The right to stop living.

[TimG]

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

Not really. I believe that people should make the final decision themselves. There are many ways to set up a device that needs to be activated by the person choosing to die.

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

Like a said, access to a device that injects drugs that cause death as well as a legal process that allows someone to declare their intent.

[TimG]

As for costs, there is no right to other people paying for care for somebody disabled, or assisted suicide.

Yet the state will spend much more supporting such people. The cost issue is a silly argument.

[Shady]

Yet the state will spend much more supporting such people. The cost issue is a silly argument.

I'm just distinguishing between rights and privileges. People confuse the two.

[TimG]

I'm just distinguishing between rights and privileges. People confuse the two.

Getting any care at all from the government is a privilege.

[Shady]

Getting any care at all from the government is a privilege.

Agreed.

[Guest American Woman]

Not really. I believe that people should make the final decision themselves.

For the record, some here are saying that the medical field should provide the service - and that the doctor should make the decision.

Like a said, access to a device that injects drugs that cause death as well as a legal process that allows someone to declare their intent.

So you think the state should give out lethal drugs to anyone who declares the intent to kill themself? You don't see a problem with that?

[TimG]

So you think the state should give out lethal drugs to anyone who declares the intent to kill themself? You don't see a problem with that?

Obviously there would need to be a process, a waiting period and a review by professionals (implying some people would not be allowed). The only people I see qualifying are people with some physical problem that is likely to lead to a spiral of misery. People who are depressed would not qualify.

[Guest American Woman]

Obviously there would need to be a process, a waiting period and a review by professionals (implying some people would not be allowed). The only people I see qualifying are people with some physical problem that is likely to lead to a spiral of misery. People who are depressed would not qualify.

So whether or not people should have the right to die should be dependent on your criteria? - What you think would make life not worth living? ie: only otherwise healthy people with disabilities?

So why should other healthy but depressed people not deserve the same right to die if that's their wish? Why should they, as you put it, be "forced to live?"

[TimG]

So whether or not people should have the right to die should be dependent on your criteria? - What you think would make life not worth living? ie: only otherwise healthy people with disabilities?

It would up to the person to decide.

So why should other healthy but depressed people not deserve the same right to die if that's their wish? Why should they, as you put it, be "forced to live?"

Because depression is a treatable illness. I think such an option is only when there is no effective treatment for the condition.

Tell me something: lets say you were diagnosed with Alzheimers and you knew that over the next 10-20 years you would become a vegetable. Can you honestly say you would want live life like that and you would not wish an early exit?

The trouble with laws is they are blunt tools. For every example you can give of people who maybe should not commit suicide I can't give others where there is no compassionate objection to that route. Since laws are not perfect we have to live with either 1) a law that is too strict that immorally forces some people to live or 2) a law that is too lenient that allows some people to die that probably should not have. Given that those are the only choices I believe the greater good is 2) provided that the final decision is made by the person and not any third party.

Edited January 18, 2013 by TimG

[Guest]

For the record, some here are saying that the medical field should provide the service - and that the doctor should make the decision.

Not me, though, right? I haven't got time to read them all and I want to make sure my intent wasn't misunderstood like that.

[jbg]

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.

I believe that incipient helplessness is almost the equivalent of interminable pain.

[Guest American Woman]

I believe that incipient helplessness is almost the equivalent of interminable pain.

Why are you assuming that they would be helpless? Others have overcome such disabilities.

[TimG]

Why are you assuming that they would be helpless? Others have overcome such disabilities.

How does a quadriplegic 'overcome' such a condition? They can't. All they can do is become so resigned to a life of misery that it does not bother them any more. Some people can do this - others cannot. It is not for you to judge.

[Guest American Woman]

How does a quadriplegic 'overcome' such a condition? They can't. All they can do is become so resigned to a life of misery that it does not bother them any more. Some people can do this - others cannot. It is not for you to judge.

You seem to be doing a lot of judging. You are stating that the life of a quadriplegic is a worthless one of nothing but misery - and you insulting many in the process. Many most definitely can - and do - overcome their disability to live happy, fulfilling lives. You then contradict your initial claim with the fact that "some can" overcome it, which is true. As for "others cannot" - again, the doctor killed these twins not because they couldn't overcome their blindness - they were killed before the fact; before knowing if they could overcome it or not.

[TimG]

Many most definitely can - and do - overcome their disability to live happy, fulfilling lives. You then contradict your initial claim with the fact that "some can" overcome it, which is true.

Spin it however you like. What you see as 'happy and fulfilling' I see as someone who has simply internalized the misery to the point where it no longer bothers them.

As I said, people should have the choice. If someone thinks they are 'happy and fulfilled' then this discussion does not apply to them.

Edited January 20, 2013 by TimG

[Guest American Woman]

Spin it however you like. What you see as 'happy and fulfilling' I see as someone who has simply internalized the misery to the point where it no longer bothers them.

