What? No Brittany Maynard thread? (terminal disease, doctor-assisted suicide)

[tomndebb]

@Smapti

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.

So, to defend your previous argument, you are changing to a totally different argument. That self-preservation is instinctive I will grant. That has utterly nothing to do with your claim that being born into a society places an obligation on one to continue living. So you are, indeed, making it up as you go along.

@Smapti

To argue that an individual is logically obligated to die would be to deny the self-preservation instinct.

However, it is exactly the logical conclusion of your argument of obligations that you are now abandoning.

@Smapti

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.

Nope. Ms. Maynard made her choice at a point prior to the point under discussion. You have stated as an absolute that people have a certain obligation. I pointed out that people in the last stages of pain, suffering, and debility would not actually be capable of carrying out those obligations. Pointing to Ms. Maynard, who had not reached that stage, does not support your argument. I was discussing your absolutists stance that you invoked against Ms. Maynard. She might have violated your beliefs by checking out “too early,” but her early demise does not support your argument that a person needs to continue living to the point of extremis.

@Smapti

Inability to fulfill an obligation does not negate it.

It does in the real worlds of law, philosophy, theology, and day-to-day life. Once again, you are making an unsupportable assertion to defend your odd belief, when that assertion has no basis outside your belief.

@Smapti

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.

Nope. Bargaining was one of the stages that an individual went through in dealing with grief, but it has nothing to do with a recognition that death is a release. If you think she ever said that, cite the passage in her book to support it. Otherwise, we have to chalk this up as one more example of you making up what you need to believe to support your argument.

@Smapti

An hour or a month not lived is an hour or a month stolen from those who upon the dying depend.

An extra hour of pain for a dying fire victim is not a gift, (and certainly not the monstrous suggestion of an obligation), to a survivor who must watch the victim suffer.

@Smapti

No one living is incapable of discharging their obligations.

I see that you have not actually encountered anyone who is dying from Alzheimer’s, severe physical trauma, end stage brain cancer, or other traumas. The world that you wish to imagine, (because it is not the real world), requires you to engage in the utmost cruelty.

Don’t bother responding, I can see that your preconceived beliefs have no connection to reality and further discussion is pointless.

[Smapti]

@tomndebb

Don’t bother responding, I can see that your preconceived beliefs have no connection to reality and further discussion is pointless.

As you wish, save for the following;

I see that you have not actually encountered anyone who is dying from Alzheimer’s, severe physical trauma, end stage brain cancer, or other traumas.

False. My grandmother is suffering from Alzheimer’s. I would not advise her to commit suicide, I would not wish her to commit suicide, and I would derive no comfort or release from her committing suicide.

[wolfpup]

@Smapti

Seems to me that we’re having that conversation just fine.

No, we’re having a conversation that causes people to say This is one of the most maddening threads I’ve ever encountered on the dope and to call the thread a “train wreck”. I think many of us feel that way and would rather have had a more reasoned and productive conversation about how the laws should be changed.

@Smapti

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.

I think your political kindred spirits are those who presume to moralize about medical issues without any understanding of medical facts, like the hordes who were pontificating about Schiavo. Just like, for instance, equating Brittany’s decision to end her life with someone’s arbitrary decision to jump off a bridge just because life is hard and he’s feeling blue – the kind of equivalence that you’ve been clearly implying by your dozens of insensitive comments.

@Smapti

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.

The grotesquely horrifying thing about diseases like GBM or ALS and a great many others is that the patient may survive past the point of having any power of self-determination or even communication, and our crazy laws in most cases prohibit any form of compassionate intervention. The plight of a patient in such a situation can become unthinkably horrific. If they’re going to act, they have to do it while they are still capable. Yet you equate it to casual suicide or “insanity”, and throw in absurd nonsense like “no one living is incapable of discharging their obligations”. It’s not just nonsense, it’s repugnant nonsense.

@Smapti

It means that the Oregon Death With Dignity Act exists.

Once again, for the fourth time, what does it compel physicians to do? You claimed it “compels” and “requires” them to do things. What are they? Or do you just avoid questions you can’t answer?

Incidentally, if you knew anything about the Act, you’d find that it’s the exact opposite of what you claim.

