www.ditl.org

Hmm, I guess actually addressing the topic at hand and not shouting based on nothing at all is now called "throwing a fit." If it means not posting as you do, then I'll happily keep "throwing fits."

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?

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.

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.

Deepcrush wrote:

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?

My sister's fine, I've never encountered the KKK personally though I've had run-ins with skinheads and had to physically offer some attitude adjustment, and it might be that time of the month but I don't really know your schedule. It's just interesting to me that you're the first person to call someone on an argument that's full of shit... but when you try to cover lack of content with invective, you think it's untouchable.

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.

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:

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...

As I said earlier, I'm not sure as yet. I'm mostly just exploring the options and implications so I can settle in my mind what the most consistent position is. My gut reaction was along the same lines as yours, but I don't trust instincts and gut reactions so I'm looking for reasoned arguments one way or the other.

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.

I can certainly see the merit in that. Though if an MD chose to become so certified and work in that field, I see no reason why they shouldn't.

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?

Personally, I just don't want the following to become part of our everyday society:

Nor do I. 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. And I don't really find "I think it's really icky!" to be a good reason.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Though if an MD chose to become so certified and work in that field, I see no reason why they shouldn't.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Certainly. But we are discussing what we would want.

GrahamKennedy wrote:And I don't really find "I think it's really icky!" to be a good reason.

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."

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.

Such things evolve over time. Most countries accept that doctors can withhold treatment and let people die, some accept that can doctors conduct lethal injection executions. I really don't have any moral issue with a doctor participating in an assisted suicide, if such becomes legal.

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.

Seems reasonable.

Certainly. But we are discussing what we would want.

I want a society in which the degree of personal freedom is not restricted without good reason.

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."

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.

GrahamKennedy wrote:I really don't have any moral issue with a doctor participating in an assisted suicide, if such becomes legal.

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."

GrahamKennedy wrote:Seems reasonable.

They may be rare, but I do have my moments.

GrahamKennedy wrote:I want a society in which the degree of personal freedom is not restricted without good reason.

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.

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.

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.

Without jumping into this heated debate:

My two cents. If I was on my deathbed and the choice between dying quietly, painlessly and quickly vs. the alternative of a slow long drawn out process of dying, I'd do assisted suicide. The simple reason is because after a certain point, you have said your goodbyes and just waiting for it to end.

I'd also say that it's a self-interest vs. family thing too. Religion also plays a part. But that is my thought on it.

What you describe is the euthanasia end of assisted suicide, and I don't think there's been any disagreement about that.

Well then...

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."

Fair enough.

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.

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.

If a person exercises a right to die, it doesn't harm anybody else except in the vague sense that those who care about him or her might miss them. 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.

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.

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.

As always, YMMV.

McAvoy wrote:Well then...

The issue up in the air is "should a healthy person" be legally allowed and or supported. Followed by who should take part in such a system. Lastly contested is should doctors be allowed to take part in assisted suicide.

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.

Agreed, and I don't think anyone here is arguing against the hypothetical "sane" person's right to suicide.

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.

True enough, and my objection isn't with any practical measure of harming the medical profession. My issue is that physicians have a moral and professional obligation; in the case of euthanasia, this is conveniently covered by the fact of releasing a person from pain when actual healing is beyond our ken. This issue is NOT covered in the case of someone deciding that they want to kill themselves without that palliative recourse.

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.

True enough, though this is possibly an academic description. Again, a hypothetical right to commit suicide isn't something against which I'm arguing.

GrahamKennedy wrote:YMMV.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that expression.