Yes, I consider it cruel and selfish to force people to endure physical pain because you find the emotional pain of a loved ones death too much to be forced to bear.
You really don’t seem to get just who is being cruel and selfish in all this.
CMC fnord!
BTW: Opposing DNR orders is saying that there isn’t even have a right to natural death (and you really should read up on the long term prognosis of resuscitated patients, it’s rather disturbing).
The person committing suicide is the one acting selfishly, because they are engaging in an act that harms everyone they love, and society as a whole, and for which they will never experience any benefit or any negative consequences.
“Natural death” is an abomination that modern medical science has slain. This nostalgic longing for it is pure Luddism.
Yes, and there was once a poor prognosis for amputees. Should we have given them a bullet in the brain instead of developing better antibiotics and better prosthetics? What of rabies, which medical science has only recently been able to treat successfully - should we have just given up on those people and not bothered trying to figure out how to cure them, since they “wouldn’t want to live like that” anyway?
That’s a grievously incorrect statement with which any reasonable physician and certainly a vast majority of palliative care specialists would disagree. “Natural death” happens all the time, often with the compassionate encouragement of these learned practitioners of medical science. One reads increasingly about the elderly with incurable illnesses, or younger people with terminal ones, having “died quietly at home” instead of being assaulted with medical apparatus in institutions to give them one more day or one more week of a miserable and hopeless existence.
Smapti, I was sorry to hear of your distressing personal experience, but perhaps because of it you seem to be making a number of false equivalences and reaching really bad conclusions. You seem to believe that facilitating justified euthanasia – as judged by medical professionals – is somehow equivalent to lightly advocating euthanasia for all. It is not. Others believe that it “cheapens” human life and is the proverbial wedge that opens the door to real death panels. It isn’t that, either. You also seem to believe that “modern medical science” can fix anything if we just try hard enough. That isn’t true, either. We must by all means pursue research as a high priority, but again, that has nothing to do with what can be done here and now, in any individual case.
But most seriously, and I have to say really damn frightening, is your belief that life must be preserved at any cost, no matter what the wishes of the patient and no matter what is going on in his pained and tortured mind, and no matter how hopeless the prognosis. It argues that we must deprive a human being of even as much compassion as we show a dog or a cat. That to me simply betrays a lack of appreciation for what diseases there are out there and how they can afflict us, and I thank what Gods there may be that no one like you will ever hold such power over me. I would urge you again to read a book like Being Mortal to better understand how enlightened and compassionate medical professionals view these issues. Thankfully, they are increasingly in the majority.
(BTW, that book is mainly about aging and not at all about euthanasia, but nevertheless, in discussing the quality of life issues it covers much of the same ground.)
Smapti -
You suffered a horrible trauma when you were entirely too young to understand what was going on and why.
Your hurt re abandonment is understandable.
It does not, however, give you the right to tell the entire world what is or is not acceptable.
Someday you will understand the horrible realities behind:
p.s. - when everyone tells yo that you’re drunk, you should lie down.
As a bit of an aside, watch this fascinating PBS documentary about an American in late stage ALS going to Switzerland for a legal assisted death.
This touches on a potentially disturbing notion of state-sanctioned suicide that I don’t believe has been discussed here yet. Namely that of disabled or otherwise vulnerable, needy members of our society feeling pressure (whether it be overt or otherwise) to use this now available means to end their lives prematurely. It could become a sort of pseudo-genocide, for lack of a better term.
It’s a wonderful documentary. Hope I get to see it again. I think Bill Moyers did a similar program; long time ago.
My attitude toward suicide was greatly affected by the film Whose Life Is It, Anyway? starring Richard Dreyfuss.
Also the book Understanding Suicide by Kay Redfield Jamieson.
I think that particular paranoid delusion has been discussed in this forum, if not necessarily this thread, several times. It’s the dog whistle to call the absolutist anti-euthanasia crowd, though the absolutist anti-abortionists often come woofing and panting right behind, like neighborhood strays. It’s a close cousin to the mantra that state-sanctioned death panels will magically spring into being if the government runs public health insurance. And all of it is abject nonsense. Those jurisdictions that have allowed justified euthanasia are generally those with the highest regard for the dignity of life and self-determination.
Or the state can provide the means, or whatever.
I was just responding to the earlier point that physically fit people can commit suicide at any time, so why legalize it? The answer being that currently many people only have access to suicide methods that are scary, or painful, or have risks of complications.