[running_coach]

@Smapti

As you wish, save for the following;

False. My grandmother is suffering from Alzheimer’s. I would not advise her to commit suicide, I would not wish her to commit suicide, and** I would derive no comfort or release from her committing suicide**.

It’s not about you, it’s about her.

[Velocity]

@Smapti

False. My grandmother is suffering from Alzheimer’s. I would not advise her to commit suicide, I would not wish her to commit suicide, and I would derive no comfort or release from her committing suicide.

But what if she said, “I’m the primary sufferer; my preferences outweigh yours as far as my death is concerned?”

[Smapti]

@Velocity

But what if she said, “I’m the primary sufferer; my preferences outweigh yours as far as my death is concerned?”

She wouldn’t, and I know she wouldn’t because I know her.

But if she did, I still wouldn’t agree.

[Smapti]

@running_coach

It’s not about you, it’s about her.

So then can we abandon all the arguments about how her family was spared from watching her suffer?

[Czarcasm]

@Smapti

So then can we abandon all the arguments about how her family was spared from watching her suffer?

Sure…if we can also abandon the argument about how you feel about her personal decision that doesn’t effect you in the slightest, or the argument about her supposed obligation to keep giving to society though she lay painfully dying.

[Smapti]

@wolfpup

No, we’re having a conversation that causes people to say This is one of the most maddening threads I’ve ever encountered on the dope and to call the thread a “train wreck”. I think many of us feel that way and would rather have had a more reasoned and productive conversation about how the laws should be changed.

The thread shouldn’t be in GD, then. Its being placed here implies that there is a debate to be had, not just a sitting-around-and-agreeing-with-each-other thing.

Once again, for the fourth time, what does it compel physicians to do? You claimed it “compels” and “requires” them to do things. What are they? Or do you just avoid questions you can’t answer?

Incidentally, if you knew anything about the Act, you’d find that it’s the exact opposite of what you claim.

It compels them to accept that physician-assisted suicide is legal in the state of Oregon.

[CarnalK]

@Czarcasm

Sure…if we can also abandon the argument about how you feel about her personal decision that doesn’t effect you in the slightest, or the argument about her supposed obligation to keep giving to society though she lay painfully dying.

You mean painfully living!

[Smapti]

@Czarcasm

Sure…if we can also abandon the argument about how you feel about her personal decision that doesn’t effect you in the slightest, or the argument about her supposed obligation to keep giving to society though she lay painfully dying.

It affects me, as it affects you, in that the value of both of our lives is cheapened by her act.

[CarnalK]

@Smapti

It affects me, as it affects you, in that the value of both of our lives is cheapened by her act.

You know, while this is news in the U.S., the right to die is more firmly established in other western countries. So instead of waiting patiently for news of the collapse of the value of American life, you could point out examples of such collapses in say Holland or something. Just saying.

[vivalostwages]

The woman described in the link below is just as miserable as the family members who supported her desire to die:

Paralyzed woman loses first Irish right-to-die case

Insisting that everyone remain alive, miserable and suffering, is nothing short of sadism and cruelty. That truly makes life intolerable. If you had your way, Smapti, I wouldn’t want to live in that kind of sick world. I’d yearn for more compassion.

As for the “she didn’t give enough” argument, I can just imagine you hounding Maynard (if you could have): “Damn it, Brittany, get back to that volunteer booth and give more of your time and energy! And if you happen to have a seizure, suck it up, get back on your feet and give some MORE!”

Would you tell someone who’s depressed to suck it up and stop moping around? Would you tell someone with a broken leg to get off the couch and go run a marathon?
If not, then why on earth would you even dream of telling someone who’s dying and losing energy every day to go expend every bit of it on what you consider to be worthwhile causes?
How is that your business?

[Czarcasm]

@Smapti

The thread shouldn’t be in GD, then. Its being placed here implies that there is a debate to be had, not just a sitting-around-and-agreeing-with-each-other thing.

It compels them to accept that physician-assisted suicide is legal in the state of Oregon.

What parts of the act, if any, have you read?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@wolfpup

No, we’re having a conversation that causes people to say This is one of the most maddening threads I’ve ever encountered on the dope and to call the thread a “train wreck”.

And that’s not even scratching the surface of what’s going on in the pit. I regret my response to this mess. The subsequent responses show no sign that what I said had any impact whatsoever.

