Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jetmech Jr. on January 17, 2006, 09:14:16 pm
-
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-01-18T004126Z_01_WBT004563_RTRUKOC_0_US-COURT-SUICIDE.xml
I find this to be good news. How bout you?
-
Whatever happened to "First, do no harm"?
-
Good news as far as I'm concerned.
-
The issue is not doctor-assisted suicide, the issue is doctors using controlled substances to do it.
-
"We are disappointed at the decision. The president remains fully committed to building a culture of life ... that is built on valuing life at all stages," McClellan said
-
Good to hear. :yes:
-
Whatever happened to "First, do no harm"?
Define harm. I mean, we are talking about people who are effectively in intolerable and uncureable pain, here.
Surely it's a persons duty, not the government, to value their life and decide what to do with it, even if that means ending it? I mean, in terms of euthanasia, no doctor would ever assist a patient who wasn't seen to be lucid, sure, and capable of understanding their wish to die.
-
"We are disappointed at the decision. The president remains fully committed to building a culture of life ... that is built on valuing life at all stages," McClellan said
The irony hurts ...
-
"We are disappointed at the decision. The president remains fully committed to building a culture of life ... that is built on valuing life at all stages," McClellan said
The irony hurts ...
QFT.
Government hypocrisy = hi--****ing--larious.
-
Define harm. I mean, we are talking about people who are effectively in intolerable and uncureable pain, here.
And what if dying is a greater harm than staying alive in pain?
Surely it's a persons duty, not the government, to value their life and decide what to do with it, even if that means ending it?
A person has the right to govern his own life, yes. But that doesn't make suicide right. And as a matter of professional integrity, no doctor should even entertain the notion of helping a person commit suicide. It cheapens life.
If a young person commits suicide, it leaves a gaping hole in the lives of all the people he knew. Why is this sort of suicide any different?
-
Define harm. I mean, we are talking about people who are effectively in intolerable and uncureable pain, here.
And what if dying is a greater harm than staying alive in pain?
Who are we to judge, sitting in our comfortable armchairs?
Surely it's a persons duty, not the government, to value their life and decide what to do with it, even if that means ending it?
A person has the right to govern his own life, yes. But that doesn't make suicide right. And as a matter of professional integrity, no doctor should even entertain the notion of helping a person commit suicide. It cheapens life.
If a young person commits suicide, it leaves a gaping hole in the lives of all the people he knew. Why is this sort of suicide any different?
Ask anyone wanting to commit euthanasia. I'd guess they'd point out the difference between curable depression and the 'cry for help/attention' type suicide, and the fact their death is already inevitable, it's just a question of how long they endure substantial pain and/or debilitation. They'd probably also mention that laws allowing assisted suicide will inevitably have measures to ensure the patient (or victim, depending on your perspective) is still of sound mind to make that decision, is suffering a terminal condition, and is indeed in severe pain or discomfort.
The reason suicide is 'wrong' in the case you make, someone who's otherwise healthy, is because it's something that's avoidable; usually a consequence of mental illness or some tragic events. We view it as wrong because it's partly our fault if we fail to do something to prevent it (when it's someone we know). The hole it leaves is partly a consequence; in the case of a terminally ill and suffering patient (and the suffering aspect is key here), the friends and family already know that person is going to die, is going to suffer, and they have already mentally processed that.
I wasn't particularly sad, for example, when my grandad died a few years back because he'd been suffering badly; his mind had pretty much gone, his liver was breaking down and his skin had turned yellow.... basically, I was glad he wasn't suffering, because we knew long before there wasn't any hope for him.
-
A person has the right to govern his own life, yes. But that doesn't make suicide right. And as a matter of professional integrity, no doctor should even entertain the notion of helping a person commit suicide. It cheapens life.
If a young person commits suicide, it leaves a gaping hole in the lives of all the people he knew. Why is this sort of suicide any different?
Because someone who commits suicide out of depression, drugs, or some other emotional imbalance is in no condition to be making decisions and needs treatment. The trauma his or her loved ones experience is the trauma of wondering if they could have done something to help. A patient who chooses doctor-assisted suicide is in his or her right mind, and loved ones will not be left asking what went wrong. It's a choice between a painful, drawn-out death and a peaceful death over which the patient will have control.
-
I can't sympathize with suicidals, but I don't think it's something that can be prevented or should be stopped. If you want to off yourself, for whatever reasons, you should be able to - just don't expect any respect from me. At least with doctor assistance you can make sure you actually die, there's few categories of people I despise more than people who try to commit suicide and fail at it.
:p
-
In my opinion, suicide tends to be pretty selfish. That's about it for my thoughts on it though.
-
Yes. Suicide is very selfish. I had a good friend, who committed suicide. I was angry about it, to myself as well as to him. But in retrospect, I can see why he might have ended in that kind of solution. I learned that it is not the people who commit suicide who are selfish. But it is the people left behind who are selfish. It is not a subtle feeling when you realize what has been happening to your friend. That you could have helped if you would just bothered to read between the lines... And in their anger, people often blame the deceased. Trust me on this, me and my friends spent a lot of time thinking about this.
And when speaking of suicides, do not even consider those people who kill themselves by drugoverdoze, or jumping from a cliff while drunk. Those are accidents, not suicides.
Overall, I consider suicide to same as giving up. And I can't imagine myself doing it (too bullheaded), unless incase of serious injury or sickness. Because I would simply lose my mind if I had to spend the rest of my life lying on bed. In that case I would give up because there would be nothing to do about it.
The bottomline: Those to end up committing suicide do not ask for your respect or pity. And they certainly do not need anyone to tell them are they allowed to do it. Sometimes it may just feel better to them than this world. And we have no right to judge them without knowing the full details. And we really never know.
-
Suicide is an illness, not an action. People who are no longer able to function, always in great pain, and never will recover wish for a peaceful death, not a suicidal one. You cannot define people who are terminally ill who wish peace as suicidal. Their lives have already ended, and there is no possible way of getting it back. This person doesn't see their life as without value, they see it as finished. A suicidal person sees their life as a failure and without value. It is this scenario when a death is a sin. With that logic, it is only humane to allow the person in question a merciful death. They will be remembered with dignity, and their kin be proud of the life they had lived. This is not suicide, this is closure.
-
My objection to euthenasia, call it what you want, has always been one of the potential for abuse. If a relative wants to get their hands on the patient's inheritance, or convinces them that they're a burden somehow, for example, then they can influence the most serious decision that patient will ever take - perhaps compelling them to do something they might not even consider otherwise. To me that's incredibly dangerous as there's no second chance. It's safer to prevent than allow it.
If the world was ideal and the patient could somehow prove that it was their sole decision right up until the point before death then I'd be all for it.
-
My objection to euthenasia, call it what you want, has always been one of the potential for abuse. If a relative wants to get their hands on the patient's inheritance, or convinces them that they're a burden somehow, for example, then they can influence the most serious decision that patient will ever take - perhaps compelling them to do something they might not even consider otherwise. To me that's incredibly dangerous as there's no second chance. It's safer to prevent than allow it.
If the world was ideal and the patient could somehow prove that it was their sole decision right up until the point before death then I'd be all for it.
It's also safer to prevent people driving cars than allow it, but we do that anyways. And soforth, down the road of allegory, because any allowance of free-will to act allows the possibility (however remote) of a dangerous action. But that's why there are supposed to be controls on euthanasia; that require the patient to be proven as capable of making a decision of free-will, with the right reasons and the knowledge there is no hope of recovery or improvement.