I don’t need to, because the fundamental premise that a “right to death” exists is false. Nothing based on such a premise can possibly be valid.
And killing yourself infringes on your right to live. You do not have the right to deprive yourself of your rights.
Because when society allows and encourages people to kill themselves, the value of all lives is cheapened. My life is worth less than it was before if society is teaching and promulgating the idea that temporary pain is worth than the infinite and irreversible cessation of one’s being, and it opens the door to medical professionals of coming generations to decide that the lives of certain patients aren’t worth saving because, you know, they’ll be in so much pain, who wants to live like that?
Sounds like the homophobe’s argument against gay marriage.
I only wish to clarify that the extent of Oregon’s “physician-assisted” suicide begins and ends with a doctor having the ability to provide the means to someone who is terminally ill, expected to die within 6 months and is so certified by two attending physicians. Only the individual person may use the means. Physicians do not actively “assist” in this part of the proceedings. For that reason, Oregon is known as a “right to die” state, and not a “physician-assisted suicide” state.
I am glad I live here, having watched a number of family members and friends suffer horribly before they died, owing to one or another ghastly malady.
Living in pain is preferable to death. I cannot conceive of a mindset that would prefer their loved ones to die prematurely, or to be “glad” for it.
For you. My view is different, and as valid as yours.
I had a grandmother who begged my father to kill her as preferable to the prolonged pain she suffered. He didn’t, but it broke his heart forever that he couldn’t help her.
I had a friend who suffered unbearable pain from cancer treatments. He was in remission for a time, but swore if the cancer returned, he would not endure further treatment. No one was surprised when he was found, having shot himself through the head, with a note that indicated the cancer had come back. How nice it might have been for the daughter who found his body for him to have a less messy alternative.
People who wish to kill themselves will find a way. We do all have the right to die as we choose, whether you can acknowledge that or not. I like the way Oregon does it. “Here are the means. Use them or not, as you choose.”
There is an excellent documentary on this issue called ‘How to Die in Oregon.’ You might want to watch it.
Why?
Because if we choose to, we will. Do you honestly not see that?
And if I choose to murder, I will. Does that mean I have a right to murder?
Ridiculous bootstrapping. Others have already pointed out that imposing on someone else’s rights – depriving them of life by murdering them – is not the same thing as exercising your right to do to yourself as you choose, hurting no one but you.
Notwithstanding that you do not have the right to hurt yourself any more than you have the right to hurt anyone else, it is impossible to commit suicide in a way that hurts no one but you.
You keep saying that, but just saying it does not make it so. Until you are prepared to offer a serious rebuttal and basis for your argument, I see no reason to let you continue to waste my time.
Your assertion that “all life is cheapened” is a value judgment but not based in fact. Again, I would encourage you to watch the film to which I cited you earlier. You will learn that what you say is not true. Simply giving people the means to conduct their own suicide does not mean they will use it. In fact, for many, just knowing they have the control to do it is enough for them to see things through to a bitter natural end. Just as you would wish them to.
What do you believe happens to you after you die?
According to what you’ve said above, people already have the means to kill themselves one way or another, so I see no need for the state to make it easier.
If the proposition “Life is always better than death” is not debatable, then “Euthanasia for non-terminally-ill patients” is likewise not debatable. So in the interest of fostering an actual debate, would you be willing to discuss the basis for your obduracy regarding this issue?
Smapti -
You appear to be an educated and articulate individual.
May I inquire as to the circumstances of your childhood? Location, parental education, and, most importantly, religious teachings?
The over-arching lesson of the Civil Rights and Anti-War fights of the last 60 years has been “You don’t get to make my life miserable” - from yielding seats on a bus to slaughtering a village to telling me the love I feel is not as worthy as the love you feel.
How did an intelligent person miss this so spectacularly?
And here I’ve been squirreling away pills - when all it takes is $20 worth of antihistamine (1000 caps of 250 mg).
The habit of buying bulk can pays off is surprising ways.
I grew up in southern California. My father was a lapsed Catholic and my mother was raised nondenominational Protestant, and neither of them had a high school diploma. My childhood was not particularly pleasant (I’ve gone over that before and don’t really wish to go over it again). I had no particular religious upbringing except for when my grandmother would take me to Salvation Army services when she had me for the weekend. I have identified myself as a strong atheist since my early teens.
The Civil Rights movement is about the right to live your life the way you see fit. Killing yourself does not improve your life - it does exactly the opposite, in fact. Suicide is not a civil rights issue.
There is no afterlife. Death is the permanent and irreversible destruction of a human being and the cessation of everything that a human being is, was, and ever could be. Therefore, it is desireable to avoid death for as long as possible.
The desire to commit suicide is an irrational response to temporary pain. The desire to avoid pain is also natural, but is trumped in mentally sound people by the desire to live. It is better to live with the pain than to destroy yourself to avoid it.
So much certainty.
Of things you can’t even imagine.
Yours is the most obscene opinion on the matter.
Thank you for providing a reference point for those seeking information - you will scare them into thinking “That ain’t right, what are the other options?”
Have you ever had a loved one commit suicide, or attempt it?
I have. Perhaps an experience like that might give you a little “certainty” as well.
How a person goes about committing suicide CAN impact others in negative, physical ways. Someone using a car to kill themselves may involve others in the ensuing accident whether by intention or not. Someone using a gun may have a bullet travel through a wall and hit someone else. And so on and so forth.
Which, if you ARE going to allow suicide as an option makes a very compelling argument that means least likely to harm others should be available - such as pills.
You can, in fact, sue someone for mental trauma. Or their estate. That doesn’t mean you’ll win but some people have won such cases, which would imply the law recognizes that in some instances imposing mental anguish is a harm with legal consequences.
Swallowing a handful of pills and washing them down with alcohol probably won’t infringe on anyone else’s rights in the sense I think most people here are using the term, but that’s not how all suicides kill themselves.
Jump off a building and you might land on someone else. Position yourself in front of a train and someone else might get hurt when the engineer tries to stop or, possibly, if you’re in a vehicle, you might cause a derailment. Use a gun and the bullet might pass through you and a wall to hit someone else. Use an asphyxiation gas and whoever discovers you might also be injured or killed.
Now do you understand?
IF you’re going to maintain suicide is a right then you must also advocate for a means least likely to harm others. So far as I know where physician-assisted suicide is legal it’s usually pills, which are about as unlikely to harm others as anything.
It’s not so much that I’m proposing anti-euthanasia legislation as I’m NOT proposing pro-euthanasia legislation.
Here’s an analogy: Normally I’d say it’s wrong to kill other people BUT there are some circumstances where it is justifiable. For example, to defend your own life or that of another, if there is no reasonable alternative, then killing an attacker is justified.
Likewise, I don’t advocate suicide as an option in most circumstances. I am open to discussing situations where it is the lesser of two evils (the tortured POW given above, terminal illness, the old war story of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save others, etc.) but even where justified I think it’s a sad, sad thing.
It’s a matter of ethics. Also, of living in a crowded civilization. Society as a group makes decisions that do not please all people and affect how they live. I’m all for debating how we do or do not impose on each other, but impose we do in ways both large and small.
What if the pain is severe, debilitating, untreatable, and permanent?
Not all maladies are temporary. I think we should make an effort to treat, to ameliorate, to mitigate, and adapt but at a certain point there’s just nothing more we can do to make things better - then what?