# What? No Brittany Maynard thread? (terminal disease, doctor-assisted suicide) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2014, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765 "2014-10-19T05:46:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/301 "2014-11-05T19:07:34Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Very well. > > Human beings are social animals. Our primitive ancestors functioned, as we do, not as individuals, but as a group; and our evolution as a species has produced civilization and the social contract, whereby it is tacitly agreed that none of us are capable of living an optimal life on our own without the assistance of others, and that we surrender aspects of our absolute free will as individuals to the whole for the greater good of all. > > As such, every human being is burdened with numerous obligations from the day they are born until after they have died. Some of those obligations are inherent in the circumstances of their birth; for example, the obligation to preserve their own life, the obligation to abide by the laws of the society in which they are born, the obligation to love and support the family they are born into. Other obligations are assumed voluntarily; the obligation to excel at the occupation they are employed in, the occupation to abide by the laws or rules of the organizations they have chosen to affiliate with as adults, the obligation to love and support the family they have created. These obligations, once assumed, are not easily dismissable - they form the backbone of the social contract that underpins civilization, because civilization cannot function if an individual cannot trust those he depends on to fulfill their obligations. > > Self-preservation is the foremost obligation of any human being, because no other obligation can be upheld if it is not. If the individual fails to keep himself alive, he is incapable of loving and supporting his family, incapable of supporting his country, incapable of providing a better future for his children, incapable of doing anything at all, because he no longer exists. > > The next most important obligation (after the obligation to the state, which will not be addressed here as it is not especially relevant) is the obligation to family. The family is the core social unit in which the human being operates; it is the first unit an individual is part of from the moment they are born, it forms the nexus of their experiences as a child and as a young adult, it evolves over the course of their life as they go from the family they were born in to creating a family of their own, and, in general, it is the family that will support them in their final days and address the disposition of their affairs afterward. Obligation to family encompasses multiple sub-obligations; a child is obligated to obey his parents, a parent is obligated to support, nurture, and protect their child, older siblings are obligated to protect and tolerate younger siblings, younger siblings are tolerated to respect and learn from older siblings, spouses are obligated to support each other, and all members are obligated to love one another, because the human being functions best when it knows it is loved. > > Death is a traumatic and irreparable experience to the family. The individual who dies can no longer fulfill the obligations they once had, and the remainder of the family is diminished. The spouse no longer has the love and support of the person they came to love more than anyone; the child lacks an exemplar and source of education; the sibling no longer has the person with whom they have more in common than any other human being; the parent no longer has that into which they invested time and labor and emotion in the hopes that they would grow to be productive and happy. > > Thus, it is in the rational interest of any individual to avoid death for as long as possible; for their own sake in knowing that they will be able to fulfill their various obligations to others, for the sake of the family that they love and which loves them and which depends upon them for various reasons; and for the greater sake of the society around them, to which they owe various obligations not addressed here. > > To willingly end one’s life prematurely is a unilateral abrogation of these obligations. The individual can no longer fulfill any of the various obligations set upon them, because they no longer exist; and therefore, all those who were depending on the individual, for any reason, are left short. Those with emotional bonds to the person ending their life may claim to support their action, because they love the person and do not wish to display hostility towards them in the final stage of their life; but they are nonetheless harmed by the person’s absence as explained above. > > Furthermore, as described above, human beings learn by example from those to whom they hold an emotional affinity. By ending one’s life prematurely, one teaches those who view one as a teacher that ending one’s life prematurely is acceptable behavior, which, in the long term, both diminishes the perceived value of human life as the conditions under which life is deemed to be worth living are drawn narrower and narrower, and weakens the social contract and civilization as a whole as suicide comes to be viewed as an acceptable end-run around obligations one does not wish to fulfill. > > Therefore, it is incumbent upon those who are experiencing a poor quality of life not to commit suicide, and, instead, to endure any suffering that may subsequently result; because suicide cheapens the value of human life, because suicide has a negative impact on those left behind, and because only through choosing to live can one embetter the world around them. > > Will that do? It’ll do as a coherent statement. The closing paragraph of the post immediately above yours is a full and sufficient rebuttal, given the facts of this particular case (her illness guaranteed her inability to continue fulfilling these asserted “obligations” in any case; thus, complaining about her failure to do so is like complaining that your cat is refusing to help with your calculus homework), but the fact that rebuttal is not an exercise in attempting to nail Jell-O to a wall is an improvement. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/302 "2014-11-05T19:42:33Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > … Therefore, it is incumbent upon those who are experiencing a poor quality of life not to commit suicide, and, instead, to endure any suffering that may subsequently result; because suicide cheapens the value of human life, because suicide has a negative impact on those left behind, and because only through choosing to live can one embetter the world around them. > > Will that do? No, it will not do, because the entire essay, summed up in the last paragraph, is nothing more than a banal argument against casual suicide. It carries the same naive implicitly assumed nonsense that we’ve been hearing from you right from the beginning, namely that this is some “_one-percenter globetrotting elitist who took the coward’s way out and encouraged a culture of death_”; that you yourself could handle her situation just fine: “_It would not be an ideal life, but we’ve known locked-in people on this very board in the past who have been capable of pursuing intellectual stimulation and social interaction thanks to modern technology_” and other complete nonsense like “_She gave up what could have remained of her life because she was afraid that it wasn’t always going to be as good as it had been_”. So if you’re quite done insulting this spirited and brave young woman who experienced more life in her short 29 years than most of us ever will, and had the courage and fortitude to end it with dignity while championing the cause of compassionate medicine, I just have one simple question: Do you know anything at all about glioblastoma multiforme, its symptoms and prognosis, and what it does to a person in its terminal stages? Do you, in a word, have any idea what you are talking about? Just a simple “yes” or “no” is all that is necessary. > [@Smapti](#): > > They were compelled by law to not view a desire to kill oneself as an indication of insanity. > > … Allowing people to kill themselves, and requiring medical professionals to be involved in that process, makes a mockery of a system which is fundamentally intended to _preserve_ life. You used the word “compelled” and then the word “requiring” in describing the legal position of medical professionals in this situation. Please cite the section of the Oregon Death With Dignity Act that “compels” or “requires” physicians to do anything with regard to assisted suicide. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/303 "2014-11-05T19:50:32Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So if you’re quite done insulting this spirited and brave young woman who experienced more life in her short 29 years than most of us ever will She deserves more than I’m capable of giving her, but she’s out of our reach now. > [@](#): > > Do you know anything at all about glioblastoma multiforme, its symptoms and prognosis, and what it does to a person in its terminal stages? Do you, in a word, have any idea what you are talking about? Just a simple “yes” or “no” is all that is necessary. Yes. > [@](#): > > You used the word “compelled” and then the word “requiring” in describing the legal position of medical professionals in this situation. Please cite the section of the Oregon Death With Dignity Act that “compels” or “requires” physicians to do anything with regard to assisted suicide. The part of it which exists. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/304 "2014-11-05T19:54:00Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Very well. > snip > Death is a traumatic and irreparable experience to the family. The individual who dies can no longer fulfill the obligations they once had, and the remainder of the family is diminished. The spouse no longer has the love and support of the person they came to love more than anyone; the child lacks an exemplar and source of education; the sibling no longer has the person with whom they have more in common than any other human being; the parent no longer has that into which they invested time and labor and emotion in the hopes that they would grow to be productive and happy. > snip Are you saying that all families and friends are broken and irreparably damaged every time a loved one dies? If that’s the case, then none of us would be able to function and grow. Yet we do. Of course we miss and mourn the deceased, but that doesn’t mean that our lives end or are always wrecked. I’ve already lost aunts and uncles, grandparents, my dad, a pen pal/friend, neighbors, and a cat. I think about them, but their passing has not left any of us incapacitated or ruined. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/305 "2014-11-05T19:56:37Z")
> [@vivalostwages](#): > > Are you saying that all families and friends are broken and irreparably damaged every time a loved one dies? If that’s the case, then none of us would be able to function and grow. Yet we do. > > Of course we miss and mourn the deceased, but that doesn’t mean that our lives end or are always wrecked. We function and grow in _spite_ of that which we have lost, not because of it. One who has a leg removed can still live and be happy, but they are diminished by what they have lost. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/306 "2014-11-05T19:58:19Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > [Well, I’m not the one who came up with it.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12%3A48&version=NLT) Do you know for sure that Maynard didn’t give of her talents and aptitudes and other gifts on a regular basis? Maybe she did and all the details just weren’t in her obituary. If they had been, would that have satisfied your desire to see her give back to the community and to the world at large? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/307 "2014-11-05T20:00:01Z")
