Shouldn't the right to die be a human right?

[AceBoogie]

My initial reaction is to say that we should let suicidal individuals kill themselves. Let water seek its own level, right?

The problem is that we are dealing with human beings here, not water. Families, friends and other loved ones are affected by suicide, so it's not quite so simple as saying, "Screw em, let them kill themselves."

I think that suicide should be allowed for those individuals that truly feel like there is no escape to their suffering. As gruesome as the thought of death is for us, especially the thought of being the agents of our own demise, if an individual has seriously thought it over and come to the same conclusion time and time again, I think we should allow people to kill themselves. As a society we could even implement some type of program where individuals can take that fatal barbiturate pill that they give to terminally ill cancer patients... and quite honestly I don't think we would see a whole lot of change in the number of suicides per year.

If someone is depressed and suicidal and has already gotten help for their issues... why not let them go? Can they actually be productive members of society if they are, basically, mentally ill? Will they have productive relationships with anyone in their families? Probably not.

It sounds harsh and insane but honestly, I don't see any reason to force people to continue living (not that we can do a very good job of stopping someone anyway, I mean, if someone really wants to end their life, they're going to do it one way or another) if they honestly feel like they do not want to live anymore. Not to mention if we offered some kind of overdose pill to people who are like this we wouldn't have nearly as many instances of children finding their parents with half their face blown off from a shotgun blast or have parents finding their kids hanging in the garage or something.

I think if someone is forced to go through the proper channels, i.e. mental evaluation, psychotherapy, medication, etc. and they still feel like they do not want to live, absolutely it should be a human right to die.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

They, who? The taxpayers? The people working at the clinic? The banks? Why should you not wanting to live any more pose a financial burden on others? You are not making a decision for yourself, but also a unilateral (and deleterious) decision on the behalf of many others-- about how they might live their life, and about the degree to which they may or may not prosper. What about their rights?

So, in short, your argument is that the death of a person can affect others and so people shouldn't be given the right to die. The same thing you say about death can also be said about life. When a baby is born it affects not only the life of its mother but also that of many others, so does this mean a mother will have to get permission from everyone who might have their life affected with the baby to give birth?

[bennyboy]

They, who? The taxpayers? The people working at the clinic? The banks? Why should you not wanting to live any more pose a financial burden on others? You are not making a decision for yourself, but also a unilateral (and deleterious) decision on the behalf of many others-- about how they might live their life, and about the degree to which they may or may not prosper. What about their rights?

So, in short, your argument is that the death of a person can affect others and so people shouldn't be given the right to die. The same thing you say about death can also be said about life. When a baby is born it affects not only the life of its mother but also that of many others, so does this mean a mother will have to get permission from everyone who might have their life affected with the baby to give birth?

If the mother is going to impose a financial burden on others, without their prior consent, then no, she shouldn't have a baby.  She can't just show up at a bank and say "Guess what. . . I'm taking your money, cuz I decided I want to have a baby."

[Cato]

She can however get government assistance if her circumstances qualify her. I believe in these programs for the sake of children born into poverty, but I wanted to point out that if you changed bank to government your argument doesn't hold.

[account_inactive]

So, in short, your argument is that the death of a person can affect others and so people shouldn't be given the right to die. The same thing you say about death can also be said about life. When a baby is born it affects not only the life of its mother but also that of many others, so does this mean a mother will have to get permission from everyone who might have their life affected with the baby to give birth?

If the mother is going to impose a financial burden on others, without their prior consent, then no, she shouldn't have a baby.  She can't just show up at a bank and say "Guess what. . . I'm taking your money, cuz I decided I want to have a baby."

Try telling that to all the knocked up teens over here in the UK.

[bennyboy]

She can however get government assistance if her circumstances qualify her. I believe in these programs for the sake of children born into poverty, but I wanted to point out that if you changed bank to government your argument doesn't hold.

That's because the government is already a willing participant.

---

If the mother is going to impose a financial burden on others, without their prior consent, then no, she shouldn't have a baby.  She can't just show up at a bank and say "Guess what. . . I'm taking your money, cuz I decided I want to have a baby."

Try telling that to all the knocked up teens over here in the UK.

Just because they can get away with it doesn't mean it should be considered a human right, IMO. What if your 13 year-old daughter announced that reproduction is her human right, and she plans to give up her ovaries to the first available young stud? I don't know what you'd do, but I'd shout, maybe slap her, put her in a convent or something. I dunno-- I'd react, and I wouldn't react on behalf of her "right" to reproduce.

[Cato]

That's because the government is already a willing participant.

The people from which the government gets its funds may not be.

[account_inactive]

Just because they can get away with it doesn't mean it should be considered a human right, IMO.  What if your 13 year-old daughter announced that reproduction is her human right, and she plans to give up her ovaries to the first available young stud?  I don't know what you'd do, but I'd shout, maybe slap her, put her in a convent or something.  I dunno-- I'd react, and I wouldn't react on behalf of her "right" to reproduce.

Now that is a tough situation for a parent to be in, no idea how I would react to that one. Probably beat the living shit out of the male. No way any daughter of mine would be having a child at that age.

But unfortunately it does happen in many families as teenage pregnancy is rather high in the UK.

[bennyboy]

That's because the government is already a willing participant.

The people from which the government gets its funds may not be.

Yep.  They don't think being supported for irresponsibility is a human right.

---

But unfortunately it does happen in many families as teenage pregnancy is rather high in the UK.

That's because parents aren't allowed to over-supervise their kids anymore.

In Korea, the per-capita birth rate before high school finishes very nearly approaches zero. If one or two bet pregnant, it's likely to be a TV show or something.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

If the mother is going to impose a financial burden on others, without their prior consent, then no, she shouldn't have a baby.

Hence why your argument falls flat