Do people have a right to die?

[DeletedUser]

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.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and thus falls into the category of what restrictions are imposed on the privilege. Not a valid counterargument.

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. <...> 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.

If you are caught, you are prosecuted. If a healthy person commits suicide, you cannot prosecute. If a quadriplegic wants to commits suicide, he is not capable of doing so but you can still (by the present framework of laws in the U.S.) prosecute him for intent.

You certainly do not see the government providing assistant devices in every vehicle so disabled people can just jump in a drive.

Incorrect there kidkade. The Federal and State governments do provide financial assistance to modify vehicles for disabled people, but this is a different topic.


hehe, all in all, your arguments are valid. The true issues here are whether a person's life is their own, or the property of the government and is it the responsibility of the government to protect your life? Because then we have have the argument that we can sue the government for failing to protect the life of a loved one if that person commits suicide, or even if he is killed by a third party.

When the government dictates they have the authority to penalize people for harming themselves, they are taking ownership and making it their responsibility to keep people alive, even when it is against that person's will.

So, is it the will of the person or the will of the government?

(( more fodder for debate, hehe ))

 

[DeletedUser16008]

When the government dictates they have the authority to penalize people for harming themselves, they are taking ownership and making it their responsibility to keep people alive, even when it is against that person's will.

So, is it the will of the person or the will of the government?

(( more fodder for debate, hehe ))

Hehe, don't even have to think about this one, if you become a ward of the state you give up your freedom and hand over your ownership. Ergo you are now just property to be used as the state decrees.

Until then an individual has personal freedom, the only one people truly have is their life on this earth, to do with it as they see fit and not the government... Thats just personal tho and takes not into account assisted suicide or the medical code. Whole different ball game. No matter though where theres a will theres a way

Ask yourself this, if a loved one was terminal and in constant pain would you have the courage to help them pass on or cop out by giving the state the responsibility and commit them to a life of remaining in pain and suffering.

I know what I would do

 

[DeletedUser]

"Driving is a privilege, not a right, and thus falls into the category of what restrictions are imposed on the privilege. Not a valid counterargument."

Being a privilege is completely irrelevant within the context as stated. The point was not whether you can drive but how the law is enforced. It is the same logical concept as robbing a bank and participating in commerce is probably one of the most fundamental rights a citizen could hold. The two analogies line up perfectly against the concept of having to make some illegal act handicapped accessible in case a disabled person wants to violate the law.

"If you are caught, you are prosecuted. If a healthy person commits suicide, you cannot prosecute. If a quadriplegic wants to commits suicide, he is not capable of doing so but you can still (by the present framework of laws in the U.S.) prosecute him for intent."

And if the healthy person gets shot and killed trying to get away after the bank robbery, they do not get prosecuted either. This is because you have a right to defend yourself and face your accusers and if you are dead, you cannot do that. It has nothing to do with any disability other then the likelihood of succeeding. Suicide is seriously one of those crimes where if you succeed, you are never prosecuted. It is still a violation of the law and it is completely foolish to think that government would mandate handicap access to violating the law.

"Incorrect there kidkade. The Federal and State governments do provide financial assistance to modify vehicles for disabled people, but this is a different topic."

Completely irrelevant and missing the point of what was said. Every car does not equal your car or cars you have control over. Government assistance to a specific individual does not open access to stealing cars by the handicapped or disabled.

"hehe, all in all, your arguments are valid. The true issues here are whether a person's life is their own, or the property of the government and is it the responsibility of the government to protect your life? Because then we have have the argument that we can sue the government for failing to protect the life of a loved one if that person commits suicide, or even if he is killed by a third party.

When the government dictates they have the authority to penalize people for harming themselves, they are taking ownership and making it their responsibility to keep people alive, even when it is against that person's will.

So, is it the will of the person or the will of the government?"

I think we can find a fundamental flaw or difference in the percieved purpose of government within this line of argument. It is neither a question of a person's life being property owned by any entity or any responsibility implied or inferred by it. Government is charged with the responsibility (although in some cases very limited amounts) of generic groups of people like communities and society and the concept that allow them to thrive like the economic system and similar stuff, not individual people within them. The law doesn't say Joe canno drive faster then 55mph or Bill cannot rob a bank, it says no one can. The concept is not to dictate what Joe or Bill can and cannot do but what is expected for a safe and thriving society which might carry consequences for Joe and Bill, but those same consequences are hanging over Marry, and Todd and everyone else in the society too.

