• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should American adopt the right to Doctor Assisted Suicide?

Should Doctor assisted suicide be legal?

  • yes

    Votes: 42 70.0%
  • Depends on the regulation put in place and circumstances

    Votes: 11 18.3%
  • no

    Votes: 7 11.7%

  • Total voters
    60
I assume, of course, that anyone who believes I can abdicate my right to life and hire someone to kill me must also believe it is acceptable for me to abdicate my right to liberty and sell myself into slavery (presumably with my next of kin getting the funds, as I will no longer be able to own anything).

The reason I make this assumption is because the logical basis for not permitting the latter is the same for not permitting the former.

I cannot sell myself into slavery because I cannot give up my right to liberty. It is unalienable.
 
So do people have to provide their labor so you get medical treatment or does it just pop out of the void to make you feel all better.
If it saves lives, then yes, my tax dollars can go to healthcare.
 
So refuse treatment, refuse food, and refuse water.

You will die soon enough and no one else will be responsible for that death but you.

Wishing suffering on others is not new for you.

The discussion will clearly demonstrate who has compassion and who does not.
 
If it saves lives, then yes, my tax dollars can go to healthcare.

You got tax dollars out of that? Yes, it takes labor to pay taxes, but really, when I said provide you medical treatment, you somehow thought I meant taxes?
 
Lol, I used your definition, ffs.


No you really didn't
: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
2
: the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
3
: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

All three definitions use adjectives such as "forceful" "violation" "hostile"

Meaning that aggression is marked by an act that violates and is forceful towards another individual.

A doctor assisted suicide meets none of those definitions not by a long a shot.

Try harder to build your strawman.
 
So now, op, you are comparing all palliative healthcare to assisted suicide.

No. Palliative healthcare does not in anyway involve killing a dying patient.

Giving someone pain medication they desire but not giving them water they do not desire is a function of essential bioethics - the principle of patient autonomy.
 
There is a difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide. With euthanasia the doctor administers the lethal drug. With assisted suicide the doctor provides the lethal drug, but the person administers it to him/herself.

I have no problem with either method, but for those who are uncomfortable with the idea of a doctor ending the life of a patient, maybe assisted suicide is more acceptable.
 
You got tax dollars out of that? Yes, it takes labor to pay taxes, but really, when I said provide you medical treatment, you somehow thought I meant taxes?
You should be more clear when posting comments.
 
No you really didn't


All three definitions use adjectives such as "forceful" "violation" "hostile"

Meaning that aggression is marked by an act that violates and is forceful towards another individual.

Aggression involves inflicting a harmful or other unpleasantness upon another individual.

Second definition in your link.

Your feelings towards the subject are secondary.

First definition in your link.

I used your link against you, sorry.
 
Wishing suffering on others is not new for you.

The discussion will clearly demonstrate who has compassion and who does not.

Ugh... naked deceit from you is all too typical.

At no point did I wish suffering on anyone.
 
So now, op, you are comparing all palliative healthcare to assisted suicide.
That would be exactly what it is. And try quoting me so that I know you are addressing me.

No. Palliative healthcare does not in anyway involve killing a dying patient.

If palliative care is done to assist someone who is committing suicide. Then YES they are assisting in that suicide. It's that simple.

Giving someone pain medication they desire but not giving them water they do not desire is a function of essential bioethics - the principle of patient autonomy.

Giving them the medication to help them kill themselves painlessly is still assisting them in their suicide. They are contributing to that persons choice by helping them make it painless. That is, by definition, assisting a suicide.
 
Last edited:
You should be more clear when posting comments.

I was clear in my comment. Medical treatment takes labor, so when you say you have a right to medical treatment you are actually saying you have a right to someone else's labor.
 
You already answered the question. Just take out the word religious from your last post

I really resent that. I am a person of faith, but I'm not a nut. I don't think that the government should be in the live-or-die business anyway, but this doesn't make me a nut.
 
