Throughout North America, committing suicide or attempting to commit suicide is no longer a criminal offense. However, helping another person commit suicide is a criminal act. One exception is the state of Oregon which allows people who are terminally ill and in intractable pain to get a lethal prescription from their physician. This is called "Physician Assisted Suicide" or PAS.
Do you consider it murder for a doctor to "aid" someone who wants to commit suicide?
| pampoon wrote: |
...
Do you consider it murder for a doctor to "aid" someone who wants to commit suicide? |
No. I think it is a humane act. If a person is terminally ill and in constant pain, it is just cruel to force them to live out their remaining days in pain. You hear about the pledge, "First, do no harm", and to me forcing a person to live though constant pain when you can give a painless death is "doing harm.Okay, I can see where you're coming from. Well, in my family I grew up Catholic but I converted to the Pentecostal faith in my Junior year; so I somewhat have a mixed belief system.
In Catholicism, people used to take ropes and tie them around their waists tightly all day as a sign of suffering for someone else in need. If you've ever worn an original Scapula, then you know that they were made to be annoying and itchy. This is because if you offer up your small pain to God, he will take away a big pain from someone else.
In the same way, taking the small suffering before death is both a way to offer up to God and to earn your way into Heaven.
Just my stance...
| pampoon wrote: |
....in the same way, taking the small suffering before death is both a way to offer up to God and to earn your way into Heaven.
Just my stance... |
Yeah, I understand that and I respect the feelings of those who think it is wrong. But to my way of thinking, the religious side is strictly an issue for the doc and the patient. If the patient thinks it is wrong, they shouldn't do it. If the Doc thinks it is wrong, he can try to talk them out of it or pass it on to a different doc. But I think the option should be allowed and not made impossible by laws. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| If the Doc thinks it is wrong, he can try to talk them out of it or pass it on to a different doc. But I think the option should be allowed and not made impossible by laws. |
i think people consider this option when there is no hope for life.
but generally doctors don't talk about %100 .
everytime they say 'maybe'
sometimes docs say great possibility about death of a patient buth he/she lives.PAS and religion I feel are a world apart. I know they both have a relation to each other but I believe it is a question of humanity as already stated. Terminally ill patients should have the choice. People get taken off life support quite frequently and I don't believe there is much difference in the situation. Both result in the passing of a person who would never have lived a life they would want. It's not murder. You have to be cruel to be kind sometimes.
| pampoon wrote: |
| In Catholicism, people used to take ropes and tie them around their waists tightly all day as a sign of suffering for someone else in need. If you've ever worn an original Scapula, then you know that they were made to be annoying and itchy. This is because if you offer up your small pain to God, he will take away a big pain from someone else. |
Before I talk about PAS I would like to mention my views on this.
I see what you described in your post there as rather silly (obviously this is my view, I don't mean to cause offence to anyone). Why, if you cause increased suffering to yourself would God take pain away from someone else?
God wants people to be happy and is omni-benevolent; why would he then go allong with this? To relieve the suffering of their pain and/or to make the the people who are inflicting small annoyance on themselves to feel good about themselves? I would say neither of these reasons are satisfactory because God could do those anyway if he 'wanted' to.
Anyway, about PAS.
When a person is terminally ill and/or in constant pain which is only relievable by the frequent taking of some drug or another and this person decides they would rather die: they should be allowed to. I do not see why anyone in their right mind would keep want to them alive (in normal circumstances). You are ending their suffering at their own request which is a humane, decent and wholly morale thing to do. If you keep them alive you are, essentially, torturing them. Are you not?
I would say that in cases where the person merely wishes for their physician to assist them in suicide because they don't want to go on living for whatever reason the answer is never going to be clear. Simply because the answer is dependant on the situation of the person. This is why it is almost impossible [in this day and age] to make the right decision without being questioned and attacked for your actions.
Remember that we kill animals without so much as a second thought. They are put down daily and there's no uproar there. Why do we put down animals? Because we consider it the kindest thing to do, therefore why can we not do the same to humans? Not, surely, because someone with skewed beliefs will criticize you for it?It's upto the person who is suffering to truly decide, but then again, the physicians morality plays into the whole factor as well. I believe it's right for a physician to do it. 
