Do people have a right to die?

[DeletedUser563]

in following up what tug said lets sketch a scenario you have some kind of terminal illness and the cure is just along the next corner wouldnt you feel a right :donkey: in the afterlife if you realized you could have skipped death.

On a more serious note I dont really like this topic. Its a very depressing one to say the least. From just a man on the street viewpoint I would say that this shouldnt be allowed. Im no doctor but wouldnt this involve some doctor which would make it against the Hippocratic oath which says "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; "
I

I also think HS has valid points in that a terminal patient cannot be in a state of mind where he can make a rationale decision due to depression etc. Which in legal terms would mean that it would be very hard to determine if the person has the capability to act(im not certain of the correct term but in a legal sense for example a 3 year killing someone does not have this requirement). . It is the classic catch 22 case a insane man cannot determine whether he is sane or not and therefore a person saying he is insane therefore is sane or something like that *. (*Read the book)

 

[DeletedUser]

There is no afterlife. There is here, and there is nothing.

 

[DeletedUser563]

There is no afterlife. There is here, and there is nothing.

of course there is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc from 2:05. but if you only get 1 shot at the piñata in your opinion why kill yourself.

 

[DeletedUser15641]

There is no afterlife. There is here, and there is nothing.

What proof you got to make your thinking of an afterlife does not exist?

Since no proof that means still no one should have the right to die.

 

[DeletedUser]

I do not need to prove nothing exists when there is no empirical evidence for something existing.

and its not a matter of an afterlife, it's a matter of laws against killing someone and somehow yourself is not counted as a someone. It's like society saying we will protect everyone, but you are not everyone and don't get protected.

 

[DeletedUser15641]

Well are you for "free"?Do you know what are you really worth?How much worth is a guy or anyone is from your prospective?

On my prospective any human being is worth more than the whole world...but some countries are not having that prospective via anyone who wants to die should not die for anything...he is worth more than the world's money..why would anyone want to die?So that means he does not have any right's to die except if it was a natural death.

 

[DeletedUser]

The value of a human life needs to be weighed by the value to society, family, friends and other aspects of life including the potential of all that in order to get a complete value of life. Some people are worth more then others, while no one is worth nothing.

As for being free, you aren't really free if you are purposely attempting to harm yourself. Try taking an 8 ball of Cocaine and snorting or smoking it in front of the police. The US supreme court has said that being a danger to yourself is legitimate reason to keep someone incarcerated or committed.

Of course other countries might have a different outlook. I have noticed that it appears that the countries with socialized medicine (government paid healthcare) are the ones who are the most open to people killing themselves. Perhaps the moral questions have been negated to one of saving money from a taxpayer or government perspective. If the sick and infirm kill themselves off instead of waiting for cures or attempting to make a decent life, it means less money is needed to be spent on them. Its well known that Stephen Hawking would be dead or at least not the man he is today if he relied solely on England's government health care system. Instead, he received private charity and participated in university experiments as well as took privileges only available because of his connections to the university and has managed to make a pretty decent contribution to society.

 

[WanderingStranger]

As for being free, you aren't really free if you are purposely attempting to harm yourself. Try taking an 8 ball of Cocaine and snorting or smoking it in front of the police. The US supreme court has said that being a danger to yourself is legitimate reason to keep someone incarcerated or committed.

I am afraid this just isnt true. Your example is considered a "crime against society" and though no particular victim is present the state accepts the role of the victim on behalf of society.

There are no federals or state laws making suicide itself illegal.

It can be considered a "common law crime" in the states that that still use them (several have abolished them) but those relate to rights of the family of the person who committed suicide to pursue lawsuits for the deceased and collection of money after the death from a life insurance claim.

There are also some acts that are considered illegal as they relate to suicide and they vary depending on the state.

They restrict outside influence - You cant assist, encourage or advise someone in many states.

They restrict location - In some states it is illegal to "attempt suicide" in a public location or in front of others.

