• 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
Seeing words that are not there. As usual.

I'm sorry but you equated palliation to assisted suicide in this thread; that's too offensive and too crazy for anything you say right now to be taken seriously. In your rush to score points against me in some fight you're dragging from thread to thread, you have leapt yourself onto a completely untenable and insane position.

Thank you, I didnt expect you to provide the evidence yourself.
 
There's no practical difference between a dnr with no iv fluids, no hospitalization stipulations and a guy who is alert and just refuses to drink.

As a HCP you can force fluids on them without their consent, or not. If you respect patient autonomy, you don't force the fluids. That doesn't mean you can't alleviate other symptoms if that is a service that is desired.

Lack of water is what's going to kill you, because you don't want water. The HCP is not assisting in your lack of water, that's on you, because they're respecting your autonomy and you said "don't do it."

This ain't rocket surgery.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, I didnt expect you to provide the evidence yourself.

Case in point with the "words that aren't there" business.

:screwy
 
Case in point with the "words that aren't there" business.

:screwy

Exactly. Making up your own definitions doesnt make them 'real.' You can keep proving my point or attempt to rejoin the discussion using real words and definitions.
 
Doctors are trained for years to keep people alive and promote health. They are uniquely overqualified to be killing people. Why not train non-medical people in how to "mercifully" kill people? Is that morally objectionable if all persons involved are willing to do it?

*I know the above may sound odd, but it is a serious question.

There's a few ethical lines you're not just crossing here but gleefully skipping over, then pissing back over the other side.

Doctors are supposed to heal and help, not kill.
 
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.
There are cases where this is not accepted ..
An enforced, and well known "living will" is a MUST.
 
Doctors are trained for years to keep people alive and promote health. They are uniquely overqualified to be killing people. Why not train non-medical people in how to "mercifully" kill people? Is that morally objectionable if all persons involved are willing to do it?

*I know the above may sound odd, but it is a serious question.

Places of care are not places of death. Why would a place with the purpose of caring for people hire people with the sole purpose of killing people?
 
There's a few ethical lines you're not just crossing here but gleefully skipping over, then pissing back over the other side.

Doctors are supposed to heal and help, not kill.
Wrong .. When the healing and helping are ineffective and the patient is in pain where not even marijuana helps .. Then what ?? ... And it will, IMO, take a well qualified doctor to "speed up" this process .
 
Places of care are not places of death. Why would a place with the purpose of caring for people hire people with the sole purpose of killing people?

What about hospices?
 
There's a few ethical lines you're not just crossing here but gleefully skipping over, then pissing back over the other side.

Doctors are supposed to heal and help, not kill.

And they wouldn't be killing. Though I guess that would raise the question of who would do the training.
 
Same question back at you?

Do you think inpatient hospices purposefully kill folks?

Because holy ****, no, no they do not.

I would implore you not to take offense. The hospice workers I've interacted with have been wonderful people (I volunteer with a hospice).
 
Okay.

I think a lot of people get the wrong idea about palliative healthcare. They're there to relieve symptoms, not hasten death.
 
As a right, no. Legally allowed for terminally ill patients, yes.

Ditto, in general here.

I don't think there is any fundamental human right that requires actions by someone else to be done for you.

If you want to suggest people have a fundamental human right to die, that's one thing. I can see an argument there. I see no argument that you have a fundamental human right to have someone else kill you.

But I have no real issue with this being legally allowed for terminally ill patients. I am somewhat open to the notion of letting it be legally allowed for individuals who are diagnosed with incurable, extremely dabilitating and paintful deseases as well.

However, I think if it's made legal regulation needs to be in place where the people administering such things are restricted to only charging an amount equal to the cost to perform the action. While I do not have an issue with assisted suicide in those situations, I think allowing a potential profit from such acts opens it up for potentially questioanble diagnosis and other type things in order to make a profit. This would be ESPECIALLY true if it was legal in a broader sense then just the terminally ill.

While that would reduce the amount of providers offering it, I believe there would be enough providers who feel morally compelled to offer such a service that would perform it even though they would not gain a profit (since they could charge enough to not take a loss).
 
People should have the right to die with dignity.

Period.

This does need heavy regulation however to ensure the 15 grandchildren aren't pressuring grandma into going early for inheritance as an over the top example but I have absolutely no problem with this.

Luckily we as a nation have been getting better with laws that protect the elderly. Because FinCEN, banks have to report suspected abuse when it appears that senior citizens are being exploited financially by others, including the grandchildren. I wonder if there are any similar laws to report suspicion of danger to granny because these same kids want her put to sleep.
 
Ditto, in general here.

I don't think there is any fundamental human right that requires actions by someone else to be done for you.

If you want to suggest people have a fundamental human right to die, that's one thing. I can see an argument there. I see no argument that you have a fundamental human right to have someone else kill you.

But I have no real issue with this being legally allowed for terminally ill patients. I am somewhat open to the notion of letting it be legally allowed for individuals who are diagnosed with incurable, extremely dabilitating and paintful deseases as well.