I don't consider it a criminal act, but definitely an immoral one in my own personal beliefs. So, I don't think people should be disallowed to do this, it's just something I would never do.
| missdixy wrote: |
| I don't consider it a criminal act. |
It's a criminal act if someone who is in any kind of pain or discomfort wants to have physician assisted suicide and is not allowed that freedom. Why? Because it's torture. Nothing complicated, but that is the case and it is true. Although some people may disagree, it is in fact illegal not to allow this to someone who is suffering. | missdixy wrote: |
| I don't consider it a criminal act, but definitely an immoral one in my own personal beliefs. So, I don't think people should be disallowed to do this, it's just something I would never do. |
i don't think the fact that it's something you would never do makes it immoral. i would never eat ketchup on french toast, but i don't think that it's immoral. And if you really want to do it, go ahead.
if you're going to claim something is immoral, that's an EXTREMELY harsh claim that you'd better be ready to back up with some reasons why.
As far as i'm concerned, my body is my property, not the state's. And my life belongs to me and me alone. If i want to end it, that is my prerogative. If my doctor agrees to help me end it with as little pain and as much dignity as possible, then what gives anyone else the right to tell either of us that that is wrong? | Indi wrote: |
| As far as i'm concerned, my body is my property, not the state's. And my life belongs to me and me alone. If i want to end it, that is my prerogative. If my doctor agrees to help me end it with as little pain and as much dignity as possible, then what gives anyone else the right to tell either of us that that is wrong? |
Nothing, nothing at all.
Naturally no one has any 'rights' at all - we are just 'given' them (however moral they may be); the Government of your country 'gives' you these rights and they also believe that they have the right to keep you alive, whatever your current situation.
This should not be so, why does it matter (in normal circumstances) if someone has PAS? What do the government care? Yes, it's reducing the work force of the country, but the number of people who have PAS is insignificant. So what? Perhaps because it makes suicide rates in the country look bad? If so, they have no right - they already rule by statistics they don't even understand the significance of, they have no right to prevent free will because of it. I cannot think of any other rational reason, anyone else got one? One that is logical, rational and acceptable?
I wonder what it's like for the doctors who have to take their patient’s lives. | Indi wrote: |
...if you're going to claim something is immoral, that's an EXTREMELY harsh claim that you'd better be ready to back up with some reasons why.
... |
That seems a little harsh yourself. She was stating it was immoral by her beliefs, but was not claiming it was true for everyone. Does morlaity have to be absolute? I thought that was a very rational way to look at it. I think we all have our own morality and to live your own but not force it on others seems a very good thing to me.I'm mostly for PAS, but the arguement that actually holds some weight, at least in my mind, is the persons state of mind. Is the person fully aware of their decision and the full ramification with friends and family? I think if there were a system in place where numerous opnions on the medical state were explored and if there are no viable options left, there would a session or two of group counseling with the patient and loved ones before a final decision was made, not to try and change their mind, just to make sure the patient is sure of their decisions.
yes, pas is murder. you mention the fact of commiting suicide not being punished. well, in that case you're not punished because you're harming yourself. anyway, if you commit suicide or you attempt to do so, you're still going against the human nature. but in pas you're killing another person. so not only you're going against human nature but you're also attempting another man's life and dignity, even if the one you're killing wants to be killed. i know i haven't made myself very clear, but my english is very limmited.
Remember, elincinerador, that "murder" is a legal term. You can kill someone without it being "murder" - if they agree, for example, then won't necessarily be counted as murder in the eyes of the law. But some people believe that it physicians should not be allowed to take the lives of people on request, thus it is murder in their eyes. It would be murder if the law said that physicians couldn't do it.
| ninjakannon wrote: |
| Remember, elincinerador, that "murder" is a legal term. You can kill someone without it being "murder" - if they agree, for example, then won't necessarily be counted as murder in the eyes of the law. .... |
There may be a legal definition of murder, but it is also defined as " The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."
If PAS is illegal, it quite clearly can be called murder. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
...if you're going to claim something is immoral, that's an EXTREMELY harsh claim that you'd better be ready to back up with some reasons why.
