Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 6, 2017 17:02:15 GMT -5
Based on the statistics, tens of millions of people in the US contemplate suicide each year. Stress, ennui, illness, loneliness, lack of purpose, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, disability, the belief that nobody loves them, the belief they'd be better off dead, and simple depression. Think me a judgmental son of a gun, but I say: what a loss and a waste when even one of these people chooses suicide as a would-be solution and carries it out. You must not have ever watched someone you love die from Alzheimer's/dementia. Both my parents went that way, and it was a horrible, long, drawn out death.
Obviously, suicide should not be encouraged. Drug addiction shouldn't be encouraged, either, but we don't tell people suffering from chronic pain that they have to suck it up and dea with it, because opioids are bad and some people become addicts.
Any suicide laws I've seen require a person to be evaluated to screen out those people who are dealing with a temporary crisis or medical condition that could be cured/improved. But to take someone like my mom, who was no longer aware of who she was or where she was, no longer able to walk, or to transition from her wheelchair to the toilet, no longer continent, suffering from heart, disease, diabetes, OCD and kidney failure, in chronic pain, and confused /angry all the time because she didn't know who all these strangers around her were, and say it's not a blessing to allow her to simply fall asleep is a person without empathy or kindness.
Since both my parents went that way my chances are good I'll end up that way, too, and I don't like most suicide options because there is a chance they may not work, so I might end up even more disabled and trapped in a mental ward hospital bed, under our current legal system. My plan at this point is to relocate to a state that allows assisted suicide, when my time comes.
My sympathies for your mother, but you're opining about a world where assisted suicide doesn't extend beyond the most terminal of the terminal--and it simply doesn't exist. Empirically, it doesn't exist. Doctrinally, in terms of what the "Right to Die" movement is demanding, it doesn't exist. If the zero tolerance wall falls, North Americans will (within our lifetime) lose hold of all legal impediments to suicide. It will become a normal, acceptable solution to end all manner of suffering (or perceived suffering), no matter how temporary or remediable. This machine is a stark preview of the end. Punch in a four-digit access code to end your own life or the life of anyone over whom you have power of attorney. Manifest your sovereign right to determine when, where, and how. Let no government interfere. I know well I'm speaking to a secular audience that doesn't see euthanasia as inherently evil, but I can at least appeal to our common desire to not see innocent people die because there were no barriers left to tell the generations how truly horrible, harmful, and abnormal suicide is. It will be another normal part of life, as unquestioned and routine as the extirpation of children with Downs Syndrome in Finland and elsewhere. Watch the documentary on Euthanasia in Belgium. Read the literature on the innumerable "Right to Die" sites in Europe, where attitudes towards suicide as a matter of convenience are already becoming more liberal. The thing that worries me most is that I get the impression half the people reading this couldn't care less if Jow Blow commits suicide--for any reason--so long as he doesn't physically harm anybody in the process. Half the people reading this would have little problem with a suicide machine on every corner or a suicide "clinic" in every neighbourhood. Perhaps they'd grumble a bit about it, but they wouldn't lift a finger to end the practice. I hope I'm wrong.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2017 17:16:24 GMT -5
why should we?
suicide is like tacos. you are free not to eat them.
but just out of curiosity, WHY do you consider suicide "inherently evil"? if you can't answer that here, then redirect me to your religious thread, and answer it there.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 6, 2017 17:44:41 GMT -5
You must not have ever watched someone you love die from Alzheimer's/dementia. Both my parents went that way, and it was a horrible, long, drawn out death.
Obviously, suicide should not be encouraged. Drug addiction shouldn't be encouraged, either, but we don't tell people suffering from chronic pain that they have to suck it up and dea with it, because opioids are bad and some people become addicts.
Any suicide laws I've seen require a person to be evaluated to screen out those people who are dealing with a temporary crisis or medical condition that could be cured/improved. But to take someone like my mom, who was no longer aware of who she was or where she was, no longer able to walk, or to transition from her wheelchair to the toilet, no longer continent, suffering from heart, disease, diabetes, OCD and kidney failure, in chronic pain, and confused /angry all the time because she didn't know who all these strangers around her were, and say it's not a blessing to allow her to simply fall asleep is a person without empathy or kindness.
Since both my parents went that way my chances are good I'll end up that way, too, and I don't like most suicide options because there is a chance they may not work, so I might end up even more disabled and trapped in a mental ward hospital bed, under our current legal system. My plan at this point is to relocate to a state that allows assisted suicide, when my time comes.
