Social E

[TheGreatA]

As long as you take out any issues that require medical training I don't see that being much of a problem as it's the person in question's will.

That general logic can be extended to some funny situations regarding other things though.

Sure it can, but we're talking about ending a person's life here. It's not a process that we want to detach ourselves from, solely into the hands of the "professionals".

I grew a distate for euthanasia once I saw how, in countries such as Belgium, it inevitably extends to a "basic human right" which even a serially depressed teenager possesses.

We do not seem to be capable of moderation. Better not open that Pandora's box.

 

[ralphc1]

I think anyone should have the right to end their life on their own terms. Terminally ill people shouldn't be forced to suffer through untold anguish until their body gives out. My grandfather has quite advanced dementia at this point, and the whole family knows that, if he had known it was coming, he would have swallowed a bullet instead of living ten years too long.

Dementia runs in my family. My father figured it was coming and had advanced directives in place. No medication, feeding tubes or intravenous fluids after he could no longer remember his birth date. He was no longer the same person well before that.

I have similar directives and the intention to end it myself but worry that I will forget when the time comes.

 

[Squarechoke]

Sure it can, but we're talking about ending a person's life here. It's not a process that we want to detach ourselves from, solely into the hands of the "professionals".

I grew a distate for euthanasia once I saw how, in countries such as Belgium, it inevitably extends to a "basic human right" which even a serially depressed teenager possesses.

We do not seem to be capable of moderation. Better not open that Pandora's box.

That box is already open with family members having the right to end someone's life under certain conditions, entirely without the person's input. We also have lots of examples of where it's legal for certain people to take the life of directly unwilling people.

And the extension of the logic can still be put within the context of taking lives, although it's rarely humorous in those cases. One could be in line with that by saying that you'd have to be willing to shoot someone in order to think that the police should have the right to kill people when deemed necessary.

 

[BudKing8806]

I haven't come up with a framework by which we can protect patients unable to give consent from unwanted euthanasia. I have no problem with assisted suicide.

That is a good point! There would definitely have to be protocol in place to prevent such situations.

 

[TheGreatA]

That box is already open with family members having the right to end someone's life under certain conditions, entirely without the person's input. We also have lots of examples of where it's legal for certain people to take the life of directly unwilling people.

And the extension of the logic can still be put within the context of taking lives, although it's rarely humorous in those cases. One could be in line with that by saying that you'd have to be willing to shoot someone in order to think that the police should have the right to kill people when deemed necessary.

I do have the right, and the willingness, to shoot a person in self-defense, no different from a police officer. And if I don't possess that right, then I will seize it nonetheless, and pay the "societal" price of being jailed, or whatever. The same way that I will seize the right to end the suffering of loved one's, regardless of what the society says about it.

I'm not at all against family members deciding to end a person's life, in collaboration with authorities, if this life is regarded as unworthy of life. Enormous brain trauma, end stage cancer, full-body paralyzation and such things.

But the further campaigning in favour of euthanasia opens up a lot of possibilities, which realistically, cannot be argued against if the act of ending one's life is acknowledged by the society to be a "basic human right".

We may agree upon that as individuals, but I do not think the society should actively steer people towards that direction. It should always steer people towards the act of living and being productive.

I live in a country where around 10% of the people are esteemed to be clinically depressed/suicidal, and we don't need to put any further ideas into their head about that subject.

 

[Neph]

We may agree upon that as individuals, but I do not think the society should actively steer people towards that direction. It should always steer people towards the act of living and being productive.

I live in a country where around 10% of the people are esteemed to be clinically depressed/suicidal, and we don't need to put any further ideas into their head about that subject.

To take this conversation in a different angle but still definitely about euthanasia, I'm actually okay with people doing it for the sake of depression. There are some people who literally cannot be treated and suffer endlessly. If they want to end their life it is their choice to do so and not mine to tell them not to.

I do believe that we should of course provide treatment to this person. However I have to ask: if you ask this person every 3 months if they are suicidal and want to die, is there a point when you say then perhaps they have so consistently deemed their life worth living that they are unable to be treated and their wishes should be allowed? Do you allow 6 months? A year? 5 years? I think there must be a point where we allow it.

Now there are complications whereby surely one must be of sound and sane mind to elect euthanasia. Does such profound depression prevent one from being considered sane as it might be a clinical mental illness? There's a lot of articles and thoughts out there on this very subject which remains highly controversial. I feel that some people consider physical pain only and stigma remains about mental pain, assuming it can simply be treated or is 'just in a persons head'. We should regardless of any stance taken offer the best possible help to anyone in this situation.

 

[Squarechoke]

I do have the right, and the willingness, to shoot a person in self-defense, no different from a police officer. And if I don't possess that right, then I will seize it nonetheless, and pay the "societal" price of being jailed, or whatever. The same way that I will seize the right to end the suffering of loved one's, regardless of what the society says about it.

I'm not at all against family members deciding to end a person's life, in collaboration with authorities, if this life is regarded as unworthy of life. Enormous brain trauma, end stage cancer, full-body paralyzation and such things.