... |
That seems a little harsh yourself. She was stating it was immoral by her beliefs, but was not claiming it was true for everyone. Does morlaity have to be absolute? I thought that was a very rational way to look at it. I think we all have our own morality and to live your own but not force it on others seems a very good thing to me. |
i know a lot of people think that philosophy is just a bunch of people sitting around giving opinions, and that everyone's opinion is just as good as anyone else's. That's complete nonsense. By analogy, science would be just a bunch of people making theories for how the universe works up, and everyone's theory is just as good as anyone else's (of course, people do seem to believe that -_-). Just like science is a study of nature using rigourously structured observation and inference, philosophy is a study of right and wrong, and the metaphysical, using rigoursly structured reason.
The key word there is reason. Your opinion means... well just about squat, really. What matters is the reason you have that opinion. Does anyone really care about what i think about PAS? Do you think i'm going to change anyone's mind, or teach them anything, if i just say: "well, gee, i think it sucks."? Of course not. -_- And i'm not going to learn anything or have my opinions changed if the thread is full of empty opinions either. Empty opinions are just a waste of everyone's time.
When you stand up in a philosophy forum and say "x is immoral", you are effectively saying "i have a reason for believing x is immoral" - because if you don't have a reason for believing something, you're just wasting everyone's time. If you would like me to assume that you don't really have any reasons for believing something, and that you really are just here to waste everyone's time, by all means say so. If that's the case, then I will not make the mistake of taking you seriously in the future.
So now you've stood up in a philosophy forum and said (or rather implied, but let's work on the assumption that you're not just wasting our time until you state otherwise) that you have a reason for believing that PAS is immoral. Frankly, no one cares about your conclusion... it's your reason that matters. Your reasoning is what's going to teach us, and maybe even change our minds, not your conclusion.
And she has effectively told us that there is a reason to believe that PAS is immoral (once again, unless we assume that she's wasting our time, but i chose to take her seriously). This is a powerful claim, because if it's true and she can back it up, then i (and everyone else here, probably) am going to have to rethink PAS, and maybe even eventually vote against it if given the opportunity. In other words, if her claim is taken seriously, and if it's true, it's the start of changing society, even if only this tiny little bit of it. And that's what philosophy is all about. Not a pointless sharing of opinions. And that's why a statement saying something is immoral is so important.
None of this has anything to do with relative or absolute morality. Your use of the term is incorrect. We are discussing a specific moral question - the morality of PAS. The act is either moral, immoral or amoral, and if it's amoral, then the factors that make it moral or immoral on a case-by-case basis should be discussed. You can't end up with one person rationally concluding that it's moral and another concluding that it's not. The only way that can happen is if one or both is making that conclusion based on opinion, not reason. And, once again, opinion means squat. Reason is the only thing that matters in philosophy.
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| ninjakannon wrote: | | Remember, elincinerador, that "murder" is a legal term. You can kill someone without it being "murder" - if they agree, for example, then won't necessarily be counted as murder in the eyes of the law. .... |
There may be a legal definition of murder, but it is also defined as " The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."
If PAS is illegal, it quite clearly can be called murder. |
Your argument is circular and pointless. If PAS is murder, then it should be illegal, obviously. If it is illegal then it's murder, obviously. You end up with nothing in the end.
The question is not whether or not PAS is illegal. It is whether PAS should be illegal. | Indi wrote: |
i know a lot of people think that philosophy is just a bunch of people sitting around giving opinions, and that everyone's opinion is just as good as anyone else's. That's complete nonsense. By analogy, science would be just a bunch of people making theories for how the universe works up, and everyone's theory is just as good as anyone else's |
Sorry, Indi, I think you're way off base. Nobody is equating philosophy with science. She wasn't even discussing philosophy. She was just expressing her feeling that it was wrong in her eyes. She wasn't making any absolute philosphical point, just that she felt it was wrong. If she was making a statement that everyone should see it as immoral then I would most likely agree with you. But I think we all should be allowed our feelings on an issue without someone atacking us.
| Quote: |
| HoboPelican wrote: | | If PAS is illegal, it quite clearly can be called murder. |
Your argument is circular and pointless. If PAS is murder, then it should be illegal, obviously. If it is illegal then it's murder, obviously. You end up with nothing in the end.
The question is not whether or not PAS is illegal. It is whether PAS should be illegal. |
Actually, you just restated my point. I was just saying that if it's illegal somewhere, then there it is murder by definition. But murder is just a word and I agree that it has no bearing on the discussion of if it SHOULD be illegal.For those who have seen the Third Season of 24...