They can even restrict the attempt - Several states allow for an involuntary psychiatric "Hold" of an individual though it is not law in the conventional sense. It is a welfare code. A horribly complex and convoluted code that many question the full legality of(hence the complexity) Even then many "72 hour" holds are released after the initial 72 hours because there is no longer just cause to detain them.

In the end there is no "Legal" discussion here. A person who is dead is dead so no law can apply to them.

The value of a human life needs to be weighed by the value to society, family, friends and other aspects of life including the potential of all that in order to get a complete value of life. Some people are worth more then others, while no one is worth nothing.

If the state controls your right to die then they also control your body.

Lets weigh the value of a life to "society, family, friends and other aspects of life including the potential of all".

If Albert Einstein was on his death bed would doctors be allowed to implant his brain into a cybernetic body, against his will, if they had the technology?

NO

Despite any contribution he could have made and all of his potential we have a right to our bodies.

A person has the right(an actual federal law) to refuse medical treatment even if that treatment could save their life.

There are of course requirements of mental health but wanting to die does not automatically make one "mentally unsound" to make the decision according to the law.

CONCLUSION

We all ready have a law that makes "equivalent suicide" legal by refusing medical aid , laws that confirm ones body as their own by allowing them to make the choice, and NO laws againt committing suicide ones self.

I spent about an hour actually doing research. Feel free to do your own.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am afraid this just isnt true. Your example is considered a "crime against society" and though no particular victim is present the state accepts the role of the victim on behalf of society.

There are no federals or state laws making suicide itself illegal.

So it is ok for the state to step in and claim to be the victim when you harm yourself by doing addictive and dangerous drugs because it is a crime against society and killing someone, yourself, is completely devoid of anything of the sort? I know many will say that is the way it is, but seriously, should it be that way?

There are no federals or state laws making suicide itself illegal.

There are no laws that I know of that outlaw filchery or furtum either but it doesn't mean it is legal. DO you understand that a law can encompass something that can be specifically defined without specifically defining it within the law? The two examples I gave are types of theft and will be covered by laws relating to theft. If a law says no one can kill anyone, then magically not excluding yourself seems to not be in line with the law. The problem is that we do not prosecute dead people so if you succeed, you will never be prosecuted. If you attempt suicide and fail and get caught, the state can and often does arrest people and hold them until it is determined they are not a threat to themselves. This can be days, weeks, or even years. OF course this detention is considered civil and not criminal which negates many of the rights the constitution protects but every state has this ability, uses this ability, and it was already ruled on by the US supreme court as being legal.

SO in all, it simply does not make sense. IF the state can incarcerate you on civil grounds for unsuccessfully attempting to kill yourself, then succeeding is perfectly legal.

If the state controls your right to die then they also control your body.

They already control your body. They can through the magic of a law conscript you into the military and put you up as a meat shield for all the bullets being fired back at us. And if you refuse, they can incarcerate you or even kill you themselves. This is what I do not get, the state has this power already and the argument is "well, i have the right to kill myself".

Lets weigh the value of a life to "society, family, friends and other aspects of life including the potential of all".

If Albert Einstein was on his death bed would doctors be allowed to implant his brain into a cybernetic body, against his will, if they had the technology?

Actually, I was thinking more in the sense of compensation for the loss of a life. IF I assassinated Einstein before his contributions to science were made, or perhaps before they finished the A bomb that ended WWII sooner then it could have lasted, what would be the value of the setbacks to science or the extra soldiers who died in a long dragged out invasion of Japan. Similarly, if a father of four dies, is it more tragic when those four kids are between the ages of 5 and 16 or when they are in their 30's and 40's with their own lives? It's not about turning them into a cyborg or anything, it's a matter of the impact their presence has at the time of their death.

