It's wrong! It's murder, plain and simple.
26% (9 votes)
It is ok, but only for the terminally ill.
31% (11 votes)
There's nothing wrong with it; everyone should have access to it.
43% (15 votes)
Total votes: 35
User login
Like This Site?
If you would like to see ProgressiveU continue to grow, why not donate?
Have You Seen This Yet?
Recent blog posts
- The future freaks me out
- The Clash Of Strange Alliances
- Fundamentals and Gymnastic Dress
- Why You Should Write at Triond
- Recessive Gene don't fail me now.
- The Secret Gospel of Mark
- The Four Truths, Unknown: Total oppositeness; interior darkness; control - Part 2
- For a Limited Time Only, Ramblings to Silence the Trapping
- The Prematurity Challenge
- Contact juggling
Navigation
Who's online
There are currently 1 user and 238 guests online.
Online users
- indiindigo
Progressive U Features
Poll
The U.S. Travel Ban to Cuba Should
Remain in place
0%
Be repealed
83%
I don't know/Other
17%
No opinion
0%
Total votes: 6
Vote
Yes, kill them all! @_@
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
:rofl:
http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm
Actually, I'm for the assisted suicide of all human beings with a pattern recognition score of under 75%. And the castration of all human beings with a pattern recognition score of under 85%.
And I think that all violent criminals should be immediately put to death following trial (i.e., rape, murder, battery, assult, etc.). I don't care if no one died or anything - violent crime = death penalty after trial.
All sex offenders (provided they weren't marked for being 18 and having happy sex with a 17 year old who was perfectly willing, or anything else along the same lines of "stupid reasons you can become a sex offender") should be stripped naked and tied to a rack where their victims can have a go at them (in a manner of the victim's choosing) until death.
Along the same lines, suicide shouldn't be illegal. As someone else said, we've got just as much right to live as we have to die.
They should just make me king and allow me to make the rules concerning appropriate ways to "expire." I want my death to be amazingly violent - something that would impress my local ME.
-acertainsaint-
An, the land of a certain saint, I can see the riots in the street as I type...
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Riots are seen as "happy disagreement with the law" and as such are tolerated in theory, and only in theory. Muahaha!
-acertainsaint-
:-O
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Puritan much?
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Technically, I'm going Mesopotamian on your ass, but...I suppose?
-acertainsaint-
Hehe Same difference : P
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
We have the right to live as well as the right to willingly die.
no one can make that choice but yourself.
While I disagree with taking life, I've experieced knowing someone who had no hope of surviving, and his family watching him die slowly over the years, and being hopeless to help himself. Also, after my grandpa's stroke, my family "pulled the plug" knowing that he would have liked to die with dignity, not being able to do things himself was really difficult for him.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
I guess it depends on your view on the purpose of life. To me, the purpose of life is to live as God wants me to live until He takes me from this earth where I will hopefully spend eternity with Him. Anything I experience on earth...whether they be joys or trials, is to better myself, better others, and to lead me closer to Him. Thus, I disagree with suicide and assisted suicide and I picked the first option.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
What about times where you will die a slow, painful death and while you're dying, you are incapable of doing anything?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I outlined some of my ideas here:
http://progressiveu.org/blog/50709-there-purpose-suffering
If I were dying a slow and painful death, I would probably be a total baby about it and take a lot of pain pills, but I would offer up my sufferings in union with Christ's sufferings for others...souls in purgatory, those who are dying without conversions, young women who are considering abortions, etc. I may be doing nothing more than lying on a bed, but I could still make a difference. I think we underestimate humans by believing that they have no purpose if they are not actively moving around doing things.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
By incapable, I meant something along the lines of people like Terry Schiavo, where you're unable to do things for yourself or communicate to others.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
In her case, they should NOT have denied her food and water. Those are things that every human being should have, no matter what. Jeez, we're more protective over the animals in this country than our defenseless human beings!
In a case like that, I would want to still be given food and water. They wouldn't have to keep me on a breathing machine or anything, but they should give me my basic human rights. If a miracle were to occur and I was to come out of that state, then I would find something to do with my life again.
