Suicide / Euthanasia

[Humodour]

Does that mean euthanasia is legal in the UK, Wals?

 

We're trying to legalise it here in Australia (a vast majority of Australians support it and gay marriage, but two of the three main political parties are against both).

[Walsingham]

I'm not going down the euthanasia conversation because I don't feel it's analogous.

 

It is no longer illegal. You can certainly still get in trouble if you wander onto a train line, as I witnessed from a train near Reading. But otherwise they basically try to talk you into getting help. Essentially on the grounds that it won't do you much good if you don't want to go. Also, yes, giving someone a criminal record when their life is already terrible is ...counterproductive.

 

My central point here is that if someone wants to do themselves in as a means of escaping trouble then you can't stop them with the law. There are just too many ways to do it. Which I would argue is analogous to the notion that if someone wants to wreck their life by getting high then you can't stop them with the law. There are just too many ways to do it. And ppeople don't quit when their money runs out either, they just steal or sell their possessions or bodies.

 

Sadly, what I'm NOT saying is there is a solution to the problem of individual harm outside law enforcement. The ONLY consequence I am trying to highlight is that using the law and failing has terrifying consequences around the world and in our own communities.

[Humodour]

I'm not going down the euthanasia conversation because I don't feel it's analogous.

 

Euthanasia is suicide. I would say it's pretty damn relevant to what you mentioned but whatever.

[Walsingham]

I'm not going down the euthanasia conversation because I don't feel it's analogous.

 

Euthanasia is suicide. I would say it's pretty damn relevant to what you mentioned but whatever.

 

It's a very different architecture, because it's an organised event. It's like comparing getting other people high with getting high yourself. The key distinction being that between an assault by another party and self harm.

[Humodour]

I'm not going down the euthanasia conversation because I don't feel it's analogous.

 

Euthanasia is suicide. I would say it's pretty damn relevant to what you mentioned but whatever.

 

It's a very different architecture, because it's an organised event. It's like comparing getting other people high with getting high yourself. The key distinction being that between an assault by another party and self harm.

 

I cannot comprehend the hypocrisy of this post.

 

How can you on the one hand champion an individual's right to choose what is best for them while on the other hand vilify those who would supply such an individual with the means or the information to enact that right?

 

It's worse than simply not believing in individual freedoms at all - at least that is a consistent stance, albeit misguided.

[~Di]

I'm not going down the euthanasia conversation because I don't feel it's analogous.

 

Euthanasia is suicide. I would say it's pretty damn relevant to what you mentioned but whatever.

 

It's a very different architecture, because it's an organised event. It's like comparing getting other people high with getting high yourself. The key distinction being that between an assault by another party and self harm.

 

I cannot comprehend the hypocrisy of this post.

 

How can you on the one hand champion an individual's right to choose what is best for them while on the other hand vilify those who would supply such an individual with the means or the information to enact that right?

 

It's worse than simply not believing in individual freedoms at all - at least that is a consistent stance, albeit misguided.

 

I agree about the inconsistency. It's difficult to understand one's desire to allow people to die with dignity in a manner of their own choosing, yet deny them access to those who could supply what they need to do so. Forcing dying people to blow their brains all over the wall, or hang themselves so their loved ones have to cut down their blue and bloated corpses is not allowing them to die with dignity. It's forcing them to commit a final, terrifying act that will traumatize their loved ones and leave their corpses maimed, split open, crushed or dismembered, shoveled into a closed coffin.

 

It infuriates me that we alleviate the pain of dying animals with more compassion than we are willing to show their human counterparts.

Edited December 22, 2010 by ~Di

[Orogun01]

I agree about the inconsistency. It's difficult to understand one's desire to allow people to die with dignity in a manner of their own choosing, yet deny them access to those who could supply what they need to do so. Forcing dying people to blow their brains all over the wall, or hang themselves so their loved ones have to cut down their blue and bloated corpses is not allowing them to die with dignity. It's forcing them to commit a final, terrifying act that will traumatize their loved ones and leave their corpses maimed, split open, crushed or dismembered, shoveled into a closed coffin.