(SPOILER WARNING)
[spoiler]Gael Ortega attempted to stop a biological bomb from detonating inside a hotel, only to have it explode in his face. Because of his religious beliefs, he refused to accept PAS, meaning he died a horrifying, agonizing death.[/spoiler]
What you think is one thing, but watching someone die like that is another.
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
i know a lot of people think that philosophy is just a bunch of people sitting around giving opinions, and that everyone's opinion is just as good as anyone else's. That's complete nonsense. By analogy, science would be just a bunch of people making theories for how the universe works up, and everyone's theory is just as good as anyone else's |
Sorry, Indi, I think you're way off base. Nobody is equating philosophy with science. She wasn't even discussing philosophy. She was just expressing her feeling that it was wrong in her eyes. She wasn't making any absolute philosphical point, just that she felt it was wrong. If she was making a statement that everyone should see it as immoral then I would most likely agree with you. But I think we all should be allowed our feelings on an issue without someone atacking us. |
Is this not a philosophy forum? If she wasn't making any rational point, then she was creating unnecessary entropy.
Would you be alright with this kind of thing if we were having a discussion about the Jewish religion, and someone popped in and said "well, i hate Jews - i just think they're filthy little creatures"? i wouldn't. Because they have thrown out a baseless value judgement and done nothing to further the discussion. On top of that, they would be spouting meaningless hate against innocent people who don't deserve to be treated like that.
But yet, you're ok with someone walking into a discussion about PAS and saying "yeah well i just think it's plain immoral", with absolutely no reason to back that up. Even though they've just thrown out a baseless value judgement and done nothing to further the discussion. On top of that, they would be spouting meaningless intolerance of people who are faced with making that choice and who don't deserve to be told that people think they're "immoral" for considering it.
You see? Same crime really. You're ok with the latter version, and i assume you're not ok with the former. Why? Just because you don't feel any moral responsibility to protect people considering PAS from intolerance of their decisions?
An antisemite who walks into a discussion on Judaism and says he hates Jews is doing exactly what you describe: "just expressing [their] feeling that it was wrong in [their] eyes. [They weren't] making any absolute philosphical point, just that [they] felt it was wrong." Isn't that all that the antisemite is doing? "If [they were] making a statement that everyone should see it as immoral then I would most likely agree with you. But I think we all should be allowed our feelings on an issue without someone atacking us." Doesn't that include the antisemite as well? He didn't say everyone should hate Jews. He just said he did. Does that make it all ok in your eyes?
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| Quote: |
| HoboPelican wrote: | | If PAS is illegal, it quite clearly can be called murder. |
Your argument is circular and pointless. If PAS is murder, then it should be illegal, obviously. If it is illegal then it's murder, obviously. You end up with nothing in the end.
The question is not whether or not PAS is illegal. It is whether PAS should be illegal. |
Actually, you just restated my point. I was just saying that if it's illegal somewhere, then there it is murder by definition. But murder is just a word and I agree that it has no bearing on the discussion of if it SHOULD be illegal. |
Er... i restated your point to point out that it was pointless. And it still is. If it's illegal somewhere, then it's murder there by definition... uh, no kidding? And if it's murder in that place then obviously it's illegal there, duh.
Or... is your point that because it's illegal some places that makes it murder everywhere? i sincerely hope not, because that's patent nonsense. | Indi wrote: |
....Is this not a philosophy forum? If she wasn't making any rational point, then she was creating unnecessary entropy.
|
Uh, actually it is a philosophy and religion forum.
| Indi wrote: |
Would you be alright with this kind of thing if we were having a discussion about the Jewish religion, and someone popped in and said "well, i hate Jews - i just think they're filthy little creatures"? i wouldn't. Because they have thrown out a baseless value judgement and done nothing to further the discussion. On top of that, they would be spouting meaningless hate against innocent people who don't deserve to be treated like that.
|
Well, I worry that your main point here is about the value judgment and not the hate. No, I would not be alright with it. But mostly because of the hate involved. If someone said "I really don't like Jews", well, they just stated a personal opinion and I would have mine about them.