Forgive the typo in title - *Should America...*

Canadians have right to doctor-assisted suicide, Supreme Court rules - The Globe and Mail

Canada can now be added to the small list of countries that give humans the right to decide when they want to end their lives legally.

Is this a fundamental human right?

And should the U.S. (on a national level) and other countries adopt it?

I won't speak for other countries and peoples and the laws they wish to enact, but I'm glad that our Supreme Court has finally come around to what the vast majority of Canadian people wanted. I wish it would go further and in time it might - perhaps not in time for me, but there's always hope. I'm all for the Soylent Green option, without the final product, of course.
 
Aggression is the initiation of force.

Force is sometimes justified in medical / bioethics because the medication / treatment is expected to do more good than harm for the patient.

A surgeon does not violate primum non noncere just by cutting, though cutting does constitute some harm. This is harm that the patient elects and the professional may ethically provide if it the procedure can be expected to improve the patient's health.

Intentional lethal force violates primum non noncere. It violates the patient's unalienable human right to life. It is aggression because the patient cannot abdicate that which is unalienable.
 
Ugh... naked deceit from you is all too typical.

At no point did I wish suffering on anyone.

Here, you clearly did so:

So refuse treatment, refuse food, and refuse water.

You will die soon enough and no one else will be responsible for that death but you.
 
That would be exactly what it is. And try quoting me so that I know you are addressing me.



If palliative care is done to assist someone who is committing suicide. Then YES they are assisting in that suicide. It's that simple.



Giving them the medication to help them kill themselves painlessly is still assisting them in their suicide. They are contributing to that persons choice by helping them make it painless. That is, by definition, assisting a suicide.

Pain medication is not assisting in a suicide.

This is such ignorance of the work that palliative healthcare professionals do that it buggers belief.
 
Force is sometimes justified in medical / bioethics because the medication / treatment is expected to do more good than harm for the patient.

A surgeon does not violate primum non noncere just by cutting, though cutting does constitute some harm. This is harm that the patient elects and the professional may ethically provide if it the procedure can be expected to improve the patient's health.

Intentional lethal force violates primum non noncere. It violates the patient's unalienable human right to life. It is aggression because the patient cannot abdicate that which is unalienable.

An individual can choose to end their life. That is their right. The arbitrary notion that one can not do with their life as they please is what is being appealed. You are appealing to the authority of an old established mantra.

No one is buying it though. If someone is suffering and they want to die , That Is Their UNALIENABLE RIGHT to choose that course of action.
 
Here, you clearly did so:

That doesn't say what you think it does. Again, someone deciding on their own free will to not eat is not someone else harming them.
 
An individual can choose to end their life. That is their right. The arbitrary notion that one can not do with their life as they please is what is being appealed. You are appealing to the authority of an old established mantra.

No one is buying it though. If someone is suffering and they want to die , That Is Their UNALIENABLE RIGHT to choose that course of action.

He didn't say otherwise. He objects to someone else killing them, not people deciding on their own to die.
 
Pain medication is not assisting in a suicide.

This is such ignorance of the work that palliative healthcare professionals do that it buggers belief.


If a palliative health care professional is actively administering pain medication for an individual that they actively know as they are administering the pain medication is committing suicide, and the only reason they are administering this medication is to alleviate the pain associated with the suicide. Then YES they are assisting that individual with their suicide.

I can't believe I have to spell that out.
 
An individual can choose to end their life. That is their right. The arbitrary notion that one can not do with their life as they please is what is being appealed. You are appealing to the authority of an old established mantra.

No one is buying it though. If someone is suffering and they want to die , That Is Their UNALIENABLE RIGHT to choose that course of action.

Absolutely. If you want to die, kill yourself.

What you want though is different, and not one word of the rhetoric you just used has any relevance in promoting it.
 
He didn't say otherwise. He objects to someone else killing them, not people deciding on their own to die.


If someone chooses to assist them under professional knowledge that is also their right.
 
Back
Top Bottom