This concept is probably lost in today's age where we have laws named after specific victims of crimes that are intended to make the criminals more sorry for violating it or perhaps make it harder to repeat offenders to think they can get away with repeating an offense. There are probably a lot of other instances that could be brought up too, but the bottom line is that government does not exist in a free world for the pleasure of one person, rather for the society it governs at large.

You get into some serious problems when you ask a government to protect only some of the life within it's jurisdiction and not all human life within it. To say that we will protect only the people who are not bankrupt , who are not poor, who are not physically or mentally disabled, who are not depressed or not insert whatever justification you can create here, is really close to saying we will not protect illegal aliens, we will not protect gays, we will not protect blacks, we will not protect the elderly or children. This is why the law says you cannot kill someone and not that you cannot kill anyone but yourself. This is the only way the law can be written and be just. We already tried and rejected the protection of only certain people in the society.

 

[DeletedUser]

While you present some interesting arguments, it is actually not illegal to commit (or attempt to commit) suicide in all 50 U.S. States, the Netherlands, U.K., Ireland, Australia, Canada, and many other countries. Historically, suicide (and attempted suicide) was deemed a crime due to religious argument, stating only "God" had such authority. Once religion was taken out of the legal process, common sense dictated that suicide was not a crime.

You get into some serious problems when you ask a government to protect only some of the life within it's jurisdiction and not all human life within it.

So... with this revelation, are you then indicating the government is "into some serious problems?"

 

[DeletedUser]

"While you present some interesting arguments, it is actually not illegal to commit (or attempt to commit) suicide in all 50 U.S. States, the Netherlands, U.K., Ireland, Australia, Canada, and many other countries. Historically, suicide (and attempted suicide) was deemed a crime due to religious argument, stating only "God" had such authority. Once religion was taken out of the legal process, common sense dictated that suicide was not a crime."

I did a cursory examination of this claim and I guess you are right with more and more US states walking away from making it criminally illegal.

"So... with this revelation, are you then indicating the government is "into some serious problems?" "

I would say it is a matter of encroaching that. A slippery slope argument if you will.

However, I find it interesting that a law says you cannot kill someone and you yourself is not considered a someone. US code 18USC section 1111 says murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Now before we get any further, malice aforethought means premeditation or scheming to do the act before hand and not malice as in wanting to harm someone. Of course federal law is limited to federal jurisdiction which is not country wide. I noticed a lot of states seem to define murder as something involving the commission or furtherance of another crime of sorts and then break down to the various homicide and manslaughter components depending on other circumstances involved in the act.

Perhaps there is a way around this protecting only part of the population that I hadn't considered which doesn't fall into the trap.

BTW, it said I had a message when I logged in but wouldn't open the window to view it. I think it is my popup blocker. will it display the message again when I log in or is there another way to retrieve it?

 

[DeletedUser]

you can just click on the top right text that says "Private Messages."

 

[DeletedUser]

Ha.. I was only logging in to post so I had no clue. I got it now.. Thanks.

 

[WanderingStranger]

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.

It isnt illegal to kill someone it is illegal to MURDER someone.

Since you used that as the basis for your argument it flaws everything you have said.

Edit*

I am well aware of the context. It is considered one if the "inalienable rights". Obviously you didnt bother to think about the context before posting your reply.

 

[DeletedUser]

It isnt illegal to kill someone it is illegal to MURDER someone.

Since you used that as the basis for your argument it flaws everything you have said.

No, killing someone is illegal, it is just that there are legal justifications that bar prosecution and/or effective prosecution. Even in Texas where the argument has been made that they have a "he needed killing" law, killing someone is never allowed, it is just that the right of self preservation is liberally construed to not allow effective prosecution for certain acts. In Florida, this entire process is unfolding where the stand you ground law bars prosecution for killing somone when you are in fear of your life and yet we have someone being prosecuted in the Travon Martin killing.

I am well aware of the context. It is considered one if the "inalienable rights". Obviously you didnt bother to think about the context before posting your reply.