| Indi wrote: |
But yet, you're ok with someone walking into a discussion about PAS and saying "yeah well i just think it's plain immoral", with absolutely no reason to back that up. Even though they've just thrown out a baseless value judgement and done nothing to further the discussion. On top of that, they would be spouting meaningless intolerance of people who are faced with making that choice and who don't deserve to be told that people think they're "immoral" for considering it.
|
Did we read the same post? Meaningless intolerance? She expressed her feeling that it was immoral by her beliefs but that others should be allowed to do it if they wanted. That is the essence of tolerance, thinking that your beliefs should not be pushed onto others. You on the other hand seem totally unwilling to allow her to express her own feelings on the issue.
| Indi wrote: |
You see? Same crime really. You're ok with the latter version, and i assume you're not ok with the former. Why? Just because you don't feel any moral responsibility to protect people considering PAS from intolerance of their decisions?
|
Not the same at all, really. One is all about hate and one is about beliefs and tolerance. Actually, I am completely in favor of PAS and suicide in general. I just did not see any intolerance in her post. Again, the intolerance I see is in your finding fault with someone expressing their feeling.
| Indi wrote: |
| An antisemite who walks into a discussion on Judaism and says he hates Jews is doing exactly what you describe: "just expressing [their] feeling that it was wrong in [their] eyes. [They weren't] making any absolute philosphical point, just that [they] felt it was wrong." Isn't that all that the antisemite is doing? "If [they were] making a statement that everyone should see it as immoral then I would most likely agree with you. But I think we all should be allowed our feelings on an issue without someone atacking us." Doesn't that include the antisemite as well? He didn't say everyone should hate Jews. He just said he did. Does that make it all ok in your eyes? |
Whew, take a deep breathe, Indi. Why do you keep expressing your examples in terms of hate? She only said it was wrong in her belief system , but that her feelings should not stop others from doing it. I saw no judgment there. No hate. If I was having a conversation as you describe and someone came in and said "I don't like Jews", I would see that as just a point of view that needed some discussion. Serious discussion, but I wouldn't attack them.
| Indi wrote: |
Er... i restated your point to point out that it was pointless. And it still is. If it's illegal somewhere, then it's murder there by definition... uh, no kidding? And if it's murder in that place then obviously it's illegal there, duh.
|
No, Indi. <sigh> My point is that I thought Ninakannon was implying that "murder" was only a legal term and that he was trying to invalidate the previous post on that basis. "duh"? That sort of response is really childish and I'm surprised to see that from you.
Yes, I firmly believe in PAS. I've seen too many friends suffer for an extended time when there was no hope for them to make it. It was awful. However, if I meet someone who disagrees with the idea, but thinks it should be allowed for those that think as we do, well, I think that is great.Firstly, sorry: I did not realise that murder wasn't only a legal term. On second thoughts I realise that it obviously isn't merely that and a look at wikipedia's definition backs you up, HoboPelican.
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| If I was having a conversation as you describe and someone came in and said "I don't like Jews", I would see that as just a point of view that needed some discussion. Serious discussion, but I wouldn't attack them. |
From what I've gathered it's not the opinion that Indi is attacking, it's the fact that the opinion wasn't backed up. If someone walks up to you while you're having a conversation about Jews, continuing the example, and says "I hate Jews" and then walks off again they're interrupting the conversation while providing nothing any side of the argument.
An opinion without sufficient evidence or backup is practically useless and meaningless. | ninjakannon wrote: |
....
From what I've gathered it's not the opinion that Indi is attacking, it's the fact that the opinion wasn't backed up. If someone walks up to you while you're having a conversation about Jews, continuing the example, and says "I hate Jews" and then walks off again they're interrupting the conversation while providing nothing any side of the argument.
An opinion without sufficient evidence or backup is practically useless and meaningless. |
I think a real life conversation is not a good analogy for a web forum, but if we have to use that one, remember that the person walked in, expressed her feelings and was then immediately attacked for her feelings. In real life the person would have walked off also.
When talking about something like this, personal feelings, religion, law, and medicine all get mixed together. I don't think it is rational to expect every post to be perfect. Heck, mine seldom are. If the issue is that a post is not progressing the topic, well, that is spam and you should report that to a mod and not be guilty of backseat modding yourself. For me, the point is that someone came in and expressed her feelings but at the same time expressed a sense of tolerance you don't often see here.