My sympathies for your mother, but you're opining about a world where assisted suicide doesn't extend beyond the most terminal of the terminal--and it simply doesn't exist. Empirically, it doesn't exist. Doctrinally, in terms of what the "Right to Die" movement is demanding, it doesn't exist. If the zero tolerance wall falls, North Americans will (within our lifetime) lose hold of all legal impediments to suicide. It will become a normal, acceptable solution to end all manner of suffering (or perceived suffering), no matter how temporary or remediable. This machine is a stark preview of the end. Punch in a four-digit access code to end your own life or the life of anyone over whom you have power of attorney. Manifest your sovereign right to determine when, where, and how. Let no government interfere.I know well I'm speaking to a secular audience that doesn't see euthanasia as inherently evil, but I can at least appeal to our common desire to not see innocent people die because there were no barriers left to tell the generations how truly horrible, harmful, and abnormal suicide is. It will be another normal part of life, as unquestioned and routine as the extirpation of children with Downs Syndrome in Finland and elsewhere. Watch the documentary on Euthanasia in Belgium. Read the literature on the innumerable "Right to Die" sites in Europe, where attitudes towards suicide as a matter of convenience are already becoming more liberal. The thing that worries me most is that I get the impression half the people reading this couldn't care less if Jow Blow commits suicide--for any reason--so long as he doesn't physically harm anybody in the process. Half the people reading this would have little problem with a suicide machine on every corner or a suicide "clinic" in every neighbourhood. Perhaps they'd grumble a bit about it, but they wouldn't lift a finger to end the practice. I hope I'm wrong. No, you're right. Far better to have people continue the old-fashioned way. Let their families come home to find their head blown off with blood and brains splattered on a wall, assuming they didn't take the family members with them. Or dead in a bathtub after slitting their wrists. Let them jump off buildings or bridges, maybe landing on cars and causing more injuries. Step in front of a bus or other vehicle, traumatizing drivers and witnesses. Crash their own car, maybe into someone. "Death-by-cop" is always a good one. Or a mother driving the car with the kids into a lake. How many more do you want? This could go on for pages. If someone wants to do it, they will. If this is a way to do it so that it doesn't cause as much damage to others, why not? You can maybe prevent an individual suicide here and there. You cannot end the practice. What you can do is minimize the associated damage. And relax, Captain. This is not Eminiar VII. Or Vendikar. People are not being ordered into this. You don't need to force them to see the actual horrors of war (suicide) rather than be insulated from it.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Dec 6, 2017 17:48:48 GMT -5
I'm sorry you took my post that way, Dezi. I wasn't patronizing you and I wasn't "dissing" you. I certainly wasn't attacking you. I was just encouraging you to do some research on the subject. There's a lot of information available and it's a condition nobody can be sure they'll not have to deal with - either for someone they love, or for themselves. ok mmhmm... ....as said, just didn't know...and as said, now that I know it's something I can only hope I never encounter..I had a Uncle who was affected...he lived into his 90's at his daughters home and I saw him from time to time...luckily he always seemed at peace...but as I said...now aware ... It's worth doing some reading on, Dezi. One never knows when it might come in handy to understand the condition. Sadly, it's not uncommon.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Dec 6, 2017 17:57:27 GMT -5
You can maybe prevent an individual suicide here and there. You cannot end the practice. What you can do is minimize the associated damage.
THIS
The problem is - - many folks who take a "moralistic" [read: religious; I know many, many people whose moral compasses are spot-on but who are not associated with any organized religion] stand on this issue will not acknowledge what you have written above. Whether through ignorance or deliberate choice, they live in a world of "shoulds" and "ought to's," and anyone who does not think and believe and act like they do is *wrong* - and needs to be counseled and corrected before they get swallowed up by the evil, amoral secular world .
