By and large I don’t think Mosier’s position makes sense, but he seems to be saying that once the deed is done, there’s nothing except that doctor’s say-so that he or she wanted to die. I don’t see why it has to be that simple. Why not require something in writing or with witnesses?
Okay, now you’re just nitpicking. There’s a pretty strongly implied conditional there, but if it makes you feel better you can add “except themselves” at the end of my sentence.
Why is it nitpicking?
You say that you oppose assisted suicide precisely because we can never be sure of the intentions of the person doing the assisting. But if we can accurately determine the intention of the person who is going to die, why is the intention of the assister relevant at all? It’s not a case of the assister having “the authority to ultimately decide who lives and who dies”; it’s merely the case of the assister following the wishes (the authority, if you will) of the person who wants to die.
I’m merely pointing out to you that there are mechanisms, as noted most recently by Marley23, whereby we could determine quite clearly the intention of the person who is going to die. If that person’s intention can be established, and recorded by witnesses (lawyers, and/or a second doctor, perhaps), then surely we can go back to your earlier premise which was: “I accept the notion that a person ought to be allowed to terminate their own life.”
Dr. Jack did not make the decision. He supplied the means. The decision was theirs and he repeatedly gave them the option to out if they changed their minds or were unsure.
I’m glad to see him out. He may have been just a bit too quick on the trigger and I think if we ever legalize euthanasia, we need to have more than just one doctor agree with the patient that the time is right. Still I think he performed a public service by getting this topic into the open.
That was not the primary reason I gave. I said that I oppose assisted suicide because nobody should have the authority to end another person’s life.
I believe there is a general consensus among psychologists that suicidal intentions indicate mental illness. Are we seriously supposed to allow physicians to kill someone based on the wishes of a mentally ill person?
Note: this is different from asking “should mentally ill people have the right to decide when they die”
There was absolutely no legitimate legal process involved with Kevorkian’s patients. I’d be much less against these procedures if there actually WAS some sort of legal process that he had to go through, but I’d have to think long and hard about whether even the court system ought to have the right to decide that someone will die.
Suicide and assisted suicide are different concepts. One involves the decision of an individual about what to do with his own body, and one involves that AND the decision of someone else about what to do with a body that is not his. You can’t just pass it all off as the doctor being an instrument or tool in the suicide, because the doctor is a human being himself with human motivations and ability to make decisions. He’s NOT just a tool.
I don’t think my position is strange at all, and I’m willing to bet that a lot of people, maybe even most people, would agree with me when I say that we ought to prevent physicians from assisting in a patient’s suicide, and punish those who do.
Aren’t you afraid of giving the authority to decide death to doctors, lawyers, and judges?
I don’t like the term euthanasia applied to this discussion, because it implies something different from what Kevorkian did. He wasn’t “mercy killing” people like we do sick dogs or elderly Germans in the 40’s, who had no say in what happened to them.
Euthanasia is a much more sinister term than assisted suicide, I think.
But the assistant does not have authority. The person in question does.
A good analogy might be to use the President. Imagine he wants to order a nuclear missile launch on London. He phones through to one of the nuclear subs (or to the secret moon base) and tells the Captain to fire. The Captain then tells the button-pressing-guy to press the launch button (well, you get the idea).
Does the button-pressing-guy have the authority to start a nuculear war with the UK? Nope. Does the Captain? Nope. Neither have that authority. Only the President has that authority; but since he cannot physically be aboad that sub, he may order his subordinates to perform the act at his behest.
To bring it back around, an ill person may wish to kill themselves. If they cannot physically do so, they may request that another person aid them. But this does not mean the assistant has the authority; he is merely acting at the behest of the person who does have that authority.
A general consensus that suicidal intentions indicate mental illness, sure. In otherwise healthy people. Suicidal tendencies as an indicator of mental illness only works if the tendencies are out of proportion, are uncalled for. If you feel suicidal because you dropped a book; sure, mental illness. If you feel suicidal even because your spouse divorced you; more understandable, but still over-the-top (ok, I’m going to get flak for that one. I simply mean it’s an over-reaction). If you feel suicidal because the rest of your life is going to be incredibly painful, or because soon you will be a vegetable - that’s actually pretty damn reasonable. You’re generalising.
No one is claiming they are. Your position, though - which seems to suggest that the assistant’s decision has equal weight as the patient’s - is pretty ludicrous.
Let me put it this way. If the assistant refuses, they’re still making a decision as to what to do with a body that is not theirs. They’re still, under your view, taking on the authority of the decision of whether to kill or not to kill. If your only objection is that they’re taking on that authority (which I still disagree with); surely either way they are taking on that authority, and thus in your view helping and not helping are equally bad.
I’d actually agree with you. But that doesn’t mean all those people share your view. Most people who would be against such a thing are against it because of the death factor involved, not the “authority” factor. I would say that while many people would agree with that view and that view alone, the amount of people who would believe it through your own personal view of authority is a distinct minority. Of course, that it is a minority view neither speaks well or ill of its validity.