But whatever. I think this has detracted from the main point long enough. Let's move on.
I found this on the current state of the laws. I was surprised to see Ohio no longer considers it a crime. Looks like things are changing. | Quote: |
Currently, 35 STATES have statutes explicitly criminalizing assisted suicide :
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin
NINE states criminalize assisted suicide through common law:
Alabama, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia
THREE states have abolished the common law of crimes and do not have statutes criminalizing assisted suicide :
North Carolina, Utah, Wyoming
In Ohio, that state's supreme court ruled in October 1996 that assisted suicide is not a crime.
In Virginia, there is no real clear case law on assisted suicide , nor is there is a statute criminalizing the act, although there is a statute which imposes civil sanctions on persons assisting in a suicide.
Only Oregon permits physician- assisted suicide. |
http://www.euthanasia.com/bystate.htmlIt depends on how much assistance is provided. Is selling somebody a rope to hang themself murder? No. Is injecting someone with an OD of barbituates to kill them murder? YES. Even if they ask you to do it, it's murder. Physically killing someone (even by request) goes beyond simple "assitance" of suicide (a legal, albeit retarded act in most places) and thrusts you into the realm of homicide.
| Studio Madcrow wrote: |
| It depends on how much assistance is provided. Is selling somebody a rope to hang themself murder? No. Is injecting someone with an OD of barbituates to kill them murder? YES. Even if they ask you to do it, it's murder. Physically killing someone (even by request) goes beyond simple "assitance" of suicide (a legal, albeit retarded act in most places) and thrusts you into the realm of homicide. |
Are you speaking legally? In what country? In which state? And I do take issue with your blanket statement that suicide is retarded. Until you or a loved one is living in constant pain or under constant sedation with no hope for recovery, I think you ought to be a bit more careful in your judgements.
Actually, is anyone familiar with how PAS is carried out? I was thinking that the Doc would hang whatever the agent was on an IV and allow the patient to open the flow. Does anyone know if this is how it's done? Or are there multiple options?Sorry to rehash some of Indi's posts, but I only do so to make a new point.
| Indi wrote: |
| As far as i'm concerned, my body is my property, not the state's. And my life belongs to me and me alone. If i want to end it, that is my prerogative. If my doctor agrees to help me end it with as little pain and as much dignity as possible, then what gives anyone else the right to tell either of us that that is wrong? |
-interestingly enough this quote is similar to the claim the PAS is "immoral" in that Indi fails to explain the reasons for his claim that: | Indi wrote: |
| my life belongs to me and me alone |
But besides Indi's apparent disregard for his own rules, his post serves to illustrate one of two underlying viewpoints that serve to back up both sides of the debate; one of selfishness (I have my rights), and one of selflessness. Both attitudes can be used to back up both points.
Selfish: I have the right to do so, or they don't have the right to do so because it (possibly) hurts society and therefore me.
Selfless: I should be able to because I don't want to cause my friends and family to suffer and be burdened, or they shouldn't commit PAS because their death may cause pain to family and friends.
That is why the real question is not whether or not one should commit PAS, but whether or not one should be able to commit PAS. The first is a moral question for individuals to answer, the second is a philosophical/political question for society to contend with.
Personally I would not condone others committing PAS (because I illogically believe it to be immoral), but I would never vote to restrict another's access to such a service since their use of PAS is an individually moral decision, one that should not be based on what I illogically believe, but on what they illogically believe. This is similar to my stance on abortion and many other civil liberties issues... | Montressor wrote: |
Sorry to rehash some of Indi's posts, but I only do so to make a new point.
| Indi wrote: | | As far as i'm concerned, my body is my property, not the state's. And my life belongs to me and me alone. If i want to end it, that is my prerogative. If my doctor agrees to help me end it with as little pain and as much dignity as possible, then what gives anyone else the right to tell either of us that that is wrong? |
-interestingly enough this quote is similar to the claim the PAS is "immoral" in that Indi fails to explain the reasons for his claim that: | Indi wrote: | | my life belongs to me and me alone |
But besides Indi's apparent disregard for his own rules, |
Aside from the fact that i cannot defend myself on that point further because a moderater has declared it closed - and aside from the fact that it seems a little childish for someone to make the last point then close the discussion without allowing anyone to refute him or her - are you not displaying an apparent disregard for the forum rules by continuing to bring up an issue that a moderator has declared closed?