But the further campaigning in favour of euthanasia opens up a lot of possibilities, which realistically, cannot be argued against if the act of ending one's life is acknowledged by the society to be a "basic human right".

We may agree upon that as individuals, but I do not think the society should actively steer people towards that direction. It should always steer people towards the act of living and being productive.

I live in a country where around 10% of the people are esteemed to be clinically depressed/suicidal, and we don't need to put any further ideas into their head about that subject.

My statement was a general one, not directed towards you, to show something that is natural to most people although they wouldn't want to do it themselves, and in most places the police have larger rights to shoot someone than a normal citizen.

There's also nothing in the concept of euthanasia that absolutely requires it to be a free for all if it's made legal. It can be like that but it can also be under set conditions, just like a country could ban family members from deciding to pull the plug on a person. Allowing others to mercy kill someone has already opened the gate for the slippery slope argument you're running so there's nothing more to that, this is just another step.

Personally I think it's backwards to say that it's OK to let family members decide to kill someone but the person in the same situation (your examples were to the majority cases where you can be at full mind capacity) can't make the decision.

 

[TheGreatA]

My statement was a general one, not directed towards you, to show something that is natural to most people although they wouldn't want to do it themselves, and in most places the police have larger rights to shoot someone than a normal citizen.

There's also nothing in the concept of euthanasia that absolutely requires it to be a free for all if it's made legal. It can be like that but it can also be under set conditions, just like a country could ban family members from deciding to pull the plug on a person. Allowing others to mercy kill someone has already opened the gate for the slippery slope argument you're running so there's nothing more to that, this is just another step.

Personally I think it's backwards to say that it's OK to let family members decide to kill someone but the person in the same situation (your examples were to the majority cases where you can be at full mind capacity) can't make the decision.

I've never said they can't make the decision. It's not like we punish people who kill themselves. There's no way to "punish" a man who has committed suicide, since they've already paid the ultimate price.

The slippery slope argument concerns the idea that ending one's life is a basic human right, which is a pretty big part of the euthanasia argument as a whole. I'm not sure the society wants to write that in a piece of paper, considering what kind of a message it sends.

The society can say that living a life is a human right, and we can come to the individual conclusion that ending our life is a natural extension of that right. But I don't think we need to start parading around the idea that offing yourself is a "human right", considering how many people are on the verge of fully committing themselves to that idea, already. Atleast where I come from. Give them a bit of a push in that direction and they'll fall off the edge.

First and foremost, the society should always encourage its citizens to keep on living, even when there is pain and suffering. Toughen them up for hardships, and make them capable of handling adversity. Our modern society is half-turning into an infertile death cult already. We do not need to add to that.

Socially acceptable suicide generally led to societies where, to no one's surprise, suicide was rather common.

 

[Squarechoke]

I've never said they can't make the decision. It's not like we punish people who kill themselves. There's no way to "punish" a man who has committed suicide, since they've already paid the ultimate price.

The slippery slope argument concerns the idea that ending one's life is a basic human right, which is a pretty big part of the euthanasia argument as a whole. I'm not sure the society wants to write that in a piece of paper, considering what kind of a message it sends.

The society can say that living a life is a human right, and we can come to the individual conclusion that ending our life is a natural extension of that right. But I don't think we need to start parading around the idea that offing yourself is a "human right", considering how many people are on the verge of fully committing themselves to that idea, already. Atleast where I come from. Give them a bit of a push in that direction and they'll fall off the edge.

First and foremost, the society should always encourage its citizens to keep on living, even when there is pain and suffering. Toughen them up for hardships, and make them capable of handling adversity. Our modern society is half-turning into an infertile death cult already. We do not need to add to that.

Socially acceptable suicide generally led to societies where, to no one's surprise, suicide was rather common.

I don't see how to else interpret what you said in that previous post. Talking about suicide doesn't successfully touch on the whole subject since someone with full-body paralysis (one of your examples) can't commit suicide, and despite that the person can be at full mental capacity you were fine with having his family kill him.

But as said it's by no means fundamental to the concept so there's no reason to only focus on that, especially since I've directly brought up the alternative to you but you've this far refused to answer based on that. There's just nothing inherent in euthanasia that requires it to be something that has to be a general right, or something that's easier than suicide.

 

[Swing]

Assisted suicide should be something people can perform safely and without causing undue trauma to others. I also think that if people were allowed to pursue it in the open we might actually see a decrease in suicides. People would be able to talk about it and weigh the cost without having this enormous stigma attached to it.

Think about it this way: if someone is seriously considering suicide, and has been considering it for a while, why would that person seek help if they know that anyone he/she reaches out to is going to try and get in the way of it? Especially here, where they can just purchase a handgun/shotgun. I'd much rather people be allowed to go peacefully instead of needing to seek out painful and potentially debilitating options. If somebody wants to go through with suicide badly enough, it's going to happen; and I can't think of a good reason that person needs to risk turning himself into a cripple/vegetable just because some subset of society wants to stick their nose into his business.

