Sadly, that’s part of the disease. Most people who commit suicide because they’re depressed are not in their right minds, they’re not thinking rationally.
It’s their illness doing that to them, and that’s why depression is such a hateful thing. I’ve been there – not quite suicidal, but that’s why I’ll never comdemn anyone who is.
Smapti, same thing: whether it’s a right or not, don’t blame the person. It’s not a rational decision a person makes when they’re ill. Their disease is thinking for them. There’s a middle ground somewhere. I don’t think anyone’s saying, “oh hey, go kill yourself.” But don’t look down on that person.
As for terminal illness, I’m NOT going into that with you again – I don’t have the patience. I will state my opinion that I think someone, if there is no hope, if they are in for absolute excruciating pain, and in their right mind, they should be permitted to make that decision for themselves. At the very least, I don’t think a legal adult should be forced to go through any treatment they feel is unnecessary, and would rather receive hospice care instead.
No, letting clinically depressed people kill themselves is absolute barbarism. There is no physical or mental ailment for which death is an effective treatment.
In fact, euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands (and I think also Belgium) for clinically depressed people who don’t respond to treatment. Which I support.
How do you figure? Is there no point, for you, when I can say I’ve been in way too much pain for way too long? If all I have is a hope that death can end my pain, will you assuredly reply with a “no, that’s incorrect, silly,” while I suffer?
Those in pain ought to be made as comfortable as possible in their final days, but it’s always better to live in pain than to cease to exist for all of eternity.
When all treatments have failed already, letting people kill themselves is still absolute barbarism and a sign that we’ve failed those people.
I had a cat put to sleep once because he would die shortly without medical care I couldn’t afford. It’s the absolute worst thing I’ve ever done, I can never forgive myself for it, and I’ll never be able to make up for it. I swore to myself I’d never do it again, and when my roommate’s older cat got sick recently and started showing signs he wasn’t going to last long, we made him a comfortable place to lie in the sun, with some food and water and a litterbox nearby, and let him live out his last days without us deciding to hasten the matter.
Why the heck do you think that’s your call to make?
If I’m living in tremendous pain — and you grant that, after a couple of “final days”, I’m going to “cease to exist for all eternity” anyway — then why does it make such a difference to you whether I’m in tremendous pain for a couple of days before I cease to exist instead of just skipping straight to the part where I cease to exist?
I get what’s in it for me, the other way around: I’ll cease to exist soon either way, it’s just a question of how much pain I’ll be in for a couple of days. What’s in it for you? Two days later I’ve ceased to exist; what benefit do you get if I suffer more first?
Okay: you say that. And the guy in tremendous pain says “uh, hey: keeping me from killing myself is absolute barbarism, and it’s a sign that you’re failing me right now.” Why should I believe you instead of him?
Imagine a man says: “It’s the absolute worst thing I’ve ever done, I can never forgive myself for it, and I’ll never be able to make up for it.” And imagine that a man in tremendous pain — a man being kept from killing himself — replies that, er, no; the absolute worst thing you’ve ever done is what you’re doing right now; you should never forgive yourself for it; you’ll never be able to make up for it. Who’s right?
My cat had a sudden heart attack and was in horrible agony – there was nothing anyone could do. It was either let her die in excruciating pain, or end her suffering. There was no way in fucking HELL that it would be better to let that poor cat live her last few hours like that. (It was bad – like they didn’t even give us the customery few moments to say goodbye. And no, it wasn’t something we expected – she had been totally healthy and then poof)
Even if you believe that’s the case for people, animals don’t understand that. Animals aren’t people, dude. It’s one thing if you kept that cat free of pain, but if the animal dies a slow, painful death? That’s animal cruelty.
Those in pain ought to be made as comfortable as possible in their final days, but it’s always better to live in pain than to cease to exist for all of eternity.
.[/QUOTE
Horseshit.
What’s so great about living in pain?
Last year we found out that my mom’s cancer had returned and it was very aggressive, so aggressive that there was just no way to treat it and because of her age, nearly 91, she could not have withstood the treatments anyway.
By the time they figured it out with a CT scan she had only a few days left. She had been unable to eat for about a week so she was on an IV not to mention other things. And when they loaded her up with morphine she just became unconscious. That’s what happens with narcotics used to treat people who are in severe pain. It just makes them go to sleep and eventually everything just slows down.
She would have died without it, but in agony.
She could no longer take the pain. She said so.