If you were aware of the context then you would know that that the phrase life liberty and the pursuit of happiness has never been used in the context of taking a life but rather entirely in the context of government abusing power and the people being restrained from living their life. This is more so evident when considering how it was used and who it was used against/stated to. It is historically the antithesis to the way you attempted to construe it.

Please do not act like one of those living document liberals who thinks that changes in the definitions of words or the needs of the times is all it takes to reconstruct founding documents to their advantage.

 

[WanderingStranger]

No, killing someone is illegal, it is just that there are legal justifications that bar prosecution and/or effective prosecution.

How can something be illegal and yet there be legal justifications for it? If there is legal justification wouldnt it be.... legal?

If you were aware of the context then you would know that that the phrase life liberty and the pursuit of happiness has never been used in the context of taking a life but rather entirely in the context of government abusing power and the people being restrained from living their life. This is more so evident when considering how it was used and who it was used against/stated to. It is historically the antithesis to the way you attempted to construe it.

This is true in the exact moment. Untrue considering the historical context.

The principals in the Declaration of Independence was used as a basis for The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those 2 documents led to our laws and formation of the Justice System. I think we can all agree that since the formation of our Justice System a few people have been killed. If so how can it be the Antithesis?

Please do not act like one of those living document liberals who thinks that changes in the definitions of words or the needs of the times is all it takes to reconstruct founding documents to their advantage.

I dont have <insert political rhetoric here> to call you. You left 1 word way back in the past and assumed it had no influence on the future. You ignore everything that is related to it because it is to your political advantage.

If 100 bricks are in a wall, why count each brick as separate? Then you dont have a wall just 100 bricks.

 

[DeletedUser]

How can something be illegal and yet there be legal justifications for it? If there is legal justification wouldnt it be.... legal?

The lack of ability or failure to prosecute to conviction does not make something legal. The end result is the same however, a person was not and could not be convicted of the crime. Take the Florida Stand Your Ground law for instance, it does not bar prosecution for killing someone, it bars prosecution because a person did not retreat at a sign of threat or used more force then what was absolutely necessary. Self preservation has always been a mitigating defense and in some cases makes prosecution completely unreasonable with no chance of a conviction. Cops have this encoded in sort of a playbook where if the conditions are right, they do not get charged with killing someone, but if conditions are not right, they do (although at lower penalties costs then normal citizens).

This is true in the exact moment. Untrue considering the historical context.

The principals in the Declaration of Independence was used as a basis for The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those 2 documents led to our laws and formation of the Justice System. I think we can all agree that since the formation of our Justice System a few people have been killed. If so how can it be the Antithesis?

It has always been used in the context of betterment of life and preservation of life. Not until recently has it ever been attempted to be construed as justifications for ending life. That is completely counter to the phrase or the various iterations of it that are claimed to have influenced it.

I dont have <insert political rhetoric here> to call you. You left 1 word way back in the past and assumed it had no influence on the future. You ignore everything that is related to it because it is to your political advantage.

Hmm.. I didn't mean it as political rhetoric, I meant it exactly as it sounded. You are attempting to construe the meaning of a phrase within the founding documents completely opposite then it had ever been used before or within the founding of the nation. This is something a certain set of people do which creates the environment of nothing having any meaning outside of the current context which can be the same or completely different then the original.

If 100 bricks are in a wall, why count each brick as separate? Then you dont have a wall just 100 bricks.

Even if you overlooked the trees to notice the forest, you still have trees and a forest. 100 individual bricks aligns to make a wall is still 100 bricks and a wall. The difference is that you are attempting to claim that because there are 100 bricks in the wall, it can fly or allows people to pass through it unrestricted. You brought up the "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" and used it out of context in justification for your viewpoint. Don't attempt to claim I'm somehow wrong for focusing on it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Even in Texas where the argument has been made that they have a "he needed killing" law, killing someone is never allowed, it is just that the right of self preservation is liberally construed to not allow effective prosecution for certain acts.

Interesting, so Texas' death penalty is a "right of self preservation?"

Oop, there it is.

In Florida, this entire process is unfolding where the stand you ground law bars prosecution for killing somone when you are in fear of your life and yet we have someone being prosecuted in the Travon Martin killing.

Precisely because it's being argued that Zimmerman did not kill Martin for being in fear of his life, and also because it is being argued he initiated the conflict.