But Terri did a lot just by lying there and not moving. Think of the effect (whether good or bad) that she had on everyone...pretty remarkable. There's this video they played on EWTN once after she died and I cry every time I watch it...
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
In her case, they should NOT have denied her food and water.
Agreed, however, I also don't believe that she should have to be kept alive in the state that she was. The court also determined that it was her will to not be kept alive if there was "no hope for improvement."
I believe two things about a situation like that:
1. I believe I'd be doing a greater disservice to my loved ones by making them care for me for a decade or more.
2. I believe such a situation is profoundly and directly interfering with life and death. Terry Schiavo, for all intents and purposes, died in 1990 (remember, they found her with no pulse and not breathing). They kept her alive, no doubt at first to try to rehabilitate her. However, all the doctors came to the same conclusion and her husband turned the decision over to the courts.
It's one thing to work to cure diseases (which I have mixed feelings about), it's another to keep someone alive against their wishes.
Jeez, we're more protective over the animals in this country than our defenseless human beings!
What do you mean by that? It entirely depends on what you mean by "protective."
If a dog or cat were in the same situation as Schiavo, it would have been euthanized long ago because that's what's considered "merciful". Do you know how many dogs get put down because they have mange, or because they're aggressive? Do you know how many dogs get put down simply because they happen to be a member of a particular breed?
But Terri did a lot just by lying there and not moving. Think of the effect (whether good or bad) that she had on everyone...pretty remarkable.
She only had that effect because her family went to the media about it after losing five years of court battles.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
"Do you know how many dogs get put down simply because they happen to be a member of a particular breed?"
Save your local Pit!!!
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
The state of the breed in the public eye to the point that you made that, particular connection disturbs me (yes, it was the breed I was referring to).
There was actually an article in a local free paper that had one of the state officeholders here quoted that if it were up to him, he'd have all the Pits in the state rounded up and put in front of a firing squad.
It still breaks my heart to know the Pit Bull puppy that happily licked my face as I returned her to her owner to keep her out of harm's way (she came over to visit us while we were moving) was likely "humanely euthanized" by the city government/dog shelter for no other reason than her breed.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
:`( Both of my dogs are, at least, pit mixes, and I'm a big fan of them. I definitely intend to stay with them.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
or a mutt with some AmStaff in him. He's big and playful and thinks he's a puppy. He's never bitten anyone, but he will jump on people. He could easily knock kids over- he has no idea how big he is, so I just keep him away from kids.
Indianapolis flirted with a law that would ban or kill "aggressive breeds-" Pit bulls (and those bred with them- including AmStaffs), Rottweilers, Doberman Pinchers, Chows, etc. It didn't pass, luckily. I have no doubt they'll try again. I think the owners should be held more accountable than the animals. It's their irresponsibility that leads to aggressiveness.
They decided the law was necessary after two pits were found locked in a garage, probably for about a week, without food. The owners had moved and just left the dogs to die. They weren't dead. They attacked the kids when they were freed by a neighbor.
-Sonja :)
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" ~ Peter Finch as Howard Beale, 1976, "Network"
Ohio law actually states in its definition of "aggressive dog" as (in addition to the whole "has killed another animal, has attacked or killed a person" part that I think most states have) "a member of the breed commonly known as Pit Bull." And because of this law, Pit Bulls are all but kill on sight.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
:grr: :angry:
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I agree that they could have turned off breathing machines and stuff of the like. I see nothing wrong with allowing someone to die if they would have died anyway without the machinery. I'm talking about basic human rights of food and water though. They killed her by STARVING her to death. That was NOT right.
I mean that we have a fit over the idea of an animal being treated inhumanely, but we allow a human being to die by starvation.
Regardless of HOW she had the effect, she still HAD the effect.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
They killed her by STARVING her to death. That was NOT right.
To which I agreed with you.
I mean that we have a fit over the idea of an animal being treated inhumanely, but we allow a human being to die by starvation.
