Extending euthanasia to minors

[Faith No More]

---

I have to differentiate between pains since the big catch-all answer is really vague: "death is the lack of hope". Yes, I know, this is corny and doesn't answer a lot. Let me explain.

If psychological pain (depression, family pressure, other emotional stress), then what suicide does is end change. Many good things can still happen, regardless of personal perspectives. In death, nothing can happen. You're dead. You're not going to learn things, you're not going to make friends, you're not going to have emotions, you're not going to even feel the passage of time. All done. There isn't even a "you", technically speaking. This denial of change makes sure that no good can ever enter into your life again. While the pain is happening, at the very least, good is still possible.

With more bodily pains (literally the nerves in the body firing), the same thing applies. There is opportunity for the person to get better, but experimentation may be necessary in extreme situations. This agony is different than the psychological pain, but death does the same thing: it removes opportunity for good. If alive, you can potentially be cured. Your body may sting constantly, but the person could still be loved by their family. Death does nothing good, it simply eliminates everything.

Finally, "quality of life" pain. This would be something like a person paralyzed from the neck down. Especially after experiencing a life with full motion, the dramatic change is a big shock. This usually leads to depression. However, death here removes all opportunity for good. Multiple different good things can still happen even with the limited mobility. Sure, walking around is easier than an electric wheelchair, but does it really constitute death? In this case, Stephen Hawkins and Helen Keller all should commit suicide. I think both of those cases is ridiculous.

---

Sure, death removes all opportunity for good, but what you're failing to realize is that it is not your place to decide whether that opportunity for good is worth living out an existence full of pain for. Only the person living that life can make that decision, and it is not your place to assert your own personal beliefs on someone else.

I read this the same as "sometimes, using a bad means to get to a good end is acceptable". Suicide does have an appeal, which is why people do it. Suicide will stop the pain, whatever type. It is not, however, rational in and of itself. You also stop the good. Pain isn't fun, yes, but you can be in pain and be happy at the same time. Ask any mother. Well, not while they're having the baby, they're a little flustered.

Again, only the person living that life can make the decision whether stopping the chance for good is outweighed by ending their pain, and a person coming to a different conclusion than you would does not make it irrational.

I'd like to differentiate between "obligated" and "forced". I do not mean to force them to do anything (its not my morality) but I will call people out for not meeting perfection (and I expect them to do the same to me).

By threatening to put anyone in jail that would help another commit suicide, you are definitely trying to force others to do as you would.

You're correct this isn't about what Tex feels people should do. That'd be extremely arrogant. My position is more to the extent of "this is the way, this is off the path" and "the way" is not subjective to my feelings. I "feel" that men should open doors for ladies, but I have no basis to include that in some sort of moral system. =)The moral system revolves around reason, objective.

It is extremely arrogant, not only for attempting to force others to behave as you believe they should, but for attempting to pass off your own subjective feelings as some sort of objective truth, which is all you have been able to do.

And finally, you are correct it is not irrational to want to live out your final days without pain. I'm not pro-suffering or any strange masochism crap, and if pain meds work, by all means, use them. When they don't, while death does remove the pain (because the individual no longer exists), but to cause the death is "off the path". It is good to end the pain, but the means used also must be good. Here, we're killing an innocent, and there is really no way someone can call that good.

Again with the emotionally laden language. The only person doing any killing is the person making the decision to end their own lives, which you have failed to demonstrate why that is not their right.

And what is this "off the path" that you speak of? It sounds suspiciously like new-age garbage, and until you can show that there is such thing as a "path," it is irrelevant.

Hedonism at it's finest. If this were true, the person's assertion "I want to die" or "I want to live" is meaningless. Its only about pleasure and pain. If this moral system is true, we can euthanize the young and old without consent. Consent no longer matters because there is no dignity.

It's not hedonism. It's pragmatism.

And where are you getting this nonsense of "without consent?" A greater man made of straw there never was.

The problem I have with this is that people can be in great pain and still be happy. It seems more like there is a distinction in happy and pleasure as well as suffering and pain. I know many rich, successful, highly praised celebrities that have all sorts of pleasure in their lives, but are suffering.

That's all fine and dandy, but I have to repeat once again that you have failed to demonstrate why you should be able to make the decision for someone else as to whether or not any amount of pleasure is worth a life of pain. I mean, you are more than welcome to explain your views to a terminally ill patient, however, it is not your right to dictate to that person that they must endure a life of pain if they do not want to.