But for the record, i gave both the claim - that outlawing PAS is wrong - and the rationale to back up my claim - that my body is my property and thus the state has no right to say what to do with it. So i did back up my claim, thank you very much.
If you want to debate whether or not my rationale or the premises in it are valid, you are free to do so.
| Montressor wrote: |
| his post serves to illustrate one of two underlying viewpoints that serve to back up both sides of the debate; one of selfishness (I have my rights), and one of selflessness. |
Let's pretend for a moment that someone deciding what to do with their own life for the sake of an outside agent - say family or friends - is selfless, and that such selflessness is a good thing.
Let's start with Joe, who is dying of a terminal illness. He has less than a 5% chance of survival, and even if he does survive it will probably be in a limited fashion - meaning he will probably be in pain and sickly for the rest of his life. But he has a 95% chance of a slow, painful and indignant death.
So, following your logic, Joe does the "selfless" thing, and puts his life in the hands of his family and friends.
Now the family and friends have been given the horrible burden of having to decide whether Joe lives or dies. Gee, that was nice of Joe. How selfless.
Let's conisider two cases. One where the family and friends decide to keep Joe alive, and one where they decide he dies.
First, let's consider if they choose for Joe to live. They want Joe to stick around for as long as possible - well, cause they love Joe, I guess. Joe may be in terrible pain, but they really want him to be around. Joe may be overwhelmingly likely to die shortly anyway, after a period of prolonged misery, but they really want Joe around. Joe may suffer immensely during this period, and be forced to lose his dignity on top of all that as his body starts to fail him, but hey! They really, really want Joe around.
Would you not label these people as selfish?
Now, let's consider if they choose for Joe to die. Well, why would they do that? There could be several reasons. Maybe they don't want to see him suffer, which would be nice. Maybe they just don't want the burden of caring for him as an invalid, which would be selfish. So it's hard to say whether or not the decision would be a moral one on the face of it.
But consider this... is it right for anyone to condemn anyone else to death? When is it ok to point the finger at someone else and say "you die"? A difficult question to be sure, but we can narrow it down to this specific instance. Here we have the case of someone deciding someone else dies for one of the following reasons:
- Because Joe will be a burden on them
- Because Joe will have a miserable life
Are either of those reasons valid reasons to condemn someone to death? Of course not.
So, to recap.
Here is "selfless" Joe, who dumps a horribly difficult decision on his family. Is this a selfless act?
Here is Joe's family and friends, being forced to make a decision by Joe. No matter what decision they make, it will be a horrible decision. But hey, it was really selfless of Joe to give them the choice, right?
| Montressor wrote: |
Both attitudes can be used to back up both points.
Selfish: I have the right to do so, or they don't have the right to do so because it (possibly) hurts society and therefore me.
Selfless: I should be able to because I don't want to cause my friends and family to suffer and be burdened, or they shouldn't commit PAS because their death may cause pain to family and friends.
That is why the real question is not whether or not one should commit PAS, but whether or not one should be able to commit PAS. The first is a moral question for individuals to answer, the second is a philosophical/political question for society to contend with. |
The second question depends on the first. In fact, it's a chain of questions.
- Is it ok for a person to commit suicide?
- If it is ok for a person to commit suicide, should we not allow them to?
- If someoen is allowed to commit suicide, is it ok for someone to assist them?
- If it is ok for someone to assist them, should we not allow them to?
If you can forge a chain of logic from start to finish, you can figure out the answer to the question. | Indi wrote: |
| Montressor wrote: | Sorry to rehash some of Indi's posts, but I only do so to make a new point.
| Indi wrote: | | As far as i'm concerned, my body is my property, not the state's. And my life belongs to me and me alone. If i want to end it, that is my prerogative. If my doctor agrees to help me end it with as little pain and as much dignity as possible, then what gives anyone else the right to tell either of us that that is wrong? |
-interestingly enough this quote is similar to the claim the PAS is "immoral" in that Indi fails to explain the reasons for his claim that: | Indi wrote: | | my life belongs to me and me alone |
But besides Indi's apparent disregard for his own rules, |
Aside from the fact that i cannot defend myself on that point further because a moderater has declared it closed - and aside from the fact that it seems a little childish for someone to make the last point then close the discussion without allowing anyone to refute him or her - are you not displaying an apparent disregard for the forum rules by continuing to bring up an issue that a moderator has declared closed?
