Then you deal with it, because the capacity to feel pain means you exist.
And existence is always objectively preferable to the alternative.
Both. It is cowardly because it’s the easy way out; running away from your problems instead of dealing with them. And it’s insane because suicide is permanent and irrevocable; it cannot be taken back, it completely and permanently destroys every aspect of you as an entity, and forever robs the world of your presence. There is no possible scenario in life to which not existing is preferable.
So, no “Do Not Resuscitate” options in the hospital, right?
Correct. Doctors should not be in the business of allowing patients to die.
Ugh. In your world, we’d all end up as lumps of meat on ventilators.
No thanks!
How can you call my (hypothetical) actions cowardly (a moral judgment) if at the same time you claim that by making the choice to die I am not capable of making a moral choice.
Who said anything about morality?
Anyone here know/remember a sci-fi story where people are kept alive in a hospital indefinitely; human vegetables hooked up to life-providing drugs/machinery, because hey, it’s the modern age and no one has to die?
It’s horrific, and the moral incorrectness of your position here, Smapti, should be clear. In a world where we can keep people’s brains and bodies powered indefinitely (not that far of a stretch), the idea of existence uber alles plays out in a freakish and unnatural way.
Calling someone a coward connotes a moral judgment. I don’t think that should come as a surprise to you or anyone who has ever used/heard that word before.
A world where we can keep people’s brains and bodies powered indefinitely is the goal of medicine as a science, and to an extent, of human existence as a whole. To deny the pursuit of eternal life is to deny humanity.
Morality does not factor into the equation here. Cowardice is objectively defined as the refusal due to fear to carry out one’s obligations. To cause your own death is therefore objectively cowardly.
So for some reason, you seem qualified to judge this woman. Surely you’ve not walked a day in her shoes, so how are you able to shout down on her (and like-minded posters) from your high position of omnipotence?
It’s not like she held up your train by jumping in front of it today. You weren’t inconvenienced in the least, yet you still find the need to reflect negatively on her. I think she was quite brave in doing this and should be honored for bringing the issue of ending one’s life to the headlines for a few days.
Also, what are these magical resources you’re talking about? Actually, I’m sure you can come up with a list so let me ask a different question. Who’s gonna pay for these resources you’re proposing?
Our society is blossoming when we can have a honest discussion about an individual’s right to decide if they want to live or die.
ETA… Hold on… Obligation?! What obligation did she have to you or society? As i understand it, she cleared all affairs with her family.
You seem to consider yourself qualified to judge her. What makes you more qualified than I?
You’ve not walked a day in her shoes either.
I literally have been on a train which was held up by someone jumping in front of it, so thanks for bringing back those traumatic memories.
We are all inconvenienced when suicide is treated as a lifestyle choice or an act of bravery rather than as a crime against the self. It cheapens the value of every human life when one is ended frivolously and needlessly.
All of us. It is our civic obligation.
No individual has the right to kill anyone. Including themselves.
Is it, though? Non-existence is the ultimate neutrality. There’s no good, no bad, no pain, no joy. It’s . . . nothing. If you’ve been diagnosed with a terminal illness which will leave you in an unbelievable amount of suffering in your final days, it makes logical sense to commit suicide. Neutrality is better than misery.
I support the right to die; in my mind, the right of an individual diagnosed with a terminal illness to kill themselves is unarguably civilized. When you get into mental illness, it becomes much stickier, but I can’t see any sort of reasoning behind not allowing someone like Maynard to commit suicide beyond the time-worn “God doesn’t want you to”.
Where’s this come from? Your own head or you got a cite?
You’re right, I haven’t walked a day in her shoes. That’s exactly why I support letting her do what the hell she wants to do.
Something is always better than nothing.
It does not make sense to deprive yourself of those final days, nor to deprive those around you of them.
There is nothing civilized about suicide.
Desire to commit suicide is proof of mental illness.
As a human being you have a basic obligation to live. Death is a form of petty treason.
Each human life is unique and valuable beyond measure. To destroy one is the greatest crime a person can commit.
Civilized society is based on not just letting people “do what the hell they want to”.
She was obligated to live and experience life. This is the basic obligation of all living beings, and human beings in particular.
Cite? Seriously, that’s some strange views you got there.
again… your cite for this “greatest crime” stuff, please?
My “do what the hell they want” was a flip reply. You’re a smart cat, **Smapti **and you know what i was trying to say.