Except that the public did have a fit over it. They went so far as to try to enact a law regarding it (the law was overturned due to it being unconstitutional, but the point here is that they attempted).
That said, I think humans still trump animals in the eyes of the law. Last I checked, killing an animal wasn't a capital offense.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
We had a fit about it, but that didn't change anything...she still died of starvation. It's awesome that everyone got upset about it, but if a law enacted to save the life of a human being is considered unconstitutional, then what kind of society do we live in? What happened to "the inalienable right of life..." (Declaration of Independence)?
In the law, but I'm talking more personal emotions.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Random question, since this discussion is about assisted suicide...
Since Shiavo did not want to live the way she did, would you have objected to it if they just gave her a lethal dose of morphine, instead of starving her to death? If so, why?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
No, I don't think they should have killed her at all. I think that method was horribly inhumane, though. I think that sometimes, we get caught up in too many technicalities to realize how far we're going with things. In this case, we get too caught up over the "RIGHT" to die, that we overlook the reality. Just because someone has the right, does that mean we SHOULD pass laws?
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Umm... yeah... if someone has a right that is being infringed upon, we do have the responsibility to pass laws to protect that right. Otherwise, it's not really a right, because we are denying it to certain people.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
But should they have that right?
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
You and I disagree on what should be considered a right, but yes, I think a person should have complete control over what happens to their own body, even if it means they are going to kill themselves. So in this case, yes, it should be a right.
And yet, similar to my stance on abortion, I don't always think it's the right thing to do. I'll do all I can to stop by helping the people psychologically, but I'm not going to condemn them for making that choice (of course, in reference to certain people I know, I'm not going to celebrate that choice either).
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I suppose. I just hope I'm never in a situation where I have to make that decision. As hard as it would be to watch a loved one suffer, I wouldn't be able to kill them like that.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
I think that life is decided by the Creator upstairs and shouldn't be decided by us. Who are we to say that our life should be over? Maybe He has other plans for us that'd we be missing out on.
Do you actually think, guess or believe this to be true? What if you are the one missing out on something?
What would it take you to maybe make or take a decision to pop a bullet in one’s head (please read comment of Sawaboof on “Last of the Mohicans”).
Challenging the true involvement of the one above is easy, take a 1 one liter bottle of water, walk inside a refugee camp in whatever desert plunged in drought.
The plan and experience which will unfold in front of one’s very own “God” eyes will be the one of individuals killing one another over a drop of water!
That’s what many are missing out on a daily basis, a sense and knowledge of the REAL!
http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm
So, do you think we should get rid of modern medicine? I mean, that is what's keeping many people alive today. At what point do you draw the line between human intervention and just leaving it up to God?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Many people don't succeed in suicide. From your position, you are saying that it is not God's will to kill oneself, but theoretically, would He let someone die by suicide if He didn't want them to?
I'm not religious, but I do play devil's advocate in poking holes in people's religious theories. Sorry.
-Sonja :)
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" ~ Peter Finch as Howard Beale, 1976, "Network"
I'm not saying anything about what God's will is. I'm arguing that saying that it is God's will is pointless in today's society, because if we really wanted to leave it all up to God, we wouldn't be sitting there trying to save people in the first place with modern medicine; people can be, theoretically, kept alive forever by modern medicine, but there is a point when they're not really living anymore.
I don't know what God's will is, but I'd wager to say it'll happen regardless of anything we do to prevent it, including what you say... failed suicide attempts. Of course, then you can argue that those who do succeed at committing suicide are following along with God's will, and thus God isn't totally against suicide....
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
The way I would explain that is that, although God has His will for us, He does not force it upon us because we have free will. Also, although some things are against His will, He allows it to happen because of our free will.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
That comment wasn't really on you, but for respectlife. Your comment about modern medicine just inspired it.
-Sonja :)
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" ~ Peter Finch as Howard Beale, 1976, "Network"
I thought that might have been the case... carry on :)
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
They killed her by STARVING her to death. That was NOT right.
