The right to stop living.

[Guest]

No, I think the doctor doesn't have to help, if they don't want to.

[Guest American Woman]

No, I think the doctor doesn't have to help, if they don't want to.

You seem to be talking in circles. Either people have the right to die with the help of the medical field - or they don't. Now you seem to be saying that it's up to the doctors.

[Bonam]

No, he's saying that it's a person's right to die if they want. But that it is also a doctor's right not to assist someone in dying, if they don't agree. Kind of like how in many jurisdictions it's a woman's right to get an abortion, but it's also a doctor's right to refuse to perform one.

[Guest]

You seem to be talking in circles. Either people have the right to die with the help of the medical field - or they don't. Now you seem to be saying that it's up to the doctors.

Methinks you're just having fun...

[Guest American Woman]

No, he's saying that it's a person's right to die if they want. But that it is also a doctor's right not to assist someone in dying, if they don't agree. Kind of like how in many jurisdictions it's a woman's right to get an abortion, but it's also a doctor's right to refuse to perform one.

So in other words, there would be clinics, like abortion clinics.

I was, however, responding to this statement: I doubt any doctor would aid my daughter's suicide because she broke up from a boyfriend.

If that's the case, then it's the doctor deciding - and bcsapper seemed supportive of that. It seems as if the reason is a factor more than whether or not the person wants to die, or more to the point, has the right to die. But if there were such a clinic, the doctor wouldn't be making judgement calls - any more than they do in the case of abortions.

And if doctor's don't have to assist, and bcsapper supports that, then he is supporting denying people the right to die - even as he said, and I quote, "The medical establishmet certainly should be in the business of helping them, because that is what they are for."

Edited January 16, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest]

I fixed that typo...

[Guest]

So in other words, there would be clinics, like abortion clinics.

I was, however, responding to this statement: I doubt any doctor would aid my daughter's suicide because she broke up from a boyfriend.

If that's the case, then it's the doctor deciding - and bcsapper seemed supportive of that. It seems as if the reason is a factor more than whether or not the person wants to die, or more to the point, has the right to die. But if there were such a clinic, the doctor wouldn't be making judgement calls - any more than they do in the case of abortions.

And if doctor's don't have to assist, and bcsapper supports that, then he is supporting denying people the right to die - even as he said, and I quote, "The medical establishmet certainly should be in the business of helping them, because that is what they are for."

I wouldn't deny you the right to have a new roof on your house, but I'm not going up there to install it.

[BC_chick]

You have no right to judge.

We already provide the means. Ropes are available at any hardware store. Bridges are numerous. Guns can be obtained relatively easily. The only thing that changes is people can exit in a more civilized manner. Coming home and finding someone hanging from a rope or with the brains on the wall is traumatic for the survivors.

There are plenty of ways to kill yourself humanely. Bottle of sleeping pills would do.

[BC_chick]

No, I think the doctor doesn't have to help, if they don't want to.

That's where it comes back to what I said earlier. Who are we to judge when the reason is good enough... (when death is not imminent).

[Guest]

Only the person making the decision to end their lives need know that the reason is good enough. But a doctor cannot be expected to aid in such an act unless they fully agree and want to help. If they don't, that's a matter for their conscience and has nothing to do with the person's wishes, and should not affect their quest to find someone to help.

[jbg]

I would imagine that the doctors who agreed to the suicide of the twins in the OP did not do so flippantly. I doubt any doctor would aid my daughter's suicide because she broke up from a boyfriend. But if she had good reasons for her decision, could I in all good conscience force her to live on because of how I felt?

Now, if it wasn't a relative, I'd let them go for a hangnail.

I think that any doctor that assists a suicide over an adolescent breakup is basically a murderer. I feel totally different when the patient is terminally ill or in interminable pain (link). Many will say it's a hard line to draw. But that's why doctors are professionals. We should expect from them sound judgment.

[Guest]

Neither condition applied to the twins, but I respect their choice, and I'm glad they were helped out when they needed to be.

[jbg]

Neither condition applied to the twins, but I respect their choice, and I'm glad they were helped out when they needed to be.

Interminable pain?

[Guest]

Interminable pain?

The thought of going blind whilst already deaf might be described as such, yes.

[Guest American Woman]

I think that any doctor that assists a suicide over an adolescent breakup is basically a murderer. I feel totally different when the patient is terminally ill or in interminable pain (link). Many will say it's a hard line to draw. But that's why doctors are professionals. We should expect from them sound judgment.

I agree - but that's a totally different scenario than providing such a service simply because someone doesn't want to live any more; and I don't think the fear of 'what might be' down the road should qualify - as was the case with these twins.

The thought of going blind whilst already deaf might be described as such, yes.

And the thought of many things is so often worse than the reality turns out to be. Of course the thought would be scary - and of course they would require help getting through it and learning to adjust once it happened. Look at Helen Keller, for example. Today a doctor in Denmark * Belgium would just kill her. How many people who have overcome obstacles they could never have imagined - and went on to live very fulfilling lives - would have simply chosen death if there were such an easy out?

*(Edited for correction)

Edited January 18, 2013 by American Woman

[scribblet]

To me this is murder and part of that 'slippery slope'. I do agree that terminally ill people should have the option but this IMO is totally unethical and surely breaks the Hippocratic oath.

[TimG]

Look at Helen Keller, for example. Today a doctor in Denmark would just kill her. How many people who have overcome obstacles they could never have imagined - and went on to live very fulfilling lives - would have simply chosen death if there were such an easy out?

