Assisted Suicide/Voluntary Euthanasia
-
First things first...
Whether there's a God or not is irrelevant to this discussion...
IF there is, then God gave you 'free-will'.
IF there's not. then you still 'have free-will' - because that's part of being human anyway.
[OR if you don't because we are in some sort of simulation 'Matrix' life then it doesn't matter AT ALL as you can stop right here!]So, let's assume you decide to end your own life...
It's your life - that was either 'given' by God OR 'it just is what it is'.
It's your choice: it's the proper exercising of your free-will either way.
Many might disagree with you... BUT who gave 'them' the overriding power to sit in judgment on you?
You didn't AND neither did God.
If you accept that God gave you free-will, then the exercising of your free-will [without divine intervention] is YOUR choice - otherwise it's not 'free'... Remember that God knew the outcome of granting you this choice [God is after all 'omnipotent' and therefore 'knows everything' - including the result of every decision taken - including this granting of free-will].On the other hand, if there is no God, then ending your life is of little consequence to others - beyond yourself, your family and your friends [assuming you don't jump off a bridge and kill a total stranger in the process!] - I don't encourage this AT ALL... BUT it is YOUR choice - it's your life after all - do with it what you will...
IF there is a God who takes a dim view of you having chosen to exercise the free-will [and kill yourself], remembering that this was 'imposed' on you without your initial involvement, then God should consider that it was the very act of granting of this free-will that culminated in you using it to end your life - AND the outcome was predetermined by the granting of this free-will in the first place [God's choice]. So, you can't give someone a choice that is 'entirely free' and then 'punish them' when they make the choice that you didn't prefer - statistically there will be people who don't agree with you and will make what you perceive to be 'wrong', so 'punishing' them for making either of the very choices that you presented them with is completely perverse, to say the least!!!
So killing yourself is never 'wrong' - it can be unbelievably distressing, or down-right sad or simply inconvenient to others - but then we often do many things with those kind of results... but then these are not considered illegal or or even immoral - just 'wrong' in others eyes - e.g. 'adultery' [at least in the West] is 'wrong' but it has no wider ramifications... beyond your personal life and future finances...
...So let's assume that killing yourself - whilst upsetting for those who know you, or distressing for those tangled up in the messy aftermath if you don't do it neatly - is not 'immoral' or against God's will - and certainly shouldn't be 'illegal', anymore than having some 'personal thoughts' that are against the currently accepted dogmas in many aspects of life...
Now we come to the 'assisted suicide' part...
This is somewhat a different matter: helping someone to kill themselves when they have incontrovertibly expressed their wish to do so, but they are somehow incapacitated from doing it themselves [e.g. a debilitating/wasting disease] with a well considered and documented process [and of course willing participants i.e. both the 'victim' and 'perpetrator'] should be allowed - like any other 'social-transaction' in life.
I know it does get 'murky' when 'somehow the nephew encourages his aged aunt to commit suicide and then happily inherits her mansion' - but then that's NOT 'assisted suicide' - it's something more 'subtle' - psychological manipulation, brainwashing, 'conspiracy to harm' etc, that are quite separate offenses. Helping someone to end their lives when it is clear it's their decision, and would happen if they had had the means without you, is considerably different from 'grooming' someone to kill themselves for your own [perhaps perverted or simply fiduciary] ends.A medical doctor's duty is 'to do no harm' to others: so allowing a patient to die peacefully whilst withdrawing further treatment is already established and quite acceptable. If a patient has made it quite clear to a doctor that in certain circumstances they would no longer wish to continue living then letting them die is therefore correct...
I await the ear-bashing...
-
Logical enough argument TIG .... BTW! you didn't happen to inherit any large mansions from rich old aunts by any chance?
Joking aside, I think the religious end of things has to be left out of the debate. It should purely be a civil matter!
-
@unknownuser said:
I think the religious end of things has to be left out of the debate. It should purely be a civil matter!
Then there is no point, as the only real objections are from folks that are religious.
Has anyone ever had to put a pet down due to illness or injury?
-
@unknownuser said:
I think the religious end of things has to be left out of the debate. It should purely be a civil matter!