The Court determined definitively that Terri Schiavo did not want to be kept alive in the state that encompassed the end of her life. But, since there are laws against assisted suicide, the only LEGAL way for doctors to respect the wishes of a patient like Mrs. Schiavo is through deprivation. It is pure hypocrisy to take away all of the more humane methods of helping someone end their own life, and then complain when the only legal avenue that remains is too "cruel."
The cruelty in Mrs. Schiavo's case originated from the opponents of assisted suicide, not from her husband and doctors who were trying to respect her wishes. Of course, that cruelty ended YEARS before Mrs. Schiavo was deprived of food and water until she died. By the end, more than 70% of her brain had completely liquified. She had absolutely no sense of pain or suffering, because her cerebral cortex (which is the part of the brain in which such sensations occur) was gone. She felt no thirst. She felt no hunger. She felt no pain. She couldn't feel anything.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Had she had something in place called an "Advanced Directive," something that is free to set up and is explained and offered to every single person admitted to any kind of hospital, there never would have been a question of whether her death was "murder" or "assisted suicide."
I am bothered by the fact that we are discussing too many different things and lumping it all up into one word, "suicide." It is not suicide, assisted or otherwise to let a person die naturally. Nor is it murder.
Advanced Directives should be something everyone has in place. You appoint a person to make medical decisions for you in the case that you are incapacitated to make them yourself. You decide to what lengths you want medical intervention in the case of imminent death. This is perfectly legal and there is no controversy in it.
A person can choose pain management over invasive treatment. They can choose to be given nutrients and hydration via IV, NG tube, gastric tube, or none at all. They can choose to have every intervention up until forced mechanical ventilation.
And what about the elderly who have several disease processes happening and elect a "DNR" for "Do Not Resuscitate?" Are they also guilty of suicide?
It is not murder to not intervene with these pseudo treatments, and it is not suicide to elect to not extend one's life artificially.
In regards to God or religious standpoints, I wonder why people don't argue the opposite, that artificially extending life is playing God?
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Wouldn't Advanced Directives (or Power of Attorney, for that matter) default to a spouse if none are explicitly set forth? (If I remember/understand right, Terry had a heart attack, went into the hospital unconscious, went into a coma, and never fully woke up. She was otherwise rather healthy. Before, though, she had reportedly made it clear to "reputable people" that she didn't want to be kept alive in that kind of situation.)
In regards to God or religious standpoints, I wonder why people don't argue the opposite, that artificially extending life is playing God?
Because for all their focus on eternal afterlife, they're still afraid of death.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
in answer to the question, "Wouldn't Advanced Directives (or Power of Attorney, for that matter) default to a spouse if none are explicitly set forth?" I think it goes spouse first, then parent or child, whichever is older. I am not totally sure.
That is why her story is the perfect example of why everyone should have an Advanced Directive in place, no matter how old they are or how healthy.
I don't agree with what her family did, but I can empathize with the conflicting feelings loved ones deal with when someone they love is in that position and they are the ones who have to make such difficult decisions.
By having an Advanced Directive in place you can save your family a lot of heartache and guilt.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
...treat the lack of an Advanced Directive differently. In Florida (where the whole Terri Schiavo mess happened), that power passes to the husband, by default.
That is why her story is the perfect example of why everyone should have an Advanced Directive in place, no matter how old they are or how healthy.
Truer words have rarely been spoken.
I don't agree with what her family did, but I can empathize with the conflicting feelings loved ones deal with when someone they love is in that position and they are the ones who have to make such difficult decisions.
Here's an interesting factoid that many people forget (or more likely do not know). Terri Schiavo's wishes were established definitively in 1998 by the Court. Her parents never challenged that finding of fact, but continued to sue anyway to delay those wishes being carried out for seven years, all the while knowing full well that they were acting against Terri Schiavo's actual wishes. They made numerous false accusations against Mr. Schiavo (and others) during the trials, none of which were ever found to be true. Their actions were driven by the fact that they (the parents) were devout cathoics, while their daughter was no longer a practicing member of that church. They allowed their religious beliefs to overcome their respect for their daughter's wishes, and they caused a great deal of suffering for a great many people with their actions.