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Dec 6, 2017 18:06:30 GMT -5
My sympathies for your mother, but you're opining about a world where assisted suicide doesn't extend beyond the most terminal of the terminal--and it simply doesn't exist. Empirically, it doesn't exist. Doctrinally, in terms of what the "Right to Die" movement is demanding, it doesn't exist. If the zero tolerance wall falls, North Americans will (within our lifetime) lose hold of all legal impediments to suicide. It will become a normal, acceptable solution to end all manner of suffering (or perceived suffering), no matter how temporary or remediable. This machine is a stark preview of the end. Punch in a four-digit access code to end your own life or the life of anyone over whom you have power of attorney. Manifest your sovereign right to determine when, where, and how. Let no government interfere.I know well I'm speaking to a secular audience that doesn't see euthanasia as inherently evil, but I can at least appeal to our common desire to not see innocent people die because there were no barriers left to tell the generations how truly horrible, harmful, and abnormal suicide is. It will be another normal part of life, as unquestioned and routine as the extirpation of children with Downs Syndrome in Finland and elsewhere. Watch the documentary on Euthanasia in Belgium. Read the literature on the innumerable "Right to Die" sites in Europe, where attitudes towards suicide as a matter of convenience are already becoming more liberal. The thing that worries me most is that I get the impression half the people reading this couldn't care less if Jow Blow commits suicide--for any reason--so long as he doesn't physically harm anybody in the process. Half the people reading this would have little problem with a suicide machine on every corner or a suicide "clinic" in every neighbourhood. Perhaps they'd grumble a bit about it, but they wouldn't lift a finger to end the practice. I hope I'm wrong. No, you're right. Far better to have people continue the old-fashioned way. Let their families come home to find their head blown off with blood and brains splattered on a wall, assuming they didn't take the family members with them. Or dead in a bathtub after slitting their wrists. Let them jump off buildings or bridges, maybe landing on cars and causing more injuries. Step in front of a bus or other vehicle, traumatizing drivers and witnesses. Crash their own car, maybe into someone. "Death-by-cop" is always a good one. Or a mother driving the car with the kids into a lake. How many more do you want? This could go on for pages. If someone wants to do it, they will. If this is a way to do it so that it doesn't cause as much damage to others, why not? You can maybe prevent an individual suicide here and there. You cannot end the practice. What you can do is minimize the associated damage. And relax, Captain. This is not Eminiar VII. Or Vendikar. People are not being ordered into this. You don't need to force them to see the actual horrors of war (suicide) rather than be insulated from it. This actually is a good thread...a good topic but lets also get real...While theoretically we could have a machine on every corner but we all know we won't...We as a people and a country have come a long way...We now have States were it is legal under the right circumstances that the terminally ill can opt out for that type of end of life situation...as we get more information of how that is working out, I expect to see more States offer that solution....As some here have explained in detail what they have dealt with regarding their own loved ones...my own case, mentioned somewhere with my dear Mom in Hospice and her deal with her Doctor not to suffer...she did not...When the time came and the discomfort started ...a phone call [forced by myself] and relief came quickly...I believe we will see more of this, not on every street corner of course but available more and more...I am all in favor of it.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Dec 6, 2017 18:10:01 GMT -5
You can maybe prevent an individual suicide here and there. You cannot end the practice. What you can do is minimize the associated damage.
THIS
The problem is - - many folks who take a "moralistic" [read: religious; I know many, many people whose moral compasses are spot-on but who are not associated with any organized religion] stand on this issue will not acknowledge what you have written above. Whether through ignorance or deliberate choice, they live in a world of "shoulds" and "ought to's," and anyone who does not think and believe and act like they do is *wrong* - and needs to be counseled and corrected before they get swallowed up by the evil, amoral secular world .
For those who have a religious' bias toward this type of action, I believe they will do just fine, following their beliefs...for those of us who don't have that kind of feeling, we too will do just fine...that is if we are lucky enough to live in a State who took positive action on the possibility of..
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 6, 2017 18:12:18 GMT -5
Of course not. It's not like they're going to put one in every coffee shop. And actually, in a lot of places that would be two on a corner.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 6, 2017 18:33:15 GMT -5
We have worked in a couple of Alz facilities. I don't ever want to be an inmate, that is for sure. A couple of bright notes- there was one guy who had a tool belt (no real tools). He would happily greet our guys every morning and ask them what they were up to that day. He seemed thrilled when they responded. They called him the Foreman. The actual Job Super gave me the code combo for the punch keyed lock. It was 1-2-3-4. He shrugged his shoulders, why not? The patients couldn't figure it out. :~( What a sad place though. Sad people, empty shells. Some frustrated, and some angry, as mmhmm says. And one old lady that stole tools whenever she could! Obviously these were the people who were still ambulatory. Sad places indeed. And as previously mentioned, tough on family members too. One moment your loved one recognizes you in a brief moment of clarity (as long as you tell them your name), the next moment you are a stranger. I never took it personally when my mom had no idea who I was. It was the disease.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 6, 2017 18:45:08 GMT -5
You must not have ever watched someone you love die from Alzheimer's/dementia. Both my parents went that way, and it was a horrible, long, drawn out death.
Obviously, suicide should not be encouraged. Drug addiction shouldn't be encouraged, either, but we don't tell people suffering from chronic pain that they have to suck it up and dea with it, because opioids are bad and some people become addicts.
