Assisted Suicide/Voluntary Euthanasia

solo

I dunno guys, every argument on this topic ends with a religious debate, if only we could separate the word 'moral' with religion. Too many master-debaters seem to equate morals to be something divine and godly.
The one debate I read went pages and pages on about it being immoral, yet the conclusion was it was immoral because the bible says so, is this the only place we get our morals from?
So atheists like myself are automatically defined as immoral?

Speaking of immoral, is it okay to be cryogenically frozen? If yes then what's so different from assisted suicide? The fact that if a cure is found you can be revived and called Lazarus? and if no cure is ever found is that then an assisted suicide?

My conclusion is you need to be rich, that way you can opt into being frozen instead of Euthanized, nobody will blink an eyelid as this is moral , legal and accepted.

IdahoJ

@escapeartist said:

@idahoj said:

Again, I can't see it. "Religious beliefs" are part of our society and has been for a very long time. Whether we admit it or not, people tend to use "religious filters" to guide them through their everyday life. Just look at the swearing in process for a person's testimony. They place their hand on a Bible and "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. SO HELP YOU GOD." This implies not only a higher standard of moral conduct, but in a way, a worse punishment from God for what is basically breaking a Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". It also provides a "common ground" for accepting testimony as we all, or most of us, accept God's judgment over Man's.

I'm afraid I must disagree. You seem to imply that regardless of belief all of our decision making is directed by religion in some way, and you use the law as an example. The law is secular and applies to everyone regardless of belief, there is no acceptance of any doctrine, no worship necessary for this to be true. Regardless of the history behind the making of the law. The "...so help me God" statement is irrelevant to an atheist and carries weight only with those who believe it to. Implication of a higher standard is also something I must disagree with very strongly, this alludes to the argument that people would be savages without religion to guide society.

Actually I would consider your last statement to be very true. My argument is that Man isn't capable of any "moral code" other than what is convenient for him at that particular point in time. His "higher standards" are prone to the erosion of time and societal pressures. Man is too changeable, too prone to make and break societal rules (in which I include both penal and civil codes of law) depending on the current socio-economic situation he finds himself in.

The question of assisted suicide fits in this for me. We can make laws that would currently satisfy the needs of society to allow/disallow a human to kill another under the "proper circumstances". Ok, well and good for now. But what about the future when people might think it's NOT so acceptable?

Take the issue of capital punishment. It seems to go in and out of "style" depending on the whims and wills of the people and government. Or abortion. The circumstances for allowing/disallowing abortions are under constant argument. Is the life of the mother at stake, does the fetus show signs of development that would prevent it from having a "normal life", etc.

Man is not born with an innate sense of discerning "good" from "evil". It's learned. You can invoke Darwin if you like, "The survival of the fittest". If we simply consider Man to be just another animal of this planet, then killing would be a normal part of his makeup. Or running away, I guess, to be pursued by other humans who have no qualms about terminating him in their own survival interests.

So, yes, I believe that without a "higher standard" our society would degenerate eventually into something like anarchy with each man and woman defining their own code of morality. Or perhaps a dictatorship with a central power figure dictating how people should think and act ...

Cheers.

IdahoJ

BTW, one other thought: What happens if a doctor tells a person that they have a terminal disease with a protracted and painful degenerative stage. The person cannot stand the thought of going through the suffering as described by the physician and has an assisted suicide because he or she cannot do the deed themselves.

Then, they find out the doctor was wrong in his diagnosis and the person could have either been cured or there may have been treatments outside of the physicians knowledge. Ok, I know, there should be second opinions, etc. But the point is, people can, and do, survive "terminal" illnesses against all the odds given to them by physicians.

How does your law hold up in these cases?

Cheers

solo

@unknownuser said:

How does your law hold up in these cases?

The same way they do when executing a wrongfully convicted killer (thanks to DNA testing), In Texas we get a lot of that as they loooove the death sentence and it's supported by the churches here. So I guess 'oops' is all that's offered unless the family is wealthy (which they normally are not) and sue the state.

IdahoJ

@solo said:

@unknownuser said:

How does your law hold up in these cases?

The same way they do when executing a wrongfully convicted killer (thanks to DNA testing), In Texas we get a lot of that as they loooove the death sentence and it's supported by the churches here. So I guess 'oops' is all that's offered unless the family is wealthy (which they normally are not) and sue the state.

Well, there you go ... More litigation, more adjustments to the law, more arguments, more controversy, more compromises ...