And, of course, some people traumatize others by jumping in front of a train. Perhaps some of those that do so are not deliberately trying to hurt others in doing so and have picked that method only because it is a quick and certain way to go.
Suicide should be available to anyone who wants it. Everybody has a right to life, and everyone should have a right to death once they are of legal consent. Nobody asked to be brought into this world in the first place. They should get to leave if they want. If hospitals could be part of the suicide system, they could harvest much-needed organs.
In past threads you’ve focused a lot on the public suicides and I have said that they constitute a minority of suicides.
To an extent, I now take that back.
On looking at the suicide stats on Wikipedia, in the vast majority of countries public suicides are very rare versus poisoning and hanging as methods of suicide. There are a couple of places however, such as Singapore, where jumping out of a high building is the most common suicide method.
Furthermore, in Europe the percentage of suicides thought to be by jumping in front of a train is up to 10%…that’s still a minority of course, but much higher than I expected.
So I shouldn’t have guesstimated in that way.
True, but a causal factor there is lack of access to simpler methods of suicide such as cyanide pills.
Nor would one expect it to increase their frequency, from their current, exceptionally rare rate.
Yeah there are cultures that are broadly tolerant of suicide, such as Japan.
And of course no government needs to be “in favor” of something to legalize it: tolerance is enough.
As to how cultures have historically treated suicide, well how have cultures historically treated women*?
What is or was culturally acceptable should not influence our policies today.
It hasn’t been discussed here yet, but there is precedent for that occurrence. Pre-WWII Germany emptied out a lot of its long-care institutions by first “encouraging” self-elimination, then by actively assisting it, then by “choosing” it on behalf of patients. Yet I’ve been accused of worrying needlessly over a hypothetical slippery slope that supposedly will never happen… except it has.
That’s why I’m rather insistent on stringent controls and criteria if we’re talking any form of sanctioned suicide. Surely those in favor of euthanasia can see that forcing death on someone it unjust, unethical, and should not be condoned in any way?
Please review your history of Germany in the late 1930’s, then come back when you have some better appreciation of how things can go wrong.
I’m thrilled that modern state-condoned euthanisia seems to be working as intended with no coercion, but we do have at least one historical example of things going off the rails. thus, it is NOT “abject nonsense” but rather a cautionary tale.
Unless, of course, you think the Third Reich had “the highest regard for the dignity of life and self-determination”. Yes, I did just invoke the Nazis, but there you have it - a recent example of state-sanctioned euthanasia in Europe. No, I’m not talking about the death camps, I’m talking about what happened in hospitals and care facilities prior to the Nazi expansion. I just hope we don’t repeat their mistakes in regards to end of life care and treatment of the disabled members of society.
When it works it’s quick… it doesn’t always killed the intended suicide victim. Who is usually rather severely maimed as a result.
There’s also the side issues of, say, the engineer being hauled into court, or losing his profession, railroads and/or municipalities being sued for not putting sufficient preventive devices in place, and so on and so forth.
It’s really quite frightening how a suicide attempt can go wrong, leaving the person even worse off than before.
I disagree.
We can learn a great deal from studying other cultures and their customs, including how tolerating certain practices plays out in society. We can also learn about how a culture reacted to new inputs.
Part of the modern concern with suicide is due to advancing medical technology that can prolong the dying process, or enable people to survive injuries that in the past meant certain death and now can mean a lifetime of suffering. I think there does need to be a discussion of medical technology - and when to stop using it.
There are other considerations as well, which I don’t want to get too bogged down in at the moment, but while what other cultures have done or do should not dictate what our culture does learning about such things can help us anticipate possible repercussions.
Exactly.
Well firstly I’m not advocating people jump in front of trains. It does seem a selfish way to go, and I would hope that if simpler methods are provided to people the incidence would go down.
And secondly it doesn’t matter if this form of suicide is 100% effective. I was talking about perceptions and why people do it.
This is a different point however.
You earlier were suggesting that pretty much all cultures have prohibited attempted suicide. There was no point given, but the implied one was that most cultures have agreed suicide is bad, so it’s probably bad.
When I’ve pointed out the flaw in that logic, your new point is that we can learn from culture’s experiences with changing policies. Of course I would agree with that. But if what you were saying earlier was true (all cultures have prohibited/restricted attempted suicide) it would seem to have limited relevance here.
As a general rule of thumb, if your only example is “the nazis” then you usually don’t have a very strong argument.
^^^ This. The only relevant disclaimer is that protection against any & all forms of coercion need to be in place. (If it ain’t 100% voluntary it ain’t suicide; there’s another name for that).