She was still in her right mind. She refused any extraordinary measures and wanted to be made comfortable in hospice. She got morphine and ice chips and visitors in her last few days.
And by the way, this was all her decision. No one else’s. And that is as it should be. I’m going to do the same thing should I ever find myself in a similar situation.
Good thing it wasn’t your decision or she would have been in a living hell . Fuck that.
It benefits me that I don’t live in a society where “kill yourself” is considered an acceptable remedy for hardship, because that sets on the course where suicide goes from being acceptable, to being encouraged, to being mandatory.
Because he desires to not exist, and such a desire is inherently irrational.
The person keeping him from killing himself.
Exactly. Animals aren’t people. Which means they don’t understand life and death the way we do, and are incapable of desiring death. It’s wrong of us to kill them because their pain makes us uncomfortable.
Nonsense. Nobody desires to not exist; what they desire is to not exist in terrible pain and misery. If you can’t remedy the terrible pain and misery, then nonexistence is merely the next best option. Humans, being rational, are able to choose death as the preferable option in such a situation, but that doesn’t mean we intrinsically desire nonexistence.
But they’re perfectly capable of desiring to not exist in terrible pain and misery. If we can’t remedy their terrible pain and misery, then we owe them death as the next best option.
No, what makes us uncomfortable in that situation is our awareness of our complete incapacity to remedy their pain. We would readily tolerate their temporary pain, however heartwrenching we found it, if we could quickly alleviate it and make them well again. But if we have no way of doing that, we need to kill them as the next best option.
Now, if you were trying to make a case for putting people (or even animals) who are in irremediable terrible pain and misery into a state of peaceful sedated unconsciousness for the rest of their natural lives, rather than killing them, I could see the logic of that even if I don’t agree with its necessity. But claiming that continuing to suffer irremediable terrible pain and misery is preferable to death, and must be rigidly enjoined even on sufferers who have decided death is a preferable option, is the position of a naive fantasist. Nobody who’s ever actually seen irremediable terrible pain and misery would propose that.
Nonsense. It is wrong to kill an animal that you love, and which loves you on a level that humans aren’t capable of appreciating, because you’ve decided that it’s in too much pain. Consider a human being that is mentally disabled for one reason or another. Would it be right to kill them because you’ve decided that their life isn’t worth living? Obviously not. Why, then, would you presume to kill any other creature that can’t decide for itself because of how you feel about its continued existence?
Nothing I said contradicts that. Accepting nonexistence as preferable to the other available options, however, is the same thing as actively desiring nonexistence, and in some circumstances is not irrational.
That has got to be about the stupidest attempt at a logical analogy I’ve ever seen. Comparing an animal suffering in irremediable terrible misery and pain to a human being who simply happens to be mentally disabled in some way—even if that human being is comfortable and happy—is logically fallacious to an extent that would embarrass even naive fantasists.
I knew that already. That doesn’t give us the right to play God and prevent them from ending their own lives. In fact, our failure is a major reason that we must then let them manage things the way they want to. It’s barbaric to withhold relief.
Accepting nonexistence is functionally equivalent to desiring it. Either act is inherently irrational.
Can you ask that animal if it wishes to die? You cannot. Who are you to order it killed? How would that be any less wrong than to order the death of an innocent human who can’t willfully consent?
Ending one’s life is “playing God”.
Death is not a “relief” from anything. To claim otherwise indicates that you do not understand the nature of death.
:rolleyes: Uh-huh, in the same way that accepting a sugar-free diet as the best available diabetes management measure is “functionally equivalent” to hating sweets. And learning to read Braille after losing your vision in a car accident is “functionally equivalent” to desiring blindness.
You seem to have overlooked (to give you the benefit of the doubt; or to withhold it, deliberately misrepresented) the whole point of the concept of “functional equivalence”, which is that it’s not the same thing as actual equivalence.
You don’t need to, because we just agreed that animals are intrinsically incapable of actually desiring death.
The person who is legally and morally responsible for its wellbeing, and who would have to be outright evil to pretend that continuing its irremediable terrible pain and misery would be better for its wellbeing than death.
Let’s make sure we’ve got this clear: you are seriously and in good faith asking how ordering the death of a pet animal in irremediable terrible pain and misery would be less wrong than ordering the death of a mentally disabled human who’s leading a comfortable and happy life?
Yes. How can you justify murdering a living being that you love and that loves you, without its permission, on the basis that you’ve decided that it would prefer nonexistence to existence?