the right to die

There been a recent push in my country[1] to have euthanasia legalised once more from the Greens and Democrats.

What's are your views on assisted suicide? Do people have the indelible right to end their lives?

edited 30th Oct '10 7:13:20 AM by joeyjojo

I think so. But to my mind there isn't really all that much you can do to stop people doing it anyway, merely easing the passing.

I's really like it if say, you filled out a paper document a week before, that acted as a license to die. Die 8-14 afterwards, and the government saves some money by not investigating your death, and we all know you had at least a week to think about it.

The problem is enforcement. The whole thing is impossible, except in cases where assisted suicide is necessary, which seems pointlessly cruel.

This state has had it for over fifteen years.

edited 30th Oct '10 1:20:24 PM by EnglishIvy

I say let people die whenever they want to. Their life is theirs to do whatever they want with.

I'm against it.

I believe everyone has the potential to be happy, and it's not right to give up on anyone's life.

Most suicidal people are ambivalent about it, even if they're making a serious attempt. And the majority of people who survive a suicide attempt never try again. Even those who make multiple attempts can go on to live in happiness, given the right support. Furthermore, there's pretty good evidence to suggest that people are constitutionally incapable of perpetual misery, no matter what you put them through.

Regarding assisted suicide and euthanasia, those bring up even more issues. Assisted suicide brings up the issue of whether you'll have different rules for a disabled or ill person who wants to die as opposed to a healthy depressed person. Euthanasia brings up the issue of whether anyone can make that kind of decision on someone else's behalf. Even if you're OK with suicide, those issues should concern you.

I'd prefer to die if I had altheziemers thank you. You might be happy, but your not "you" anymore if that happens.

And if you have a terminal illness then you should be asked, checked by judicial review and asked again and again if this is actually what you want to do. If it is, then simply take the various drug cocktail your doctors given you and sit in the garden with some music on.

Do people have the indelible right to end their lives?

Yes.

@English Ivy: oh yeah? which state is this? Has there been much controversy about it?

edited 30th Oct '10 5:16:26 PM by joeyjojo

Oregon. There was a ballot measure meant to repeal it in 1997, but it was voted down.

Right to Die is the single most important human right in existence.

Aside from the right to live?

Still, I think if someone is living with a chronic, uncurable illness, they should have the right to end it instantly, rather than as a long, drawn out demise. I would have thought that was just common sense. Instantaneous death, compared with long, drawn out death stuck in a bed. Its akin to choosing between getting beheaded via guillotine or being hung drawn and quartered.

Of course, this argument flies out the window if there's a good chance a drug will be invented that will cure the illness.

EDIT: So, a choice between being beheaded, or being hung, drawn and quartered with the chance of parole, or even a pardon, before they've quite cut your guts out.

edited 31st Oct '10 2:44:07 PM by GameChainsaw

No, not aside from the right to live.

Ultimately, liberty is about choices. In all situations, your options are limited. The right to die is the right to take the underlying option of "Screw this noise, I'm out of here." It is the ultimate imposition to deny a person that choice.

Note, however, that "the right to die" is not equivalent to "It is best if they die." That's a fallacy some people implicitly make when they criticize Right to Die advocates.

edited 31st Oct '10 2:49:33 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

The big problem as I see it is the potential for relatives to prematurely ask for someone to be euthanised because they stand to benefit from the person's death.

In principle, I'm quite supportive of the right to die. Medical resources are limited and using them to prolong someone's suffering seems senseless.

^The person being asked to die still has the right to tell such bastards where to get off. As would the doctor no doubt.

If the argument is "Well, if we allow people to kill themselves, then they'll be able to be convinced by their families to kill themselves so as to burden the family!" I would suspect that empirical evidence actually suggests the reverse to be true-families would wish to keep the terminally ill alive far longer than the ill would actually personally prefer.

Well it can go both ways, maybe just keep it on a case by case basis.

Anyway the right to life should come first and the right to die after it. Any otherwise just wouldn't be logical.

Anyway the right to life should come first and the right to die after it. Any otherwise just wouldn't be logical.

A person's own rights should come first, and if it's their own decision to die, knowing that prolonging their life only prolongs their suffering, then there is no reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

The Netherlands seems to have a good grasp on the concept.

edited 1st Nov '10 12:22:29 AM by Starscream

Agreed, very much so. If I was dying of some incurable condition I wouldn't want to be on this planet one instant longer than was necessary.

Agreed. I fucking hate being sick more than anything else. If I had no chance of ever getting better then I'd be wanting to GTFO the mortal coil something fierce.

Hmm i'm surprised how many people here are for it seeing how it been political suicide for anyone trying to pass laws regarding it.

I think if it going to be allow it must be strictly something people can only decided for themselves. people should be able to take they own lives, but that's where it stops. it should not be done on anyones behalf under any circumstance.

It is perfectly legal in The Netherlands for example to euthanasia infants, [1] while yes it's only done in cases where not to do so would be an act of cruelty. It's still a legal right no one should have. IMHO.

edited 1st Nov '10 4:34:59 AM by joeyjojo

Hmm i'm surprised how many people here are for it seeing how it been political suicide for anyone trying to pass laws regarding it.

That's because the fundamentalist nutbags are as-good-as-running the place with Smug Snake Gillard as their puppet. If someone who was actually socially competent was PM, people would be discussing it more freely.

edited 1st Nov '10 4:34:12 AM by Starscream

well it was either her or captain catholic abbott, so it was a lesser of two evils. I'll take a snotty welsh tart over some one who actually work for the bad guys in the The Da Vinci Code.

edited 1st Nov '10 4:45:43 AM by joeyjojo

What political system are you talking about?

Another fundamental right should be the right to dispose of one's body as one wishes. I can't believe Cryonics are still forbidden in France. And, yes, how many people would choose to have their heads vitrified in liquid nitrogen, Dying as Yourself with a shot at the distant future, rather than their "soul", so to speak, being utterly and irrecoverably destroyed by the illness, rotting alive.

edited 1st Nov '10 4:54:49 AM by RawPower

You've been converted to the dark side, huh?

Awesome.