I used to have a lot of sympathy for the parents--after all, it must have been terrible for them--but I lost that during the several years that I was folloing the case closely. The frank dishonesty and utter disregard for Terri's wishes were disgusting, and their attitude during the whole ordeal was extemely mean-spirited, especially towards Mr. Shchiavo. They were lucky that Mr. Schiavo was not a more vindictive man. He could have taken them to the cleaners for the slander and lies that they told made up about him.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Parents and other close family members can nullify or extend a person's advanced directive, through lawsuits and by whatever means necessary. Kind of like a person that signs a donor card, but any family member can deny it. Since the organs and tissues wouldn't be useful through a lawsuit, they don't bother.
-Sonja :)
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" ~ Peter Finch as Howard Beale, 1976, "Network"
Which has never made any sense to me. What is the point of giving the individual the right to decide if he or she wishes specific treatments or to be an organ donor when someone else has the right to decide contrary to what you wanted? I'll never understand it.
-----
~Fallon~
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.- Russell
-----
Well, I would guess that having signed the card makes the decision easier on your family. It helps them to know what you would want, and releases them from that responsibility. However, since they are the ones who are having to deal with the death, having that responsibility also gives them a sense of fulfillment in that their loved one's death was not worthless, in a sense. So it seems like a healthy play on the mind and emotions for the family members.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
I chose the second option because it was the closest to "other."
I just watched Last of the Mohicans for the umpteenth time last night. There's a scene where an officer is captured and about to be burned alive, and someone shoots him before he has to suffer very much. I don't think there was anything wrong with that at all. I don't think assisted suicide is always murder. I also don't think it's something that should be readily available, or something doctors should be expected to do for a patient, or something that doctors should even suggest to a patient as a form of "treatment."
I believe that quality of life is essential to someone's health. It doesn't matter if you have end stage renal disease or the flu, they both decrease your quality of life, and quality of life is something completely subjective that can only be determined on an individual basis.
I do not like seeing people suffer. But suffering, or even terminal illness in general, should not be a free pass to legally end your life. Flus go away and pain can usually be managed. Even if it can't be managed, many don't see it as decreasing their quality of life to the point where they aren't really living any more.
But if someone who has 3 months to live is in constant agony each hour of each day that cannot be alleviated with any form of pain medication, and even the support of loved ones is not enough to make them want to continue breathing--if their quality of life is clearly not going to ever improve and the short time they have left is going to feel like an eternity of suffering, I'm not sure I would feel too badly about giving them enough morphine to make them sleep for a while before their heart slows to a stop and their lungs stop working if they discussed it with their support system and then asked me to. In writing. Maybe notarized.
It is definitely not something someone should be able to decide on a whim. It should be something they need to discuss with friends and family and professionals, and it should be an "all other possible options have been exhausted" kind of situation.
Maybe assisted suicide isn't an option I would choose for myself, but I'm not going to tell others they have to live by what I would do. It's easy to look at someone who suffers daily and tell them it's all happening for a reason. But, until I live through what they do everyday, I'm not going to go passing judgment on people for wanting the pain to end, or on people who help them to end it.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
You know it is comments like this that make me think that we should have a comment rating/promoting system!
Well said!
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
That is exactly what I was thinking. Unless we each can spend a day in someone else's shoes, we have no idea the pain and suffering that person is going through to even consider suicide. I don't even think suicide is a proper term for this. Ending the pain and suffering of a person stuck in a life of constant agony is a lot different than someone that is overwhelmed and depressed and can't see a brighter day.
I have been on life support twice, and I had always told my mom it's her call. Neither was long-term, and I've obviously recovered. Thank you, sawaboof, for recognizing the importance of quality of life.
-Sonja :)
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" ~ Peter Finch as Howard Beale, 1976, "Network"
I chose that it should be available to all because it should be up to the individual whether or not they live or die, whenever possible and I have no right telling someone they should continue to live in pain.