How you or I see it doesn't matter - it's how those afflicted see it and live their lives, and what they have to say, that matters. In other words, it's not me seeing them as living happy and fulfilling lives - they are seeing it that way themselves.

As I said, people should have the choice. If someone thinks they are 'happy and fulfilled' then this discussion does not apply to them.

They don't start out happy and fulfilled - which is the point I've been making. If every time someone were afflicted with a painful and/or difficult situation that they thought they couldn't possibly live through, and someone was there to end their life for them, then a lot of people who ended up living happy fulfilling lives that they wouldn't have imagined possible could very well have chosen death.

Again. The twins weren't afflicted with blindness - they didn't try to overcome it and fail; the doctor agreed to kill them because they couldn't bear the thought - and how many people thus afflicted weren't initially beaten down by the thought?

[TimG]

someone was there to end their life for them, then a lot of people who ended up living happy fulfilling lives that they wouldn't have imagined possible could very well have chosen death.

So? If people choose suicide they don't really care what 'might have been'. Your argument is no different than those that oppose abortion because one might be killing the next 'Einstein'.

Personal choice has to be put front and center and respected. The only thing the government needs is a process to make sure the choice is not a spur of the moment thing.

[Guest American Woman]

So? If people choose suicide they don't really care what 'might have been'. Your argument is no different than those that oppose abortion because one might be killing the next 'Einstein'.

If people choose suicide, they don't know what might have been; I doubt if you'd be so cavalier about the "so?" if it were someone near and dear to you. My argument, however, is different from the abortion argument, as we are talking about killing people, not preventing a non-viable fetus from going full term. The abortion argument is more comparable to 'pulling the plug,' and that's a different issue.

Personal choice has to be put front and center and respected. The only thing the government needs is a process to make sure the choice is not a spur of the moment thing.

People do have the personal choice to end their lives. What's up for debate is whether or not someone should be allowed to do it for them, or if the government should provide the means. You speak of the government making sure that it's not a spur of the moment choice; with all of the people who consider suicide at some point in their lives, and the easy availability of someone to do the deed for them increasing the likelihood of it being carried out, the government would be quite busy indeed.

And didn't someone bring up expense? - sounds like a pretty expensive process to me - unless, as I said, all one needs to do is say "I've felt this way all my life" - even if they've only felt that way for 5 minutes. But just how long does one have to feel the desire to kill themself before that desire should be "respected?"

[jbg]

If people choose suicide, they don't know what might have been; I doubt if you'd be so cavalier about the "so?" if it were someone near and dear to you.

***********

People do have the personal choice to end their lives. What's up for debate is whether or not someone should be allowed to do it for them, or if the government should provide the means. You speak of the government making sure that it's not a spur of the moment choice; with all of the people who consider suicide at some point in their lives, and the easy availability of someone to do the deed for them increasing the likelihood of it being carried out, the government would be quite busy indeed.

I almost would prefer to have a doctor or some professional involved in the process to make sure it isn't a "permanent solution to a temporary problem." The one time I thought about it was such a case. I thought there was no easy alternative to flunking out of Cornell when one of my courses just wasn't gelling with me. It turned out there was an easy workaround.

[TimG]

People do have the personal choice to end their lives. What's up for debate is whether or not someone should be allowed to do it for them, or if the government should provide the means.

The debate is about whether the government should provide access to the means and the only argument you seem to have is government knows best and should not provide access to the means under any circumstances. It is a pretty arrogant argument.

And didn't someone bring up expense? - sounds like a pretty expensive process to me - unless, as I said, all one needs to do is say "I've felt this way all my life" - even if they've only felt that way for 5 minutes.

People who oppose abortion use the same arguments about it but in Canada where there is NO law restricting abortion yet it appears that women are pretty responsible exercising that choice. There is no 'abortion epidemic' in Canada. In fact fewer women make that choice in Canada despite the lack of a law:

http://drjengunter.w...o-abortion-law/

The abortion rate among all women of reproductive age (15-44) in Canada is 14.1/1,000 versus 20/1,000 in the United States.

I would say these stats show your claim that providing legal accessto the means of suicide would lead to an increase in suicides is completely without foundation. In fact, it might actually DECREASE the rate of suicides because people would be more willing to risk living with a problem if they knew they could change their mind later. I know that is how such a law would affect me - i.e. if I was diagnosed with a debilitating disease like Alzheimers I would likely kill myself a lot earlier if the government forces me to do it the hard way.

I really fail to see your distinction between suicide and abortion because many people believe that abortion does mean one is killing a person and when it comes to abortion society has decided that each person is entitled to make their own choice. It is pretty hypocritical for you to support killing a fetus on demand with government support but then insist that people who wish to kill themselves must do the equivalent of a 'back ally abortion' because it upsets your sensibilities.

BTW: I asked you a question which you refused to answer: what would you do if you were diagnosed with a disease like Alzheimers where you are facing 10-20 years of life as a vegetable. Would you simply accept your fate assuming you could find "fullfillment" as a vegetable or would you want an early exit?

Edited January 20, 2013 by TimG