Now, in terms of whether or not someone is capable of rationally making that decision (and I'm excluding the lazy argument that anyone considering suicide is irrational), it would make sense to enforce a minimum age requirement.

 

[Swing]

The slippery slope argument concerns the idea that ending one's life is a basic human right, which is a pretty big part of the euthanasia argument as a whole. I'm not sure the society wants to write that in a piece of paper, considering what kind of a message it sends.

It literally fits the definition of a natural right. There's nothing society or government can do, short of putting someone under lock and key and into a straight jacket, that prevents a person from going through with it. And to do that you have to infringe on other rights that a lot of us already consider universal.

 

[bufetadanacara]

I am against abortion but 100% for euthanasia and death penalty. I think both should be used MUCH more frequently.

 

[TheGreatA]

It literally fits the definition of a natural right. There's nothing society or government can do, short of putting someone under lock and key and into a straight jacket, that prevents a person from going through with it. And to do that you have to infringe on other rights that a lot of us already consider universal.

Sure it is, but it is not a right that they society needs to "grant" to people. The society's function should be to encourage its citizens to keep living, and to make them feel as if they owe it to the society, if nothing else. Quite a few people I know, certainly don't feel like they owe it to themselves. A surprising amoung of people don't. Nothing much keeps these people going in their depressed days, except the social stigma and shame associated with suicide.

We need to breathe life into our societies and that is not accomplished by inventing more and more peaceful and acceptable ways to go out.

The rules are different when an incapacitated person is forced to live a life unworthy of life, obviously. But we need to be very clear on the difference between a "mercy" killing and an assisted killing.

The problem is that people don't seem capable of drawing that line, and will eventually slide into intellectually supporting the "universal right" of anyone to be professionally "suicided", considering the silliness that has gone down with abortions, gender change surgeries, etc. So as of this moment, I'm of the belief that people are too foolish to be allowed to play with that Pandora's box.

Apologies for not being overly trusting of the current medical profession, but when the genitals of children are being mutilated, and women and men around the world are having implants injected into their bodies by surgeons, I just don't feel overly confident with the abilities of the current generation of people to be able to handle the subject of "euthanasia" with maturity.

 

[Swing]

Sure it is, but it is not a right that they society needs to "grant" to people. The society's function should be to encourage its citizens to keep living, and to make them feel as if they owe it to the society, if nothing else. Quite a few people I know, certainly don't feel like they owe it to themselves. A surprising amoung of people don't. Nothing much keeps these people going in their depressed days, except the social stigma and shame associated with suicide.

We need to breathe life into our societies and that is not accomplished by inventing more and more peaceful and acceptable ways to go out.

The rules are different when an incapacitated person is forced to live a life unworthy of life, obviously. But we need to be very clear on the difference between a "mercy" killing and an assisted killing.

The problem is that people don't seem capable of drawing that line, and will eventually slide into intellectually supporting the "universal right" of anyone to be professionally "suicided", considering the silliness that has gone down with abortions, gender change surgeries, etc. So as of this moment, I'm of the belief that people are too foolish to be allowed to play with that Pandora's box.

Apologies for not being overly trusting of the current medical profession, but when the genitals of children are being mutilated, and women and men around the world are having implants injected into their bodies by surgeons, I just don't feel overly confident with the abilities of the current generation of people to be able to handle the subject of "euthanasia" with maturity.

What makes you think people owe it to society to keep living? I think that's nonsense.

 

[Plissken]

Terminally ill, or someone disfigured or brain damaged to the point of needless suffering- people that could not survive without medical assistance, fine, as long as it was explicitly their wish. Not something I would ever do or want my family to do, but it's less suicide and more letting them go.

 

[BudKing8806]

If you are capable of making the decision, I think it's a pussy way out. Oh you're depressed...man the fuck up and deal with it for Christ Sake. But I'm no one to tell you that you can't make that decision. I don't mind a few less people on the earth.

 

[Stoic1]

Do what the fuck you want. Fine with me. Too many people on the planet anyways.

I know that sounds harsh and cold - but I don't pretend to believe in the sanctity of life. That's such a lie. Very few people actually really believe in that shit. Most of it is virtue signalling.

 

[Amerikuracana]

I'm for euthanasia. Someone who is terminally ill and they certainly going to die in a given time. Why prolong their suffering? It's just like putting to sleep to your dog/pet when it's their time. So we just end their suffering and life goes on.

I don't like the dog analogy.. Even though I understand. Humans aren't animals.

 

[Protectandserve]

Absolutely for it. Can't tell you the amount of people I have seen do it to themselves in horrible ways and have family members find them.

I'd much prefer people can go to a hospital and end it with some dignity.

 

[Fawlty]

Absolutely for it. Can't tell you the amount of people I have seen do it to themselves in horrible ways and have family members find them.

I'd much prefer people can go to a hospital and end it with some dignity.

When I was researching this I found that a really strong majority of people want to die at home where they are comfortable. In-home options are necessary imo.