Every clergyperson I know wants to retire to a right to die state. We watch people suffer in the dying process for a living and it's our job to try to offer comfort. Sign me up for heading out on my own terms.
The Right to Die In a Dignified Manner
- Thread starter Hawki97
- Start date
If people truly own themselves, they should be free to make the choice to live or die. It's really that simple. If that person would like medical assistance to die peacefully, they should be free to get such assistance. There should be a process available to keep someone who is assisting from being prosecuted or sued.
The problem isn't just that it's when and why it's being used. It always seems to start off with a promise that this will only be used on people who are terminally ill and who want it.
But that's not been the case. Mentally ill people are getting it. And there was one case in which a woman appeared to be attempting to withdraw consent as they were about to euthanize her and the doctor had her family hold her down so he could kill her.
I have no trust that this will stay limited nor do I have any trust that this won't become a cultural expectation for anyone who might be considered a burden.
I understand being against it for yourself and family members, but why can't others make their own choices? How does someone else's choice to die impact you?
Also do you have a link for the doctor having the family hold down the patient while he killed her?
Because allowing it creates a culture where it becomes expanded to more stuff and then it becomes an expectation. When it's a cultural expectation it's no longer a choice one makes for themselves. It's a choice that society makes for you and anyone who tries to defy that choice faces the wrath of not only society but loved ones.
Laws change culture.
Divorce used to be seen as shameful. . . then we made it easy. Now divorce is not only normal half of marriages are ending in divorce. (Although to be fair a small majority of first marriages make it.). I
The acceptability of Marijuana use is also a case where law has changed culture. Now I actually don't pass any judgement on that as I think it should be legal and a place where a cultural change was probably beneficial. However the point is that once a few states started changing their laws the attitudes towards it shifted.
In the places where euthanasia was legalized the attitudes towards it shifted to where it's ok to hold down a dementia patient to kill her and it's ok to euthanize a physically healthy 29 year old woman with depression. Given that those were test cases they are likely more common now.
Belgium for example kills about 40 people a year for strictly mental illness related reasons.
'What could help me to die?' Doctors clash over euthanasia
Only two countries permit euthanasia in cases of mental illness — and they show how hard it can be to balance personal freedom and adequate protections.
www.statnews.com
What's crazy is if you read that article a person in Belgium can be euthanized for having mild autism. I do not want to see a world where my sons, one of which their autism is more severe are allowed to ask a doctor to kill them because of their autism. Even worse I don't want to see a world were society pressures them to do that. I already have enough to worry about with their future including potentially their long term care situation for after we are gone. I don't need to be worrying about a country that in 40 to 50 years will be telling them that the morally right thing to do is to let a doctor kill them.
As far as the link about the woman being held down.
Doctor who asked dementia patient's family to hold her down while administering euthanasia injection is cleared
Panel finds the doctor acted 'in good faith' in controversial case
www.independent.co.uk
Dutch euthanasia case: Doctor acted in interest of patient, court rules
Prosecutors argued that a dementia patient euthanised in 2016 had not been asked to verify her wish.
www.bbc.com
Last edited:
They can determine their own fate by their own hand. When we put the medical and legal stamp of approval on it, people's attitudes will change. When the attitude changes it stops becoming a thing you can do if you want and starts becoming an expectation.
And yes people will die early deaths because society expects them to do it. The story of the 47 Ronin in Japan proves that story.
In states it's legal for terminally ill people would never approve it if they are disabled. Just dying in a horrible way. I looked for disabled people getting it and couldn't find 1 case.
I hope it stays that way but I have no confidence it will. Belgium legalized it in 2002. The article from 2017 said they were killing about 40 people a year for mental illnesses including mild autism.
So you're worried "peer pressure" would influence peoples choice. If that's the case we better make a lot of things illegal.Because allowing it creates a culture where it becomes expanded to more stuff and then it becomes an expectation. When it's a cultural expectation it's no longer a choice one makes for themselves. It's a choice that society makes for you and anyone who tries to defy that choice faces the wrath of not only society but loved ones.
Laws change culture.
Divorce used to be seen as shameful. . . then we made it easy. Now divorce is not only normal half of marriages are ending in divorce. (Although to be fair a small majority of first marriages make it.). I
The acceptability of Marijuana use is also a case where law has changed culture. Now I actually don't pass any judgement on that as I think it should be legal and a place where a cultural change was probably beneficial. However the point is that once a few states started changing their laws the attitudes towards it shifted.
In the places where euthanasia was legalized the attitudes towards it shifted to where it's ok to hold down a dementia patient to kill her and it's ok to euthanize a physically healthy 29 year old woman with depression. Given that those were test cases they are likely more common now.
Belgium for example kills about 40 people a year for strictly mental illness related reasons.
'What could help me to die?' Doctors clash over euthanasia
Only two countries permit euthanasia in cases of mental illness — and they show how hard it can be to balance personal freedom and adequate protections.
What's crazy is if you read that article a person in Belgium can be euthanized for having mild autism. I do not want to see a world where my sons, one of which their autism is more severe are allowed to ask a doctor to kill them because of their autism. Even worse I don't want to see a world were society pressures them to do that. I already have enough to worry about with their future including potentially their long term care situation for after we are gone. I don't need to be worrying about a country that in 40 to 50 years will be telling them that the morally right thing to do is to let a doctor kill them.