Any suicide laws I've seen require a person to be evaluated to screen out those people who are dealing with a temporary crisis or medical condition that could be cured/improved. But to take someone like my mom, who was no longer aware of who she was or where she was, no longer able to walk, or to transition from her wheelchair to the toilet, no longer continent, suffering from heart, disease, diabetes, OCD and kidney failure, in chronic pain, and confused /angry all the time because she didn't know who all these strangers around her were, and say it's not a blessing to allow her to simply fall asleep is a person without empathy or kindness.
Since both my parents went that way my chances are good I'll end up that way, too, and I don't like most suicide options because there is a chance they may not work, so I might end up even more disabled and trapped in a mental ward hospital bed, under our current legal system. My plan at this point is to relocate to a state that allows assisted suicide, when my time comes.
My sympathies for your mother, but you're opining about a world where assisted suicide doesn't extend beyond the most terminal of the terminal--and it simply doesn't exist. Empirically, it doesn't exist. Doctrinally, in terms of what the "Right to Die" movement is demanding, it doesn't exist. If the zero tolerance wall falls, North Americans will (within our lifetime) lose hold of all legal impediments to suicide. It will become a normal, acceptable solution to end all manner of suffering (or perceived suffering), no matter how temporary or remediable. I don't see how you're making that leap. Right now, the few places in the US that allow medically assisted suicides have a strict screening practice to make sure only the terminally ill/no quality of life people get approved for it. I don't know why you assume it would become some freewheeling, fun and attractive thing to do if the rest of the states adopted that policy. This machine is a stark preview of the end. Punch in a four-digit access code to end your own life or the life of anyone over whom you have power of attorney. Manifest your sovereign right to determine when, where, and how. Let no government interfere. I know well I'm speaking to a secular audience that doesn't see euthanasia as inherently evil, but I can at least appeal to our common desire to not see innocent people die because there were no barriers left to tell the generations how truly horrible, harmful, and abnormal suicide is. Actually, suicide has always been with us, historically, and there are many legitimate and normal reasons for it. Someone dying from cancer may not want to tolerate the pain and indignity of a few more months of life. Why do we insist they have to hang in there when there is no hope of recovery and only the promise that the pain will get worse? Many doctors already provide unofficial assisted suicide by providing dying patients with extra doses of drugs that helps speed them on their way a little. I witnessed that with my MIL's second husband, who was dying very painfully from bone cancer. Not only is it normal, it's the ethical thing to do. It will be another normal part of life, as unquestioned and routine as the extirpation of children with Downs Syndrome in Finland and elsewhere. Watch the documentary on Euthanasia in Belgium. Read the literature on the innumerable "Right to Die" sites in Europe, where attitudes towards suicide as a matter of convenience are already becoming more liberal. As many people point out when I get into gun rights discussions, just because European country have a policy does not mean we will adopt it. Europe is largely secular. The States are not. That's why it's been so hard to get assisted suicide approved here, and that's why it will never be easy to obtain a legal assisted suicide - at least, not within our generation. The thing that worries me most is that I get the impression half the people reading this couldn't care less if Jow Blow commits suicide--for any reason--so long as he doesn't physically harm anybody in the process. Half the people reading this would have little problem with a suicide machine on every corner or a suicide "clinic" in every neighbourhood. Perhaps they'd grumble a bit about it, but they wouldn't lift a finger to end the practice. I hope I'm wrong. There again, you're making a big leap. There's a huge difference between wishing there was a dignified, peaceful way for a terminal patient to end his life and wishing that we had death boxes on every corner so it was easy to shove grandma into one. I read a study years ago that said when doctors get untreatable cancer, a large percentage of them, knowing the choice is between going home, waiting until the pain gets too bad and then speeding up death with an overdose of drugs vs trying every type of (probably) painful chemo and/or radiation treatment and dying six months to a year later, a shriveled husk of their former self, strapped in a hospital bed, in horrible pain and jabbed full of tubes, chose not to have the treatments and instead accept the end of their lives as quickly and painlessly as they can.
That may go against your moral code, but do you and I have the right to dictate what these doctors - or other people - do, when faced with that choice?
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Dec 6, 2017 18:47:15 GMT -5
THIS
The problem is - - many folks who take a "moralistic" [read: religious; I know many, many people whose moral compasses are spot-on but who are not associated with any organized religion] stand on this issue will not acknowledge what you have written above. Whether through ignorance or deliberate choice, they live in a world of "shoulds" and "ought to's," and anyone who does not think and believe and act like they do is *wrong* - and needs to be counseled and corrected before they get swallowed up by the evil, amoral secular world .
