Assisted suicide?

[kılıç_mehmet]

In most cases it won't be a choice you make alone, that's true - not only that, but we should encourage people who are suicidal (terminal or otherwise) to seek advice, councilling and not rush to any harsh decisions - that being said, it's a very different thing to say that 'we should encourage people to seek advice/discussion' and 'we're not going to allow people to make this choice'

For terminal patients, it certainly won't matter. They're already dead.
But I ask you, would you give this "choice" to your son, or anyone you hold near and dear to you?
Or would you stop them, and restrain them, and take them to a place where they'd be treated for his depression, for the sake of their own safety?
Most suicides are "rash decisions" as you call them, as I recall a friend of mine who had killed himself via taking pills, and his family was devastated.
Did this man seek out advice from any of his peers? If we would have known, we would have never left him alone, and certainly deny him his "right" to kill himself.

But according to this thought, how would you cope if you'd find your bed in his room with slashed wrists, or empty bottles of sleeping pills?
Would you respect his right to kill himself, or call 911?

What a fucking tyranny. People are only going to suffer longer before killing themselves in prison.

Also, what use is a man in prison for life to his wife and children? No more valuable than a dead man, but the downside is his family now know he's powerless to end his own life and will have to suffer for potentially decades for it.

I said posthumorously.

You've never been to a funeral for someone who killed themselves then? Trust me, it's much like any other funeral.

And even if it were the case that no persons who end their own life are remembered with 'good words', so what?

Oh, I've been to a funeral like that.
The funeral of my friend. I cursed him after I saw the state of his parents.
Do not get me wrong. I loved my friend. I knew him for some time, and I too, was shocked and devastated when I heard of his untimely death.
However, I was more sorry for his parents, than for him when I saw them. For him, the struggle was over. For his parents, it had just began.
If he died in a car accident, or due to some other means, who could blame him for it? Things happen to a man. But suicide is as you said, your own choice. That's why I blamed, and cursed him for what he had done to the people who loved him.

Actually, you achieved "not living". Yeah it's a harsh fate for the wife and kids, but that in and of it's self does not mean that you do not own your own life just because it disadvantages someone else.

Nobody here is going to argue that it isn't a tragedy for the family, but this should only give us more reason to attempt to persuade people to hold in for as long as they can bear.

You also have to remember that this isn't some casual decision for the people who want to die, in most cases life for them feels so unbearable that they aren't much use to anyone as is. A severely depressed person is very often unable to work and provide an income for their families.

I'm telling you, you cannot persuade a man who had just swallowed a handful of sleeping pills. When I saw my friend, he was like all so casual. We never saw anything suicidal about him. He certainly had problems of his own, things that he did not care to speak us about.

In most cases, you cannot stop a man from taking his own life. But in the cases you can, why would you? Just because you believe that he "owns his own life"? So much that he can throw it away so easily? No. I respect people's decisions, but I do not respect anyone's right to kill themselves, and I'd stop them in any way I could, if I could.
I'm sure you too, would do the same, but you do not want to admit it.
And you also said something like..."they aren't much use to anyone as is", meaning, that we should just allow them to kill themselves because they're useless. And true, a severely depressed person is generally not able to work, and provide for anything. However, such people should be helped, not left out to die.

What you've suggested so far is, that a man is not doing a great evil upon their loved ones when killing himself, simply because they are "depressed" and "useless"... These are the feelings that drive a man to commit suicide. But instead, you encourage people to actually commit suicide. I shake my head with disapproval.

Now you're making claims about rights but I haven't seen you produce one shred of value theory or moral philosophy to support this - You DO NOT get to decide what people's rights are simply because you fell strongly that they're doing something wrong, and you DO NOT get to decide that people loose their individual sovereignty simply because someone else's life is better because of their existence.

If you want to try and solve this problem the correct way you should give money to suicide support groups and education programs to attempt to persuade them to freely make other decisions because forcing people to make decisions that you want them to make is tyrannical and immoral.

Moral philosophy? Would you rather have some common sense?
The one thing that you people brag about in here?
I said it previously, you cannot stop most people who commit suicide(unless you are wary about their suicidal nature and somewhat look out for them, or send them to an institution where they are safe).

But would you rather let them take their own life and exercise their own so-called "rights" by leaving them? This is not what suicide support groups are about either. You think that these programs support people's choice to kill themselves? I call it choice, it certainly is an unwise choice.
Not a "right" by my book. I certainly do not approve of anyone who decides to end their lives without even thinking of the consequences. And yes, if that is tyrannical, a loving parent, friend, sibling or relative is definately the worst of tyrants.

[Napoléon]

I see their suicide as a sign of weakness.

So what?

I see suicide as a very, very selfish thing to do.

So what?

Obviously, you won't agree with me, but that's fine.

Surprisingly I do agree that under certain circumstances suicide is an extremely selfish act. However it is entirely besides the point.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I see their suicide as a sign of weakness.

So what?

I see suicide as a very, very selfish thing to do.

So what?

