So we should dump all our suicide hotlines and when someone is standing at the edge of a bridge we should encourage them yelling "Suicide is painless. End it all."
The Right to Die In a Dignified Manner
- Thread starter Hawki97
- Start date
So we should dump all our suicide hotlines and when someone is standing at the edge of a bridge we should encourage them yelling "Suicide is painless. End it all."
So if you have one that you expect to fully recover their spouse can come in and say "No doc, pull the plug" without any sort of DNR order from the patient themselves?
The comparison to abortion would only be if the life support was being provided by the spouse's body.
This is the dumbest response I've ever read on this board. Where did I say we should not help people or encourage them to commit suicide. You just want to help people only your way. I want to help people the way they want to be help. If they want assistance with depression, help them. Not everyone who commits suicide is depressed.
You sounds like someone who's worried his/her family members are going to pull the plug on you.
No but a lot are. A lot more have gone through a major traumatic life event.
IMO people who are not terminally ill should ALWAYS be discouraged from suicide.
And that's where we disagree. My view is the right to life overrules the right to bodily autonomy. Not mad at you but that's the crux of the disagreement.
Not in the slightest. My point is that in the absence of a DNR we always presume a person would want to live and only leave the pulling the plug decision up to the family when the ability to recover to at least the point of living outside of the hospital appears impossible based on our current understanding of medical science.
Now we're getting to the point. You want control over a person's ability to choose whether or not they live or die. You think you know best for them. I think most people understand suicide, if successful, is a permanent solution. Why do you think you have the right to decide for anyone else?
I'm not asking to decide I'm asking them to do it by their own hand and I would discourage anyone who isn't terminally ill from doing it. The terminally ill I am neutral on it. If they decide to do it or don't decide to do it, neither bothers me.
Most people that actually commit suicide are people who are making reckless emotional decisions or are massively depressed. Neither have the mental fitness to determine such weighty matters with clarity of mind.
It's not a strawman. . . if someone should be able to die just because they feel like it (Which is what he was saying) than we have officially determined that it's not worthwhile to try to stop them. Hence we shouldn't have suicide hotlines or discourage people from doing so.
So people shouldn't be able to make reckless or emotional decisions about their own life? Only terminally ill people should be able to commit suicide? We can do this all day. You want to deny people the right to choose the time and circumstances of how they die.
Sure it is. No one is stating that a person with suicidal thoughts does not receive or should not receive phycological, therapy and pharmacological help before being evaluated for euthanasia.
You are making a slippery slope argument. That if state sanctioned assisted suicide is allowed, in a few years we will live in a dystopian society where people are offed on a whim.....I have more faith in humanity than you do.....which is quite ironic, considering your religious fervor.
The problem I see with this definition is that a premie isn’t an alive person?
So what is it? When does it achieve ‘human’?
Read the response of Finance.
YES they should be prevented as much as possible. I'm not saying we can imprison them. As I've said you can't stop someone determined to do it from doing it with their own hand. But we should try to stop them within the limits we have now. We should not expand their ability to kill themselves by making it easier.
I know I know I'm not for freedom. I don't care. I'm for what makes society better. Sometimes that's freedom. Sometimes it's not. Having the freedom to just get a doctor to kill you when you are perfectly physically healthy is not going to make society better.
Isn’t lack of faith in humanity why they put faith in a supernatural to keep humanity in line?
Isn’t lack of faith in humanity why they put faith in a supernatural to keep humanity in line?
I don't think a belief in God is going to suddenly keep people "in line". It didn't even work in the middle ages. Lots of people got excommunicated by the pope and pretty much seemed to not care.
Keeping people in line typically requires a temporal punishment as well. There is also an amount of natural law which tells us that killing and raping is bad. Mostly because we know we wouldn't want those things done to us, don't want the punishment and would also fear revenge.
But honestly if people honestly believed they could do something like that with no negative consequences. . . I think they would. Roman emperors would come into power being very sane, trying to take care of their people. For the ones that stayed in power for very long the power almost always got to them and they killed and raped.
The reason Penn doesn't want to kill and rape isn't because he's a good person (Not that he's any worse than the rest of us either). It's because he has been programmed by society against it. Knowing the massive amount of negative consequences that come from such actions. (Because the societal agreement is pretty much, I don't kill you, you don't kill me. And when people break that we get them out of society) But honestly if you took a person and they spent years stewing over and realizing they could do these things with no consequences. Most would.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That statement is true for a reason.
However what you say about a lack of faith in humanity is true from a different point of view. I do believe that humans are naturally selfish beings.