For those who have a religious' bias toward this type of action, I believe they will do just fine, following their beliefs...for those of us who don't have that kind of feeling, we too will do just fine...that is if we are lucky enough to live in a State who took positive action on the possibility of.. Yeah . . . but I still have a problem with folks who use their religious beliefs as a bludgeon over others, or worse yet - who believe their religious beliefs are the only "right" ones and try to impose them on others through politics and policy-making. This goes back to what I posted yesterday: people have a right to moral/religious beliefs that they choose to shape or constrain their own behavior, I just don't believe they have the right to enforce those on others as the *only* "correct" way. JMHO YMMV
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 6, 2017 19:04:25 GMT -5
I read a study years ago that said when doctors get untreatable cancer, a large percentage of them ... chose not to have the treatments and instead accept the end of their lives as quickly and painlessly as they can. You're conflating refusal of treatment with assisted suicide, similar to deminmaine in Reply #56.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 6, 2017 19:21:55 GMT -5
If someone wants to do it, they will. The entirety of your answer is predicated on this, and it's demonstrably false. 95% of suicide attempts fail. The vast majority of attempts aren't repeated. 5% of US adults and 17% of US students seriously contemplate suicide each year. If the practice is normalized, vehement social opposition ceases, and the public is availed of painless, convenient, 100% effective methods, the balance holds tens of millions of lives. Incurring these costs so that families can receive an electronic notification that their loved one is dead in a suicide machine (as opposed to discovering a hanging, drug overdose, etc.) is absolute folly. Make your case based on individual liberties, but don't insult our collective intelligence by arguing this path is a benefit to our society.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,162
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 6, 2017 19:50:43 GMT -5
If someone wants to do it, they will. The entirety of your answer is predicated on this, and it's demonstrably false. 95% of suicide attempts fail. The vast majority of attempts aren't repeated. 5% of US adults and 17% of US students seriously contemplate suicide each year. If the practice is normalized, vehement social opposition ceases, and the public is availed of painless, convenient, 100% effective methods, the balance holds tens of millions of lives. Incurring these costs so that families can receive an electronic notification that their loved one is dead in a suicide machine (as opposed to discovering a hanging, drug overdose, etc.) is absolute folly. Make your case based on individual liberties, but don't insult our collective intelligence by arguing this path is a benefit to our society. I do make the case based on individual liberties, because that is exactly what it is. If we believe in that at all, then we recognize that what is most fundamental to that is the right to live one's life as they choose, and that also includes the right to self-determination with regard to death as well. The sentence quoted, which you claim is basis for the entirety of my answer, is only part of a response to your faulty logic. It is merely secondary to my main point, which is, as noted, an individual liberty issue. Be careful also to not make the mistake of thinking that all attempts to take one's life are serious attempts to take one's life. Many or most are not, but are instead cries for attention or help. You seem to be claiming that all of those people would immediately avail themselves of a suicide booth were it available. I find that idea to be folly. There are always going to be people who wish to or choose to take their own life. Neither of us can stop anyone so dedicated. Making it easier on both them and those they leave behind is acceptable in my view. And who knows, maybe the acceptance of these machines will bring the subject out of the closet, so to speak, and end the virtual taboo on discussion. Maybe it will spark an awareness and openness on the subject that may actually help prevent some people from making the attempt. Many do so because they feel lost and alone. If the subject itself were not taboo, would they still? Or could they talk about it openly and honestly, and perhaps work past the issue? I don't know, nor do you. The default position should, in a free country, be in favor of individual liberties.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,563
|
Post by chiver78 on Dec 6, 2017 20:34:15 GMT -5
I read a study years ago that said when doctors get untreatable cancer, a large percentage of them ... chose not to have the treatments and instead accept the end of their lives as quickly and painlessly as they can. You're conflating refusal of treatment with assisted suicide, similar to deminmaine in Reply #56. let me offer up a real world example, then. this article is a couple months old, but it's the most recent thing I can find on a google search of Dr Kligler's name. he's a retired doctor that has been fighting cancer for 15 years, and whose case is now considered terminal. worth a few moments of your time.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,376
|
Post by NastyWoman on Dec 6, 2017 20:58:07 GMT -5
The machines don't distinguish, hence the point is moot. It should but it doesn't. See the documentary on euthanasia in Belgium. The elderly, the disabled, caretakers for the disabled, those coming out of a trauma, and many other vulnerable people are under constant pressure. I distinguish between cessation of life support and euthanasia (most opponents of euthanasia do). If a person's body has failed and they cannot live without extraordinary medical intervention, their time has come. I'm sorry, I'm not referring to those ridiculous machines the thread is posited on. I am referring to the concept of euthanasia. Regarding the slippery slope- we are not Belgium. This is a tiny sample based on what I have personally seen: I was born in, and lived most of my life, in a country where euthanasia has been availble to people since the mid 1980s. At the time I remember my mother saying that she would never want this for herself and my GM saying that if she was ever on life support please give her a way out. My mom died of cancer and was never pressured one way or another. My GM passed away in her sleep like most of us hope to go. However, around me with close friends and family I have seen several instances where people did end up chosing euthanasia and, while this involved talking to their physician as will as a psychiatrist, I have never seen or heard about anyone trying to influence these decisions. Now that is not to say that there won't have been cases where this happened, but then again there are also people who are kept "alive" here in the US against their will because others won't let them go. And there are people who want to keep thier family member at home against their best interest or pull the plug asap just to protect what, in their opinion, is rightfully theirs (aka their inheritance). Humans come in all flavors some better than others, but I do believe that a person should have the right to say when they have had enough.