 

[WanderingStranger]

There are no laws that I know of that outlaw filchery or furtum either but it doesn't mean it is legal. DO you understand that a law can encompass something that can be specifically defined without specifically defining it within the law? The two examples I gave are types of theft and will be covered by laws relating to theft. If a law says no one can kill anyone, then magically not excluding yourself seems to not be in line with the law. The problem is that we do not prosecute dead people so if you succeed, you will never be prosecuted. If you attempt suicide and fail and get caught, the state can and often does arrest people and hold them until it is determined they are not a threat to themselves. This can be days, weeks, or even years. OF course this detention is considered civil and not criminal which negates many of the rights the constitution protects but every state has this ability, uses this ability, and it was already ruled on by the US supreme court as being legal.

SO in all, it simply does not make sense. IF the state can incarcerate you on civil grounds for unsuccessfully attempting to kill yourself, then succeeding is perfectly legal.

Your argument here is based off of assumptions that are not true.

Lets start with the last part. They can hold you Temporarily on "mental incapacity". There is nothing legal or illegal about the suicide. Just the question of your mental state.

And now the first part which you keep using the same argument which is WRONG.

It is not illegal to KILL someone. It is Illegal to MURDER someone.
one more time
It is not illegal to KILL someone. It is Illegal to MURDER someone.

You keep trying to make this argument but it just isnt true.

Someone Breaks into your home and you kill them. Almost every state has a law to cover this saying it is LEGAL.
Someone attempts to rape/kill/abduct you and you kill them. Almost every state has a low to cover this saying it is LEGAL.

It is an Affirmative defense. An affirmative defense results in a Not Guilty verdict if proved. That means they are judged not guilty of a crime. They broke no laws. Being charged with a crime does not prove guilt.

As for filchery and furtum they are covered in every state and every country in the world with a justice system.

They are types of theft and theft laws cover all types.

Killing is not murder but murder is killing. A big distinction.

Murder covers , first-degree murder, premeditated murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, accidental(at fault) manslaughter, willful murder and probably quite a few more.

Killing can cover the justified killings also(non-murders), Self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, killing in war, accidental(not at fault) killing and probably more along with Murder and all of its sub-categories.

 

[DeletedUser]

Your argument here is based off of assumptions that are not true.

Lets start with the last part. They can hold you Temporarily on "mental incapacity". There is nothing legal or illegal about the suicide. Just the question of your mental state.

Then you should not base your opinions on those assumptions. The US Supreme Court has stated that the state can hold anyone if there they are a danger to themselves or society and has actually allow both of those reasons to prevail in the confinement of criminals who have already served their sentences. It is not completely a matter or mental capacity, it is a matter of harm that can or will likely be caused.

It is not illegal to KILL someone. It is Illegal to MURDER someone.
one more time
It is not illegal to KILL someone. It is Illegal to MURDER someone.

You keep trying to make this argument but it just isnt true.

Actually, it is illegal to kill someone. Murder requires a mens rea or state of mind, causing the death of someone is a homicide reclassified as manslaughter with varying degrees depending on the actions taken. If you give me your state you reside in, I would be happy to point the laws out to you. All states have them.

Someone Breaks into your home and you kill them. Almost every state has a law to cover this saying it is LEGAL.
Someone attempts to rape/kill/abduct you and you kill them. Almost every state has a low to cover this saying it is LEGAL.

It is an Affirmative defense. An affirmative defense results in a Not Guilty verdict if proved. That means they are judged not guilty of a crime. They broke no laws. Being charged with a crime does not prove guilt.

First, it is only an affirmative defense in certain jurisdictions. However that point is mooted as in order to have a defense to some legal action, you have to have a violation of a law. Hence it is still illegal.

As for filchery and furtum they are covered in every state and every country in the world with a justice system.

They are types of theft and theft laws cover all types.

Great, so you do understand that something doesn't have to be explicitly spelled out in a law in order for it to be illegal because another law by the nature of how it works could cover it.

Killing is not murder but murder is killing. A big distinction.

