toldailytopic: Should assisted suicide be legalized?

Status
Not open for further replies.

chatmaggot

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I hear ya.

I don't think it's always as clear cut as some might suggest.

That's why I think we need to look at it on balance. In the grand scheme of things what is the right policy to have? What policy would be appropriate for the vast majority of cases? There are always those "fringe" cases that make you go "hmmm".

Thanks for understanding.
 

Ecumenicist

New member
I hear ya.

I don't think it's always as clear cut as some might suggest.

That's why I think we need to look at it on balance. In the grand scheme of things what is the right policy to have? What policy would be appropriate for the vast majority of cases? There are always those "fringe" cases that make you go "hmmm".

And that's the problem with legislation in this kind of thing. Legislation cannot accommodate every possible "fringe" possibility.

A sitting president can say "our policy is," but policy is unenforcable. Legislation is, by definition, uncompromising.

That's why alot of "real" right wingers stand for less legislation, rather than more. Let churches and moral discourse persuade public opinion and "policy" rather than forcing people through legislation.
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How about if your a Samuri committing Seppuku as an act of honor, and your best friend agrees to cut your head off to end your suffering?

Really compelling, Dave. Here's another compelling argument:

You're a Ninja from the Iga Province in 1575, scaling a wall with your ninja claws, in order to breach the wall and take out the samurai warlord and his minions. Your foot gets caught in a crack in the stone wall, ripping your two-toed ninja tabi off your feet, so you have to continue your scale and mission wearing only one shoe. No big deal for a ninja who has trained his whole life to disregard such trivial discomforts.

Reaching the top of the wall, your bare foot scrapes across a shard of rusty iron, overlooked from the previous century's fortress renovations. Again, a trivial discomfort that the ninja barely notices.

You take out the samurai warlord and his minions, take flight from the castle, swimming the infested waters of the protective moat, fleeing to the woods and to your mountain ninja home.

A month passes.

You've been trained too well. Having learned to ignore pain, you've failed to notice that the simple scratch on your foot had been infected, not only from the bacteria on the rusty nail. But the waters of the moat also served as the castle sewerage. Your foot is swollen to the size of geisha's fake hairdo.

It is gangrenous.

And it is slowly killing you.

In 1575 Japan, there is no hope for a cure. Sure, you could draw your ninja sword and chop off your leg, something that any other good ninja would do. But the gangrene has spread not only up your leg, but into your brain. You cannot survive.

A week passes.

You lie on your thatch floorpad, practically drowning in an icy cold pool of your own sweat. Bile seeps from your pores. Both legs have rotted off and the rest of your body is scaled, putrid, and falling apart.

Torture.

When will it end?

"Somebody kill me...please."

Your ninja wife holds your rotting hand, dagger in her other hand, contemplating through tears of anguish what is surely the last request you will ever make.

What's a good ninja wife to do?


Thanks for the helpful comment, Dave. :cheers:
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Really compelling, Dave. Here's another compelling argument:

You're a Ninja from the Iga Province in 1575, scaling a wall with your ninja claws, in order to breach the wall and take out the samurai warlord and his minions. Your foot gets caught in a crack in the stone wall, ripping your two-toed ninja tabi off your feet, so you have to continue your scale and mission wearing only one shoe. No big deal for a ninja who has trained his whole life to disregard such trivial discomforts.
:rotfl: POTD :first:
 

bybee

New member
No!

No!

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 13th, 2010 11:03 AM


toldailytopic: Should assisted suicide be legalized?






Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

No! We can request "No heroics", DNR, DNI but we cannot murder others nor ought we to ask others to murder us. bybee
 

zippy2006

New member
:rotfl: POTD :first:

:chuckle:


This is an interesting topic, and seems to cut to the core of religion vs. modernity: do we have the power or does only God have the power?

Another interesting point, what is suicide? Is it causing yourself to die in some willful way? I am quite sure that for some people on their natural deathbed, death and life become willfull choices (at least until there is no energy left at all to fight death). At what point is it okay to give up and stop struggling, stop trying to survive? I think it is clear that the Christian is morally obligated to remove themself from the path of death when they are conscious of it coming, at what point does the obligation end? Can the imminence of death be easily measured?