And no, the world does not come to an end when the law allows for humans to make their own choises: after more than 30 years of having the option available still only a very small percentage of people chose euthanasia as their way out.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,376
|
Post by NastyWoman on Dec 6, 2017 21:07:53 GMT -5
I would agree, for those who have life to live. I would wholeheartedly disagree at end of life decision time. The machines don't distinguish, hence the point is moot. Society should guard with zeal against a "slippery slope" toward encouraging the elderly to check out for financial convenience and all of that... It should but it doesn't. See the documentary on euthanasia in Belgium. The elderly, the disabled, caretakers for the disabled, those coming out of a trauma, and many other vulnerable people are under constant pressure.I distinguish between cessation of life support and euthanasia (most opponents of euthanasia do). If a person's body has failed and they cannot live without extraordinary medical intervention, their time has come. While there are bad people everywhere, that statement and the documentary it is based on carry about as much weight for me as the "everyone knows that people on foodstamps arte lazy good-for-nothing who are out to milk the system, drive bran-new Escalades (did I get the car right?) and fill their coach purses with nothing but crablegs. They have better food that I ever get" Look hard enough and you will find some occasions to back that statement up, but they will be exceptions → far outliers. And I believe that to be true here as well
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2017 21:09:51 GMT -5
I read a study years ago that said when doctors get untreatable cancer, a large percentage of them ... chose not to have the treatments and instead accept the end of their lives as quickly and painlessly as they can. You're conflating refusal of treatment with assisted suicide, similar to deminmaine in Reply #56. do you mind answering my question? why do you think that suicide is evil?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 6, 2017 22:42:18 GMT -5
You must not have ever watched someone you love die from Alzheimer's/dementia. Both my parents went that way, and it was a horrible, long, drawn out death.
Obviously, suicide should not be encouraged. Drug addiction shouldn't be encouraged, either, but we don't tell people suffering from chronic pain that they have to suck it up and dea with it, because opioids are bad and some people become addicts.
Any suicide laws I've seen require a person to be evaluated to screen out those people who are dealing with a temporary crisis or medical condition that could be cured/improved. But to take someone like my mom, who was no longer aware of who she was or where she was, no longer able to walk, or to transition from her wheelchair to the toilet, no longer continent, suffering from heart, disease, diabetes, OCD and kidney failure, in chronic pain, and confused /angry all the time because she didn't know who all these strangers around her were, and say it's not a blessing to allow her to simply fall asleep is a person without empathy or kindness.
Since both my parents went that way my chances are good I'll end up that way, too, and I don't like most suicide options because there is a chance they may not work, so I might end up even more disabled and trapped in a mental ward hospital bed, under our current legal system. My plan at this point is to relocate to a state that allows assisted suicide, when my time comes.