It always amazed me that we have no problem putting an animal down to end their suffering, but yet we force people to stay alive when put in the same position.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Suicide and assisted suicide are two different things. One occurs with just the person in question, the other occurs because someone in power (usually a doctor) prescribes a lethal dose of medication so that the person can go commit suicide.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
The only difference between suicide and assisted suicide is whether or not someone (hopefully a doctor) is helping. They both ("ideally"...in a sort of twisted way) have the same result -- the death of the person wanting to die.
I think the main reason why this is even a debate is because we as Western, "modern" society fear death to the point that we do everything we can to prevent it, even if it means a life of pain and suffering for everyone.
I agree that suffering is a part of life and is required to know happiness, and in a great many cases, the suffering is temporary. I by no means believe that suicide should be taken lightly or on a whim, but neither do I believe it should be denied to someone who has sought help and has thought about what such a decision would mean. However, "what's best" can, ultimately, only be determined by the individual.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Does "available to all" include minors?
Would we require parental consent for them to get a suicide?
I think you answered your own question when you responded below. Or, I could ask you the same question.
The fact of the matter is, a person who wants to die isn't going to look at themselves and go "oh, I'm not 18 yet, I better go ask my mom if I can kill myself." Assisted or not, if a person really wants to kill themselves, they're going to at least try.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Question: Who owns YOUR life?
Possible Answers: A) You. B) The government.
'Nuff said,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
You forgot option C.
C) The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
-acertainsaint-
Oh, we're getting into this again. Picture. Just look at the picture up in the corner of this box.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
But He is always looking up at me from just under my signature.
-acertainsaint-
No, he's looking more off to the side and probably isn't actually seeing anything since, based on the eyes, he's clearly high.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I left our C) because the fact that the F.S.M. owns our souls is irrelevant, due to the Separation of Restaurants and State.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
:rofl:
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I award you 10 points for excellent use of sarcasm. Bravo, sir.
-acertainsaint-
I don't recommend suicide at all, but if someone wants to kill themselves either on their own or assisted by a doctor, it's their choice. I don't think the government should go so far as to own your life.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
I'm pro-choice and the main argument in favor of choice is that a person should control their own body.
If a person can control their own body to the extent that they can terminate a separate dependent life then they certainly should control their own body to the extent that they can have a "very late term abortion" of their own life. Suicide is fine with me.
I think assisted suicide is good because it is less messy and more likely to be successful. It could be a beautiful thing complete with a moving ceremony. I always enjoyed the "suicide is painless" scene in the movie "MASH". I also thought the "suicide centers" in the movie "Soylent Green" looked fairly pleasant right up until their clients got recycled into the food supply.
I see an exciting new business opportunity in Planned Parenthood's future.
:rofl:
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
I have a problem with this poll:
The fact that you called it "assisted suicide" instead of "euthanasia" changes the dynamic of the results because some who don't have a problem with euthanasia have a problem with the word "suicide".
I don't, but still.
--Mike
Suicide, assisted or not, implies a conscious choice to end one's own life.
Euthanasia is a broader term that might include assisted suicide but would also include actively humanely terminating the life of someone in an unconscious state that could not participate in the life or death decision.
Basically what jackbenimble said. With assisted suicide, a doctor simply provides the means to carry out the suicide; he or she does not partake in the actual death. It is still the person's choice about whether they take the drug and die.
Of course, the line gets fuzzy when you talk about infirm people who need the help to 'push the button' and administer the medication. There is always going to be a gray area.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Somebody mentioned "pulling the plug" in their comment. Since it would be cruel to keep someone on life support when they are in a vegetative state, I agree that this is the right thing to do. But I don't think that's what's meant by assisted suicide. In assisted suicide, a doctor prescribes a lethal drug injection to kill an aware, conscious, but willing, patient. That doesn't sit too well with me.