Murder covers , first-degree murder, premeditated murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, accidental(at fault) manslaughter, willful murder and probably quite a few more.

Killing can cover the justified killings also(non-murders), Self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, killing in war, accidental(not at fault) killing and probably more along with Murder and all of its sub-categories.

I chose the term kill for a reason. It incorporates the various laws such as manslaughter also. Self defense is a defense for killing, Killing in a war is somewhat of a misnomer here because it is the government who makes it legal and illegal with no law saying it is valid to kill in a time of war, just that you are an agent of the government doing it's business.

Listen, I'm not saying that suicide is illegal. Too many people think it is not. I'm saying it doesn't make sense for it not to be illegal. Even when people think a defense to killing someone somehow makes it legal, they often ignore the entire manslaughter laws present on almost every state's laws.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ah, but you just reiterated the point. It is the government that dictates when killing is legal or illegal. Just as in times of war, the government dictates when killing is legal or illegal in times of peace, such as the death penalty. Just as the government indicates it is legal to kill someone to protect hearth & home, the government indicates it is legal to kill oneself. Now all we need to do is get the government to indicate it is okay to help someone kill themselves, just as they indicate it is okay to help kill someone when applying the death penalty, just as they authorize conservators to pull the plug on a dialysis machine to end the life of a conservatee.

 

[DeletedUser]

the government indicates it is legal to kill oneself.

But I have yet to see where this indication actually is. I have seen court cases where a judge had said a law couldn't stand, but no reasoning to why or some explanation that points to some right we possess. The fact that people who successfully commit suicide do not get prosecuted is a relic of facing your accusers and you cannot do that if you are dead. In the US, we never prosecute dead people.

It is interesting that the US government alone spends about 40 million a year attempting to understand the triggers for suicide and another 17-25 in direct suicide prevention. If it is in fact legal to kill yourself, these expenditures probably should go away. I didn't bother looking into what the states spend on this if anything.

Now all we need to do is get the government to indicate it is okay to help someone kill themselves, just as they indicate it is okay to help kill someone when applying the death penalty, just as they authorize conservators to pull the plug on a dialysis machine to end the life of a conservatee.

I think there are two distinct differences here. One, the death penalty is administered by the state as a punishment. Punishing someone on your own (vigilantism) has always been illegal- even when not prosecuted. As for the conservator pulling the plug, that is done on people who are technically dead anyways and wouldn't survive without the artificial aid of a machine or human intervention. Often pulling the plug when there is no living will involves a court order and an assigned guardian ad litem to asses the situation for the state. The most known case like that might be the Terry Schiavo situation that played out in Florida circa 2001 or so.

Though I believe that God created human beings and life is sacred, I'm the master of my life. God is not going to appear in my dream and tell me that I'm going to be relieved of all my sufferings. I have to take the decision whether I like to live or not. When we cannot put an end to a person's sufferings and when we cannot bear the dear one's sufferings anymore, with the person's consent we can say 'yes' to euthanasia. Euthanasia is a dignified death and it is very much welcome. Euthanasia is not destruction, rather it is construction.

I'm not sure what some god has to do with it, but if you're at whits end with someone's suffering, you are probably talking them into wanting to die. I'm not exactly sure that's a good thing even if Euthanasia was common.

I know military recruiters who can talk kids into enlisting and jotting off to war with a likelihood of them getting killed. There are famous internet bullying cases that supposedly caused people to commit suicide. It seems to be somewhat common in recent years to hear about someone who offed themselves because of something someone else did or said.

 

[DeletedUser15641]

Though I believe that God created human beings and life is sacred, I'm the master of my life. God is not going to appear in my dream and tell me that I'm going to be relieved of all my sufferings. I have to take the decision whether I like to live or not. When we cannot put an end to a person's sufferings and when we cannot bear the dear one's sufferings anymore, with the person's consent we can say 'yes' to euthanasia. Euthanasia is a dignified death and it is very much welcome. Euthanasia is not destruction, rather it is construction.

