Extending euthanasia to minors

[Tex]

Suicide harms the self by causing death, harms others by permanently severing relationships, and is offensive to God by rejecting the life he gave. Truly, the desire to commit suicide is due to a disordered thought process stemming from the general "It'd be better if I were not alive". This includes physical pain, emotional pain, and the feeling that the elderly get if their kids tell them they are a burden to the family.

Sure, it harms the self, but you must demonstrate that that harm is greater than the harm caused by living out an existence full of pain in which the person is simply waiting for death.

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.

Some suicide can be due to a disordered thought process, but some suicide, such as making the choice to die rather than suffer, can be well thought out and completely rational. When that is true, who are we to deny a person that right?

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.

Unless selfishness is a virtue, this is a great thing to choose. If I had some strange disease that caused me to be in great pain, I would not choose death because the experimental therapy done to be could help the next person to get this strange disease. It is good. To choose death is not good. I would prosecute a doctor for assisting the suicide. The patient who desires suicide gets a psych doctor.

This is not about what you would do. What this is about is why you feel people should be obligated to do as you would, which you have failed to demonstrate.

And I think the fact that you think anyone that desires suicide should get a psych doctor is telling. Choosing not to live out your final days in immense pain is not an irrational decision.

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).

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.

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.

The person denying the value doesn't make the value go away. The value is objective.

You see, here is where your argument most fails in my eyes, and I think your religious views are influencing your argument, even thought you claim they don't. The value on life is conditional. It is conditional upon the fact that the amount of suffering experienced does not severely outweigh the pleasure. It is conditional upon the fact that the person experiencing that life has determined it worthwhile, and only he/she can make that determination.

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.

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.

What is death? Is it not destruction? I will not facilitate their own destruction nor sit back and let others do it.

Okay, I will concede that death is a form of destruction, however, I believe your usage of the word is to simply laden your argument with emotion.

I guess there's some pathos in it. I tried not to use the word in this post in order to make up for it.

1) Bible issues no command on suicide, but portrays it negatively every time (and samson is not suicide).

How is this so? Samson knew that his actions would result in his death, crying out "let me die with the Philistines" when he caused the pillars of the house he was in to collapse.

The action wasn't to cause his death. The action of euthanasia is to use death as a means to end pain. The action of samson was to collapse the building in order to squish his captors. His death was involved, but it is not the means nor the end.