Do people have a right to die?

DeletedUser16008

If humane euthanasia is an option for animals who cannot voice their suffering, it shouldn't be forbidden for human beings. I truly believe that physician-assisted suicide should be allowed in terminal cases. There is no reason people should have to suffer through the end of their lives to satiate the moral standards of others.

I definitely believe humans beings have the right to die, just as they have the right to choose how they live. I don't really understand the notion of preventing a person from taking their own life, or seeking help if they cannot carry out the decision themselves, other than the fear of individuals using this as a means to commit murder. To me it is hypocritical to say that people have the right to live as they wish so long as they don't physically hurt others, have the right to bare children, to exploit other humans for money, but that if they no longer want to exist in this world that they can't choose when and how they exit it. Not only would allowing this save money on taxes, and free up hospital rooms, staff and resources (in the case of those on life support, or with terminal diseases), but I think it would also help Westerners deal with the inevitability of death, and thus live better.
 

DeletedUser

Yeah, I agree with this. we live how we want, we should die how we want .
 

DeletedUser16008

Rannon said:
Just saying this before someone "misunderstands".
Depressed people aren't included!
Click to expand...

Yup and it would be hard to evaluate and concerns me. After all how do you decide if someone has just had enough or are temporarily depressed ? In fact its hard to say that anyone who has the wish to die isn't actually depressed, which of course in one way or another most would be.

Im not saying it would be easy to accept or decide who has the sane right or are only mentally clouded but certainly think that terminal, frail and old or extreme such as life support deserve to have the choice of exiting this world with some dignity should they so wish.
 

DeletedUser17649

Aye, I guess it'd have to be a cooperation between a medical doctor, a psychiatrist, someone that has known the patient for some time and whom the patient trust and of course the patient him- or herself.
 

DeletedUser

Glorry said:
It's their life, as long as they don't kill someone, they have the right.
Click to expand...
That's really the problem though; the word "assisted" in assisted suicide involves someone killing or helping to kill someone ells.
 

DeletedUser17649

I read it as long as you haven't killed anyone you have the right to die ^^,
 

DeletedUser15641

No no one has the right's to die....want to die get to the battle field and land on a mine...other than that no!You might win something and suddenly become happy.
 

DeletedUser17649

What if you can't walk?
I'm pretty sure that most of us are talking about people who are kept alive against their will (or not, if they're brain dead), perhaps through agonizing pain etc. which is why we (at least I) excluded people suffering from depression. Which seems to be your only argument?
 

DeletedUser

Maybe you can't walk, empty pockets, live on the street, beg or money and everyday you get no money but alot of rude words? Yea, maybe it will be better to die to end the suffering... :(
 

DeletedUser

Now if we could just get all the poor, sick and hopeless people to kill themselves, we could have that leftist socialist Utopia on theoretical right wing prices points.

Instead of kill em all, let them kill themselves.. or does encouragement count as assisted?
 

DeletedUser17143

This is a big topic. And not one that can be passed with little thought. To legalise mercy killings or assisted suicide, whatever the terminology you choose will redifine the way that murder is governed. Personally I think the only time it will be acceptable is in a time when the patient is in such a state that there is no quality of life other than huge amounts of pain and a estimated time with of death has been made. One of the examples me and a friend were talking about was this guy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17336774

My friend thinks that in this case assisted suicide is okay. I disagree. If you take away all compassion and think about this mans situation logically then the reason he wants to die is not because he is in severe amounts of pain and he can't bear to live because of it, but rather because he feels that life is not worth living in his current state. But technically speaking this is just a form of depression caused by his disability. And if he were to be allowed to die, then there is no case as to why any person who suffers from depression shouldn't be able to have assisted suicide also. I mean, they also can have the feelings that life is not worth living and that they would be better off dead. For these reasons I'd have to say that assisted suicide would need to be for more reasons than just a medical condition has ruined someones quality of life. I personally believe that the whole assisted suicide thing is a can of worms. If it were to be legalised I think it would need to be very hard to do and it would need to require a doctors consent, psychoanalysis, family consent as well as a full court hearing where the evidence will be put forward and deliberated over.
 

DeletedUser

Hehe, sorry yidboi, I get the distinct impression you never experienced enduring pain. Pain may result in depression but pain, in and of itself with no solution and no resolution, does not default to depression.

There's also the other issue, which is that if someone requires assistance to end their life, then it is not merely pain, but incapacity. The inability to help (or hurt) themselves due to physical limitations. Anybody can kill themselves (regardless of legality), thus a discussion on the "right to die" falls upon assisting someone to commit suicide when they are physically incapable of doing it themselves.

So, if you think it's okay for someone to commit suicide, but do not think it's okay for someone to be assisted in such, you are imposing upon people with physical disabilities.

If you think it's not okay for someone to commit suicide, then you need to install means to prevent people from doing so. And, since you can't, you are imposing restrictions only upon those who are physically disabled.

So then, because of the conundrum, you're tasked to find a more substantive set of guidelines because this particular issue doesn't fit into a nice little package of principles.
 

DeletedUser

"So, if you think it's okay for someone to commit suicide, but do not think it's okay for someone to be assisted in such, you are imposing upon people with physical disabilities.

If you think it's not okay for someone to commit suicide, then you need to install means to prevent people from doing so. And, since you can't, you are imposing restrictions only upon those who are physically disabled.

So then, because of the conundrum, you're tasked to find a more substantive set of guidelines because this particular issue doesn't fit into a nice little package of principles."

That's sort of some unrealistic reasoning which isn't grounded much in reality isn't it? I mean it is illegal to drive faster then the posted speed limit and no car is mandated to have devices that stop people from driving faster then the posted speed limits. It is illegal to mug someone but you do not see cops every ten foot on the side walk and in the parks making sure you do not mug someone. You certainly do not see the government providing assistant devices in every vehicle so disabled people can just jump in a drive.

Generally, when something is against the law, the onus is on the citizens to obey the law and then get cited or arrested when they violate it. I'm not sure why anyone would think that if something is against the law and some people violate it, that it is somehow violating the rights of disabled people who want to also break the law but somehow cannot because of their disability. I think it is a little absurd to suggest we need equal access to violating the law. If a disabled person wants to be in control of their fate, then they need to make those decisions before they become incapable of doing so. We have only one obligation to people who have not made this decision before they lost the ability to communicate it and that is to preserve life too. Even if they can communicate their desires, if they cannot violate the law on their own (whatever the law is) then whoever violates it with them should be just as culpable as the person who is disabled.
 
WanderingStranger

WanderingStranger

Well-Known Member
In the US we have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

If you truly believe this statement then you can only have one view.

Suicide (allowing for a proper mental state to make the decision) is a Right as well. If it is your Life that means you have the Right to do with it what you please.
 

DeletedUser

If it is illegal to kill someone, then that includes yourself.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not a right, it is an excuse given in the declaration of independence from England predating the US Civil War. However, I fail to see how killing yourself or someone else is life, or the pursuit of happiness. I can see how someone might think it is a liberty to kill someone (including themselves), but then killing everyone or anyone would need to be a liberty to.

You might want to look into the phrase a bit and think about the context in which it was used.
 

DeletedUser15641

Rannon said:
What if you can't walk?
I'm pretty sure that most of us are talking about people who are kept alive against their will (or not, if they're brain dead), perhaps through agonizing pain etc. which is why we (at least I) excluded people suffering from depression. Which seems to be your only argument?
Click to expand...

Even if it was against their will or not....they should not die ...

What if it suddenly wakes up and becomes alive?Their brain.
 

DeletedUser

The unknown general said:
Even if it was against their will or not....they should not die ...

What if it suddenly wakes up and becomes alive?Their brain.
Click to expand...



What if the person lost his leg in an accident and then became a vegetable? Yea, I think it would be better to end his sufferings... :( sniff sniff
 

DeletedUser15641

You don't know....He might get married to a beautiful woman....which would change his life for ever!Well give him morphine and he should be fine ;).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top