Still no one has right's to die.....if you really care about the guy than you refuse his apply...You ,him and everyone else does not really know his future...if you don't try than you won't really know and might make you sad for not trying to help him out.If he is just in a serious condition like in wars for example he is badly hurt and is dying than you just try your best to heal him...give him morphine so that he dies slowly but without any pain.Does cancer makes pain?If yes than if no pain killers work than kill him if he is too advanced(the cancer) for docs to solve.

 

[DeletedUser]

But I have yet to see where this indication actually is. I have seen court cases where a judge had said a law couldn't stand, but no reasoning to why or some explanation that points to some right we possess. The fact that people who successfully commit suicide do not get prosecuted is a relic of facing your accusers and you cannot do that if you are dead. In the US, we never prosecute dead people.

Blah blah blah...

In UK, the The Suicide Act 1961 was instituted, making it legal to commit suicide and it was decriminalized in Canada in 1972.

Now, here are two examples of assisted suicide legalization in the U.S.:

"An adult who is capable, is a resident of Oregon, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897"​

~ http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/127.html​

"To receive a prescription for medication that the qualified patient may self-administer to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner, a qualified patient shall have made an oral request and a written request, and reiterate the oral request to his or her attending physician at least fifteen days after making the initial oral request. At the time the qualified patient makes his or her second oral request, the attending physician shall offer the qualified patient an opportunity to rescind the request."​

~ http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.245​

Then of course a legal challenge --- http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/us/ruling-upholds-law-authorizing-assisted-suicide.html

In Canada, physician-assisted suicide was declared constitutional in 1993. This was challenged, but the BC Supreme Court ruled that --- get this kid, as it pertains to what I stated earlier --- denying disabled people the right to assisted suicide was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of equality under Section 15. ~ http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/12/08/2012BCSC0886.htm

*bing*

 

[DeletedUser]

Yawn, the UK is not the US, 2 instances is not a sweeping validation of the government endorsing your right to kill yourself.

And this is about spent so I'm moving on.

 

[DeletedUser]

You wanted examples, I provided examples. Your argument is now, "you didn't give enough examples." Also, two of the "examples" I provided were about assisted suicide and ARE in the U.S.

Meh, this is about spent so I'm moving on. hehe

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Yawn, the UK is not the US, 2 instances is not a sweeping validation of the government endorsing your right to kill yourself.

And this is about spent so I'm moving on.

Works for me I'm in the UK.

Oh im sorry did it have to be just US based for it to mean something as an example ? I think not and if it did HS just gave 2 anyway

 

[DeletedUser]

I sometimes think that people not have only a right to die, but some should be obligated to do so at the earliest opportunity.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, that about sums it up, who can I start killing claiming they committed Suicide? Oh yea, they will sign a pice of paper saying they wanted to die.

I sometimes think that people not have only a right to die, but some should be obligated to do so at the earliest opportunity.

Go ahead and start, we will find people to follow you.

Oh im sorry did it have to be just US based for it to mean something as an example ? I think not and if it did HS just gave 2 anyway

IF you cannot figure out the differences between the UK and the US, perhaps you are one of those people who needs to commit Suicide too. At no time did I argue anything about any non US law. I have even said that countries like the UK where there is a socialized healthcare system thus a public interest in the costs of keeping people alive, suicide and Euthanasia are more commonly accepted as if it's a cost saving feature of the public health system.

You wanted examples, I provided examples. Your argument is now, "you didn't give enough examples." Also, two of the "examples" I provided were about assisted suicide and ARE in the U.S.

Umm.. You said "the government indicates" something. There are 50 state governments, several dozen if not hundreds of county governments, the US government and territorial governments so yes. more then 2 examples is needed to show that "the government" is doing something.

Or do you believe that is west Virginia passes a law saying it is OK to rape your sister, that the government encourages people to rape their siblings?