Did I also mention that it leads to your death?
I wonder why any law should back you up in this?
Fortunately, people all around the world continue to infringe this "right" of yours, and save people who made such a selfish mistake.

[theVOID]

For terminal patients, it certainly won't matter. They're already dead.

But what about their wives and children? They're missing out on a given period of time with a husband/father!

Unless of course you're going to make some argument that it depends on the length and/or quality of life. Suicidal people generally have very poor quality lives either due to circumstance or their own subjective uncomfort with something most people would be content with, so I guess it must all come down to the length of the life, right?

I'd love to see you make an argument for why the projected length of someone's life should matter without the length of time just turning into arbitrary and subjective opinions like the rest of your side of this discussion has been.

But I ask you, would you give this "choice" to your son, or anyone you hold near and dear to you?

It's not my choice to make, nor mine to take away from them.

Or would you stop them, and restrain them, and take them to a place where they'd be treated for his depression, for the sake of their own safety?

I'd try my hardest to persuade them otherwise for as long as I possibly could but I would never order someone restrained for a decision that didn't effect anyone else's rights, no matter how hard I disagree with it.

Most suicides are "rash decisions" as you call them, as I recall a friend of mine who had killed himself via taking pills, and his family was devastated.

I'm sure they were.

Did this man seek out advice from any of his peers? If we would have known, we would have never left him alone, and certainly deny him his "right" to kill himself.

And what right do you have to command someone else's life? You do it selfishly, out of your own self interest.

Denying someone else command of their own life because you value their existence is just as selfish and even worse considering the unjust use of force that violates their right to sovereignty.

But according to this thought, how would you cope if you'd find your bed in his room with slashed wrists, or empty bottles of sleeping pills?

I'd be gutted.

Would you respect his right to kill himself, or call 911?

Seeing as this person is clearly doing what they've done to avoid some unbearable suffering, psychological or physical, it'd be pretty obvious that they'd prefer assistance for their failed suicide - Someone who has attempted suicide because of unbearable agony would clearly much prefer to spend as little time as possible in as little pain as possible, so calling the emergency services would be perfectly consistent with their desire to die to avoid suffering, given they now face the option of prolonged and more severe suffering without treatment.

I said posthumorously.

What the hell does that even mean in the context of the your previous statement? You cannot imprison someone posthumously.

Oh, I've been to a funeral like that.
The funeral of my friend. I cursed him after I saw the state of his parents.

You said there would be no kind words used to remember then, not that some people might also resent them.

Do not get me wrong. I loved my friend. I knew him for some time, and I too, was shocked and devastated when I heard of his untimely death.

As expected.

However, I was more sorry for his parents, than for him when I saw them. For him, the struggle was over. For his parents, it had just began.

So you're saying he was obligated to continue suffering so that his parent would not?

A person being forced to continue suffering to the extent that they would prefer death is MUCH WORSE than someone suffering but able to move on with life after the death of a loved one.

If he died in a car accident, or due to some other means, who could blame him for it? Things happen to a man. But suicide is as you said, your own choice. That's why I blamed, and cursed him for what he had done to the people who loved him.

You can still blame him for it all you like, that doesn't mean he took something that you had a right to. There is nothing at all wrong with being angry, resentful or upset about someone else's decision - There is however something VERY wrong with thinking that your values give you the right to force someone else to behave how you want them to, just because what they want isn't consistent with YOUR values.

I'm telling you, you cannot persuade a man who had just swallowed a handful of sleeping pills.

I never said you could. The opportunity for persuasion is before that stage, if you manage to notice that something is wrong in time. If you want to prevent suicide THAT is the only moral way to do it, you cannot legitimately force your values onto others, and you're never going to be able to persuade everyone, let alone find them all in time.

When I saw my friend, he was like all so casual. We never saw anything suicidal about him. He certainly had problems of his own, things that he did not care to speak us about.

That's unfortunate.

In most cases, you cannot stop a man from taking his own life. But in the cases you can, why would you? Just because you believe that he "owns his own life"?

How could anyone but the individual legitimately own their very being? It simply makes no sense at all to claim that being is not owned by the being in question, it is true by it's very definition. Even slavery, the use of force to command another person to act, is not true ownership, it is heinous force and coercion of another sovereign being.

Restraining another person who wants to kill themselves is simply a lesser use of force/coercion and is still fundamentally unjust, irrespective of the intended benevolence.

So much that he can throw it away so easily? No. I respect people's decisions, but I do not respect anyone's right to kill themselves, and I'd stop them in any way I could, if I could.

You clearly don't respect their decision, except when they are consistent with your decisions. That's two faced hypocrisy if ever I saw it.

I'm sure you too, would do the same, but you do not want to admit it.

Maybe I don't posses delusions of moral righteousness like you do?

And you also said something like..."they aren't much use to anyone as is", meaning, that we should just allow them to kill themselves because they're useless.

We should allow them to kill themselves because it's not our right to disallow.

And true, a severely depressed person is generally not able to work, and provide for anything. However, such people should be helped, not left out to die.

There is a massive difference between helping someone and forcing them to behave as you like.

What you've suggested so far is, that a man is not doing a great evil upon their loved ones when killing himself, simply because they are "depressed" and "useless"... These are the feelings that drive a man to commit suicide. But instead, you encourage people to actually commit suicide. I shake my head with disapproval.

Go get some fucking reading comprehension lessons, I said no such thing.

I DO NOT encourage people to commit suicide, I have stated at least a half dozen times already in this conversation that I would seek to PERSUADE people not to.

See:

"we should encourage people who are suicidal (terminal or otherwise) to seek advice"

"If you want to try and solve this problem the correct way you should give money to suicide support groups and education programs to attempt to persuade them to freely make other decisions"

Oh, and find me ONE instance in this discussion where I said people should kill themselves because they are "useless"! Oh wait, you won't, because I DID NOT SAY THAT.

Moral philosophy? Would you rather have some common sense?

Are you fucking kidding me? Common sense said the world was flat, that voices in people's heads were real people. Common sense is nothing but a lazy excuse to do no research, give no argument, and still be up yourself with your conclusion.

The one thing that you people brag about in here?

You'll NEVER see me citing "common sense" as a reason in support of something. People can't even agree on a coherent definition of what "common sense" is.

I said it previously, you cannot stop most people who commit suicide(unless you are wary about their suicidal nature and somewhat look out for them, or send them to an institution where they are safe).

Of course not.

But would you rather let them take their own life and exercise their own so-called "rights" by leaving them?

There is nothing "so called" about it. Either we have a right to our own life or EVERYTHING is arbitrary, all policies, all decision, all "justice".

This is not what suicide support groups are about either. You think that these programs support people's choice to kill themselves? I call it choice, it certainly is an unwise choice.

They don't support their choice, they try and persuade people to change their minds through counselling and providing them with things of value to counter their desire to kill themselves.

Not a "right" by my book. I certainly do not approve of anyone who decides to end their lives without even thinking of the consequences. And yes, if that is tyrannical, a loving parent, friend, sibling or relative is definately the worst of tyrants.

You clearly don't have any consistent platform of morals or value, so why should I give a shit what you think about rights? Someone who is willing to violate the most fundamental right someone can possibly have, the right to their own life, is someone who shouldn't be given a fucking sliver of power.

Loving someone and excersizing force over them are two completely different things. There are people out there who think that physical violence as discipline is a loving act that teaches their children to lead good lives - others consider it child abuse - Just because you think x or y is "good" in some objective sense doesn't mean it is, and it sure as fuck doesn't give you any legitimate authority to FORCE other people to do something they don't want to.

[Sybyl Walker]

Hello
I'm from Brazil, and i hope you understand all the possible spelling errors, or the translation, for translating ideas is not always easy.
There is a big difference between euthanasia, assisted suicide and homicide.
Many people with terminal illnesses fit to take his own life, but does not dare to do this and want to resort to euthanasia, thus transforming who practiced a murderer, because he is a coward.
The euthanasia of a person who is in just for breathing apparatus, comatose, or terminally ill and is unable to end his suffering I am completely for, but if the reason the thread starter I am against, a person who has Alzheimer's has no physical pain and if she wants she can stop it.
The real desire is to end the suffering of sick or end up with the embarrassment of relatives?
The function of the state is to guarantee the life, he can not and should become the executioner of patients just by being outside of our reality, no longer do this and euthanasia becomes the death penalty.

[Napoléon]

Many people with terminal illnesses fit to take his own life, but does not dare to do this and want to resort to euthanasia, thus transforming who practiced a murderer, because he is a coward.

So what if they are scared? Who are you to judge? You are not in the position of a person who is terminally ill or someone who has severe mental illness to the point that they do not recognise their own children.
People who ask for help to die don't do it because they are expecting the person to help them go down for murder are they?

I'm curious then, are you saying people should not have the right to die, that they are cowards?

The euthanasia of a person who is in just for breathing apparatus, comatose, or terminally ill and is unable to end his suffering I am completely for, but if the reason the thread starter I am against, a person who has Alzheimer's has no physical pain and if she wants she can stop it.

The point I was trying to make with the original post is that the person I was describing is not the same person as existed a few years ago. Her mind is completely destroyed. What is the mind without memory? She wakes up every morning wondering where the fuck she is. Tell me what kind of life that is? To be in a constant state of confusion?
Why is damage to the mind taken differently to the body?

The real desire is to end the suffering of sick or end up with the embarrassment of relatives?

Quite an insulting question. I'm not even going to dignify it with a response, the answer should be pretty obvious.

The function of the state is to guarantee the life, he can not and should become the executioner of patients just by being outside of our reality, no longer do this and euthanasia becomes the death penalty.

Okay, don't quite understand this. No one is asking for the state to actively aid in helping people who want to die, die. Just that if people do want to go for genuine reasons that their relatives should be able to help them fulfil their dying wish without fear of imprisonment.

If I've misinterpreted anything you said, feel free to rephrase or explain.