My sympathies for your mother, but you're opining about a world where assisted suicide doesn't extend beyond the most terminal of the terminal--and it simply doesn't exist. Empirically, it doesn't exist. Doctrinally, in terms of what the "Right to Die" movement is demanding, it doesn't exist. If the zero tolerance wall falls, North Americans will (within our lifetime) lose hold of all legal impediments to suicide. It will become a normal, acceptable solution to end all manner of suffering (or perceived suffering), no matter how temporary or remediable. This machine is a stark preview of the end. Punch in a four-digit access code to end your own life or the life of anyone over whom you have power of attorney. Manifest your sovereign right to determine when, where, and how. Let no government interfere. I know well I'm speaking to a secular audience that doesn't see euthanasia as inherently evil, but I can at least appeal to our common desire to not see innocent people die because there were no barriers left to tell the generations how truly horrible, harmful, and abnormal suicide is. It will be another normal part of life, as unquestioned and routine as the extirpation of children with Downs Syndrome in Finland and elsewhere. Watch the documentary on Euthanasia in Belgium. Read the literature on the innumerable "Right to Die" sites in Europe, where attitudes towards suicide as a matter of convenience are already becoming more liberal. The thing that worries me most is that I get the impression half the people reading this couldn't care less if Jow Blow commits suicide--for any reason--so long as he doesn't physically harm anybody in the process. Half the people reading this would have little problem with a suicide machine on every corner or a suicide "clinic" in every neighbourhood. Perhaps they'd grumble a bit about it, but they wouldn't lift a finger to end the practice. I hope I'm wrong. I don’t believe you are.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 6, 2017 22:50:24 GMT -5
You must not have ever watched someone you love die from Alzheimer's/dementia. Both my parents went that way, and it was a horrible, long, drawn out death.
Obviously, suicide should not be encouraged. Drug addiction shouldn't be encouraged, either, but we don't tell people suffering from chronic pain that they have to suck it up and dea with it, because opioids are bad and some people become addicts.
Any suicide laws I've seen require a person to be evaluated to screen out those people who are dealing with a temporary crisis or medical condition that could be cured/improved. But to take someone like my mom, who was no longer aware of who she was or where she was, no longer able to walk, or to transition from her wheelchair to the toilet, no longer continent, suffering from heart, disease, diabetes, OCD and kidney failure, in chronic pain, and confused /angry all the time because she didn't know who all these strangers around her were, and say it's not a blessing to allow her to simply fall asleep is a person without empathy or kindness.
Since both my parents went that way my chances are good I'll end up that way, too, and I don't like most suicide options because there is a chance they may not work, so I might end up even more disabled and trapped in a mental ward hospital bed, under our current legal system. My plan at this point is to relocate to a state that allows assisted suicide, when my time comes.
I am not sure if this is true or not, in fact the jury may be out on this but when it comes to Alzheimers/Dementia...it seems those folks are in a dream world, not in pain....therefore not really suffering....thus to hasten their demise ..why? If it was me and all I am doing is in a dream world and not uncomfortable ...well..It's when my body can't function..bad stroke as a example, but mind is still fine...but unable to move and stuff...that's when I believe better to go...[my choice of course...not State so mandating] Ummmm....no. Just no. I worked in psychogeriatrics for many years, and those people suffered. Immensely.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 6, 2017 22:55:28 GMT -5
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 6, 2017 23:01:08 GMT -5
Some suffer and some don’t. My grandfather didn’t but caring for him killed my grandmother. He was in la la land. An adult baby. He had to be fed, changed, bathed, just like he was an infant. This was a man that my cousin and I used to hold onto his arms while he walked around the house while we dangled. He could hold us off the ground and was now reduced to infant mentality. My kids don’t remember the man he was but the memory of what they saw him become before he finally was let go, they’ll never forget. I don’t want them to ever see me like that.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2017 9:16:58 GMT -5
...the point that I was trying to make was that when animals go off to die, imo, it is their version of self euthanasia. They could still eat. They could still try to survive, but they do not. Precisely my interpretation. They concede the end is nigh, they can't muster the energy to undertake basic daily tasks, and they let life slip away. You're missing my point that passively accepting death isn't euthanasia. Euthanasia is proactive and extraordinary. It circumvents critical psychological safeguards such as pain and hunger. It's usually assisted, and quite often it pertains to individuals incapable of giving consent. When elephants start stomping on their old relatives' heads to put them out of their misery, then you can appeal to the animal kingdom.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2017 9:41:48 GMT -5
