Should MERCY killing be allowed?

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by Hevenly Heathen
Man has three inalienable rights: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Big if -- none of those three are absolute rights. Nothing in the Constitution represents an absolute.

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It bestows no legal rights at all.

 

[Neo-Logic]

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It bestows no legal rights at all.

Declaration is considered as a reference to original intent in the court and does have legal significance, though, as you've said, not a legal right in it of itself.

But yea, I agree with the sentiment of your message.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Seems to me that the point of the quote is more to allow the one who is suffering to be allowed to choose to end said suffering.


Do not get me wrong, I agree with your concerns of abuse.

Perhaps so.

 

[AxisMundi]

I guess we can always hope that the other states will eventually catch up with Oregon.

Problem is that there are far to many people who hold to the self serving bull **** story called "Sanctity of Life".

Funny how they have no problems what so ever with putting someone on life support, but whine and cry how unplugging said machine is wrong because it is "Playing God".

Not to mention it seems that those most vocal against assisted suicide also seem to be the ones shouting loudest in support of the death penalty.

 

[xkatz]

I believe it is only permissible if the person is in a coma and they did not wish to be or they have been in one for a long period of time.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Not to mention it seems that those most vocal against assisted suicide also seem to be the ones shouting loudest in support of the death penalty.

Hey, have you been going through my journal? :slap:

 

[Neo-Logic]

I believe it is only permissible if the person is in a coma and they did not wish to be or they have been in one for a long period of time.

A guy woke up from a 25 year coma last month or so. Big headlines. He said he could hear everything the whole time.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

Big if -- none of those three are absolute rights. Nothing in the Constitution represents an absolute. They're all but part of the whole. If you run towards the police with a sharp knife, I'm pretty sure your right to life will be over before you reach them.



Here's the controversial question: do you believe that someone in constant pain can give 'legal' consent that's rational and logical? If someone is in constant pain, they are through psychological, neurological, and physiological perspectives, under duress and can't be trusted to make the rational choice.

No contract that was signed when someone was in great deal of pain would ever be enforceable in a court of law, but can an answer given to end one's own life whilst under pain ever be 'rational'?



That's a rather absurd claim. Any last requests? Even in the context of this topic, it's still absurd. No individual should be compelled to act on a choice other than rational when it comes to taking someone else's life. And the right to take someone else's life ends at your own safety -- not because of an emotional attachment either for or against the mercy killing. And given that the choice made or consent given is unlikely to be rational, it would be less morally justifiable to mercy kill, not more.

Morality is subjective. What you see as moral may not be moral in my eyes, it may not even be legal, but that does not take away it being moral. The questions you rebuttal with have to do with legality. I was under the impression that the OP was about morality, not legality.

If one is in ill and in extreme pain and they make a last request for mercy, how is it immoral (not illegal) to refuse? How is it absurd to keep the request? Morality deals with different reasoning and purpose than legality. If you were starving and came across an untended hotdog cart, would you take one though you could not pay? Would you buy a hotdog for one who was starving but could not pay? Both to me are morally acceptable. The first is illegal, the second isn't.

Morality has nothing to do with contracts, that is absurd. One should not have to be afraid of the law when acting morally, but it can happen, but if you come to the crux: morality or legality, which would you choose?

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

Interesting point, but in most systems, they seek to prevent death at all costs, because life is proven and precious, but we can't really prove after life and that's for debate.

That is the point. It is moral for Zenzero, but immoral for the systems you refer to. The afterlife is not important either. It, as morality, is subjective.

If the right to life is only an If, why do medical professionals seek to preserve life? Why is it illegal to take life? It is a right, in a sense, but apparently after obtaining life, you have no right to take it back. Who do you need to request permission from to take your life? I know of no such person in our legal system, yet they will do all they can to preserve your life. Why?

 

[AxisMundi]

Hey, have you been going through my journal? :slap:

Yes, please leave cookies and milk next time. Thank you.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Morality is subjective. What you see as moral may not be moral in my eyes, it may not even be legal, but that does not take away it being moral. The questions you rebuttal with have to do with legality. I was under the impression that the OP was about morality, not legality.

You opened the doors for legal when you opened with the declaration of independence and the 3 inalienable rights.

If one is in ill and in extreme pain and they make a last request for mercy, how is it immoral (not illegal) to refuse? How is it absurd to keep the request? Morality deals with different reasoning and purpose than legality. If you were starving and came across an untended hotdog cart, would you take one though you could not pay? Would you buy a hotdog for one who was starving but could not pay? Both to me are morally acceptable. The first is illegal, the second isn't.

Leaving out the legalities aside, do you feel that taking the request of someone that is in a state of irrationality due to pain and duress to end their life is moral? Morality may be subjective, but it doesn't have to be above logic, does it? Morality can be based also on virtues and values, one of which ought to be logic to some degree. Take the example of the case where someone volunteered themselves to be killed and eaten by another person. The person volunteering wasn't even in pain and was, to his own subjectivity, acting rationally, but to any rational person, it would be immoral to comply.

Adding pain to the situation may make it more necessary to consider it throughly, but not in the conclusion that it is more morally justifiable to take the request if we can't first pin where morality weighs in on rationality.