To me it's just a lot simpler to adhere to: "Thou shalt not kill" and get on with my life.

Cheers.

remus

@idahoj said:

Well, there you go ... More litigation, more adjustments to the law, more arguments, more controversy, more compromises ...

litigation, adjustments, arguements, contoversy and compromise or prolonged suffering for the thousands of people who want to die without the indignity of being uncomfortable in their final moments?

solo

@unknownuser said:

To me it's just a lot simpler to adhere to: "Thou shalt not kill" and get on with my life.

To you it would be, but what about the person dying a painful, undignified death? may they also just
@unknownuser said:

get on with my life

thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife is another commandment, should we also get the government to make a law with some serious jail time for those that transgress here?

dale

I am really not trying to be facetious but quite often "Thou Shalt Not Kill" has been conveniently forgotten..... The Crusades, The Reformation, The Spanish Inquisition, etc etc.

solo

Unless it serves the churches purposes it's okay.

ely862me

Să nu ucizi.

dale

@ely862me said:

Să nu ucizi.

I believe that translates into "Thou Shalt Not Kill"
Hard to argue with.

Marian

Oh and here's an interesting fact about the 10 commandments, most likely the ones you think about are not the actual commandments. This confusion comes from the fact that Moses got a bit carried away and smashed the first stone tablets (how on earth someone can be so so...to smash the actual tablets with the actual divine laws written by GOD) and the real commandments were mentioned later on after this episode.
You can find them here with full explanation http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/mistaeks/tencommandments.html

What I mean to say by this is that the bible is heavily misquoted, misunderstood and immoral, thus I agree with SOLO that religion should have nothing to do with making this kind of decision on whether to end one's life. I think most people have the strength in them to know what is truly moral without the need or support of religion.

IdahoJ

@solo said:

@unknownuser said:

thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife is another commandment, should we also get the government to make a law with some serious jail time for those that transgress here?

No more than we should enact laws allowing assisted suicide. Besides, the prisons are having trouble coping with the huge load a serious criminal offenders now ... No room.

@unknownuser said:

I think most people have the strength in them to know what is truly moral without the need or support of religion.

And from whence do people learn their morality?

Cheers.

dale

@unknownuser said:

I think most people have the strength in them to know what is truly moral without the need or support of religion.

And from whence do people learn their morality?

Cheers.[/quote]
So, I'm trying to understand, am I correct in assuming that you think choosing to end your own life rather than face grave suffering is immoral? (AS the lawyers would say my thoughts are intended "Without Prejudice" )

Marian

@unknownuser said:

And from whence do people learn their morality?

Contrary to religious belief, morality doesn't need religion, It comes from human nature itself. I'm pretty sure that the so called "10 commandments" brought nothing new to the world.
It's obvious that for a society to exist rules must exist and both societies and rules existed long before the bible, even rules against murder and stealing, in many cultures with varied religions if any.
It's a case of morality creating religion not the other way around. Even monkeys and apes have been found to have a sense of fairness, it's not a great leap from that to some level of innate morality in us.

I for one don't consider I learned morality, if I learned it at all, from religion, I always had an inner sense of fairness and It evolved with time and knowledge hence my belief that all people have this same sense, maybe in various degrees but it's there.

In a scenario where I'm doomed, crippled, suffering and bankrupting my family I can't see it as being moral to continue with my life at the cost of their health and happiness.

Now you answer me this:

Do you sincerely believe it is moral to continue living when the price of your life is the lives or well being of others?

Is it moral to continue living at all costs, knowing that you will soon die anyway at the price of increasing the pain of your loved ones??

solo

I've said it many times in the corner bar, you cannot debate with anyone that uses their religious instruction as fact or reason. The same thing goes with every contentious issue in our country, it all comes down to a religious deadlock.

On the morality issue, I was watching a documentary on the Khoi and San people (bushmen of the Kalahari), the narrator mentioned umpteen times how civilised, moral and gentle these community steads were, ask these heathens about where they got it from.... my bet is not the bible.

Mike Lucey

Pete,

I'd imagine the Khoi and San people are in harmony with Nature! As I've said. I believe in a supreme being but I also believe at no time has this supreme being made his / her / its wishes known to mankind other than possibly directing in some way the evolution of Nature.

The various collection of 'God' head religions look to me to be inventions of mankind throughout the ages for the betterment of the few in control of these religions. One does not have to delve deeply to see this being the case.

I have no problem with these religions until then start to influence how I should live my life and more so how I should choose to end my life.

So lets get back to the original question.

Mike