Why not?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
It's not so much the action that concerns me, since you can do whatever you want even if I'm not comfortable with it. It's the legality. If assisted suicide became legal and then widely practiced, would it lead to a culture of suicide? If my old granny has a broken hip and lives with me, and she sees all her peers choosing assisted suicide, would she then feel pressured into also committing suicide? The elderly and ill often feel guilty about being a "burden," and it seems legalizing assisted suicide would provide a drastic but easy means of ending that guilt.
I think it's a possibility. However, I still think it ultimately comes down to personal choice.
Assisted suicide is actually legal in Switzerland. There's even a clinic that is designed for that purpose.
I don't think most people, especially older people, take the idea of suicide (and death in general) lightly, so I don't think they'll just "give in to peer pressure," basically. The man in the article I linked above talked about it as a possibility for 30 years, making sure that everything was taken care of and that it was something he really wanted to do.
We have a lot of rights, but we also have the right to forfeit for ourselves one or more of those rights. That includes (or should include) the right to life.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I have not really thought about this in a while and I picked assisted for terminally ill otherwise its just murder but I really have no stance on this issue, its to confusing...
Alot of people try to compare this belief to the sometimes not coresponding belief in abortion. Like pro life people supporting assisted suicide or captial punishment. I guess maybe I am pro choice on this too even thought I think that people should be allowed to live or die as naturally as possible.
What gets me more is that Many people say things like "the purpose of life is to live as God wants me to live until He takes me from this earth where I will hopefully spend eternity with Him" but as soon as it is their time to go and die (or to their maker) they are doing as many interventions to remain alive on this forsaken earth as there are pennies. This is a double standard that I find more issue with and is more annoying then the others mentioned above.
To keep laws focused on assisted suicide, if we were to allow it it would have to be for terminally ill clients only otherwise we would have to revamp all murder laws and create even more stipulations...I am lazy and I do not like to make things complicated so really I would have liked a whatever/other option.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
If a Doctor designed a machine that would automatically give a person a lethal injection at the push of a button and the doctor then gave the button to the patient and said: "It is your choice, push the button or don't push the button" and then the doctor left the room, would it be murder if the patient pushed the button? What would it be if the patient did not push the button? The Doctor didn't do anything different.
I think as long as the patient pushes the button it is suicide. The Doctor is maybe guilty of conspiracy to commit suicide. Wierd that the person who is dead would get off scott free but the co-conspirator would get punished. How is that justice?
I do not think it would be murder just like gun companies are not muderers when people use guns to die, or pharmacies are not co-conspirators when people suicide by pill.
If the person pushed the button it would be suicide, simple as that...no assist needed really.
The push button thing sounds like an IV drug that most people would require a professional for. If they have an IV then I can see co-conspiracy. The IV thing also makes me think the person is already ill and I can probably understand that. I can hardly imaine a doc puting in an IV on a well person...they would probably move to help the person solve the problem and live before, if ever, offering the button choice to a suicidal client.
If the person did not push the button, I guess that would be called a break through and a chance for healing and therapy for the well, and hope for the ill.
You do make valid points and good food for thought. Thank you.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
Late last year this issue really hit home for me. I had a patient dying of a terminal illness. He was on a morphine drip and what other pain medications he could be given and it did nothing for him. When he wasn't dozing fitfully, he was crying and screaming and pleading for someone to make it stop hurting. He couldn't eat, could barely drink, couldn't move without assistance, couldn't stand being touched. Working alongside his family as he went through that was something I will never in my life forget. Before he finally passed away, his family had stopped praying that he hold on and started begging that it just end. It was the most heartbreaking thing I have ever witnessed and it went on for weeks before he finally passed away. He didn't want to live that way, but he was forced too anyway because someone else decided he should have too because of their religious beliefs.
No one should ever be forced to endure that agony because of someone else's ideals or beliefs and the 'we shouldn't play God argument' doesn't mean much at all to me. If it's playing God to help one end their life when they're living their life like that... it's most certainly playing God to take the choice out of their hands and force them to live like that because you don't agree that they should be allowed to make a choice other than to suffer until the very end. Unless you're the one suffering or the family caring for the one suffering, it's not your decision to make and never should be.