Yes, I am; it’s a tricky business, although of course those decisions are already taken daily. I’m much happier, though, about giving the authority to patients, and that is what assisted suicide laws would do.
So who gets to decide what the threshold is for allowing physicians to assist in a suicide?
I’ll accept “if a patient is terminally ill, and unable to commit the act himself” as a fair standard. But what if other people want different standards, like “if a patient is unable to live a fulfilling life because of an injury, even if physically able to commit the act himself a patient may request assistance?”
From what I understand, none of Kevorkian’s patients were physically unable to commit suicide, yet plenty of people are defending his actions as moral. Who gets to set the standard?
You’d accept that? Have we won a convert? 
Clearly the best person to decide the threshold would be someone with knowledge of being dead or with threshold-estimating abilities; perhaps even some hypothetical person with both. Sadly, since there’s no such person around, I personally would set the bar with these conditions;
- Obviously the patient must first actually request assistance.
- Some kind of counselling. I’m not entirely sure what form would be appropriate, nor how long this should continue - I would be willing to leave it up to the therapist to say “Yes, they’re not going to be convinced otherwise”.
- If they can do it themselves, I would say they have to do it themselves. Firstly to add another level of proof they really want to do it, on the idea that it’s harder to actually kill themselves than request it of another. And secondly just to avoid any unnecessary legal entanglements with the family of the patient and the law in general.
- If they still request it after counselling, and cannot do it themselves, at that point a doctor should be able to fulfil their request (Looking back, that sounds a bit too euphamistic. Should be able to kill them).
I don’t, personally, see him doing it himself as a moral problem; as i’ve stated above, I see it as more of a potential practical problem. As indeed his jail time shows. I don’t necessarily see him killing them when they could do it themselves as moral (assuming they did want to die, of course), but I don’t see it as immoral either. Morally neutral, IMHO.
Who gets to set the standard? Why, the voting public, of course! 
What does “do it themselves” mean? Do you mean the person has to press a button to deliver a drug cocktail provided by doctors, or that the person is told ‘go home and off yourself, you’re too healthy for a doctor to do it?’
The former. That wasn’t very clear of me, you’re right. I would say that the important point is whether they are clearly able to decide and act on that decision. So a doctor hooking them up to an I.V. and leaving them a button would be fine. A doctor actually putting the button in their hands and guiding their finger to the button, if they are able to do so themselves without help, would not be ok. If they actually need help in order to do that, then it should be provided.
And yet you claim that a person should be able to end his or her own life. As i and others have explained in some detail, the authority here lies with the person who chooses to end his or her own life, not with the person who agrees to assist in the procedure.
Actually, if you review at least some of the literature, instead of relying on vague generalizations, you would find that there are circumstances where many psychologists believe that an intent to commit suicide can be formed without the presence of mental illness. Further, the circumstances in which this can occur are often specifically those which lead to requests for assisted suicide, such as painful terminal illness.
Orgeon, which allows assisted suicide, stipulates the following condition regarding the patient’s mental health:
A 1999 study of psychologists in Oregon, which asked 625 of the 846 licensed psychologists in the state a bunch of questions about the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, found the following:
Not a unanimous verdict, but nor does it demonstrate, as you claim, that there is “general consensus among psychologists that suicidal intentions indicate mental illness.” A considerable number of Oregon psychologists believe that the mental health safeguard of the ODDA is adequate, suggesting that they believe that it is possible for a person to commit suicide without being mentally ill.
Source for the above two quotes (pdf)
Also, the American Psychological Association reached a resolution on assisted suicide in 2001 (which has not changed since, to my knowledge). In that resolution, the APA noted some of the problems and controversies surrounding the issue of assisted suicide, but resolved that:
I doubt they would have made such a resolution if there was a general consensus that all requests for assisted suicide are prima facie evidence of mental illness.
According to this scholarly article:
At best, it seems that there is disagreement over this issue among mental health professional, rather than the broad consensus you are attempting to portray.
There’s much more detail about both sides of the debate in that article.
None of this is to say that the issues are not complex and fraught with many moral and ethical pitfalls; they are. I’m merely calling into question your rather blunt assertion that there is “a general consensus among psychologists that suicidal intentions indicate mental illness.”
Yes it is. Some places, however, are even going so far as to allow mentally ill patients to commit assisted suicide. A recent Swiss high court decision has opened the door to such measures. Link
Again, you conveniently slide from the general to the specific when challenged. In making my point about the possibility of putting legal mechanisms in place to ensure that the dying person’s wishes were respected, i wasn’t referring specifically to Kevorkian’s cases. I was saying that there are mechanisms that we could put in place—and which places like Oregon have put in place—which reduce or eliminate concerns about issues of authorization and consent.
Well, i guess it’s lucky that i never made the argument that he was just a tool. In fact, i specifically stated that the assister also has to make an active decision to assist in cases like this. But if the authorization and the desire for the suicide come from the person who is going to die, then i think that’s good enough.
