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

[Mr Greene]

If the patient is going to be a burden on their family or the state could they be encouraged to take that step?
Whether by family or trained personnel?
Would you expand the service to be available for overcrowded prisons or homeless shelters?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

If the patient is going to be a burden on their family or the state could they be encouraged to take that step?

(bold mine)
In my opinion, nobody would be encouraged to kill themselves. If a person is important to us we should do everything in our power to convince them otherwise but if they still stand by their decision then we should ultimately respect that decision.

Whether by family or trained personnel?
Would you expand the service to be available for overcrowded prisons or homeless shelters?

Well, everyone really, nobody should have to be forced to go through hurtful moments - if they think they would rather not - then they should have every right to follow through with it.

[Catholic_Lady]

If the patient is going to be a burden on their family or the state could they be encouraged to take that step?

I hope not. That's just awful!

[Mr Greene]

If the patient is going to be a burden on their family or the state could they be encouraged to take that step?
Whether by family or trained personnel?

I hope not. That's just awful!

I was just wondering how far the slippery slope went, or if any of the pro-group had considered it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's a difference between allowing and "encouraging". I wouldn't want suicide being actively encouraged, but assistance should be legalized, and of course that entails giving information on the procedure.

[Catholic_Lady]

I hope not. That's just awful!

I was just wondering how far the slippery slope went, or if any of the pro-group had considered it.

Oh i know.

[bennyboy]

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

???

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Hence why your argument falls flat

???

Because there is no such law or standard that a mother has to get permission from all those are affected with the birth of her baby. That's the standard we set for bringing life into this world - that's the standard that should be set for death.

Of course someone somewhere will be affected with the birth of a person or the death of a person - this doesn't mean we have to take away the right of a human to live or the right of a human to die.

[bennyboy]

???

Because there is no such law or standard that a mother has to get permission from all those are affected with the birth of her baby. That's the standard we set for bringing life into this world - that's the standard that should be set for death.

Of course someone somewhere will be affected with the birth of a person or the death of a person - this doesn't mean we have to take away the right of a human to live or the right of a human to die.

I'm free to bite my toenails if I want, and to leave them in people's shoes.  That doesn't mean that it's a human right just because people won't legislate steps to stop me from doing it.

But anyway you are missing part of the equation.  When a new baby is brought into life, even though it is a temporary inconvenience to others, the society as a whole will be repaid to some degree-- a new tax-payer, a new worker, a new soldier, a new member of society will be society's reward for allowing the girl to have a baby despite the burden to others.  What will society's reward be for allowing someone to die?  The loss of a tax-payer, the loss of a worker, the loss of a member of society. And quite possible a direct personal loss to debtors, and a psychological blow to family members.

It's a poor parallel.  Maybe another example might serve you better?

Now, if you want to argue for a CONDITIONAL right-- for example, the right to death given terminal and painful illness that cannot be cured, then okay. Most people get that. But as a general principle, "It's my body, so I'll die if I want to!" is too irresponsible to be allowed as a general human right.

[SteelCurtain]

Now, if you want to argue for a CONDITIONAL right-- for example, the right to death given terminal and painful illness that cannot be cured, then okay. Most people get that. But as a general principle, "It's my body, so I'll die if I want to!" is too irresponsible to be allowed as a general human right.

I think this is well put. I begrudgingly agree with this point. (not because benny, but because I do believe that "My body, my life" is a principle that is good) I think society will never get behind this, and it does more harm to the death with dignity movement to be associated with it.

Maybe in 20 years we'll be in a different space societally. But I don't think we're there now. I do think there is enough general support for Death with Dignity for terminal illnesses.