However, I think if it's made legal regulation needs to be in place where the people administering such things are restricted to only charging an amount equal to the cost to perform the action. While I do not have an issue with assisted suicide in those situations, I think allowing a potential profit from such acts opens it up for potentially questioanble diagnosis and other type things in order to make a profit. This would be ESPECIALLY true if it was legal in a broader sense then just the terminally ill.

While that would reduce the amount of providers offering it, I believe there would be enough providers who feel morally compelled to offer such a service that would perform it even though they would not gain a profit (since they could charge enough to not take a loss).

We use 2nd opinions now to prevent unnecessary procedures and surgeries, which also incur profits....anytime I hear about such legislation at this, additional corroboration and medical opinions are required.
 
Wrong. A medical professional has the duty to not harm their patient.
In this case the harm is subjective. Because to the patient, who is choosing to commit suicide, staying alive is the harm.

It is a breach of medical ethics dating back to the time of Hippocrates for medical professionals to involve themselves in such things.

Yeah, so What? These ethics were authored by man, not mother nature - the sole arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.

As humans we have to ability to evolve in our stance on things. This is obviously one of those occasions were a previously held belief is being challenged by newer understanding.
 
In this case the harm is subjective. Because to the patient, who is choosing to commit suicide, staying alive is the harm.

Wow. Causing someones death is objectively causing a harm. How in the hell is that something even up for discussion?

Yeah, so What? These ethics were authored by man, not mother nature - the sole arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.

As humans we have to ability to evolve in our stance on things. This is obviously one of those occasions were a previously held belief is being challenged by newer understanding.

Do you really think anything new is being talked about here? What exactly is new about the idea of helping someone else die?
 
No murder is a specific criminal charge levied against the alleged perpetrator(s) of a homicide.

Kevorkian was convicted of murder. He was a murderer. That conviction was entirely appropriate. Any doctor who does what he did is violating human rights as well as medical ethics; they should be thrown into prison forever.

Yeah, I know of whom you are referring to. He was convicted for such. But you are making an appeal to a law that is not enforced because of some innate apparent reality of life. There is no dictatorial declaration in nature that forbids assisting someone in suicide. Man made scripture can be challenged and changed.

The law of which you speak that forbade him from assisting in voluntary euthanasia is what is being appealed and changed in countries around the world. Because the understanding now is that the individual right to end your life is up to that individual and that individual can seek professional assistant in doing so - so that to ensure that their death is peaceful.
 
I presented you with an ethical way to achieve that end.

Killing is not necessary. Anyone is capable of zero fluid intake and anyone who does so will die from that choice in a very brief timeframe.
 
Wow. Causing someones death is objectively causing a harm. How in the hell is that something even up for discussion?
It is up for discussion Henrin. Your sad attempts at constantly trying to color your oppositions stance as "stupid" will never work with some one who has the intellectual capacity to see your pathetic debating tactics for what they are.

Subjectivity is very much in place her. Living can at times be more harmful for someone who is suffering a painful existence that no medical know how can alleviate. Thus in these cases, death - which leads to an end to pain - is far less harmful.

That's logic 101 try it out sometime.


Do you really think anything new is being talked about here? What exactly is new about the idea of helping someone else die?

What is new is the concept of accepting someone's choice to end their life and their choice to have someone assist them with it legally.
 
Last edited:
I presented you with an ethical way to achieve that end.

Killing is not necessary.

You presented only your opinion of how you would do things. Some people simply want to end it peacefully. They should have that right. And they should be able to seek medical assistance if it is offered.

Nothing about that is murder, barbaric, immoral, or wrong.
 
You presented only your opinion of how you would do things. Some people simply want to end it peacefully. They should have that right. And they should be able to seek medical assistance if it is offered.

Nothing about that is murder, barbaric, immoral, or wrong.

I presented you with an ethical option that is very peaceful.

Killing another human being in aggression remains evil and barbaric.

If you killed a patient like that where I live, you would be convicted of murder and you would deserve that fate.
 
It is up for discussion Henrin. Your sad attempts at constantly trying to color your oppositions stance as "stupid" will never work with some one who has the intellectual capacity to see your pathetic debating tactics for what they are.

Subjectivity is very much in place her. Living can at times be more harmful for someone who is suffering a painful existence that no medical know how can alleviate. Thus in these cases, death - which leads to an end to pain - is far less harmful.

That's logic 101 try it out sometime.

Living is always better than death. That is objectively true. You might disagree in certain cases mentally, but you are objectively wrong. Killing someone else is always a harm and I fail to see how it can be anything else.


What is new is the concept of accepting someone's choice to end their life and their choice to have someone assist them with it legally.

That's not new in the slightest. Check your history again.
 
I presented you with an ethical option that is very peaceful.

You opinion on ethics. Is just that. Nothing more. Nothing Less.
There is, absolutely, nothing unethical about helping someone find peace when all they know is pain. And there is not alternative to alleviate it. That is their right to do so.
Killing another human being in aggression remains evil and barbaric.

There is nothing aggressive about helping someone die peacefully. So wrong again. Though killing someone violently against their will would be more fitted to your skewed view of aggressive murder.
 
Back
Top Bottom