You’ve already said that you believe that people should be able to make the choice to take their own life. If a person makes such a decision, and makes it willingly and in a state of sound mind, why should they be prevented merely because they lack the physical ability to do it? Why should someone not be allowed to follow the person’s express wishes?
Well, i’m sure you’re right about that. But the fact that other people might agree with you doesn’t make your tortuous and inconsistent argument any more lucid or convincing.
I’m not arguing that you don’t have a right to your opinion. You’re welcome to it. If you have a moral opposition to assisted suicide, fine. I’m simply stating that you are making extremely illogical and unsubstantiated arguments in order to support your opinion.
Yes i am.
Which is why i have consistently argued in this thread that the only person with the authority to end his or her own life is the patient. Apart from the recent Swiss decision mentioned above—which i and many assisted suicide advocates oppose—i don’t think any of the arguments made in this thread have been in favor of giving that authority to anyone except the patient.
Yep, i’d be happy with this arrangement.
I have conceded that patients are able to make the decision to commit suicide without a necessary assumption of mental illness.
I’ve also conceded that patients who are physically unable to end their own lives should be able to request and receive assistance.
However, don’t make the mistake of saying that patients are “prevented” from committing suicide when their doctors are prevented from assisting them. None of the assisted suicide cases I’ve heard of involved the physical inability of patients to press the kill switch themselves, and based on your arguments I’m guessing that you’re willing to take the issue a lot further than “because they lack the physical ability to do it”.
By the way, I’d appreciate if you laid the “torturous and incoherent” comments on a little less thick. I’m no saint either, but too much ad hominem just clutters up the real discussion and hurts my little feelings. 
You have? Where? I can find no such statement by you in this thread.
Well, first you said, in post #13:
Then, in post #26, you said:
In that same post, #26, you also said:
Then you said, in post #29:
Perhaps you would be good enough to state, for the record, exactly what your actual position is, because i’m damned if i can work it out.
Firstly, plenty of patients would be incapable of committing suicide without assistance. How, for example, is an elderly, bedridden cancer patient who doesn’t even have the strength to climb out of bed going to commit suicide without help? Hold her breath? Cut her wrists with the plastic hospital knife? She needs a doctor to be allowed to set up a system of drug delivery (which she will activate) that will help her die.
Also, part of the issue of assisted suicide is to prevent the patients from fucking it up and hurting themselves and/or failing to do it properly, and this is the case even for those who might be strong enough to actually commit the act themselves. Sure, we could just leave the room and give them time to slit their wrists or climb through a tenth-story window, but one of the reasons for advocating doctor assistance is so that a medical professional can oversee the procedure and ensure that the patient’s wishes are carried out with as little chance as possible of failure or complications.
I’m not sure what you mean “willing to take the issue a lot further.” I’ve made quite clear (for example, in post #34) that i support a system where the doctor helps set up the equipment, but the patient is required, if possible, to push the button or otherwise activate the machine him- or herself. And, like Revenant Threshold, i also support a system where a patient unable to do those things could be aided by a doctor, so long as the patient had been determined sufficiently sane and lucid to make such a decision. Not sure how much clearer i can be about that, but if you want further clarification i’m happy to try and provide it.
They are not ad hominems, they are observations about the posts you have made in this particular thread. The quotes i offered above, tracing your changing positions, certainly seem to justify an evaluation of “tortuous” (not, by the way, “torturous,” which is a different word).
I think tortuous and incoherent still applies, as i have not yet been able to discern, after reading all of your posts multiple times, exactly what your position on this issue is, as it appears to be constantly changing.
If i’m understanding you correctly, you’re at the point now where your objection lies with doctors helping people to commit suicide who could do so themselves without help. A pretty reasonable position, depending on the reason for it. Is it because you fear that a doctor could kill a person who does not actually want to be killed?
I don’t believe anyone’s said that, as it happens. I would say that patients are prevented from comitting suicide when they are unable to do so themselves and their doctors are prevented from assisting them.
Merely because you have not heard of these situations does not mean they do not exist. I too would be interested to know what “take the issue a lot further” means in terms of **mhendo’s ** argument.
An ad hominem is an attack on the person, rather than the argument. The fallacy lies in thinking that the person has any effect on the validity of the argument; were I to call someone an idiot (which I’m not, to be clear), the fallacy lies in that i’m dismissing their argument because of their idiocy - but their own characteristics doesn’t necessarily mean the argument is wrong. “Tortuous and inconsistent”(the words mhendo actually used), on the other hand, are attacks on the argument, not on you, as context makes clear;
(my bolding)
Dr. Jack was very careful. He took no money for his services. He made a machine so the patient would activate the life ending action.
He is a believer that people should have the right to end their own suffering. I do not know what his threshold is.
He took a written and photo statement from the individual before he proceeded.
For me I do not like the idea of suicide. I do not think my belief should trump those who disagree. It is their life and if they find it torturous they have a right to do whatever they want with it.