-----
~Fallon~
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.- Russell
-----
I can't even imagine what you went through, let alone that kid's family.
Your comment hit home for me, though. I never REALLY thought about what my parents went through, seeing me laid up in the hospital so many times, completely out of it, semi-conscious, with doctors giving a percentage of coming out of something... Now I feel bad for them... or maybe just a lot more grateful.
-Sonja :)
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" ~ Peter Finch as Howard Beale, 1976, "Network"
"There's nothing wrong with it; everyone should have access to it." It's sad majority of the people agree with this view.
------------------------------------------------
It always seems impossible until it is done-Nelson Mandela.
Why?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Why?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I too would like to hear why this makes the majority "sad"?
But I also want to point out that at this point only 13 have voted that it should be available for all and 14 people voted against it (or to limit it to dire circumstances).... It looks like the majority is not so pro assist after all.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
I don't believe in artificial sustenance of life. I think a terminally ill person could just go on hospice and get morphine without other invasive treatment until they die. If they are still miserable, they could easily OD themselves on the huge amounts of morphine that are delivered to their door.
I don't know why being terminally medically ill should be treated different than a person who suffers from severe mental illness that has not been able to improve despite all other efforts.
I am not one to really make these kinds of decisions. I don't think anyone is. I fight suicide all the time. I have physically revived someone who has attempted and had already stopped breathing, was blue all over, and eyes bulging out of their skull. I have known patients who we have revived and lived on to regret their mistake, and others who have died despite temporary resuscitation.
All I can do is care about all of them, and pray, and help any way I can while they are in my care to help them through whatever they are dealing with at the time.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
You make a great point about the difference people see between physical and mental illness. I know a handful of people who have unsuccessfully tried suicide, and two that have succeeded. I have to say, one of those people was so miserable in life, I do think she's probably better for it.
I don't know where I stand on suicide or assisted suicide for the mentally ill.
-Sonja :)
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" ~ Peter Finch as Howard Beale, 1976, "Network"
I decided instead of writting a blog that I would just bring it up here. We all are pretty familiar with suicide & assisted suicide and what that entails. I know that with regular suicide that those that succeed do not get life insurance and other benefits that just dieing gives to the family members. Should assisted suicide fall under this guidline or since the death was inevitable... how should it be counted? If we extend this ideation to those who accidentally commit suicide by way of overdose or drug mixing (ex: alcohol and sleep meds)? What about those with unhealthy life styles that get them into trouble (ex: Prostitutes-AIDS, doritios- heart disease, Smoking-lung cancer, etc)? I know that some people develope these diseases while living good lives but if the people brought their death on themselves by doing these things it could be considered suicide right? If this is suicide should these circumstances get the benefits of those who do not cause their own deaths?
Maybe this does not make sense because of my understanding of the way things work. I am coming from a military insurance perspective. If a military member dies because they were stupid like driving a motorcycle without a helmet and crashing or drinking and driving and crashing then they do not get their life insurance. If they literally drink themselves to death the family has no help. This is the information that got me thinking about the above questions and all the gray areas death and circumstances may cause in a capitalist/consumer world.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
My life insurance policy does pay as long as the suicide doesn't occur within 2 years of opening the policy.
I am surprised that the military is so strict. Maybe because they already have to pay so much for those that are killed in the line of duty?
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I know when my husband opened his life insurance policy, he had to go through a physical, and I think they asked him if he smoked, so I'm pretty sure they factor certain behaviors (such as smoking) into the client's risk factor, which probably affects their life insurance policy in at least some way.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Actually, as mentioned above, MOST life insurance policies do pay out even if the death was by suicide, as long as the suicide doesn't occur within the first year or two of opening the policy (i.e. the suicide done merely to clear out the insurance policy).
But, the military works strangely in all aspects.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I want a poll about whether or not suicide should be legal and/or allowed
Option A: No, suicide is never the answer!
Option B: Yes, if you have exhausted all other possible options
Option C: Maybe. It depends on the circumstances
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude