(July 4, 2014 at 9:29 pm)Blackout Wrote:

(July 4, 2014 at 9:26 pm)Losty Wrote: Makes sense. I would say banning assisted suicide could be found to be unconstitutional under the right to privacy.

But those would disagree could say assisted suicide violates the right to live. And the cycle of debate goes on. I'd say our constitutional court could interpret like 'Human dignity is more severely violated with pain and agony/suffering than by taking away one's life (in some situations), therefore by a matter of rationality we will allow people to make decisions regarding their life, within limitations, if suffering violates their dignity more than dying'.

I think you may be confusing a right to live with an obligation to live...

---

I have the right to free speech but I am still legally permitted to bite my tongue every time someone pisses me off.

Quote:Drinking or smoking will kill you with time, but having a car accident can kill you instantly. Just because we don't forbid A, it doesn't mean we can't forbid B.

Quote:Actually, drinking and smoking can kill you instantly as well. Nicotine is a poison with an LD50 right around 90mg. My older daughter came a couple of shots of vodka away from alcohol poisoning on prom night. A couple more drinks or a little less vomiting and she would have finished the night in the hospital, maybe the morgue. Still we allow people to drink and smoke, as we should. Seat belts are no different.

There is no point in discussing this, liberty is sacrificed for security, some people need a friendly reminder (called illegality) to wear a seat belt. I will not argue any further on this, better be safe than sorry. If you are irresponsible the State can force you to be responsible for your own good.
The chances of someone dying from smoking a cigarette or drinking alcohol are far lower than driving irresponsibly (I'm talking about instant death)

(July 4, 2014 at 3:25 pm)Blackout Wrote: Not only religious but moral or ethical. I didn't know euthanasia and assisted suicide were different therefore my answer could be twisted. Can you explain me the difference?

Quote:There are no moral, legal or ethical arguments you can make for prolonging the suffering of someone who no longer wants to live, because of their suffering.

It is my call only if I want to consider something immoral or unethical. There are no barriers, if I consider violating the right to live, even if done by oneself, always unethical, it's my decision to hold such values. There is not a social imposed ethic regarding both euthanasia and assisted suicide

Quote:Assisted suicide is helping someone, who has chosen to die, to die. Consent is required. Euthanasia is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy (bold is mine, wanted to make sure I was describing it accurately so thank you Merriam-Webster). Consent is off the table with euthanasia. I am not against it, but it would require far more legal oversight.

Agree

(July 4, 2014 at 3:25 pm)Blackout Wrote: It depends on the situation. A friend of mine highly supported assisted suicide, but once her grandfather needed it to avoid suffering, she just couldn't do it, she said it paralyzed her, it's still a hard decision even if it's the right one. I'm not saying I would always be incapable, but I'm not imagining myself doing it.

Quote:Remember, we're not talking about a situation where you would have to pull the plug or inject the drug. That is handled by the patient or qualified professionals. You don't even have to make the decision. It's already made.

Nothing to add, it doesn't mean if you get to make the decision for someone you will be able to do it (the comma case)

(July 4, 2014 at 3:25 pm)Blackout Wrote: Once again I don't know the difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia. Firstly comparing humans and animals arguments will make zero points. I didn't say it wasn't compassionate, but form a constitutional perspective it is not possible where I live

Quote:I made the comparison between animals and humans for a couple reasons. First, it's where euthanasia is most commonly used. Second, because suffering is suffering and compassion is compassion, no matter who or what is suffering. I did not make the comparison to "make points" and resent the implication.

Nothing to add, I agree

(July 4, 2014 at 3:25 pm)Blackout Wrote: I agree court decisions shouldn't always be needed, specially if the person can consent specifically. But imagine the case when someone is in a comma and the wife argues the person is against assisted suicide and the parents argue the opposite. A court decision would solve this case and similar cases pretty well.

Quote:Coma is a very bad example. People have been known to come out of comas after months, years, even decades. A coma isn't death. It isn't any form of brain death or vegetative state. But, I see your point. I hope you see mine when I say this would be euthanasia, not assisted suicide. Again, consent is off the table.

I know a very good story regarding euthanasia and commas, it ended well. That's why I don't want to be euthanized if I'm in a comma

(July 4, 2014 at 3:44 pm)Blackout Wrote: I was just making my expression the simplest possible. You may want to die for all possible reasons. If you are capable of committing suicide, why ask for help? and what method would we use? Why call in a third party if you can do it yourself without involving others? If I was capable of killing myself I would never ask anyone to have the burden of doing it for me. Sounds selfish. But I may just think differently than you

Quote:Why ask for assistance? Because, if this were the way I were to go, I would want my loved ones around me. If decide I'm done with the suffering, I acquire a lethal dose of a morphine based drug and I want my friends and family around me, they will be questioned at best, prosecuted and convicted of murder at worst. Unless I seek the aid of professional help. Selfish? Maybe. Better than the alternatives though. Far better.

If you are the one physically committing the act that leads to your death I don't see the problem. As long as you do not ask your loved ones to do it for you because you lack courage

(July 4, 2014 at 3:44 pm)Blackout Wrote: Where I live it's illegal too. But pain can be controlled with medicine, the more scientists progress in terms of medications the less assisted suicide will be needed. If I had 3 months to live and could ease the pain almost to zero I wouldn't want to die but to enjoy my time.

Quote:You've obviously never suffered the kind of pain that even opiate based drugs won't even touch. I listened to my unconscious mother whimper and moan in agony for three fucking days while under the maximum non lethal doses of opiate derivative pain killers. It was fucking horrible! HORRIBLE! By the second day, and early on that day, I was hoping she'd just die and end it. I sincerely hope you never have to experience something like that, but imagine if you did.

I've experienced bad things (father dying) but not related with suffering by itself. I was not saying nothing that goes against the situation you describe, just stating that the more science advances the more people will be comfortable. Imagine if there was a way to make your mum immune to pain and better to enjoy her time. Wouldn't it be good?

Quote:I'm not asking you to accept assisted suicide for anything other than lethal diseases that cause suffering. Not pain. Pain can be endured, but flat out suffering. The dying person isn't the only one who suffers. There are no ethical, moral or legal justifications for forcing families to endure what mine did! None! There are no ethical, moral or legal justifications for forcing people who are dying anyway to die alone to protect their loved ones from legal hassles and/or prosecution.

If I seem a little short or angry, I've just re-lived one of the worst days of my life explaining this to you. I hope it was worth it.

Again the ethical part is not about making it illegal and forcing families to watch the suffering. The ethical part is that someone may be against terminating their own lives and choose to live with suffering, it's a choice. Just like a relative of mine can commit assisted suicide and I can be morally against the decision. It's my call only.

When I talk about being morally against something I'm not in anyway saying it should be illegal or a crime. When I mention morality I'm merely saying I may not agree with the behavior or the justification, not that I am want that conduct banned. The case of the mother of two children committing suicide, I do not agree morally with it, but I won't stop it. The other case of a person committing suicide because of depression, I do not support it morally because I believe everyone can get better, but I don't think it should be illegal.

There's no problem in describing your situation, I feel your pain of losing a loved one, even though I never experienced the suffering situation, I can relate partially to it.

Quote:What's the relevance of this?

I'm questioning your assertion that children would automatically be better off with a suicidal mother.

(July 4, 2014 at 10:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:What's the relevance of this?

I'm questioning your assertion that children would automatically be better off with a suicidal mother.

A suicidal mother doesn't necessarily lead to her kids' death.

(July 4, 2014 at 10:14 pm)Blackout Wrote:

(July 4, 2014 at 10:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm questioning your assertion that children would automatically be better off with a suicidal mother.

A suicidal mother doesn't necessarily lead to her kids' death.

Are you comfortable taking that risk?

(July 4, 2014 at 10:29 pm)Losty Wrote:

(July 4, 2014 at 10:14 pm)Blackout Wrote: A suicidal mother doesn't necessarily lead to her kids' death.

Are you comfortable taking that risk?

Any parent with ethics wouldn't consider hurting their own children. That's what I stand for. I will assume a suicidal parent doesn't intent to take their kids along. Just like I assume a good parent is not a pedophile, but hey, it happens.

(July 4, 2014 at 10:45 pm)Blackout Wrote:

(July 4, 2014 at 10:29 pm)Losty Wrote: Are you comfortable taking that risk?