 

It infuriates me that we alleviate the pain of dying animals with more compassion than we are willing to show their human counterparts.

Although there is the other side of the coin, a doctor is someone we can trust, who swore an oath to save lives. If assisted suicide is something open for everyone, it becomes a matter of choice amongst the afflicted and his/her family.The doctor should have no obligation, nor choice in a man's death unless it's a medical issue.

I agree that a method that's both painless and dignified it's the best way to go, on the other hand that would make the option to appealing. A reason that people don't kill themselves or that they fail, it's because they are afraid of a gruesome death. If suddenly it's marketed as something painless and dignified, those who think about committing the act but stop short because of fear will turn to this "new way".

[Gfted1]

Lemme just see if Im understanding this right. Suicide is too inconvenient or icky to do by oneselves so now we NEED to have a suicide service, you know, to be humane?

 

MY HEAD ASPLODE!

[Thorton_AP]

I'm not going down the euthanasia conversation because I don't feel it's analogous.

 

Euthanasia is suicide. I would say it's pretty damn relevant to what you mentioned but whatever.

 

Euthanasia is not suicide.

[Walsingham]

Whoah there, settle down, chaps.

 

I am personally a supporter of the notion that a person who genuinely wants to die, or is suffering too much to choose either way, probably ought to die. I've said as much many many times. For feth's sake, it's part of your state run military training that if someone's in excessive pain, and aren't getting better, then you hit them with several shots of morphine.

 

But I do not intend to cheapen or confuse the very simple logic of the drug prohibition debate by introducing imperfect analogies. The key point being that the legal distinction between self adminstration being voluntary and external administration being voluntary is far from trivial.

 

Where the hell is Pop when you need him?

[~Di]

Lemme just see if Im understanding this right. Suicide is too inconvenient or icky to do by oneselves so now we NEED to have a suicide service, you know, to be humane?

 

MY HEAD ASPLODE!

 

Yes. Just as we do for animals who are dying and in agony. We give them a painless death instead of throwing them off a freeway overpass. Only humans are expected to die gasping or screaming, in lieu of their other option, flinging themselves off a building so their skin splits apart, squirting internal organs that have been crushed into jello.

 

I guess humans are just too evil to deserve a painless, dignified death.

 

Edit: Sorry, Wals. My last off-topic post. I didn't mean to hijack your thread.

Edited December 23, 2010 by ~Di

[Gorgon]

Throwing yourself off a building is completely painless, provided it's tall enough. You wouldn't want to cut corners and use an overpass. It's a bloody mess to clean up though.

 

 

I support the right of someone in serious pain decide for themselves when they have had enough, but, having a doctor or family member do it for you, surely that's problematic because of the psychology of the situation. It would have to be something you handled yourself.

[Gfted1]

Lemme just see if Im understanding this right. Suicide is too inconvenient or icky to do by oneselves so now we NEED to have a suicide service, you know, to be humane?

 

MY HEAD ASPLODE!

 

Yes. Just as we do for animals who are dying and in agony. We give them a painless death instead of throwing them off a freeway overpass. Only humans are expected to die gasping or screaming, in lieu of their other option, flinging themselves off a building so their skin splits apart, squirting internal organs that have been crushed into jello.

 

I guess humans are just too evil to deserve a painless, dignified death.

 

Edit: Sorry, Wals. My last off-topic post. I didn't mean to hijack your thread.

 

Wow, hyperbole much? If youre going down this road you might as well have gone full monty and used an example of say, the only way to kill oneself is to feed yourself feet first into a wood chipper and spraw your quarter-inch remains over your back yard. Or, alternatively, one could choose a non-messy/painful method but thats not nearly as exciting is it?

 

Ill do you all one better. Because killing yourself is so inconvenient, I propose we not only legalize it but also make a socialized government program to handle it, paid for by the rich.

[Orogun01]

Seems like there is no stopping the suicide talks. Can we move it to it's own thread then?Mods?

[Tigranes]

Yes sir.