The lack of ability or failure to prosecute to conviction does not make something legal. The end result is the same however, a person was not and could not be convicted of the crime.

Umm, the very definition of illegal is, "forbidden by law or statute." You're arguing that it is crime, but not illegal. The very definition of crime is, "an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited."

Seems to me you're arguing the point of "sin," not criminality.

Self preservation has always been a mitigating defense and in some cases makes prosecution completely unreasonable with no chance of a conviction.

I.e., not illegal, not a crime, just damn nasty sinful.

It has always been used in the context of betterment of life and preservation of life. Not until recently has it ever been attempted to be construed as justifications for ending life. That is completely counter to the phrase or the various iterations of it that are claimed to have influenced it.

Ah, finally back on topic.

And yet, committing suicide is not a crime, not illegal... just damn nasty sinful.

 

[DeletedUser]

Interesting, so Texas' death penalty is a "right of self preservation?"

Oop, there it is.

I'm not so sure bringing up the penalty imposed by a court of law for the most severe and extreme crimes that usually resulted in the willful taking of another or multiple people's life is such great invalidation of my claim.

I guess I should modify my statement from killing is never allowed to citizens killing citizens is never allowed but the government seems to reserve the right to end a person's life.

Precisely because it's being argued that Zimmerman did not kill Martin for being in fear of his life, and also because it is being argued he initiated the conflict.

True, which shows that the taking of the life was still illegal, the part that barred prosecution is what is being tested. If at some point Zimmerman felt he was in danger of losing his life (which by most accounts, he was getting his ass beat by martain in a fight he started), the law barred prosecution for taking lethal action. The problem is that it appears he manipulated the situation in order to appear to be covered by the law barring the prosecution. This is allowing the government to ignore the bar on prosecution.

Umm, the very definition of illegal is, "forbidden by law or statute." You're arguing that it is crime, but not illegal. The very definition of crime is, "an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited."

No, I'm arguing that not all "crimes" can be "prosecuted". Suppose someone robs a bank and does not get caught. If he isn't caught, he cannot be prosecuted. If he cannot be prosecuted, it does not automatically make that act legal. Lets say a hit and run accident happened 10 years ago. Let's also stipulate that the statute of limitations runs out after 3 years, supposing someone confessed to doing the hit and run after 10 year and them not being able to be prosecuted for it does not make it legal. Suppose someone turns state witness against accomplices of a crime and in exchange, they are offered a lesser offense with a guarantee of not being prosecuted for the original offense. That does not make it legal to commit that crime, it just means that the prosecutor cannot prosecute for it.

Similarly, there are various defenses that make a prosecution so unlikely to be successful that prosecutors do not bother with taking it to court. Some laws also set affirmative defenses to other laws which do not make the acts legal (you will still be arrested and prosecuted, but have the court find you not guilty by presenting an affirmative defense). And then there are some laws that bar prosecution if certain elements exist like the stand you ground laws.

These are all criminal offenses, illegal under the very definitions you presented. I have been searching and have yet to find a law that says killing someone is legal (outside of the penalties imposed by the state on the conviction of another crime). I guess you could claim that because involuntary manslaughter does not encompass all accidental killings of humans that it somehow means accidentally killing someone is legal. But I think we might be splitting hairs on the terms accidental (which a suicide would not be).

Ah, finally back on topic.

And yet, committing suicide is not a crime, not illegal... just damn nasty sinful. [/quot] But the intentional taking of a human life outside punishment implemented by the state is. My problem is trying to understand how commiting suicide is not the intentional taking of someone's life. I understand how you can't be prosecuted for it if you are successful. I also understand that there might not be a specific law claiming suicide is illegal. On the same note, there is not a specific law that says taking my neighbors property for my own use without his permission is illegal but it is still covered by a generic theft law (suppose i sneak in at night and take vegetables from his garden).

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not so sure bringing up the penalty imposed by a court of law for the most severe and extreme crimes that usually resulted in the willful taking of another or multiple people's life is such great invalidation of my claim.

Ah, but it is. Particularly considering how many have died via the death penalty that were later found to be "not guilty" of the crimes, and how those who "killed" them did not receive penalty for it.

Personally, I think it substantially obfuscates the issue.