Any parent with ethics wouldn't consider hurting their own children. That's what I stand for. I will assume a suicidal parent doesn't intent to take their kids along. Just like I assume a good parent is not a pedophile, but hey, it happens.

I can assume that a parent would not commit suicide at all but it would be a false assumption.

Do you think children are safe physically and emotionally living with a suicidal parent or should the children be moved with someone who is better equipped to care for them?

(July 4, 2014 at 10:53 pm)Losty Wrote:

(July 4, 2014 at 10:45 pm)Blackout Wrote: Any parent with ethics wouldn't consider hurting their own children. That's what I stand for. I will assume a suicidal parent doesn't intent to take their kids along. Just like I assume a good parent is not a pedophile, but hey, it happens.

I can assume that a parent would not commit suicide at all but it would be a false assumption.

Do you think children are safe physically and emotionally living with a suicidal parent or should the children be moved with someone who is better equipped to care for them?

An adoption center? I don't think those are better fit than a suicidal parent, at least not until governments start giving them quality.

(July 4, 2014 at 9:47 pm)Blackout Wrote: Again the ethical part is not about making it illegal and forcing families to watch the suffering. The ethical part is that someone may be against terminating their own lives and choose to live with suffering, it's a choice. Just like a relative of mine can commit assisted suicide and I can be morally against the decision. It's my call only.

When I talk about being morally against something I'm not in anyway saying it should be illegal or a crime. When I mention morality I'm merely saying I may not agree with the behavior or the justification, not that I am want that conduct banned. The case of the mother of two children committing suicide, I do not agree morally with it, but I won't stop it. The other case of a person committing suicide because of depression, I do not support it morally because I believe everyone can get better, but I don't think it should be illegal.

There's no problem in describing your situation, I feel your pain of losing a loved one, even though I never experienced the suffering situation, I can relate partially to it.

I'll concede the point on personal morality and ethics, especially since you concede that suicide should not be illegal. Too may use morality and ethics to justify trampling the rights of others and this issue hits way too close to home.

I do agree with Losty though, that you have confused the right to life with an obligation to live. Not one of us asked to be here. That was our parent's decision. Not one of us is under any obligation to stay.

(July 5, 2014 at 2:20 am)GalacticBusDriver Wrote:

(July 4, 2014 at 9:47 pm)Blackout Wrote: Again the ethical part is not about making it illegal and forcing families to watch the suffering. The ethical part is that someone may be against terminating their own lives and choose to live with suffering, it's a choice. Just like a relative of mine can commit assisted suicide and I can be morally against the decision. It's my call only.

When I talk about being morally against something I'm not in anyway saying it should be illegal or a crime. When I mention morality I'm merely saying I may not agree with the behavior or the justification, not that I am want that conduct banned. The case of the mother of two children committing suicide, I do not agree morally with it, but I won't stop it. The other case of a person committing suicide because of depression, I do not support it morally because I believe everyone can get better, but I don't think it should be illegal.

There's no problem in describing your situation, I feel your pain of losing a loved one, even though I never experienced the suffering situation, I can relate partially to it.

I'll concede the point on personal morality and ethics, especially since you concede that suicide should not be illegal. Too may use morality and ethics to justify trampling the rights of others and this issue hits way too close to home.

I do agree with Losty though, that you have confused the right to life with an obligation to live. Not one of us asked to be here. That was our parent's decision. Not one of us is under any obligation to stay.

Why the hell should suicide being illegal? It makes no sense and it is impossible to punish if the offender succeeds.

I'm not making confusions, there is no such thing as an obligation to live. You don't have an obligation to live. However you have the right to live and people should try to make the most of it and be according to the possibilities, I have the example of a guy that lost his arms and legs and wrote a book explaining how he manages to be happy. Like I said, I can agree that everybody makes conscious rational decisions regarding their lives, I just don't have to agree with every one of them, I can think that reason is not enough to not want to live, it is my personal ethic. I can perfectly accept someone in pain and terminal illness wants to end their suffering, but on other cases where there isn't generally and incurable disease I don't support the decision of dying, but again, it doesn't mean I will stop these people.

And by the way, it is not always a decision, I was pretty much accidental