Right to die

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by shades, Jan 4, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

  2. Bambi

    Bambi Well-Known Member

    I agree...I am a member of an organization that supports right to die so love to hear news like this...
  3. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    I agree as well
  4. pit

    pit Well-Known Member

    Now that' progress. Good for Montana.

  5. bubblin girl

    bubblin girl Well-Known Member

    wow thats great news...im so happy,i hope all country do the same :)
  6. Little_me

    Little_me Well-Known Member

    I agree. I remember a case when an old woman in this country fighted for this... She died from her own starvation because nobody wanted to give her a worthy death. It was so sad.
  7. Mortal Moon

    Mortal Moon Well-Known Member

    Fantastic news, indeed!
  8. itmahanh

    itmahanh Senior Member & Antiquities Friend

    That's great news. But there's the other shoe ready to fall "mentally competent." Their little safe guard that can leave a HUGE grey area.

    Say for example... my cervical cancer gets to the point that it is completely robbing me of a decent and relatively painless lifestyle. Would they allow me that right? Mentally competent. I can make sound decisions. I know and am aware of who I am and where I am. I know what is happening around me. Ah but let's check the health records. Bipolar, prone to anxiety and panic attacks. Several documented suicide attempts.

    I would imagine the answer would be no. I fall into the grey area. The cancer would kill me long before the drawn out court decision was ever reached.

    So hurrah for a good start. But I think it is still going to be a very long time before any other state or country follows in Montana's footsteps. As morbid as it maybe, Montana is going to become the "guinea pig" that all others will use as their wait and see excuse.
  9. Mortal Moon

    Mortal Moon Well-Known Member

    Exactly. I cringe whenever I hear someone say that the right to die should only be available to people of "sound mind". So what? My mind still belongs to me, whether some shrink thinks it's working properly or not. Shouldn't I still have the right to a peaceful and painless death, just like everyone else?

    But it's still great news, for being a genuine step in the right direction.
  10. the fleet asleep

    the fleet asleep Well-Known Member

    I suppose its good news for the people it directly effects, so on that level its nice to see a state in the US passing what is, in sincerest form, a right to compassion for those already on their way out.

    In any case, as Ive done for the entire year Ive been here, Im going to point out that the "right to die" only applies to people who wont be allowed to die (those in a vegetative state, comas, etc), or those who will otherwise be dead anyway. There is no need for a "right to die" for anyone else, physically healthy people do not need a right for such things, its inherent. What people seem to want is a "right to be killed", which is vastly different.

    The "its my choice, and people should respect that" argument isnt any more valid for suicidal people than it is for drug or gambling addicts. You are, in essence, victimizing yourself in the same way, so whether or not its your choice doesnt matter. You can also choose to be a heroin addict, or a problem gambler, or a serious alcoholic, it doesnt mean that you need a "right" to, and it doesnt mean that your decision should be respected. This is why SF creates an awkward situation as far as creating a helpful environment goes, as in a real support group, youre forced to admit that what youre doing is wrong. I mean, your have to admit that something is wrong before something can get better, no? Im happy that at least I still have enough perspective to understand that wanting to die is fundamentally wrong, because Id hate to be one of the people who cling to it so tightly.
  11. Mortal Moon

    Mortal Moon Well-Known Member

    What I argue for is not merely the right to die, but the right to die peacefully and painlessly at the time of one's choosing, regardless of one's physical or mental health status. I firmly believe that this is a fundamental right that should be afforded to every sentient being which is capable of suffering. Obviously, this option is NOT currently available to most people.

    I agree. If do-it-yourself means of tranquil death ever become widely available, I would much prefer that to the ethical bramble patch of getting doctors involved.

    I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't cast aspersions on someone's mental health and grip on reality, simply because their thoughts and values differ from your own. It's extremely condescending, you know.
  12. the fleet asleep

    the fleet asleep Well-Known Member

    Your continual pick piecing of posts is more condescending than my common sense points, by miles.

    Anyway, even the thought of a "do it yourself" suicide kit is so utterly ridiculous on so many levels I dont even know where to begin. Only on this site would an idea like home euthanasia kits even be remotely accepted, and thank god for that. That kind of thing scares me a little.

    What suicide is is self victimization, no? You, for whatever reason, and through whatever method, want to bring harm to yourself. If you cant understand why its wrong to victimize yourself through suicide, do you make the distinction between that form of self victimization with all the other forms out there? Should people have the right to choose to peacefully shoot heroin? Should people have the right to peacefully mutilate themselves? As long as youre only harming yourself, should you have the right to do anything you want? You tell me why victimizing yourself through suicide is somehow less damaging than victimizing yourself through hard drugs. Tell me how home suicide kits should be allowed, and why home heroin kits should not.
  13. Mortal Moon

    Mortal Moon Well-Known Member

    I'm sorry, I just find it easier to respond to individual points this way, rather than just a single huge wall of text. Isn't it easier to read, at least? I don't do it to be nitpicky or to take your words out of context, and I apologize if it comes off that way.

    I concede that it's (currently) a fringe idea. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, does it?

    That's the way you see it. I see it as the ultimate affirmation of one's inherent dignity and worth, a final and defiant statement by the individual that he or she does not deserve to suffer. It's the exact opposite of victimization- it's empowering.

    And if you ask a suicidal person why they want to die, I reckon very few of them will say that it's because they want to bring harm to themselves. Rather, they seek relief from their pain, and death offers this relief.



    You bet. Isn't freedom great?

    I wouldn't say that it is. Hard drugs are easily abused, and can lead to quite a lot of suffering. Suicide, when done right, leads to the cessation of suffering. Although I wouldn't outlaw either of them, if I had to choose, I would sooner outlaw the former.

    They should both be allowed.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2010
  14. the fleet asleep

    the fleet asleep Well-Known Member

    No, its not how I see it. My opinion on suicide varies greatly from the facts. The undeniable fact is that suicide is self victimization. Someone is causing harm to you, and that person is yourself. What my personal view on suicide is doesnt matter, I have no problems accepting that it is fundamentally wrong. Im capable of understanding that just because I have an opinion on something, doesnt mean my opinion has any place next to cold hard facts.

    So, in your opinion, people should have the right to do anything as long as they cause no direct harm to others? Fair enough. Are you insinuating that people with a level head can choose to die, but that choosing to shoot heroin takes an unsound mind, or that both decisions can be made with a sound mind? If so, if choosing to end a life (whether or not it is your own doesnt matter in the hypothetical, as youre extinguishing life one way or the next. Feel free to disregard that part should you find yourself wanting to argue it), your own life, can be made with a sound mind, where is the line drawn? What decision made with regard to your own life wouldnt be made in a sound?
  15. Mortal Moon

    Mortal Moon Well-Known Member

    So you believe that suicide is fundamentally wrong because it's a form of "self-victimization"? Then why is "self-victimization" inherently wrong? You can't get from an "is" to an "ought"; in the end, one's personal and untestable values are at the heart of any moral argument. It's not all just cold, hard facts.

    For my part, I value individual liberty and oppose unwanted suffering. That's the basis of my approach to this issue.

    I think that any decision can be made with a sound mind, if that decision is in line with the decision-maker's values.

    Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "sound mind". To me, a sound mind is one that makes decisions which can be reasonably expected to promote its own self-interest, whatever that interest may be for the individual. An unsound mind makes decisions that are detrimental to its own goals and intentions.

    So if a person wishes to die (for any reason: intolerable suffering, curiosity, self-sacrifice, whatever), and they then take actions which can be reasonably expected to result in their death, then they are acting with a sound mind. If a person wishes to continue living, yet kills him or herself in spite of this, that person acted with an unsound mind.
  16. the fleet asleep

    the fleet asleep Well-Known Member

    Well of course you would feel you were in a sound mind whether you actually were or not, how many insane people do you know who feel as though theyre in a sound mind? Charles Manson, one of the smartest people in the United States prison system, believes that everyone else is insane. Even people who committed genocides thought they were doing the right thing, a persons moral values have nothing to do with it, as with the exception of the truly insane, most people who do bad things do them because they think theyre doing something good.

    If your point is that anyone can make any decision with a sound mind, then I dont know what to tell you, as thats just wrong on every basic level. If you mean that any person can make any decision with a sound mind as long as they think they are, then thats a perfect textbook example of insanity. Of course people are going to think the things that fall in line with their morals and values are right, thats how atrocities happen. If you mean the same thing, but on a less introspective level, then that would mean that these atrocities were right simply by virtue of the person committing them feeling as though they were when they were committed.

    Of course, I actually care about the well being of others, so Id rather see them work through the pain rather than use a home euthanasia kit on themselves. I dont think its right for people to self destruct just because they want to, and even saying that things like suicide, hard drug use, self mutilation, and any other awful thing you can do to yourself is right is just ridiculous. Of course, if youre okay with people dealing with their issues by dying or smoking crack, I suppose thats on you.
  17. itmahanh

    itmahanh Senior Member & Antiquities Friend

    So how exactly does a DNR (do not resisitate (sp?)) order play into this? That is "usually" made by an individual that at the time is of "sound mind". That does not want to suffer when the end comes. That requests to be terminated basically. And that is not always because of a terminal illness. They are aware that they will be in pain. Both physically and emotionally. Just the same as the person that is suicidal for those exact same reasons. But one is right and the other is wrong. Why?
  18. the fleet asleep

    the fleet asleep Well-Known Member

    I think a DNR is different as I dont think it means do not resuscitate at all, just under certain conditions. I dont think it means you can crash a car, and not be resuscitated, only in situations where continuous resuscitation is needed to sustain life. In this case, as you would not be able to live without the constant need for it, you can have it so where its not done. Its the same kind of thing that applies to the wills of people in comas stating not to allow them to vegetate, and the feeding tubes being allowed to be pulled. That would fall under right to die, as you would be dead were it not for the constant intervention of machinery and the like. Dont quote me on it though, Carla, Im not entirely sure the legal ins and outs of a DNR.
  19. Mortal Moon

    Mortal Moon Well-Known Member

    Yes, you and I both believe that what those people did was wrong, because it goes against the moral and ethical values that we both share. That someone acts with a sound mind does not automatically mean that what they're doing is right, according to other people.

    It makes perfect sense. I want XYZ to happen, so I take actions that ensure XYZ will happen. You just can't get more logical than that.

    And I strongly resent your implication that I don't.

    If it works for them, I say have at it. So what? <Mod Edit: Shades-insulting> Of what consequence is it to you what people do to themselves in their own homes?
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2010
  20. the fleet asleep

    the fleet asleep Well-Known Member

    If suicide works for them, have at it? <Mod Edit:Shades-insulting>
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.