Gotcha. You are doubling down on having laws that deny people the right to control their life as they see fit. You think you, and bureaucrats should be the judge. Newsflash - people wanting help to commit suicide are trying to make it easier for themselves, and potentially others as well. Newsflash - sometimes a perfectly healthy person simply wants the ability to decide it's the right time to check out, you know, before they have to suffer.
Read the response of Finance.
YES they should be prevented as much as possible. I'm not saying we can imprison them. As I've said you can't stop someone determined to do it from doing it with their own hand. But we should try to stop them within the limits we have now. We should not expand their ability to kill themselves by making it easier.
I know I know I'm not for freedom. I don't care. I'm for what makes society better. Sometimes that's freedom. Sometimes it's not. Having the freedom to just get a doctor to kill you when you are perfectly physically healthy is not going to make society better.
There has always been debate about when personhood begins. The 3 major camps are conception, the quickening, or first breath. I'm not aware of anyone claiming premies as not having personhood. I have heard of some cultures in the context of high infant mortality not naming the child until they reach a specific milestone but I can't speak with any confidence that this is true.
In the modern era the quickening perspective has arguably been replaced by a viability arguments.
I think the problem with the viability argument is that we’ve seen that line move weeks within our lifetime.
We’ve probably all seen the lamb growing in the bag. That’s coming for people. From conception to drawing a breath, science will achieve what nature provides currently.
At conception you create a new human, with a new unique, heretofore unseen, individual genetic sequence.
Every point after that, regardless of the animal you're discussing, is just another stage of growth for that type of animal, never the change to some new kind of being.
This makes no logical sense. You're deciding my own fate thereby depriving me of the most basic of freedoms. The right to live out my life as I and I alone see fit to the extent that it doesn't restrict the rights of others. What gives you that right and who's to say that my miserable existence is making society better?
Read the response of Finance.
YES they should be prevented as much as possible. I'm not saying we can imprison them. As I've said you can't stop someone determined to do it from doing it with their own hand. But we should try to stop them within the limits we have now. We should not expand their ability to kill themselves by making it easier.
I know I know I'm not for freedom. I don't care. I'm for what makes society better. Sometimes that's freedom. Sometimes it's not. Having the freedom to just get a doctor to kill you when you are perfectly physically healthy is not going to make society better.
The other consideration for viability are congenital anomalies. There are some very serious heart defects that we have no real treatment for, there are fetuses who are anecephalic it is arguably inhumane to allow the birth of a child that we cannot support medically or who only has a brainstem.
I'm curious are you a vegetarian?
Isn’t lack of faith in humanity why they put faith in a supernatural to keep humanity in line?
Ricky Gervais in After Life said it in a very similar fashion. Good show by the way ...
They're human beings.
If they're not, what are they?
It seems to me the decision to not consider them humans is to just avoid the squeamish aspect of decisions made for convenience.
Everybody can appreciate the 'trolley problem' when you present a medical situation where the mother and baby can't both survive. In that situation, you recognize that whichever way you pull the lever, a human life will end.
In that scenario, I tend toward giving the host the choice about which life to end.
No. Probably wouldn't even qualify as 'pro-life', because I'd be willing to go farther down the spectrum of addressing congenital anomalies than others.
Your arguments in this thread require significant assumptions. In this one, that the patient is going to recover (obviously this is significantly variable depending on patient) and that the spouse is evil and won't listen to Doctors. Earlier you just assume that doctors are gonna start killing depressed and autistic kids out of convenience if physician assisted suicide became the law of the land. Neither are true.
That's not an answer to my question.
At 20 weeks, a fetus is the size of a banana.
Should this be aborted if the Mother's life isn't in danger and the fetus is healthy?
What changes about the individual in question besides the location?
Dred Scot is property here, but a person there? Does something magical happen when the location changes?
I don't understand the operative principle.
That's not an answer to my question.
At 20 weeks, a fetus is the size of a banana.
Should this be aborted if the Mother's life isn't in danger and the fetus is healthy?
If that's the decision arrived at after a conversation between the mother and her doctor. I'm fine with it. You have no idea why the mother would want to terminate at that time. And it's none of your business anyway.
The size related to fruit means nothing. Your mother is very familiar with banana sized objects.
It's heart is beating on it's own. And it's no longer physically attached to the host. This isn't complex. You can disagree with me if you want. I frankly don't care.
At least you are consistent. Do you think IVF couples should be required to implant every embryo created during their infertility process, if not what do you propose should be done with these unneeded/unwanted frozen babies?
I'm not stopping anyone from killing themselves I'm saying they have to do it by their own hand.