Be careful also to not make the mistake of thinking that all attempts to take one's life are serious attempts to take one's life. Many or most are not, but are instead cries for attention or help. You seem to be claiming that all of those people would immediately avail themselves of a suicide booth were it available. I find that idea to be folly. What percentage of the tens of millions of people who contemplate suicide each year in the US would have to avail themselves of a booth for you to be seriously concerned about it? The "virtual taboo on discussion" follows inexorably from the fact that our society regards suicide as off limits as a "solution". Woe to us on the day this changes. Again I ask you: what percentage of the tens of millions of people who contemplate suicide in any given year would have to conclude that suicide (or "a quick, painless transition; an end to ennui, suffering, and a life without purpose", as many will rationalize it) is "the best option for them" during open discussions for you to change your view? 1%? 100%? Do you truly not care? Is the freedom to conveniently end one's life so valuable to you? If 1% of suicide contemplators (say, 200,000 souls per year in the US) took their own lives, would you not consider that a travesty and loss of life? If not, I suppose I have no basis on which to appeal to you. If so, are you arguing for the freedom to throw one's life away merely because you lack a moral basis on which to oppose it?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2017 9:59:22 GMT -5
You're conflating refusal of treatment with assisted suicide, similar to deminmaine in Reply #56. do you mind answering my question? why do you think that suicide is evil? Suicide is the unlawful taking of life. Our lives belong to God, not to us. He gives us permission to take life in certain ways, under certain circumstances (e.g. self defense, punishment for capital crimes). Taking a life outside of these proscribed circumstances violates His Law and brings blood guilt upon us. This includes suicide. You might regard it as self murder--the taking of a life one doesn't have permission to take. As I said before, I'm painfully aware I'm speaking to a secular audience that doesn't give a toot about any of the above, which is why I'm appealing on the basis of the practical implications: genocide, spurious suicide, the risk of suicide epidemics, etc. I consider these compelling with or without the belief that suicide is acceptable in some cases. If you want a more detailed response, it will have to go in RD. Frankly, I'd rather not go there. Whenever I wind up in RD, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 7, 2017 10:30:12 GMT -5
"Suicide is the unlawful taking of life."
Do we prosecute the dead? Do we have something like a cadaver synod like one held for Pope Formosus?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,327
|
Post by swamp on Dec 7, 2017 10:32:48 GMT -5
do you mind answering my question? why do you think that suicide is evil? Suicide is the unlawful taking of life. Our lives belong to God, not to us. He gives us permission to take life in certain ways, under certain circumstances (e.g. self defense, punishment for capital crimes). Taking a life outside of these proscribed circumstances violates His Law and brings blood guilt upon us. This includes suicide. You might regard it as self murder--the taking of a life one doesn't have permission to take. As I said before, I'm painfully aware I'm speaking to a secular audience that doesn't give a toot about any of the above, which is why I'm appealing on the basis of the practical implications: genocide, spurious suicide, the risk of suicide epidemics, etc. I consider these compelling with or without the belief that suicide is acceptable in some cases. If you want a more detailed response, it will have to go in RD. Frankly, I'd rather not go there. Whenever I wind up in RD, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. same here. you seem not to be capable to understanding that not everyone uses the Bible as an operating manual for life.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2017 11:48:15 GMT -5
do you mind answering my question? why do you think that suicide is evil? Suicide is the unlawful taking of life. Our lives belong to God, not to us. sorry to cut you short, but this is why i suggested you might want to respond on the religious board. this is precisely the response i was anticipating. it is the same thing my dad (a Roman Catholic) would have said. in my dad's final year, he had chronic anemia. he spent over 16 hours a day in bed, and the remainder of his time he was so fatigued he could barely function. he was in no pain, but he felt his life was no longer worth living. two days before he was to check himself into hospice care, he died in his sleep. he had been aggregating a large amount of painkillers, and there are many that feel he took his own life. i appreciate the simplicity of your position. but it is also said that God does not wish us to suffer. if you want to reply any further, you should do it on the religious board.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2017 11:49:30 GMT -5
Suicide is the unlawful taking of life. Our lives belong to God, not to us. He gives us permission to take life in certain ways, under certain circumstances (e.g. self defense, punishment for capital crimes). Taking a life outside of these proscribed circumstances violates His Law and brings blood guilt upon us. This includes suicide. You might regard it as self murder--the taking of a life one doesn't have permission to take. As I said before, I'm painfully aware I'm speaking to a secular audience that doesn't give a toot about any of the above, which is why I'm appealing on the basis of the practical implications: genocide, spurious suicide, the risk of suicide epidemics, etc. I consider these compelling with or without the belief that suicide is acceptable in some cases. If you want a more detailed response, it will have to go in RD. Frankly, I'd rather not go there. Whenever I wind up in RD, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. same here. you seem not to be capable to understanding that not everyone uses the Bible as an operating manual for life. or, as luck would have it, death.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2017 11:52:24 GMT -5
"Suicide is the unlawful taking of life." Do we prosecute the dead? Do we have something like a cadaver synod like one held for Pope Formosus? actually, the quoted remark is not correct. suicide is only unlawful if there are laws against it. suicide is the taking of one's own life. period. whether it is lawful, moral, etc, is what we are discussing.
|
|