[tomndebb]

@Smapti

False. My grandmother is suffering from Alzheimer’s. I would not advise her to commit suicide, I would not wish her to commit suicide, and I would derive no comfort or release from her committing suicide.

I do not recommend suicide, either. On the other hand, you have made claims about both the dying and survivors that are simply not true and you have posted an argument against suicide that it based on imaginary beliefs and bad logic.

I do not support suicide, but I have not made wild claims about the “cowardice” of people whom I did not know based on my own personal prejudices or an irrational belief.

[Smapti]

@vivalostwages

The woman described in the link below is just as miserable as the family members who supported her desire to die:

Wanting a family member to die is monstrous and cruel and I cannot conceive of the mindset of someone who would think such a thing.

Insisting that everyone remain alive, miserable and suffering, is nothing short of sadism and cruelty.

Life is suffering. Survival is finding meaning in suffering.

If you had your way, Smapti, I wouldn’t want to live in that kind of sick world. I’d yearn for more compassion.

Compassion comes from helping those who want to die, not enabling them.

Would you tell someone who’s depressed to suck it up and stop moping around?

I would, and I have.

Would you tell someone with a broken leg to get off the couch and go run a marathon?

No, because that would be silly. I would, however, encourage them to do everything they could so they could run that marathon someday.

If not, then why on earth would you even dream of telling someone who’s dying and losing energy every day to go expend every bit of it on what you consider to be worthwhile causes?
How is that your business?

It is my business because I am human.

[Typo_Negative]

@Smapti

It affects me, as it affects you, in that the value of both of our lives is cheapened by her act.

I don’t THAT is what’s cheapened our lives.

[Typo_Negative]

I must apologize. This is hot button and has caused me to abandon my civility and resort to insults. I will stay out of this one now.

[Muffin]

@Smapti

Self-preservation is the foremost obligation of any human being . . . . [W]e surrender aspects of our absolute free will as individuals to the whole for the greater good of all.

You are wrong on four counts.

First, there is no obligation – expectations and repercussions of various sorts depending on one’s culture and laws, yes, but inherent obligations, no. Your argument is circular when you assert that there is an obligation because you say that there is an obligation. You are no different than the Roman Catholic Church and other religious outfits that assert obligations prohibiting suicide because they say that there are obligations prohibiting suicide.

Second, regarding your claim that self-preservation is the foremost obligation, I think you’ll find that most parents would sacrifice themselves for their children once they have bonded with them. Now you and I come from very different backgrounds. I am truly sorry that you had a severely dysfunctional family, so I understand why you are unable to comprehend how family bonds work, but whether you are willing to accept this or not is irrelevant, for such bonds really are the norm in healthy families.

Third, a point that seems lost on you is that Britany Maynard was rapidly approaching the end of her life due to a terminal illness. She was walking dead who at the time of her passing could have not furthered in any way the meeting of any of those supposed obligations that you have invented. If one were to accept for sake of argument that she had familial and societal obligations, the fact is that she met all such hypothetical obligations by deciding to die when she did. Ms. Maynard spent quality time with her family (she was survived by her husband, her mother and her step-father) doing her bucket list together with them. Although she could not spare them the emotional pain of losing her (she would have died in a few days or weeks anyway had she not killed herself), she spared them from the great emotional pain of having to helplessly watch her descend into worsening headaches and seizures until the brain damage became too severe to support her body. She worked with a non-profit and created a charitable fund for it. She spared the medical system the very high cost of futile end-of-life treatment.

Fourth, regarding your claim that we have surrendered our absolute free will, the decision to end one’s life, be it made through an advanced directive, or through rational suicide, or through the double effect of palliative medication, or through terminal medication, are acceptable in our society, and beyond this, assisted suicide is acceptable in the state in which Ms. Maynard resided when she passed away. These various rights and freedoms that we have to determine when we die are proof that we certainly have not surrendered our absolute free will on this matter. If you doubt this, I suggest you look further up in this thread concerning the law as is applies to ending one’s life, and then go and do some research on the issue, for you have confused proven fact with your own personal fancy.

The remainder of your manifesto is derivative of the part quoted above, and accordingly has been dealt with above.

In short, your perceptions of the matter do not match reality, so the opinions that you have formed regarding the matter do not match the opinions formed by people who are in better touch with reality.