[Thorton_AP]

The big place where euthanasia becomes a question mark is when people are incapable of giving informed consent. I remember hearing about someone that carbon monoxide poisoned his daughter because she suffered from a horrible case of some brain disease, and spent most of her life suffering from pain.

 

As she's a child, legally we don't give them the right of informed consent to begin with, coupled with the nature of the illness. I think it was Cerebral Palsy which actually isn't degenerative. But the guy mercy killed his daughter because she was suffering most of the time. It spilled over and became hard on the family as a result.

 

If someone is able to give explicit informed consent, however, I typically don't have an issue with euthanasia. I don't think I would be able to perform it, but if both parties are okay with situation then it is what it is.

[Orogun01]

It's a complicated issue, no doubt. It deals with legal aspects that we don't even have a consensus and are at odds. In one hand we have the right to privacy and self determination over one's body, and on the other the right to live, human life being sacred.

I personally still hold that doctors shouldn't be forced into that position, that said I won't let my family suffer all so they can squeeze a few bucks out of my HMO. If only it were a few buck that they were after.

[Gorth]

If someone is able to give explicit informed consent, however, I typically don't have an issue with euthanasia.

Which is sort of the iffy issue for me. When do you know it is informed consent and when it is peer pressure?

 

it's a system that asks to be abuse by relatives who don't give a damn about paying the retirement home fees for uncle Anton anymore. Why don't you just save us all a lot of trouble and lay down and die?

[Thorton_AP]

When I say so!

[Humodour]

Ill do you all one better. Because killing yourself is so inconvenient, I propose we not only legalize it but also make a socialized government program to handle it, paid for by the rich.

 

Yes, let's blame socialism.

[Orogun01]

Ill do you all one better. Because killing yourself is so inconvenient, I propose we not only legalize it but also make a socialized government program to handle it, paid for by the rich.

 

Yes, let's blame socialism.

I know socialism made me want kill myself.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Orogun01

[Thorton_AP]

Ill do you all one better. Because killing yourself is so inconvenient, I propose we not only legalize it but also make a socialized government program to handle it, paid for by the rich.

 

Yes, let's blame socialism.

 

 

Couldn't it be more capitalist? Just creating jobs for people right?

[Humodour]

My point was that euthanasia has nothing to do with socialism in any way, shape or form. Euthanasia is about as "socialist" as abortion - some people may not like the idea, but it's got nothing to do with the state except insofar as the state might seek to prevent it.

[Guard Dog]

I am obliged to be consistent here. As much as I respect the value of life, I believe everyone should be free to live it with the maximum amount of liberty and autonomy. That includes ending it in a manner of their choosing. So no it should not be illegal.

 

Krez is right about the socialisim bit though. Socialisim takes choice away from people, the socialist response to euthenasia would be to either ban it all together or do it even aginst someone's will.

 

As for suicide being illegal, how the heck does one prosecute that particular crime? Assuming it was unassisted and succesful. Speaking of which, how must it feel if you try and fail? Not only do you have all of your original problems, you've just discovered something else you suck at.

[Walsingham]

The big place where euthanasia becomes a question mark is when people are incapable of giving informed consent. I remember hearing about someone that carbon monoxide poisoned his daughter because she suffered from a horrible case of some brain disease, and spent most of her life suffering from pain.

 

As she's a child, legally we don't give them the right of informed consent to begin with, coupled with the nature of the illness. I think it was Cerebral Palsy which actually isn't degenerative. But the guy mercy killed his daughter because she was suffering most of the time. It spilled over and became hard on the family as a result.

 

If someone is able to give explicit informed consent, however, I typically don't have an issue with euthanasia. I don't think I would be able to perform it, but if both parties are okay with situation then it is what it is.

 

That's a pretty shocking case. I worked with CP kids when I was a teenager, helping at a special school. I kinda liked them. I'm not saying I'm a saint though. I felt more and more compelled to help, so I cut loose.

 

Anyway, point being that CP is dramatic, and I wouldn't always call it a life. But it's not degenerative, and not normally painful (excluding fluid on the lungs which is common). BUt I could see someone trying to divest themselves of a CP kid pretty easily. Not everyone. But there's a bunch of a-holes out there.