I guess I should modify my statement from killing is never allowed to citizens killing citizens is never allowed but the government seems to reserve the right to end a person's life.

Hmm, so then it's okay to kill a non-citizen? And why do you think it's okay for the government to end a life? Indeed, if such is the argument, why doesn't the government perform consensual assisted suicide?

True, which shows that the taking of the life was still illegal, the part that barred prosecution is what is being tested. If at some point Zimmerman felt he was in danger of losing his life (which by most accounts, he was getting his ass beat by martain in a fight he started), the law barred prosecution for taking lethal action. The problem is that it appears he manipulated the situation in order to appear to be covered by the law barring the prosecution. This is allowing the government to ignore the bar on prosecution.

Nope, the argument is still about whether he committed an action illegally or legally, not whether they have sufficient evidence to demonstrate a crime.

The problem here, kidkade, is that you are confusing "insufficient evidence" with "no crime." If there is insufficient evidence to prove a crime was committed, it is not the same thing as there being no actual crime being committed. In the case of Zimmermann, the prosecution is attempting to demonstrate he committed a crime. It's already abundantly clear he killed Trayvon Martin, but was it a criminal act? That is what the courts will decide, based on the evidence presented. Or, it may be that they'll not decide, due to insufficient evidence.

But the intentional taking of a human life outside punishment implemented by the state is. My problem is trying to understand how commiting suicide is not the intentional taking of someone's life.

Umm, no, if you kill someone in self defense, it's intentionally taking a life and is not deemed a crime. Here's where you're looking for a sweeping position on an issue that is not so cut and dry, precisely because we are mortal.

I understand how you can't be prosecuted for it if you are successful. I also understand that there might not be a specific law claiming suicide is illegal. On the same note, there is not a specific law that says taking my neighbors property for my own use without his permission is illegal but it is still covered by a generic theft law (suppose i sneak in at night and take vegetables from his garden).

There are two things that counter your argument. In 48 U.S. States, and in many other countries, it is specifically indicated that suicide is not a crime. The other part is that of precedence, which serves as an extension of the law based on interpretations posed by prior court rulings.

You are arguing interpretation, which is managed by the judicial branch of the respective nations.

No, I'm arguing that not all "crimes" can be "prosecuted".

And I reaffirm my point, and the point of this thread --- suicide is not a crime.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ah, but it is. Particularly considering how many have died via the death penalty that were later found to be "not guilty" of the crimes, and how those who "killed" them did not receive penalty for it.

Personally, I think it substantially obfuscates the issue.

Well, I was thinking the degree of separation was that it isn't an ordinary person ending someone's life, it is a government entity who claims to have the specific authority through the penalty system of the state.

Hmm, so then it's okay to kill a non-citizen? And why do you think it's okay for the government to end a life? Indeed, if such is the argument, why doesn't the government perform consensual assisted suicide?

Oh, I can see that this discussion is over. If you didn't get the idea of what I was trying to say from all the posts previously, we likely cannot ever come to any sane conclusion on this.

Nope, the argument is still about whether he committed an action illegally or legally, not whether they have sufficient evidence to demonstrate a crime.

The problem here, kidkade, is that you are confusing "insufficient evidence" with "no crime." If there is insufficient evidence to prove a crime was committed, it is not the same thing as there being no actual crime being committed. In the case of Zimmermann, the prosecution is attempting to demonstrate he committed a crime. It's already abundantly clear he killed Trayvon Martin, but was it a criminal act? That is what the courts will decide, based on the evidence presented. Or, it may be that they'll not decide, due to insufficient evidence.

I do not think you are reading what I have said. His actions are illegal by all accounts. The problem is the law that says you do not have a duty to retreat from a threat before claiming self defense. The law does not say it is now legal to kill someone, it said that the state (and interested parties) is barred from prosecuting because of it.

I most certainly am not confusing insufficient evidence with no crime either. As I have said, the crime does not disapear when the ability to prosecute or gain a conviction does.

As for Zimmerman, the problem is that it's still illegal to kill someone. He gets an immunity from prosecution if certain elements are true as in he was not the aggressor, he had reason to believe his life was in danger or he was going to suffer great bodily harm. Even if he was the aggressor, if he attempted to retreat from physical contact of the attack and expresses a desire to to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and the opponent continues the attack at a degree that the same bodily harm or danger of losing his life.

You are right, it is about the evidence. But it is because as I said and have always said, killing someone is illegal, even the stand your ground law does not make it legal, it only bars the prosecution against someone who used it in their defense.

Umm, no, if you kill someone in self defense, it's intentionally taking a life and is not deemed a crime. Here's where you're looking for a sweeping position on an issue that is not so cut and dry, precisely because we are mortal.

There is no law, and I challenge you to show one, that says you can kill someone in self defense. Self defense is a defense to the crime. It does not make it legal, it makes it impossible or so improbable to convict a person of the crime that it is often not even taken to court. In some situations, a law actually bars the prosecution of the crime. But no law that I can find says intentionally killing someone in self defense is legal.

There are two things that counter your argument. In 48 U.S. States, and in many other countries, it is specifically indicated that suicide is not a crime. The other part is that of precedence, which serves as an extension of the law based on interpretations posed by prior court rulings.

You are arguing interpretation, which is managed by the judicial branch of the respective nations.

I would like to see some sources where in the US, suicide is actually codified as not being a crime. I can see where courts have said it can't be prosecuted.

Your rant is missing my issue though, regardless of if it is legal or not, unless you are the state, the intentional taking of a human life is illegal so I do not see how that does not cover suicide whether it is explicitly mentioned or not.

 

[WanderingStranger]

There is no law, and I challenge you to show one, that says you can kill someone in self defense. Self defense is a defense to the crime. It does not make it legal, it makes it impossible or so improbable to convict a person of the crime that it is often not even taken to court. In some situations, a law actually bars the prosecution of the crime. But no law that I can find says intentionally killing someone in self defense is legal.

New York Penal Law section 35.15 effectively ordains that: "A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...." There is no duty to retreat under these circumstances. However, if one is "challenged" in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge and using deadly force, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self defense.


There you go. 30 seconds on google.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

Your all arguing semantics , there's no need to bring up laws/research etc, its a very basic question in it's context.
If you've ever watched someone you love die a long painful dehumanising death with no course of prevention , there is a definate point where the question of suicide is a relevant one ,and in this context , i dont believe any governement or typical antiquated religious dogma ,has the right to be involved in this very personal choice.

 

[DeletedUser]

Umm Scamp, what we're yammering about is exactly the sort of argument we should have about this, not that touchy feely emotion-based rhetoric that basically argues, "if you're against it, you've never been there." No Scamp, that sort of argument merely camps a debate.

Kidcade's initial argument was that it is wrong, and a crime, to kill anyone including yourself. It then was presented that the criminality is suspect, at which point he adjusted to indicate it's okay, and not a crime, to kill if your government authorizes you to do so, which lands precisely on my point that he erroneously asserted was going astray ---

Since it is the government that dictates when killing is and is not a crime, and in fact they possess the power to authorize ending the life of another, and since suicide is legal in all 50 U.S. States, U.K., Ireland, Australia, etc and so on, it seems quite reasonable that persons wanting to end their life but being physically incapable of doing so, can petition the government to assign someone to assist them in death.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

doctors have been doing it for decades ,longer ,its called palative care.
and i wasnt putting in some "you've never been there" argument, i was outlining the context of the question ,and in that context ,the question gets answered by personal beliefs and situation,there's no real argument in it ,and more often than not in that instance ,the person's already in care ,and although no doctor would or can admit it ,pallative care spreads very much into assisted suicide in the form of over medication ,(longer term paitents -higher dosage/tolerence etc) .That's what in real terms assisted suicide is , so your argument should more be "be nice if it was legal,but it really doesnt matter " ..hope that's not too touchy feely

 

[DeletedUser1121]

Each country has her own set of laws, but i will try to explain how the Dutch system works (as this is one of the best examples of how this should be done imho).

The law allows medical review board to suspend prosecution of doctors who performed euthanasia when each of the following conditions is fulfilled:

• the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
• the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
• the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
• there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
• the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present
• the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)

Since this discussion has already been about people who live like a vegetable (and this would be breaking the second condition i mentioned above), everyone in Holland can fill in a declaration in which you state you want to be euthanised if you can not longer request it by yourself.