV, you miss his point.

-----

BTW, let me consider your other points.

Edited August 26, 2009 by August1991

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, how do you answer Krauthammer's column?

IMV, you miss his point.

I guess I did.

It's not an outrage. It's surely not a death panel. But it is subtle pressure applied by society through your doctor. And when you include it in a health-care reform whose major objective is to bend the cost curve downward, you have to be a fool or a knave to deny that it's intended to gently point the patient in a certain direction, toward the corner of the sickroom where stands a ghostly figure, scythe in hand, offering release.

That quote makes the point that I believe you were making and I would have to agree with your suggestion that allowing assisted suicide would result in more people considering it because of the assorted family and social pressures. OTOH, I am not convinced that is a bad thing because no matter what we do on the healthcare file we will ration it and we will have to make difficult choices. It does not make a difference if we delegate that decision making to a government bureaucrat or a private insurance company adjuster because the tough decisions still have to be made and they will often appear to be arbitrary.

Like Krauthammer, I think we should not be afraid to be put the facts on the table and discuss them. Absolutist moral positions that presume that there are no negative consequences to those positions do not allow us to move forward.

[Bonam]

Pray tell, how would you care, having ceased to exist and all that?

Why would it matter you dead. you don't have a say in anything anymore.

Wow you guys are thick headed. Obviously it would matter before it happened, while there were people still alive to perceive what was about to happen. Besides, there would be survivors of the immediate event, even if they were to die off later, to whom it would "matter" for quite some time thereafter.

It sounds to me like neither of you would at all mind being killed suddenly. After all, you wouldn't be around any more to object. Our species would long be extinct if its average member had as weak a will to live as you.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

Wow you guys are thick headed. Obviously it would matter before it happened, while there were people still alive to perceive what was about to happen. Besides, there would be survivors of the immediate event, even if they were to die off later, to whom it would "matter" for quite some time thereafter.

I didn't ask if it would matter before it happened. I asked if it would matter after it happened. I did not say that there was any life surviving. I said that nothing survives. I am not thick headed. You have a reading comprehension problem.

It sounds to me like neither of you would at all mind being killed suddenly.

After all, you wouldn't be around any more to object. Our species would long be extinct if its average member had as weak a will to live as you.

I am not afraid of dying. Everyone dies. There is no point in being afraid.

[Bonam]

I didn't ask if it would matter before it happened. I asked if it would matter after it happened.

No, you made no such specification. You asked if it would matter:

If an asteroid hit our planet tomorrow and wiped out the entire human race, do you think it would matter?

Nice try weaseling out of your own nonsensical question and statement though.

I did not say that there was any life surviving. I said that nothing survives.

First of all, the human race is not all life. Even if the entire human race was "wiped out", as you put it, plenty of other lifeforms would survive. Furthermore, if you know anything about the actual event of which you speak, you would know that the majority of death caused by an asteroid impact would be due to changes in climate (extreme cooling due to suspension of particulates in the atmosphere). Such an effect would take time, and would leave some humans alive for a considerable period. And, of course, humans on off-world facilities, such as the ISS, would not be killed immediately either.

I am not afraid of dying. Everyone dies. There is no point in being afraid.

So go die then if you are so unafraid. After all, I'm sure it wouldn't really matter. Certainly not to your family or friends, right?

[Malaclypse the Younger]

No, you made no such specification. You asked if it would matter:

If an asteroid hit our planet tomorrow and wiped out the entire human race, do you think it would matter?

The specification is in how the question is written. If you had reading comprehension skills beyond that of a first grader, you would know this.

Nice try weaseling out of your own nonsensical question and statement though.

It's not nonsensical. Note that you're the only one here who hasn't understood it.

First of all, the human race is not all life.

Not, it's not. But let's not be idiots. If a big enough asteroid hit our planet, it wouldn't selectively choose only humans to die.

Even if the entire human race was "wiped out", as you put it, plenty of other lifeforms would survive.

Let's say it's an asteroid so big that nothing survives when it hits Earth. You are on Earth when this happens. The day after this happens, do you think you'll be able to care?

Furthermore, if you know anything about the actual event of which you speak, you would know that the majority of death caused by an asteroid impact would be due to changes in climate (extreme cooling due to suspension of particulates in the atmosphere). Such an effect would take time, and would leave some humans alive for a considerable period. And, of course, humans on off-world facilities, such as the ISS, would not be killed immediately either.

Ok, it looks like you're too stupid for this question, so I'll just draw you a picture:

See how big that asteroid is? If it hits us, nothing lives. We're all dead. Everything you know is gone, including yourself.

So go die then if you are so unafraid. After all, I'm sure it wouldn't really matter. Certainly not to your family or friends, right?

I'm not suffering from incurable pain. I have no really good reason to kill myself.

If I were suffering from incurable pain, and my family and friends demanded that I continue to live for their bemusement, I would call them all a bunch of assholes and then kill myself.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Malaclypse the Younger

[Bonam]

The specification is in how the question is written. If you had reading comprehension skills beyond that of a first grader, you would know this.

It's not nonsensical. Note that you're the only one here who hasn't understood it.

Not, it's not. But let's not be idiots. If a big enough asteroid hit our planet, it wouldn't selectively choose only humans to die.

Let's say it's an asteroid so big that nothing survives when it hits Earth. You are on Earth when this happens. The day after this happens, do you think you'll be able to care?

Look, I understand your point that once someone is no longer alive, they are no longer able to "care" or to feel or think anything, including regret or sorrow at their own death. I am no believer in the supernatural, and the statement is obvious. But you try to make a far larger conclusion from this statement, that the existence of humanity as a whole is irrelevant. That is what I disagree with. Your first grade "artwork" of asteroids adds nothing to the debate.

Who determines what is relevant, what "matters"? We, humans, are the only lifeforms that we know of that can think in such abstract terms. Things can "matter" only inasmuch as humans perceive them to matter, and I would wager that the existence of humankind is not irrelevant to most humans out there.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

But you try to make a far larger conclusion from this statement, that the existence of humanity as a whole is irrelevant.

You can believe otherwise if that makes you feel comfortable. But that is just denial of impermanence. We are quite irrelevant.

Your first grade "artwork" of asteroids adds nothing to the debate.

I found it necessary, if not humorous. In the end, I did get you to concede that you were playing dumb.

Who determines what is relevant, what "matters"? We, humans, are the only lifeforms that we know of that can think in such abstract terms. Things can "matter" only inasmuch as humans perceive them to matter, and I would wager that the existence of humankind is not irrelevant to most humans out there.

Therefor, in the absence of humans, nothing matters.

[Oleg Bach]

Order - humans on the top - lower down the pets - then the animals of the field - then the plants - then the creepy things - and then the microbes..we are men! I believe that as said in ancient writings - we were made a little less than the angels - that's up there in the devine realm- as for any off you that want to inhibit life in any manner - whether though abortion or euthanasia - start with yourself and your own - leave the rest of the population out of the equation - You have no right to dictate on such matters.

[Bonam]

Therefor, in the absence of humans, nothing matters.

We agree then, it is humans that give things meaning.

[jbg]

You can believe otherwise if that makes you feel comfortable. But that is just denial of impermanence. We are quite irrelevant.************Therefor, in the absence of humans, nothing matters.

In your efforts be be profound, you are uttering a lot of self-contradictory, important-sounding nonesense.