... |
Indi, I didn't close anything. I suggested we move on with the actual discussion since you and I were discussing how people should post in this topic, not the topic itself. Go ahead and discuss what Montressor brought up. That seems quite appropriate for the topic.
BTW - If you feel the need, please don't hesitate to contact an admin or Bondings himself to discuss my modding. | Indi wrote: |
| But for the record, i gave both the claim - that outlawing PAS is wrong - and the rationale to back up my claim - that my body is my property and thus the state has no right to say what to do with it. So i did back up my claim, thank you very much. |
I beg to differ, you backed up your initial claim with another claim, neither claim was in itself a solid concrete reason that we all agree on. If however, we all agree on your second claim, then your other claims are reasonable.
| Indi wrote: |
So, following your logic, Joe does the "selfless" thing, and puts his life in the hands of his family and friends.
Now the family and friends have been given the horrible burden of having to decide whether Joe lives or dies. Gee, that was nice of Joe. How selfless. |
You seem to have missed my point (once again). I did not say that making your family choose is selfless, but considering their thoughts and feelings is partially selfless. Joe's attitude may be one of selflessness, but his actions aren't fully (and can't be fully) selfless. As you kindly illustrate in this next quote, both sides can have aspects of selfishness and selflessness: | Indi wrote: |
| Now, let's consider if they choose for Joe to die. Well, why would they do that? There could be several reasons. Maybe they don't want to see him suffer, which would be nice. Maybe they just don't want the burden of caring for him as an invalid, which would be selfish. So it's hard to say whether or not the decision would be a moral one on the face of it. |
-right in line with one of my main points | Montressor wrote: |
| two underlying viewpoints that [each] serve to back up both sides of the debate |
Since both sides can be based on a selfish or selfless "I want", simply stating that, | Indi wrote: |
| It's my right |
and backing up that claim with | Indi wrote: |
| If i want to ...then what gives anyone else the right [to say otherwise] |
Doesn't work too well.
I'm not advocating that PAS be legally considered murder, but that anyone wanting to undergo PAS should, if possible, openly discusses the thoughts and feelings of everyone involved including the patient's family, friends and even the doctor. Something that could help reveal everyones selfish and unselfish reasons. That's not to say that you (as the patient) can't make the final decision about the life they are choosing to end, but that the patient should listen and consider the feelings of others.
| Indi wrote: |
The second question depends on the first. In fact, it's a chain of questions.
- Is it ok for a person to commit suicide?
- If it is ok for a person to commit suicide, should we not allow them to?
- If someoen is allowed to commit suicide, is it ok for someone to assist them?
- If it is ok for someone to assist them, should we not allow them to? |
Fine, I will answer the questions for you:
1. That depends entirely on the person, the circumstances and the method used...
2. That depends entirely on the person, the circumstances and the method used...
3. Depending on the method used, I personally believe yes (notwithstanding my desire that they have a nice group therapy session with their friends and family first)
4. Depending on how the "someone" assists them, most likely yes.
| Indi wrote: |
| If you can forge a chain of logic from start to finish, you can figure out the answer to the question. |
But you cannot definitively answer any of the questions without relying on unfounded claims (or claims based on other claims) that PAS is immoral or that PAS is a natural right...
Given that I tend to err on the side of giving more personal liberties (since I'm not a government official), I would answer #2 this way:
-assuming #1 is no, and we deny PAS, no problem
-assuming #1 is no, and we give PAS, err on the side of giving too many liberties
-assuming #1 is yes, and we deny PAS, we've just cut their rights
-assuming #1 is yes, and we give PAS, no problem.
Now, assume that #1 is yes or no, if you deny PAS then you could have no problem or you could have limited civil liberties, but if you allow PAS, then you have no problem or you could have given too many civil liberties... my choice is (as I've stated) allow PAS, not because I think that #1 is beyond a doubt yes, but because I prefer (from a governance standpoint) that the people be given more freedom.
Oddly enough this process works for many things