Morality has nothing to do with contracts, that is absurd. One should not have to be afraid of the law when acting morally, but it can happen, but if you come to the crux: morality or legality, which would you choose?

To me, it's both illegal and immoral. It's immoral to me because I can't possibly comply with a request of someone that I know is not rational and only requesting what is being requested due to pain. Not knowing that much, it would be immoral for me to help end their life when it's (understandably) an emotional choice under duress.

 

[Neo-Logic]

If the right to life is only an If, why do medical professionals seek to preserve life? Why is it illegal to take life? It is a right, in a sense, but apparently after obtaining life, you have no right to take it back.

I don't understand your question.

Who do you need to request permission from to take your life? I know of no such person in our legal system, yet they will do all they can to preserve your life. Why?

To take your own life? No body. To get someone else to take your life? Well, that's a whole other can of worms. It has complications of a legal and utilitarian nature

 

[Wieldthescythe]

"Is it moral?' well everyone has a different moral code so that is different for every person. Personally i think it is fine to do. What would be the point of living if your just going to be lying in a bed suffering? I think it should be legal and up to the individual that is suffering.

 

[sonofskeptish]

Of course it should be allowed. If an animal or pet is dieing a slow death in terrible pain, we view mercy killing as a compassionate act. If a person of sound mind wishes to take their own life to avoid a prolonged inevitable slow painful death, why shouldn't we assist them? What's the saying... "They shoot horses, don't they?" If you want to take your own life, provided your of sound mind, no one has the right to stop you.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

I don't understand your question.

You stated earlier, when I brought up the three inalienable rights, that the right to life was a big IF. IF it is an if, why save lives to begin with? Why save suicide victims?

I did not mean to bring legality in by mentioning the Declaration of Independence, I was stating them as a Moral Code by which our founding fathers established our nation. You may take it legally, I don't. I do understand your claim earlier as to their legality though, it makes sense.

Sound mind, if they willing give their life, it's moral. How is this any different than volunteering for the armed forces and being sent to war? If they are in a state of emotional distress and make a request, then it is up to your own moral code. Could you provide a mercy kill if you think they are not in their right mind? That is a difficult question, and up to the individual to consider. How one determines their own moral code is a journey much like one's spiritual path, extremely personal.

I understand your logic, and I accept that if I were crazy, you would not kill me, , and if I came to my senses and found I still wanted to die, I would not hold you in any ill way, for you were following your morals.

 

[Neo-Logic]

You stated earlier, when I brought up the three inalienable rights, that the right to life was a big IF. IF it is an if, why save lives to begin with? Why save suicide victims?

Okay, I see. I stipulated that those three rights are not absolutes. However, that is not to say those three rights are not important, which answers your questions of why it is we save suicide victims and saving lives in general is important to our society. To save lives is the bigger challenge than to take away life. One requires ambition and desire, the other requires only restraint. As a society, we try to balance the two.

Sound mind, if they willing give their life, it's moral. How is this any different than volunteering for the armed forces and being sent to war?

There's plenty of differences. Someone volunteering is not in a state of constant pain that causes psychological stress and qualifies that person under duress. In euthanasia, the person requesting the assisted suicide is making the choice on the pain alone. The question ought to be, whether we, those not suffering and with the capacity to make a clear choice, find it moral to accept the request of someone who is asking us to kill them under duress.

How one determines their own moral code is a journey much like one's spiritual path, extremely personal.

I believe there are common grounds in everyone's morality -- rationality is one and prudence is another. It's easier to discuss in theory, but in application, morality has to be equalized with mechanisms to make a uniform practice possible. I think determining whether it's moral or not to accept a distressed person's call to kill them because they're distressed is important.

I understand your logic, and I accept that if I were crazy, you would not kill me, , and if I came to my senses and found I still wanted to die, I would not hold you in any ill way, for you were following your morals.

Well, at least you know I won't kill you. We're getting somewhere!!

 

[Neo-Logic]

Of course it should be allowed. If an animal or pet is dieing a slow death in terrible pain, we view mercy killing as a compassionate act. If a person of sound mind wishes to take their own life to avoid a prolonged inevitable slow painful death, why shouldn't we assist them? What's the saying... "They shoot horses, don't they?" If you want to take your own life, provided your of sound mind, no one has the right to stop you.

Humans are above other animals. Consideration matters a great deal more. At the end of the day, no one cares if your pet dies, other than you and the close few. When a person dies, their friends, families, and society can feel the impact. It's a much bigger ripple.

 

[dust1n]

"It's better to burn out than fade away"

 

[zenzero]

Friend Neo-Logic,

but in most systems, they seek to prevent death at all costs, because life is proven and precious, but we can't really prove after life and that's for debate.

How much one prevents, none has the power to stop it. The body has limitations and when it reaches it limits it gives way for life to transform to another body or location.
Rgds debating- well this has been going on since humans first arrived on earth but there will never be any agreement between everyone as any debating originates in the mind and the mind by default always sees in duality.
Love & rgds

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... Given the circumstance, it's prudent to not legalize the act of assisted suicides.

I would say that we would have been better off if our politicians had never chosen to criminalize it.