> [@vivalostwages](#): > > Do you know for sure that Maynard didn’t give of her talents and aptitudes and other gifts on a regular basis? Maybe she did and all the details just weren’t in her obituary. If they had been, would that have satisfied your desire to see her give back to the community and to the world at large? She could have given more and chose not to. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/308 "2014-11-05T20:04:57Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > We function and grow in _spite_ of that which we have lost, not because of it. One who has a leg removed can still live and be happy, but they are diminished by what they have lost. She _wasn’t_ going to live, and she damn sure _wasn’t_ going to be happy, so what the hell does that have to do with this situation? ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/309 "2014-11-05T20:05:32Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > She could have given more and chose not to. I support your right to choose not to commit suicide under any circumstances. I support the right of people to make this decision for themselves, rather than having it decided for them by people who think they know what’s valuable to an individual and that individual’s family. Whenever you make a statement of value concerning another individual and their family, you’re at best, guessing. At worst, you’re imposing your values on others. In any case, you’re very frequently getting it wrong. I agree with your arguments as arguments to pose to someone making the decision. They’re valid arguments. But they’re not sufficient to override the values and choices of others. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/310 "2014-11-05T20:09:59Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > She could have given more and chose not to. What the hell did you want her to give at that stage? How about doing voice-over moaning and screaming for slasher flicks? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/311 "2014-11-05T20:14:00Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > She deserves more than I’m capable of giving her, but she’s out of our reach now. The only thing you’ve given her so far is to call her a one-percenter globetrotting elitist who took the coward’s way out and was also insane. You also managed to completely derail a thread that could have been a sensitive and informative discussion about the issue – just the kind of discussion she was hoping to promote. > [@Smapti](#): > > Yes. Yeah, right. You understand her condition just about as much as your political kindred spirits understood the condition of Terri Schiavo, except that this is incomparably worse because at least Schiavo wasn’t suffering. If you had the slightest inkling of her condition, you wouldn’t be writing insensitive nonsense like “She gave up what could have remained of her life … it would not be an ideal life” and “a brave person faces it head-on and stays lucid and fully aware until the end.” Those are not the words of anyone who has a clue about the disease. > [@Smapti](#): > > The part of it which exists. What the hell does that even mean? Again, what part of the Oregan Death With Dignity Act _ **compels** _ physicians to do anything? (Hint: reading the act might help.) ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/312 "2014-11-05T20:28:30Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > She _wasn’t_ going to live, and she damn sure _wasn’t_ going to be happy, so what the hell does that have to do with this situation? [Per Wiki,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glioblastoma_multiforme#Prognosis) she had a 47% chance of surviving more than one year after diagnosis (which she didn’t even allow herself to live to), and a 4% chance of living more than 5 years. Which is a long shot, but it’s still infinitely larger than the 0% chance she gave herself by committing suicide - and that survival chance is getting larger every day thanks to new developments (detailed on the same page) that she deprived herself of because that would have been too hard. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/313 "2014-11-05T20:29:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What the hell did you want her to give at that stage? How about doing voice-over moaning and screaming for slasher flicks? How about teaching people who are in fear and pain that suicide is not the answer? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/314 "2014-11-05T20:32:40Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The only thing you’ve given her so far is to call her a one-percenter globetrotting elitist who took the coward’s way out and was also insane. You also managed to completely derail a thread that could have been a sensitive and informative discussion about the issue – just the kind of discussion she was hoping to promote. Seems to me that we’re _having_ that conversation just fine. > [@](#): > > Yeah, right. You understand her condition just about as much as your political kindred spirits understood the condition of Terri Schiavo, except that this is incomparably worse because at least Schiavo wasn’t suffering. I don’t know who you think my “political kindred spirits” are, but this is in no way comparable to Terri Schiavo. Terri Schiavo wasn’t a living person choosing to die - Terri Schiavo was a _dead_ person whose body was being kept alive after her brain had ceased to function. > [@](#): > > If you had the slightest inkling of her condition, you wouldn’t be writing insensitive nonsense like “She gave up what could have remained of her life … it would not be an ideal life” and “a brave person faces it head-on and stays lucid and fully aware until the end.” Those are not the words of anyone who has a clue about the disease. See above. At the time of her suicide, she was not a person who had mentally diminished to the point where she was no longer capable of living life. > [@](#): > > What the hell does that even mean? Again, what part of the Oregan Death With Dignity Act _ **compels** _ physicians to do anything? (Hint: reading the act might help.) It means that the Oregon Death With Dignity Act exists. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/315 "2014-11-05T20:40:05Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > We function and grow in _spite_ of that which we have lost, not because of it. One who has a leg removed can still live and be happy, but they are diminished by what they have lost. Hmmm…Funny, I don’t feel diminished. Do I have to? ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/316 "2014-11-05T20:42:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What the hell did you want her to give at that stage? How about doing voice-over moaning and screaming for slasher flicks? Evidently, **Smapti** wants the dying and those in agony to conjure up some strength so they can give, give, give until the very last second–never mind the fact that they may not have the energy to do so or even the cognizance. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/317 "2014-11-05T21:16:36Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Will that do? Well, it certainly demonstrates that you have an actual belief that you are defending. The numerous leaps to conclusions unsupported by their predicates fails to actually make a case, but I did not ask for a defensible rationale. > [@Smapti](#): > > As such, every human being is burdened with numerous obligations from the day they are born until after they have died. Some of those obligations are inherent in the circumstances of their birth; for example, the obligation to preserve their own life, the obligation to abide by the laws of the society in which they are born, the obligation to love and support the family they are born into. While there may be an obligation to abide by laws, nothing you have posted supports the notion that there is an obligation to preserve life. That is just something you made up. A person who will clearly be a drag on the resources of those among whom he or she lives would more logically have an obligation to die as soon as possible. (I do not hold that view, but it is the logical extension of your society based obligation.) > [@Smapti](#): > > Self-preservation is the foremost obligation of any human being, because no other obligation can be upheld if it is not. If the individual fails to keep himself alive, he is incapable of loving and supporting his family, incapable of supporting his country, incapable of providing a better future for his children, incapable of doing anything at all, because he no longer exists. This is only true for persons who are capable of supporting family, country, or future children. A person who is unable to provide that support and who will clearly be unable to provide that support before his or her death cannot have an obligation that he or she is unable to fullfill. Taken to that logical extreme, a person who is sufficiently ill or old/feeble, has an obligation to die. Your argument seems to work much better against your position than for it. > [@Smapti](#): > > Death is a traumatic and irreparable experience to the family. The individual who dies can no longer fulfill the obligations they once had, and the remainder of the family is diminished. The spouse no longer has the love and support of the person they came to love more than anyone; the child lacks an exemplar and source of education; the sibling no longer has the person with whom they have more in common than any other human being; the parent no longer has that into which they invested time and labor and emotion in the hopes that they would grow to be productive and happy. As a person who has lived long enough to have had both parents and numerous other relatives and friends die and whose spouse has worked in hospice for a decade or more, I can state, unequivocally, that this is bullshit. Certainly, death can be those things, but it is often a release that the family prefers to watching their loved one suffer. The statement also fails to address the issue of hastening an imminent death. Keeping a person alive for an extra hour or an extra month–particularly a person who is weakened to the point where they cannot perform any of those “duties”–would seem to be nothing more than a form of torture inflicted by someone who is following an absolutist position regarding death without having actually paid attention to what their beliefs actually mean. > [@Smapti](#): > > Thus, it is in the rational interest of any individual to avoid death for as long as possible; for their own sake in knowing that they will be able to fulfill their various obligations to others, for the sake of the family that they love and which loves them and which depends upon them for various reasons; and for the greater sake of the society around them, to which they owe various obligations not addressed here. And yet, when they cannot fulfill these obligations that you have imposed on them, (remember, I noted that you have actually failed to demonstrate that they are genuine obligations), you have made statements that indicate that you still would deny them death. Sorry. I still have no idea why you believe what you do, since your argument is so flawed as to be worthless, but I do agree that you set forth something. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/318 "2014-11-05T21:27:59Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > While there may be an obligation to abide by laws, nothing you have posted supports the notion that there is an obligation to preserve life. That is just something you made up. Self-preservation is instinctual and axiomatic. I no more made it up than I made up that life has value or that food is good. It is one of the fundamental precepts upon which our existence is qualified. > [@](#): > > A person who will clearly be a drag on the resources of those among whom he or she lives would more logically have an obligation to die as soon as possible. (I do not hold that view, but it is the logical extension of your society based obligation.) To argue that an individual is logically obligated to die would be to deny the self-preservation instinct. > [@](#): > > This is only true for persons who are capable of supporting family, country, or future children. As long as one is capable of conscious thought, one is capable of these things, as Brittany Maynard demonstrated by making a celebrity of herself in her final days. > [@](#): > > A person who is unable to provide that support and who will clearly be unable to provide that support before his or her death cannot have an obligation that he or she is unable to fullfill. Inability to fulfill an obligation does not negate it. > [@](#): > > As a person who has lived long enough to have had both parents and numerous other relatives and friends die and whose spouse has worked in hospice for a decade or more, I can state, unequivocally, that this is bullshit. Certainly, death can be those things, but it is often a release that the family prefers to watching their loved one suffer. Human beings employ coping mechanisms to try to ameliorate the psychological harm suffered by the death of a loved one, as Kubler-Ross described. Convincing oneself that the death was a release, or was preferable to suffering, are forms of bargaining. > [@](#): > > The statement also fails to address the issue of hastening an imminent death. Keeping a person alive for an extra hour or an extra month–particularly a person who is weakened to the point where they cannot perform any of those “duties”–would seem to be nothing more than a form of torture inflicted by someone who is following an absolutist position regarding death without having actually paid attention to what their beliefs actually mean. An hour or a month not lived is an hour or a month stolen from those who upon the dying depend. > [@](#): > > And yet, when they cannot fulfill these obligations that you have imposed on them, (remember, I noted that you have actually failed to demonstrate that they are genuine obligations), you have made statements that indicate that you still would deny them death. No one living is incapable of discharging their obligations. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/319 "2014-11-05T21:30:20Z")
Against my better judgment… > [@Smapti](#): > > \ So far so good. It’s not quite the typical secular morality system á la Dillahunty/Harris, but there’s at least something to it. > [@](#): > > Self-preservation is the foremost obligation of any human being, because no other obligation can be upheld if it is not. If the individual fails to keep himself alive, he is incapable of loving and supporting his family, incapable of supporting his country, incapable of providing a better future for his children, incapable of doing anything at all, because he no longer exists. You know, this is a perfectly valid argument… …Against “casual” suicide. Against suicide made as a personal choice motivated by factors which are, in the long run, fairly immaterial - hell, even very material things. The problem with this argument in this case is, it’s not only death that renders people incapable of dealing with these issues. A permanently brain-damaged person is also incapable of loving and supporting his/her family. A person who, for the rest of their lives, will never stop being in insufferable pain is incapable of such things. Nobody here is arguing the morality of suicide in standard cases. If I were to, for no good reason, just jump off a highway bridge on my way back from a lecture, that would be an exceedingly immoral act. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about someone in the end stages of dying of cancer. > [@](#): > > Death is a traumatic and irreparable experience to the family. This is simply not true. People get old. They die. Accidents happen. My grandmother died last year, and while my mother was really upset for a while, she got over it. She’s not traumatized or irreparably damaged. Neither was anyone else in the family (save for Auntie J, who was already crazy to begin with). You seriously overstate the power of the bond of family, and equally overstate the effects that death has on it. > [@](#): > > The individual who dies can no longer fulfill the obligations they once had, and the remainder of the family is diminished. The spouse no longer has the love and support of the person they came to love more than anyone; the child lacks an exemplar and source of education; the sibling no longer has the person with whom they have more in common than any other human being; the parent no longer has that into which they invested time and labor and emotion in the hopes that they would grow to be productive and happy. And even beyond that, again, _this is not applicable_. I’m sorry, but this person going through the end phases of glioblastoma is not able to fulfill the obligations she once had, unless her obligations included “screaming in pain” or “being drugged off her tits” (in which case she could very easily fulfill exactly one of them at any given time). For her family, it’s essentially a matter of watching her slowly suffer and die in increasing stages of brain damage and unconsciousness, or watching her die quickly, cutting the “anticipatory grief” phase down considerably (you know the feeling of knowing someone near you is going to die and there’s nothing you can do about it? It sucks almost as much as when they actually do.), getting closure, and moving on with their lives. Beyond that, though, you miss the point of these obligations. The entire point of morality (indeed, I would contend that if this isn’t the point of morality, then you’re not talking about morality, and you’re probably not talking about something I consider worth giving a shit about) is, in very loose terms, to make things as good as possible for humanity. Blindly applying these rules you’ve created as general catch-alls that seem to work in general to this case helps _no-one_. It doesn’t help her - she’s going to suffer, and still going to die, just having spent another while in excruciating pain or a drugged haze (the latter of which you seem to consider bad as well for some bizarre reason). It doesn’t help her family - she’s still going to die, and your rule merely ensures that they get to go through as much of the (legitimately traumatizing) process of watching her suffer as possible before she dies. I wouldn’t want that for a loved one. I probably wouldn’t even want that for someone I hated. It doesn’t help society at large - in her condition, she has _nothing more to give to the world_. I don’t mean that in the sense she doesn’t want to, I mean _she can’t_. And in the meanwhile, we’re helping foot the bill for her increasingly futile palliative care. So applying your “morality” here fails completely in the only goal morality can reasonably be said to have. Unless you want to hold these obligations up as an end unto themselves, at which point I’m just not going to care, because why should I? Your “moral” system is bizarre, dogmatic, and not based on anything that _actually matters_. I mean, when you say something like this: > [@](#): > > To willingly end one’s life prematurely is a unilateral abrogation of these obligations. Why should I care? The only reasons to value these obligations have to do with the effects I have on others. I care about my family and would not like to see them suffer. Me killing myself would cause immense suffering for them, therefore I don’t do it. I care about my own life, and I look forward to each new day because I love _living_. Me killing myself would put an end to that, and that’s a prospect I find quite awful. _But I’m not dying of cancer._ I’m not in a situation where I am in excruciating pain 24/7, and will be until I die. Indeed, if the life I had ahead of me was “suffer excruciating pain until the day I die”, I would choose death sooner than later, and I would expect anyone who loved me to understand that decision. I sure as hell wouldn’t be able to offer them much love and support, I’ll tell you that much. > [@](#): > > Those with emotional bonds to the person ending their life may claim to support their action, because they love the person and do not wish to display hostility towards them in the final stage of their life; but they are nonetheless harmed by the person’s absence as explained above. But they’d be harmed by it _anyways_. Remember, this isn’t a case where the person had a long, fulfilling life ahead of them. This isn’t even the case where you could squeeze in a few more heartfelt chats over the beep of the ECG. This person is going to be either non-responsive from pain, or non-responsive from the medication needed to handle the pain. What’s more, they’re harmed by watching the person suffer. The difference between me dying today and me dying a week from now to my family is almost nothing if that entire week is taken up by me wasting away while screaming incoherently. > [@](#): > > By ending one’s life prematurely, one teaches those who view one as a teacher that ending one’s life prematurely is acceptable behavior, which, in the long term, both diminishes the perceived value of human life as the conditions under which life is deemed to be worth living are drawn narrower and narrower, and weakens the social contract and civilization as a whole as suicide comes to be viewed as an acceptable end-run around obligations one does not wish to fulfill. Well that’s a ridiculous slipperly slope if I’ve ever seen one. “Because a life is considered not worth living due to the fact that it’s almost over and the entire rest of it will be spent suffering or comatose, this leads to a general diminishing of the value of human life”. My evaluation of human life is not diminished by Brittany Maynard’s “suicide” (I find it ridiculous to call it such), and I sincerely doubt anyone not in her situation feels any differently. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765/320 "2014-11-05T21:45:47Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > The problem with this argument in this case is, it’s not only death that renders people incapable of dealing with these issues. A permanently brain-damaged person is also incapable of loving and supporting his/her family. A person who, for the rest of their lives, will never stop being in insufferable pain is incapable of such things. Which Maynard demonstrably was not, as demonstrated by the fact that she was able to give TV interviews and pose for magazine photo shoots and blog and write her own suicide note in the days leading up to her death. > [@](#): > > This is simply not true. People get old. They die. Accidents happen. My grandmother died last year, and while my mother was really upset for a while, she got over it. She’s not traumatized or irreparably damaged. Neither was anyone else in the family (save for Auntie J, who was already crazy to begin with). You seriously overstate the power of the bond of family, and equally overstate the effects that death has on it. Perhaps you understate it out of grief. > [@](#): > > And even beyond that, again, _this is not applicable_. I’m sorry, but this person going through the end phases of glioblastoma is not able to fulfill the obligations she once had, unless her obligations included “screaming in pain” or “being drugged off her tits” (in which case she could very easily fulfill exactly one of them at any given time). Which she was demonstrably not in, as per above. > [@](#): > > Beyond that, though, you miss the point of these obligations. The entire point of morality (indeed, I would contend that if this isn’t the point of morality, then you’re not talking about morality, and you’re probably not talking about something I consider worth giving a shit about) is, in very loose terms, to make things as good as possible for humanity. Blindly applying these rules you’ve created as general catch-alls that seem to work in general to this case helps _no-one_. If the rules are _not_ universally applied, then they cease to be rules, and thus lose all value whatsoever. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t help her - she’s going to suffer, and still going to die, just having spent another while in excruciating pain or a drugged haze (the latter of which you seem to consider bad as well for some bizarre reason). Maybe. Or maybe not. She didn’t give herself enough time to find out. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t help her family - she’s still going to die, and your rule merely ensures that they get to go through as much of the (legitimately traumatizing) process of watching her suffer as possible before she dies. Maybe. Or maybe not. She didn’t give herself enough time to find out. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t want that for a loved one. I probably wouldn’t even want that for someone I hated. I wouldn’t want anyone I loved to deny themselves tomorrow. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t help society at large - in her condition, she has _nothing more to give to the world_. I don’t mean that in the sense she doesn’t want to, I mean _she can’t_. She can set an example. Freddie Mercury set an example. Harry Daghlian set an example. Franklin D. Roosevelt set an example. Brittany Maynard chickened out. > [@](#): > > And in the meanwhile, we’re helping foot the bill for her increasingly futile palliative care. A worthwhile expense. > [@](#): > > Me killing myself would cause immense suffering for them, therefore I don’t do it. I care about my own life, and I look forward to each new day because I love _living_. Me killing myself would put an end to that, and that’s a prospect I find quite awful. > > _But I’m not dying of cancer._ If you care, then cancer is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > I’m not in a situation where I am in excruciating pain 24/7, and will be until I die. We are all in a situation where we are in pain and will be until we die. It’s called life. > [@](#): > > Indeed, if the life I had ahead of me was “suffer excruciating pain until the day I die”, I would choose death sooner than later, and I would expect anyone who loved me to understand that decision. I sure as hell wouldn’t be able to offer them much love and support, I’ll tell you that much. Then perhaps you should work on that. > [@](#): > > But they’d be harmed by it _anyways_. Remember, this isn’t a case where the person had a long, fulfilling life ahead of them. This isn’t even the case where you could squeeze in a few more heartfelt chats over the beep of the ECG. Except that it is, as noted above. > [@](#): > > This person is going to be either non-responsive from pain, or non-responsive from the medication needed to handle the pain. What’s more, they’re harmed by watching the person suffer. The difference between me dying today and me dying a week from now to my family is almost nothing if that entire week is taken up by me wasting away while screaming incoherently. If those who love you know that you are hanging on because you love them as well, then no harm is done. > [@](#): > > Well that’s a ridiculous slipperly slope if I’ve ever seen one. “Because a life is considered not worth living due to the fact that it’s almost over and the entire rest of it will be spent suffering or comatose, this leads to a general diminishing of the value of human life”. My evaluation of human life is not diminished by Brittany Maynard’s “suicide” (I find it ridiculous to call it such), and I sincerely doubt anyone not in her situation feels any differently. Time will tell. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-no-brittany-maynard-thread-terminal-disease-doctor-assisted-suicide/701765.md?page=17)