How many people living in miserable lives alone and in poverty for each Helen Keller? The fact that some people are able to find some joy in life living with serious disabilities is not an argument for forcing everyone to live with them. Your argument is a bit like saying that since some prisoners actually enjoy prison life that all prisoners should be expected to enjoy it too.

[Guest American Woman]

How many people living in miserable lives alone and in poverty for each Helen Keller? The fact that some people are able to find some joy in life living with serious disabilities is not an argument for forcing everyone to live with them. Your argument is a bit like saying that since some prisoners actually enjoy prison life that all prisoners should be expected to enjoy it too.

Are you comparing disabilities with prison? I think many, many people with disabilities would take offense at that.

At any rate, the twins in question never even lived with blindness - they had no idea if they'd be able to live with it or not. They chose death over the "thought" - which is often quite different from the reality, which was my point. To kill people because they "think" they can't live with a future affliction is quite different from having tried - and failed.

[Shady]

The right to stop living stops being a right the second you ask somebody to assist you, and somebody else to pay for the cost.

[TimG]

Are you comparing disabilities with prison? I think many, many people with disabilities would take offense at that.

I really don't care. The analogy fits. The question is whether each person should be entitled to make their own decision about whether they want to live and not have living imposed on them by the state. The issue does not go away because some "prisoners" like prison life.

As I have said before people already have many suicide options available to them but all are messy and come with a risk of failure. The only reason the state has to get involved at all is to give people the choice of a more humane/certain exit if that is what they choose.

At any rate, the twins in question never even lived with blindness - they had no idea if they'd be able to live with it or not.

They have lived with deafness and knew better than you or I what living with a disability is like. If they decides that blindness is something that they cannot live with then that is their choice. Edited January 18, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

The right to stop living stops being a right the second you ask somebody to assist you, and somebody else to pay for the cost.

First - no one is compelled to help someone die. This is a choice. Second - it costs a lot more to live with a disability than to die so cost is NOT a factor in this discussion.

[Guest American Woman]

I really don't care. The analogy fits.

No, it doesn't. It's a terrible analogy.

The question is whether each person should be entitled to make their own decision about whether they want to live and not have living imposed on them by the state. The issue does not go away because some "prisoners" like prison life.

The state does not impose living on anybody. Anyone can take their own life. And again, the prisoner analogy is a terrible one.

As I have said before people already have many suicide options available to them but all are messy and come with a risk of failure. The only reason the state has to get involved at all is to give people the choice of a more humane/certain exit if that is what they choose.

And I've stated why I disagree with doctors doing the killing/providing "suicide on demand."

They have lived with deafness and knew better than you or I what living with a disability is like.

Yeah, they lived with deafness for 45 years. Yet how many people would choose death over the "thought" of going deaf?

If they decides that blindness is something that they cannot live with then that is their choice.

They didn't know if blindness was something they could live with. That they chose death over finding out, doesn't mean that doctors should be there to do the killing.

Edited January 18, 2013 by American Woman

[TimG]

The state does not impose living on anybody. Anyone can take their own life. And again, the prisoner analogy is a terrible one.

If someone tries to starve themselves to death what happens? The state intervenes and force feeds them. i.e. they impose living on them.

And I've stated why I disagree with doctors doing the killing/providing "suicide on demand."

No one is saying it should be on demand. No one is saying it should be immediate. But if someone consistently claims that they wish to commit suicide for months or even years then forcing someone to live anyways is causing harm.

Yeah, they lived with deafness for 45 years. Yet how many people would choose death over the "thought" of going deaf?

And how do you know they were happy?

They didn't know if blindness was something they could live with. That they chose death over finding out, doesn't mean that doctors should be there to do the killing.

No one is saying that either. All that the state needs to do is make means that allow people to choose death in a humane way available if that is what they want. Forcing people to blow their brains out with a gun or hang themselves is inhumane. Edited January 18, 2013 by TimG

[Guest American Woman]

If someone tries to starve themselves to death what happens? The state intervenes and force feeds them. i.e. they impose living on them.

How does the state even know about it? At any rate, the state can't stop people from hanging or shooting themselves, or overdosing, or slitting their wrists. The state cannot force someone to live if they choose to die.

No one is saying it should be on demand. No one is saying it should be immediate. But if someone consistently claims that they wish to commit suicide for months or even years then forcing someone to live anyways is causing harm.

Again. No one is "forcing" them to live. But I'm curious. Just how long must one be unhappy in order to qualify for the service of a doctor ending their life? - And couldn't one simply make that up if "I've been unhappy all of my life" will qualify them?

And how do you know they were happy?

They chose life for 45 years. They didn't say they wanted to die because they were deaf. They said they wanted to die because they couldn't bear the thought of never seeing each other again. That's the "thought," not the reality - which they didn't live to find out.

No one is saying that either.

Yes, people are saying that. Are you saying you don't support the doctor taking these twins' lives?

All that the state needs to do is make means that allow people to choose death in a humane way available if that is what they want. Forcing people to blow their brains out with a gun or hang themselves is inhumane.

I think providing an easy means to end one's life when they could conceivably end up happy one day is inhumane - and quite scary.

But I'm curious - what "means" do you think the state should provide?

Edited January 18, 2013 by American Woman

[Shady]

First - no one is compelled to help someone die. This is a choice. Second - it costs a lot more to live with a disability than to die so cost is NOT a factor in this discussion.

Yes, nobody is compelled under current law. As for costs, there is no right to other people paying for care for somebody disabled, or assisted suicide. Those are privileges. People need to learn the difference.