Of course this may relate more to philosophical games than practicality in the minds of many. :D
 

Cracked

New member
It should be up to the individual. God will judge.

However, I do see the possibility of wicked manipulation of a governmental system put in place to facilitate this.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Has anyone even stopped for a moment to consider the possible impact of this discussion's outcome on McDonald's and the larger fast food economy? :think:
 

chickenman

a-atheist
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Has anyone even stopped for a moment to consider the possible impact of this discussion's outcome on McDonald's and the larger fast food economy? :think:

Did you mean to post this in the Animal Testing thread? :)
 

bybee

New member
Today

Today

Really compelling, Dave. Here's another compelling argument:

You're a Ninja from the Iga Province in 1575, scaling a wall with your ninja claws, in order to breach the wall and take out the samurai warlord and his minions. Your foot gets caught in a crack in the stone wall, ripping your two-toed ninja tabi off your feet, so you have to continue your scale and mission wearing only one shoe. No big deal for a ninja who has trained his whole life to disregard such trivial discomforts.

Reaching the top of the wall, your bare foot scrapes across a shard of rusty iron, overlooked from the previous century's fortress renovations. Again, a trivial discomfort that the ninja barely notices.

You take out the samurai warlord and his minions, take flight from the castle, swimming the infested waters of the protective moat, fleeing to the woods and to your mountain ninja home.

A month passes.

You've been trained too well. Having learned to ignore pain, you've failed to notice that the simple scratch on your foot had been infected, not only from the bacteria on the rusty nail. But the waters of the moat also served as the castle sewerage. Your foot is swollen to the size of geisha's fake hairdo.

It is gangrenous.

And it is slowly killing you.

In 1575 Japan, there is no hope for a cure. Sure, you could draw your ninja sword and chop off your leg, something that any other good ninja would do. But the gangrene has spread not only up your leg, but into your brain. You cannot survive.

A week passes.

You lie on your thatch floorpad, practically drowning in an icy cold pool of your own sweat. Bile seeps from your pores. Both legs have rotted off and the rest of your body is scaled, putrid, and falling apart.

Torture.

When will it end?

"Somebody kill me...please."

Your ninja wife holds your rotting hand, dagger in her other hand, contemplating through tears of anguish what is surely the last request you will ever make.

What's a good ninja wife to do?


Thanks for the helpful comment, Dave. :cheers:

Today, there is excellent pain relief available. This is a situation with many far reaching ramifications if it is not examined carefully. I fear allowing too much subjectivity to enter in because there are unscrupulous people who would abuse their privilege. Yet, common decency demands careful assessment on a case by case basis. bybee
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
My feeling is that it should be legalized because in some situations I have no problem with someone wanting to end their life if they are in pain and just counting the days before they die. However, it is something that is open to a lot of abuse and manipulation, as has been mentioned, so it would need a lot of caution and oversight. It's a tough question.
 

Thunder's Muse

Well-known member
Suicide from depression is something completely different.

I had a very dear friend who was diagnosed with a rare form of spinal cancer. He fought this disease bravely for nearly 10 years.

Eventually, his doctor had to say to him "I'm sorry. There is nothing more I can do for you."

His doctor, knowing how painful his last days would be, gave him a vial of morphine...just enough to finish the job.

My friend said it was the best thing his doctor ever did for him. It meant he could choose the day and time of his death. It also meant, that when it all got too much, he could end it all peacefully.

I think a teminally ill person should have the right to choose a quick painless death over a long drawn out one. Asking someone to do it for/to you..that's a pretty big ask....I'm not sure I could do it.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I recall a thread a year or so ago along the same lines is this daily topic. It was interesting to see several responses that I wasn't expecting.

Now I will admit, the topic wasn't exactly the same...but it was kind of similar. The difference was that someone wasn't trying to commit suicide. The similarity was that someone was helping someone else die.

The scenario was brought up suppose that you were captured by the enemy and they were about to burn you at the stake. It seemed to be a consensus that people would (1) want to be killed prior to being burnt by the enemy and (2) if there was someone hiding the hills with the ability to shoot and kill the soon to be burned at the stake person, they would do it.

The conversation then turned to euthanasia in general. But here is how I think it all ties together.

Suppose you were captured by the enemy and were about to be tortured to death or burned at the stake. Would you try to kill yourself to avoid going through the trouble of being burned alive? If so, that would be suicide. Now suppose that you and another person made a pact. That pact is that IF either of you were to be captured and were about to be burned at the stake, AND your attempt at killing yourself failed, THEN the other person (assuming they had the opportunity) would kill the other person (getting a shot off while hiding from the enemy) so that they wouldn't have to suffer by being burned alive.

Isn't this the same as an assisted suicide?

I was somewhat surprised by the responses of individuals. Some people that I know are pro-life, anti assisted suicide, said they would want to be killed to avoid the torture.

How is this scenario any different than someone who is dying of a painful incurable disease? If someone were dying of ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), something I have unfortunately been a witness of, and their loved one killed them, how is that any different than being burned at the stake and having a friend shoot you if they had the chance?

I would really appreciate peoples responses as this has been on my mind since that thread a year or so ago.

Thanks.

Big CM,

That's a thought-provoking post. Could we say that the difference is: one being burned at the stake is guaranteed to die very painfully in just a minute (or a few minutes). Whereas one who is dying in a hospital bed is not in that same position?

But then, there'd be a case where a terminal patient is clearly (? seemingly ?) about to die in a moment and suffering terribly. Could he/she at that moment have an assisted suicide...and it be acceptable?

Just some rambling thoughts. CM's post has me pondering...


The other cm

Another difference is....

In one case a person is dying of natural causes.

While the person being burned at the stake is being murdered.

You might see a similar distinction between a person committing suicide merely because they are depressed, compared to a person who commits suicide by jumping on a hand-grenade to save others.

One problem with your assessment is often times terminally ill people who wish to have their life terminated early is, they are NOT dying on their own terms. Often times they have been slowly and carefully manipulated by friends, family, and "medical professionals" into believing they are doing the right thing. You can imagine that someone in that predicament might be easily manipulated.

I have read these responses and being one close, or more close to this issue, I would like to respond.

In the case of war, or any situation resulting in the enemy invoking extreme pain resulting in death, this would not be assisted sucide; it would be and act of mercy. I shall dismiss this as an example of assisted suicide, yet consider it valid as still in question, as a deed done before God.

Now let;s examine the topic as it is usually debated. That is, if one is terminally ill, will defiantly die, then should one have the right to be provided with assisted suicide?

First consider that powerful narcotics are administered at this time; the drugs alone suppress such life support and nourishment. The issue for me then becomes, should the terminally ill patient have the right to control the amount of medication? I think the patient should have this right, then the question of assisted suicide would be removed here and left regarding those unable to respond.

Then what case are we examining? The person of life support should have the right to refuse it before such intervention is undertaken. I have an nonbreakable living will the mandates no life support unless the case might be clear that I will be revived in a short time, and and not brain dead. There is no assisted suicide here because suicide is an act committed that results in death, not the avoidance of what would keep a body living.

This leaves only those not needed life support and not being able to end their own life indirectly through medications, not immediately lethal, but releaving pain and as a side effect, leaving one not able to receive nourishment. Such cases are rare, yet need to be addressed. Here, I believe it becomes a morally questionable issue and surly if desired, one should have stipulated it and made provisions for such an event. The issue here is it is a suicide and it is committed by someone else.


It is always of the utmost importance to have a will stating what actions one wants, or does not want; it should not be left up to ones family. They have enough grief and should not be burdened with such decision. As to physicians in the USA, they are against this because it is the old dying persons of means where they make their fortune. We think of lawyers as worse than they are, just as we assume physicians are better. Many physicians today have chosen their vocation because it is a ticket to wealth. Never allow this power to a physician, or hospital. Conversely, a hospital may recommend the removal of life support on those with little means; money is a major concern in terminal care.

In no case should any of these considerations apply to patients who are not terminally ill, ir in cases where the patient is of well advanced age. Depression or life problems should never be considered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top