As far as the link about the woman being held down.
Doctor who asked dementia patient's family to hold her down while administering euthanasia injection is cleared
Panel finds the doctor acted 'in good faith' in controversial case
Dutch euthanasia case: Doctor acted in interest of patient, court rules
Prosecutors argued that a dementia patient euthanised in 2016 had not been asked to verify her wish.
I think in a way you're trying to use peer pressure to keep individuals from being able to determine their own fate.
Peer pressure should always lean towards living and not death.
That's why when you see a person standing at the edge of a bridge you don't tell them "Go on now do it you pussy." you instead try to talk them into stepping back and getting help, even if you don't know anything about their situation.
I don't want a single person pressuring anyone towards death. The most a person should do is remain neutral on the matter. And that's in the most dire situations. Anything but the most dire situations there should be 100% pressure towards living.
Without the choice to end their lives humanely people make violent choices like jumping off bridges or shooting themselves. Sometimes good intentions like being against euthanasia lead to more negative outcomes than the procedure from which you are trying to protect them.
So you think people should be pressured to live when they are physically or mentally suffering to the point they would rather not live?
You're either inexperienced or unimaginative enough to be aware of situations in which living longer is not desirable.
Medical technology has stretched our life spans waaaay beyond what nature and evolution intend.
There is an inflection point, different for everyone, beyond which continuing to live shouldn't be forced on anyone.
We're here to have a good time.
I don't think that is necessarily true for all clergy and former clergy.
Oh I can imagine them. I just want those people to die by their own hand so that we don't create a whole system which turns into expanding who we will help die until it becomes an expectation that one chooses death rather than be any sort of a burden upon others.
It disturbs me even more knowing that if my children were in Belgium 2 of them could when they turn 18 walk into a doctors office, provide their previous autism diagnosis and be approved by a doctor for euthanasia. It doesn't take long before such things become expectations.
If they are terminally ill I would remain neutral on the matter. But I would say they should do it by their own hand. I'm not going to do it and I don't want a doctor to do it. Because sanctioning will change how people think about life and death. And people will start to think life is only worth living if one can be useful to others.
Do you think autistic people with nothing physically wrong with them should be pressured to die?
Why is that so bad? As I would say leave the pills with them . . . if they are terminally ill and you want to leave a gigantic 500 pill bottle of the most hardcore pain killers we have available with them, that's fine by me. If those people then choose to swallow every last pill they can get in their mouth before the OD knocks them out and eventually kills them, that is their choice.
But when they apply and have a doctor do the job, it puts a sanction on the choice, it turns it into a good thing, not just a neutral thing.
And if Belgium and the Neatherlands had left their laws alone I probably would still be for it. Problem is they didn't. They pretty soon went to killing physically healthy depressed people, holding down dementia patients, and killing autistic people.
It shows it hasn't taken them very long to change how they think about death.
It's bad because of the emotional toll it takes on family members. Also a person could easily mess up their attempt and end up making themselves a vegetable. Would you really prefer your child choose to shoot themselves or overdose on pills rather that having a conversation with a doctor about euthanasia options? The time spent with the doctor might actually make them reconsider.
You are expanding the discussion. It's about people making their own choice, not someone pressuring someone else.
Once societal and peer pressure gets introduced it's not about people making their own choice anymore. And those pressures will always exist.
Those pressure should always slant towards life with only the most dire situations should society/peer pressure remain neutral.
Only if the doctor doesn't have the ability to take their life under the law.
Did you read that article I provided. One doctor is approving half her applications for death. And the depressed and hopeless people are seeking her out. Not for help to improve their lives but for death.
The US would certainly make their own set of requirements in order to be eligible for Doctor assisted suicide. As for the depressed and hopeless people seeking out one particular Dr. those are the same people who would likely make the choice you prefer which is death by their own hands.
If that's the choice they make we can't stop them. But if stopping them from getting help doing it stops one of them from doing it and reconsidering and getting help. That's worth it.
In what sense? Not human, or not individual?
noun
- a human being regarded as an individual.
Why is it worth it to you? It's their lives, they should be able to choose how to live them.
Why would someone need to be terminally ill? We're all going to die sometime. What's wrong with someone simply wanting to end their life on their own terms, when they want, for their own reasons?
It would still be their own choice. There are plenty of societal pressures today that people choose not to follow.
Yes but they are a minority. If you grow up in a liberal area with liberal parents you are almost certainly going to be liberal. If you grow up in a conservative area with conservative parents you are almost certainly going to be conservative.
Few people exit peer pressures that are going to cost them love or societal respect.
In a sense that a human is an alive person, not a parasitic group of cells unable to live outside the womb on its own.
You are basically asking what's wrong with suicide? I hold that we should try to stop people from committing suicide as much as possible to be self evident.
Suicide is a permanent solution to what are often temporary problems. Even permanent problems people can often learn to live in and accept and be happy.
What does it matter if someone wants to kill themselves, it's their decision. Even if they're labeled as depressed, it's still their decision. Why make people have to go through a review where someone like you determines what's acceptable. Just let them decide.
As much as I hate to have this debate again.
People on life support are parasitic groups of cells unable to live on their own.
They typically don't get to make their own decisions either, since that was his original premise.
