Human euthanasia moral?

[Storm]

That was the decision we made for my Dad.

He passed away in 2005 of cancer, lymphoma that eventually spread to his brain. After he had lost consciousness and stopped even physically responding to the pain he was feeling, his doctor told us our options: either continue our present course until he died of the cancer in a few weeks, or disconnect him from his support and have him die in a matter of days. We decided on the second option.

*Hugs*

That must have been very difficult. For what it's worth, I think you made the right choice.

 

[Magic Man]

I shall be the devil's advoocate here, and ask you :- "How can you make a judgement as to mental pain?" - you have said that you don't believe that "mental illness is not reason enough to euthanise".

Tou have taken it upon yourself to speak for a group of people for whom, I doubt, you would fully understand their sufferring. Do you relly feel justified in doing so?

I know that people with mental illnesses suffer. Believe me, my wife has severe depression and anxiety issues, and my mother works at a psychiatric research center with people with severe mental illnesses.

I'm not saying they don't suffer, or that they don't suffer as much as others with physical problems. I'm saying that the nature of their problems calls into question their judgement. It's their brains that are messed up, which obviously affects the soundness of their minds. As others have said, the decision should be made by the person with a sound mind. Without a sound mind, you have to wonder whether it's what they really want, and whether it's something you should really give them.

 

[Storm]

I know that people with mental illnesses suffer. Believe me, my wife has severe depression and anxiety issues, and my mother works at a psychiatric research center with people with severe mental illnesses.

I'm not saying they don't suffer, or that they don't suffer as much as others with physical problems. I'm saying that the nature of their problems calls into question their judgement. It's their brains that are messed up, which obviously affects the soundness of their minds. As others have said, the decision should be made by the person with a sound mind. Without a sound mind, you have to wonder whether it's what they really want, and whether it's something you should really give them.

I suffer from disabling PTSD and depression, and I agree with Matt.

 

[Aqualung]

They're part of the larger community. Are you saying that if you don't have any friends, then you don't deserve to have anyone looking out for you?

No, I'm saying that if people don't even care enough to talk to me, then what right do they have to get the law to force me to do something I don't want to do, and they obviously don't care that much about?

 

[lilithu]

No, I'm saying that if people don't even care enough to talk to me, then what right do they have to get the law to force me to do something I don't want to do, and they obviously don't care that much about?

As I said, practically speaking, the law would only apply when you need help with your suicide - when you can't do it yourself. Since it involves another party, they have a right to know that you are of sound mind before they help you off yourself.

 

[McBell]

Since the act involves another person, the "no one has the right to tell me what I can do" argument doesn't apply.

Really?
So your rights are contingent upon your ability to enact them?

 

[lilithu]

Really?
So your rights are contingent upon your ability to enact them?

So you think someone else HAS to kill you just because you want it, even tho the act affects them as well?

 

[McBell]

Since the act involves another person, the "no one has the right to tell me what I can do" argument doesn't apply.

Really?
So your rights are contingent upon your ability to enact them?

So you think someone else HAS to kill you just because you want it, even tho the act affects them as well?

Where did you get this nonsense?

I merely asked if your rights are contingent upon your ability to enact your rights.
You seem to be saying that as soon as another person needs be involved for you to enact a right, you no longer have that right. that your rights are dependent upon you not needing help enacting/enforcing it.

 

[Aqualung]

As I said, practically speaking, the law would only apply when you need help with your suicide - when you can't do it yourself. Since it involves another party, they have a right to know that you are of sound mind before they help you off yourself.

Sure, they have a right to know if I'm of sound mind, because they're the ones doing it. But we never need laws to tell us that we don't have to enter into contracts that we don't want to uphold (except, of course, when the government is making those contracts). For example, there's no law that has to state that the person I marry has to be somebody I love, because obviously I'm not going to marry somebody I don't love. Similarly, there doesn't need to be a law that says that I don't have to kill somebody if I don't think they're of sound mind.

What you seem to be saying is that even if Person A wants to be killed, Person B agrees to kill them since Person A can't do it themselves, then there should be a law to state that Person C has the ultimate authority not only over Person A's life, but over a freely enterered-into contract between Person A and Person B. And that is an abuse of the law.

If that's not what you're saying, why does there even have to be a law in the first place?

 

[lilithu]

What you seem to be saying is that even if Person A wants to be killed, Person B agrees to kill them since Person A can't do it themselves, then there should be a law to state that Person C has the ultimate authority not only over Person A's life, but over a freely enterered-into contract between Person A and Person B. And that is an abuse of the law.

So... rich lady marries not so rich guy, who many believe is marrying her for her money. Rich lady gets diagnosed with early Alzheimers. The prognosis is that she still has many years with good quality of life but she is terrified of what will be coming down the road several years from now. She says she wants to die. Husband agrees and offers to help her. And you're saying that it's an abuse of the law to require a psychological examination and preliminary counseling to help her put things in perspective??

Scenario number 2. Elderly father and daughter. Father gets into an accident where he is paralyzed from the waist down. He gets depressed. He says he wants to kill himself despite the fact that he's not terminal and many people live fulfilling lives as paraplegics. He asks his daughter to help. Daughter does not want to help take care of paralyzed father or pay the bills, so she agrees. And you're saying that it's an abuse of the law to require a third person assess the situation??

 

[lilithu]

Where did you get this nonsense?

I merely asked if your rights are contingent upon your ability to enact your rights.
You seem to be saying that as soon as another person needs be involved for you to enact a right, you no longer have that right. that your rights are dependent upon you not needing help enacting/enforcing it.

I am saying that if someone else has to help you kill yourself, then you cannot claim that no one else has a say in what you can do. Period. That's what I'm saying. You seem to simply want to pick fights.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What you seem to be saying is that even if Person A wants to be killed, Person B agrees to kill them since Person A can't do it themselves, then there should be a law to state that Person C has the ultimate authority not only over Person A's life, but over a freely enterered-into contract between Person A and Person B. And that is an abuse of the law.

It's similar to other legal fields. For instance, at least in some places, a couple's pre-nuptial agreement isn't valid unless both spouses get independent legal representation.

In practice, there's a fair bit of limitation placed on Person C if he or she has to work within some sort of professional code (e.g. psychiatrist, lawyer, etc.).

 

[McBell]

I am saying that if someone else has to help you kill yourself, then you cannot claim that no one else has a say in what you can do. Period.

I disagree.
YOU can still kill yourself, however you have to find someone who is willing to help you.
Just because say, you, refuse to help, say me, kill myself, I STILL have the RIGHT to kill myself.
Your refusal to help me does not in any way remove my RIGHT to kill myself.

You have the RIGHT to not help me.
You do not have the RIGHT to stop me from enacting my right.

That's what I'm saying. You seem to simply want to pick fights.

All I did was ask for clarification of what you meant.
You were the one who ran off into left field.

 

[Draka]

If some still want to continue with the suicide/assisted suicide conversation (which is NOT euthanasia) perhaps a seperate thread may be in order. Because to continue to discuss suicide and assisted suicide in a thread about euthanasia may give some the impression that that is what euthanasia is. That simply isn't so.

 

[lilithu]

Some people here seem to be discussing euthanasia as suicide. It isn't and shouldn't be discussed that way. We are not talking about taking your life because of being depressed over a diagnosis or feeling suicidal due to mental illness. We are talking euthanasia. Where a person is, most commonly, already dying, suffering, in agony, possibly having machines hooked up to them to help keep them alive, possibly in and out of consciousness, with maybe no means of coherent thought or communication anymore. At this point, granting that they have either made their wishes known by living will or by informing loved ones of their desire not to live in such a condition, if it is the moral thing to do to either disconnect them from supporting machines or perhaps turn up a morphine drip until they, painlessly, fall asleep and pass away.

I agree. My only stipulation was that the person be of sound mind, specifically to avoid the "depressed over a diagnosis or feeling suicidal due to mental illness" scenario. I don't think many people would consider it "crazy" to want to end one's life if one is in severe and/or chronic pain with no chance of recovery.

 

[Draka]

I agree. My only stipulation was that the person be of sound mind, specifically to avoid the "depressed over a diagnosis or feeling suicidal due to mental illness" scenario. I don't think many people would consider it "crazy" to want to end one's life if one is in severe and/or chronic pain with no chance of recovery.

Yeah, the thing is the scenario doesn't even fall under the heading of euthanasia. If there is talk of death prompted by depression or mental illness than that is talk of suicide...whether assisted or not. It really doesn't qualify as euthanasia because there is no medical need for "mercy killing". That's my main beef about it being discussed right along with euthanasia. It may give the impression to some that that is what euthanasia is about. I just don't want people confusing euthanasia with suicide (assisted or not). See what I mean?

 

[lilithu]

Yeah, the thing is the scenario doesn't even fall under the heading of euthanasia. If there is talk of death prompted by depression or mental illness than that is talk of suicide...whether assisted or not. It really doesn't qualify as euthanasia because there is no medical need for "mercy killing". That's my main beef about it being discussed right along with euthanasia. It may give the impression to some that that is what euthanasia is about. I just don't want people confusing euthanasia with suicide (assisted or not). See what I mean?

No prob. I will cease and desist from arguing about assisted suicide. My opinion on human euthanasia is that it is morally permissible and perhaps even required of us.

 

[Draka]

No prob. I will cease and desist from arguing about assisted suicide. My opinion on human euthanasia is that it is morally permissible and perhaps even required of us.

Thank you. Another thread may be considered though as it seems a topic for discussion.

 

[Willamena]

I disagree.
YOU can still kill yourself, however you have to find someone who is willing to help you.
Just because say, you, refuse to help, say me, kill myself, I STILL have the RIGHT to kill myself.
Your refusal to help me does not in any way remove my RIGHT to kill myself.

You have the RIGHT to not help me.
You do not have the RIGHT to stop me from enacting my right.

It's the whole "willing to help you" part that makes it a circumstance of two decisions, two rights, and two responsibilities, not just one.

 

[Aqualung]

So... rich lady marries not so rich guy, who many believe is marrying her for her money. Rich lady gets diagnosed with early Alzheimers. The prognosis is that she still has many years with good quality of life

Who is making the determination of "good quality life"? If the person wants to die, they obviously don't thin kit's a good quality life. Who are you (the unspecific "you", not you personally) to force upon them (through force of law) your definition of "good quality life", when they want to die?

And you're saying that it's an abuse of the law to require a psychological examination and preliminary counseling to help her put things in perspective??

It's always an abuse of the law to force somebody to do something that they don't want to simply because you think it would be good for them. If it's not harming anybody else (ie, depriving them of their rights to life, liberty, and property), it should be their choice.

Scenario number 2. Elderly father and daughter. Father gets into an accident where he is paralyzed from the waist down. He gets depressed. He says he wants to kill himself despite the fact that he's not terminal and many people live fulfilling lives as paraplegics. He asks his daughter to help. Daughter does not want to help take care of paralyzed father or pay the bills, so she agrees. And you're saying that it's an abuse of the law to require a third person assess the situation??

Again, "fulfilling"? Maybe his self-concept is so completely wrapped up in the fact that he used to have legs that he can longer live a "fulfilling" life without them. The argument is the same - who are you to force... etc.