If one leaves out the "religious" end of things, then how fair to those of us of faith would the application of the law be? Am I to be discriminated against because of my convictions? Would it be fair to only consider the secular aspects of the problem without due diligence in determining the spiritual aspects? The law is expected to be fairly applied to everyone, regardless of sex, age, faith, etc ...
On the pragmatic side: if a person wishes to end his or her life, that's their business. However, if you allow others to assist, then it sets a dangerous precedent for the future. It's all well and good to have "Living Wills" and the like, or to see that euthanasia is administered under strict control and supervision. But what happens when unscrupulous people start to abuse the law? It'll happen, it always does. Allowing this to become a civil law issue would be a disaster IMO. Civil law is MUCH less strict and uses an entirely different set of rules to determine judgments.
@unknownuser said:
Then there is no point, as the only real objections are from folks that are religious.
As far as there being no point. Well, I believe that really is a faith question. I know personally that there is a point, but it takes faith to see it. I can't convey it any other way that would make sense.
Anyway, nice chatting about this with you guys but I think I'll mosey along...
Cheers.
-
Hi Idaho,
I think you make my argument for me in many ways. It should be up to each citizen to follow their own true conscience in these matters. It one wants to abide by their 'faith', that is their choice and right. My 'faith' would allow me to be involved in assisted suicide under certain regulated circumstances.
As far as such a civil law being open to abuse goes, well all civil laws are open to abuse and are broken all the time. That is why we have courts and prisons in place.
The more I think about it the more I feel it must not be a religious matter in any way. In my mind, religious influence has to be removed from State matters in order to be fair to all its citizens. Most of the Western World now has multi belief citizenship. Surely the Law should respect all their believes and the only way I can see this achieved is to take particular religious beliefs out of the equation. Here in Ireland they could start with the Bible when taking an oath in Court and substitute a personal affirmation under pain of penalty. It might have more of an effect.
Mike
-
Hi Mike, I guess I just can't resist a good debate ...
@mike lucey said:
I think you make my argument for me in many ways. It should be up to each citizen to follow their own true conscience in these matters. It one wants to abide by their 'faith', that is their choice and right. My 'faith' would allow me to be involved in assisted suicide under certain regulated circumstances.
For an individual to make this choice, I agree. As well, if someone wished to assist, then yes, it's their choice too. As TIG points out, it's an individuals "free will" in both cases. A person of faith would, or should, recognize that for both people, it will be God who judges them ultimately.
@unknownuser said:
As far as such a civil law being open to abuse goes, well all civil laws are open to abuse and are broken all the time. That is why we have courts and prisons in place.
Yes. Absolutely. The penalties for violating civil law are much less severe than criminal. Of course, it's possible for a civil suit to escalate to criminal and therein lies a big issue. Civil law is very different from criminal and I think if there were any disputes about an assisted suicide, it must fall to the penal codes and not the civil code for trial. Civil law is simply not equipped to litigate in situations that are potentially capital crimes, such as murder.
@unknownuser said:
The more I think about it the more I feel it must not be a religious matter in any way. In my mind, religious influence has to be removed from State matters in order to be fair to all its citizens. Most of the Western World now has multi-belief citizenship. Surely the Law should respect all their believes and the only way I can see this achieved is to take particular religious beliefs out of the equation. Here in Ireland they could start with the Bible when taking an oath in Court and substitute a personal affirmation under pain of penalty. It might have more of an effect.
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.
Cheers.
-
@mike lucey said:
I cannot understand how a religion which I do not believe in should dictate by influencing governments how I may or may not end my life.
Mike
Best "right to the point" post so far. Couldn't agree more Mike.
And if a person that's in Jainism (that allow assisted suidide) wants to do it, he shouldn't be allowed? Because of christianism (or any other religion) is more "strong", "valid, or "better" than Jainism? this is completly ridiculous... The same argument that's good to defend one side can't be used to defend the other?
In matters like these facts and peoples choices and life should be the only things used to make a valid judgemnt. The minute religion or any "other superior" belief topic enters in scene this discussion stops making sense for me.
You can use that to choose for you, but others have the same right to choose for themselves.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
@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?
-
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.
-
Unless it serves the churches purposes it's okay.
-
Să nu ucizi.
-
@ely862me said:
Să nu ucizi.
I believe that translates into "Thou Shalt Not Kill"
Hard to argue with. -
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.htmlWhat 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.
Advertisement