Mikey wrote:GrahamKennedy wrote:It's obvious to me that just leaving people to off themselves is the wrong way to go.
How so? If we're talking about the hypothetical sane person you mention, why is that the wrong way to go? If someone wants to kill themselves and then takes steps to do so, then they should obviously have to deal with the issues that stem therefrom. If it's painful, if it doesn't work because the subject does it wrong, etc.... tough shit.
So what is it about this topic that's got crying so much all a sudden? Sister step off a bridge or something... KKK have a party in your yard... Maybe that time of the month?
GrahamKennedy wrote:Kind of a stupid attitude, really, IMO. We constantly take steps to reduce the pain and inconvenience of things. We don't say "Why should people have shoes, if you don't want your feet cut to shit then just don't walk around", we don't say "nobody should be allowed to have condoms, if you don't want STDs just don't screw around".
People can spend their money to have the things they want to make their lives and decisions easier and less painful, all the time. Don't see why this is different.
Mikey wrote:If this is actually what you believe, then you're by extension advocating a retail suicide-assistance industry. I couldn't imagine that this is an end you'd propose, but if so then fine...
however, unlike the case of euthanasia it should have nothing to do with MD's and be operated with separately-trained - perhaps even government certified - "suicide mentors" or some such title.
Personally, I just don't want the following to become part of our everyday society:
GrahamKennedy wrote:Though if an MD chose to become so certified and work in that field, I see no reason why they shouldn't.
GrahamKennedy wrote:I'd suggest a couple of other regulations, though. For instance I'd say that you should have to have a psychological assessment to determine that you are of sound mind. And maybe a waiting period... a month maybe?
GrahamKennedy wrote:But I'm usually reluctant to let my wants dictate what other people are allowed to do unless there's a good reason for it.
GrahamKennedy wrote:And I don't really find "I think it's really icky!" to be a good reason.
Mikey wrote:You really don't? This is the point I was making with my KKK analogy - they shouldn't because it's completely antithetical to the professional and moral obligations of being a physician.
I'd even say that instead of a waiting period, a month of counseling or other therapy, so long as the assessment shows an individual capable of making their own decisions.
Certainly. But we are discussing what we would want.
I'd agree, but I don't really think that "avoiding the cheapening of the sanctity of human life" = "I think it's really icky."
GrahamKennedy wrote:I really don't have any moral issue with a doctor participating in an assisted suicide, if such becomes legal.
GrahamKennedy wrote:Seems reasonable.
GrahamKennedy wrote:I want a society in which the degree of personal freedom is not restricted without good reason.
GrahamKennedy wrote:Essentially it is, in my view. Both come down to wanting to restrict personal freedoms because of how it affects your own feelings. Accepting suicide doesn't say anything about the value of life in any other context in any practical or legal sense. You may feel it devalues life, but that's no more than a feeling.
Mikey wrote:Here (and see below) we come to the extent of the discussion, I think. At this point, we can no longer discuss what is objectively reasonable and are limited to the field of - as you mentioned - "what we want." I do have an issue with this, so long as we don't redefine the term "doctor."
As above, we here see the intrusion of personal feeling rather than objective fact or deduction. I agree with this statement 100%. The difference is what we define as "good reason," and that definition is necessarily based at least partly on visceral criteria and ethical bent.
Again, you make a rationally-worded statement - I could as easily, however, couch that to say that the attempt to preserve life is an integral feature of the human condition, and the argument to accept suicide is merely an attempt to rationalize a degradation of essential humanity. Either position is equally based on our own personal feelings, no matter the genesis of those feelings.
McAvoy wrote:Well then...
GrahamKennedy wrote:For me, by far the main area to limit a person's freedoms is when their actions impinge on the freedoms and/or safety of others. Even then it's a often a balance between how much freedom versus how much harm it does. That's the moral justification for most freedom restrictions from murder through to speed limits.
GrahamKennedy wrote:If a doctor assists them in doing so it doesn't harm anybody else except in the vague sense that it might alter how we regard doctors. There are doctors in the US right now who assist in lethal injection executions and whilst a lot of people don't like it, it really doesn't seem to have harmed the medical profession in any way.
GrahamKennedy wrote:Indeed, my value of self determination and freedom is largely an emotive one, as is my value of human life. Actually, thinking about it I'd say that we don't put a great deal of value on life itself as such... I'd say a lot of the reason we respond to death as we do is because it almost always comes from external factors that rob the victim of their freedom and self determination. Murder is wrong not so much because it ends a life but rather because the death is forced on the victim and robs them of the life they wanted to have... whereas the soldier who deliberately exposes himself to near certain death freely for a cause is lauded for his actions.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest