Should American adopt the right to Doctor Assisted Suicide?

eohrnberger · Feb 8, 2015

Zinthaniel said:
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?

Yes it should, with safe guards against assisted suicide in non-medically terminal cases.

Arcana XV · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
At this point, I would kind of like some clarification on what we're talking about here; the article in the OP does not clarify what the new law in Quebec even was, and the decision of Canada's SC was to just punt and give the legislation a year to make new policy, which obviously hasn't been written yet.

Hell, some people equate not forcing fluids with euthanasia - they seriously call it "passive euthanasia." How dumb is that? NOT giving someone medication or fluids or something else they DON'T want is equated with killing them. That's just basic autonomy. Healthcare is a service; your patient (or their MPOA, etc.) comes to you and requests something, giving you permission to do so. Without that permission, you can't do things. NOT doing something they DON'T want should be obvious (with the possible ethical exception of when a parent is refusing to provide life-saving care for their kid, but that's its own topic entirely).

* * *

To be clear, what Kevorkian did which landed him in prison for murder was to administer lethal medication which killed his patient. He filmed this and 60 minutes aired it. He dared the state to arrest him on that film. They did, which is correct, because he was indisputably a murderer.

I had made the assumption we were talking about the physician killing the patient. Everything I have said is about that. Nothing in any response to me up to this point has contradicted that assumption, and I do believe the people I am arguing against think it's okay for a physician to kill their patient.

If you kill yourself, I am okay with that. I am not okay with aggressive killing; you cannot commit aggression against yourself. As an analogy, if someone else were to force you to use cocaine, that would be aggressive harm to your body; if you choose to use cocaine, you are only harming yourself.

On the specific topic of being given something to consume yourself which will kill you, that is more morally fuzzy. You're right, you could just as well buy a gun and shoot yourself.

Okay. I understand your position a little better now. Your primary objection is to euthanasia, I get that. I can't take such a definite stance, because for some people who are paralyzed or have some other condition that prevents them from being able to take the drugs themselves, they really need someone else to help them. It's just not right to deny them the right to end their own life when they desperately want to end it and would do so themselves if it weren't for their condition.

ETA: Also, a useful info link: http://eol.law.dal.ca/?page_id=236

year2late · Feb 8, 2015

Henrin said:
There is just nothing else I can say about the absurdity of your posts. I suppose when my kid falls off his bike I can just tell him that injury is subjective and it's only his opinion that he is injuried. Indeed, even if he claims he is hurt according to your logic I can accurately claim he is not hurt at all even when perhaps he is covered in blood from an open wound.

Good grief. How can you even compare the two.

One person in physical and emotional agony - not feeling relief from the agony. Asking for death. Death being welcome. Do you think that the person would feel injured or harmed by death? Or perhaps welcome it with open arms?

But sure.....it is like falling off a bike.

OK, since we are going for silly analogies...try this one. A person happily goes in to get their ears pierced. The procedure goes off flawlessly. Is the person "injured"?

Same person does not want their ears pierced and is held down against their will . Is that person "injured"?

Amadeus · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
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.

Wow, people actually 'liked' this post. There's no limit to human stupidity.

Lursa · Feb 8, 2015

year2late said:
What you call "injury" may be someone else's end of suffering. The end of pain. The person who is asking for Physician Assisted Suicide would consider the act help rather than harm.

Like I wrote, medication to cause someone to go to sleep and then further depress breathing isnt physical damage (his original claim) or injury.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Amadeus said:
There's no limit to human stupidity.

No doubt you set out to prove that with this post. Well done, you accomplished your task.

Lursa · Feb 8, 2015

eohrnberger said:
Yes it should, with safe guards against assisted suicide in non-medically terminal cases.

Just to muddy the water further, I also believe we should legalize euthanasia. There are those that do not wish to live as quadraplegics for example, or with conditions that cause great inescapable pain. Of course I still believe there should be counseling, psychiatric evaluation, and safeguards from other peoples' motivations.

But who on Earth are strangers to tell someone that they must exist if they dont want to? How amazingly and disgustingly presumptuous is that to insist on and then to insist they dont know their own minds well enough so we wont allow anyone to help them? An insult to humans, period. Nothing but attempting to force their beliefs on others.

Just more sanctimonious semantic crap. If this is a person's well-thought out choice, the assistance they need...whether it just be a prescription or if it must be administered by a doctor or nurse....should be provided, legally.

Arcana XV said:
Okay. I understand your position a little better now. Your primary objection is to euthanasia, I get that. I can't take such a definite stance, because for some people who are paralyzed or have some other condition that prevents them from being able to take the drugs themselves, they really need someone else to help them. It's just not right to deny them the right to end their own life when they desperately want to end it and would do so themselves if it weren't for their condition.

ETA: Also, a useful info link: Assisted Suicide - End-of-Life Law and Policy in Canada | End-of-Life Law and Policy in Canada

Amadeus · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
No doubt you set out to prove that with this post. Well done, you accomplished your task.

The height of absurdity (and lack of simple human compassion) comes from your assertion that someone dying of a horrible illness should simply starve/thirst themselves to a prolonged, agonizing death, rather than be given a dignified end by a qualified physician.

Zinthaniel · Feb 8, 2015

You compared palliation with homicide.

No I didn't. Not even once. You have - because it is you whom believes that assisting a suicide is comparable to murder, but also in the same breath believe that it is ok to offer palliative care to someone committing suicide.

Anyone looking at the facts in a rational manner knows the difference between treating an uncomfortable symptom to give relief and deliberately killing someone.

I do. You don't. That much has been established.

So what, you're claiming that your theoretical Kevorkian-esque contract killer "doctor" is killing them on accident? This is a hired killing, it is intentional and premeditated

You are beating your strawman to death. You can color assisted suicide as murder all you want, but it won't make it true. There is no malice aforethought. Sorry. Try again.

This is the mission statement of the United States. Like most libertarians, I agree with it wholeheartedly.
UNALIENABLE.

I don't care who you agree with or idolize. You are making an appeal to an authority. An authority that is not infallible. Decrees set forth by man are not mandated also by nature. We can oppose one's decision. One's subjective moral compass. One's perceptions of life, dignity, etc. We can even, wait for it, Oppose long ingrained Laws.

You can't sell yourself into slavery. You're not allowed to do so even if you want to. You can work for someone for no money if you choose to, but you cannot become their property and you will ALWAYS retain the liberty to stop doing so.

Never said I could or would. Even still. You are continuing to make appeals to the word of man. Words written long ago. And those words are not, in any way, anything other than a collective and SUBJECTIVE echo of decisions from a time long ago.
This has nothing to do with slavery, anyways. This has everything to do with an individuals right to choose when they want to die - and choose to seek medical assistance in doing so. Nothing about that violates any natural law. And natural law is very often subjective to begin with.

You can give away your property, but you can't give away your right to own property.

Says who? Some guy. Some joe shmoe? Some perfect ultimate being? My rebuttal remains the same. Your appeals to established laws does not somehow establish your argument as one that reflects the immutable characteristics of life. Plain and simple.

You can't give someone else permission to kill you, or rather, even if you do, it doesn't matter, killing you would still be an act of aggression because they are initiating force against you.

What field of science defines any of that as an inescapable fact of life? Or are you again appealing to an opinion? Laws, decrees, established perceptions and understandings of things change. I've made this clear to you quite a few times now.

Killing other humans is wrong unless it's necessary to do so in self-defense, to defend your own rights against the aggression of others.

Says who? Another person/ group of persons? Their decree is now being challenged. And the opposition is doing a bang up job at amending the established perception on assisted suicide, i.e when it is right to kill someone. Deal with those facts.

that's your right to think that, and it's my right to be thankful I do not live anywhere near someone who is openly "morally flexible" on the principle of whether or not killing other humans in aggression is okay

There is nothing aggressive about doctor assisted suicide.

Check the definition of the word "aggression" so that you can better understand because clearly you, currently, do not.

Aggression - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

: angry or violent behavior or feelings

: hostile action against another country, government, etc.

since, you know, I happen to be a human and I kind of hope other people will not kill me.

I know you are human. That is why you are so prone to lapse into these hyperbolic nonsense rants that don't have an ounce of reason. It's because you are human that you are arguing not from logic but from your stubbornness against conceding in a debate you have already lost.

As a rule, I'm wary of those who promote needless killing.

And yet no one is doing that. That is your straw man. You are coloring the oppositions argument as murder because that is an easier argument to address than actually addressing the actual argument. Which is not murder or "needless killing" but compassion and mercy granted to ill and suffering individuals who want out.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Zinthaniel said:
No I didn't. Not even once.

You lie:

Zinthaniel said:
If you give pain medicine to an individual who is committing suicide for the sole purpose of making that suicide painless, then you are assisting in that suicide.

So as stated, you compared palliation with homicide.

You have - because it is you whom believes that assisting a suicide is comparable to murder

If you're killing someone, it is the same thing. Literally. You will be charged with murder.

but also in the same breath believe that it is ok to offer palliative care to someone committing suicide.

Yes, if someone is refusing food and fluids in an effort to hasten their own death but they do request palliation of any symptoms of discomfort, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with providing palliation.

I do. You don't. That much has been established.

You don't think there is a difference. So no, what you just said makes zero sense.

You are beating your strawman to death. You can color assisted suicide as murder all you want, but it won't make it true. There is no malice aforethought. Sorry. Try again.

What's the point in trying again? I successfully made my point the first time. There's nothing more to say. You refuse to understand and you're stamping your feet, but that won't change anything, as you haven't offered a single bit of reasoning to back up your statement.

You say there's no malice aforethought. To rebut this falsehood, I provided the definition of malice aforethought. I demonstrated how it is impossible that the guy you pay to kill you would not be deliberately and intentionally killing you, with premeditation. You still claim that there is no malice aforethought, appropriate of nothing in reality or the definition of the legal term.

What you're saying is absolutely crazy. Please explain how you intentionally kill someone without malice aforethought. :lamo

I don't care who you agree with or idolize. You are making an appeal to an authority. An authority that is not infallible. Decrees set forth by man are not mandated also by nature. We can oppose one's decision. One's subjective moral compass. One's perceptions of life, dignity, etc.

Obviously not. Unfortunately, as an American I have to count on my fellow Americans to hold our government accountable and make sure it upholds our human rights. You actually want the government to spit on them.

"May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget you were my countrymen."

(That was some "old archaic" dude who said that, so you probably don't care)

Peter King · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
You know what? Let's say, for the sake of argument only, that you've convinced me. Sure thing, providing palliation for dehydration is still "physician assisted suicide," no different than administering a lethal dose of medication yourself.

Okay. The point still stands, you have now convinced me that all palliative care is wrong and should never be provided. You can still kill yourself just fine by refusing fluids. I guess the threshold for your resolve will have to be higher, but no one need kill you by bringing you any medication that helps alleviate any symptom whatsoever.

But what is so terribly wrong with euthanasia to stop a patients suffering (if it is incurable and it causes horrendous suffering)?

Zinthaniel · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
You lie:

No. I don't.

So as stated, you compared palliation with homicide.

No. That would be you.

If you're killing someone, it is the same thing. Literally. You will be charged with murder.

Killing is not always murder. That is a fact.

Yes, if someone is refusing food and fluids in an effort to hasten their own death but they do request palliation of any symptoms of discomfort, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with providing palliation.

It's the same thing as assisting suicide. Your semantics simply don't work.

You don't think there is a difference. So no, what you just said makes zero sense.

There is no difference. It's you who does not understand that.

What's the point in trying again? You say there's no malice aforethought. I provided the definition of malice aforethought.

There is nothing malicious about assisting someone in suicide. especially if that someone is suffering and is begging for death. There also needs to be, as is defined by the legal term, a reckless disregard to the consequences of human life.

So respectively to the topic of this discussion. When a medical professional, through his expertise, can see that an individual is ill and in pain and can determine that there is no way to alleviate that pain he can then at that patients request give them peace, i.e. death.

This professional has not disregarded life. He/She has addressed a circumstance where there no right answer - however there is a lesser of two poisons. One is let a patient spend the rest of their days in agony and another is to cease that agony. That's a far cry from muder. Especially since that interactions between Doctor and Patient is mutual and agreed upon.

I demonstrate how it is impossible that the guy you pay to kill you would not be deliberately and intentionally killing you, with premeditation.

And I can prove to you that is an subjective stance. All I would need to do is point out my op's link. Point out the recent tabloid from Oregon. Nothing you are saying is written in stone. Sorry.

You still claim that there is no malice aforethought, appropriate of nothing in reality or the definition of the legal term.

Yes I can. And I just did. And I have legal precedence set in various locations around the world, including this country to corroborate it

What you're saying is absolutely crazy.

No. It's not. :coffeepap

(That was some "old archaic" dude who said that, so you probably don't care)

Good you are catching on.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Peter King said:
But what is so terribly wrong with euthanasia to stop a patients suffering (if it is incurable and it causes horrendous suffering)?

What is so wrong with killing another human being in aggression? Seriously?

I can't believe I have to explain why needless homicide, particularly a type that would already be prosecuted as murder, is wrong.

Because you're violating the rights of another human being.

You cannot sell yourself into liberty, you cannot give away your right to own property, and you cannot give someone else permission to kill you.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Zinthaniel said:
No. I don't.

No. That would be you.

Alright great.

You make an inane comparison, I call you on it, and your response is "NO U." So, I guess you're doing the whole total denial of reality routine. Hope that works out for you, but sorry - ain't nobody got time for that.

Killing is not always murder. That is a fact.

No ****? "Assist a suicide" in my jurisdiction and you will be prosecuted for murder. That is a fact.

And I can prove to you that is an subjective stance.

No, you can't. Objectively, if you pay someone to kill you, they would have to consider whether or not to comply and decide to do so. They would perform an action knowing it would kill you. That is premeditation. That is malice aforethought.

Yes I can. And I just did.

:screwy

Zinthaniel · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
What is so wrong with killing another human being in aggression? Seriously?

Nothing being discussed here is remotely aggressive. Yes, Seriously.

I can't believe I have to explain why needless homicide, particularly a type that would already be prosecuted as murder, is wrong.

It's not homicide. Pure and simple. Nor is it - always prosecuted as such. Those laws are being amended. See OP.

Because you're violating the rights of another human being.

No if that human being has requested it.

You cannot sell yourself into liberty.
you cannot give away your right to own property, and you cannot give someone else permission to kill you.

None of that of which you wrote are exempt from being challenged and reworked to better fit a growing understanding of life and liberty.

Peter King · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
What is so wrong with killing another human being in aggression? Seriously?

I can't believe I have to explain why needless homicide, particularly a type that would already be prosecuted as murder, is wrong.

Because you're violating the rights of another human being.

You cannot sell yourself into liberty, you cannot give away your right to own property, and you cannot give someone else permission to kill you.

There is nothing aggressive in euthanasia. And the person who dies wanted to die and just has help in ending their live.

And nobody is violating the right of this patient, this is their wish to begin with.And if the law changes, then why should he not give someone the right to choose to help him die?

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Zinthaniel said:
Nothing being discussed here is remotely aggressive. Yes, Seriously.

Unless you're claiming that the patients are attacking the doctors, you're wrong.

It's not homicide. Pure and simple.

Killing a human is a homicide every time, pure and simple. Deny reality all you want, it doesn't change it.

No if that human being has requested it.

Requesting it is irrelevant. You can't give up an unalienable right.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Peter King said:
There is nothing aggressive in euthanasia.

Oh okay, then the patients are all attacking the doctors. Sure, that's sane. Go with that. :roll:

iacardsfan · Feb 8, 2015

It should be up to individual doctors whether or not they want to partake in such a scenario. Nationally, the government should not be involved in the decision making process, so it should be up to the states to decide. I believe states should devolve the decision making process to medical professionals (with some basic ground rules so nothing gets out of hand.) Essentially this would allow doctors to perform these actions if they feel it is in the patients best interest, if they do not then they would never be required to help end a patients life. The "right" to assisted suicide would imply that doctors HAVE to end somebody's life even against their morals.

Peter King · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
Oh okay, then the patients are all attacking the doctors. Sure, that's sane. Go with that.

What are you talking about, what you wrote has nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia. There is nothing aggressive with euthanasia.

Zinthaniel · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
You make an inane comparison, I call you on it, and your response is "NO U." So, I guess you're doing the whole total denial of reality routine. Hope that works out for you, but sorry - ain't nobody got time for that.

You are the one comparing doctor suicide to murder. Not me. You are the one who claims that it is ok to offer palliative care for the sole purpose of making a suicide more soothing. You are thus the only one comparing palliative care to homicide. That is your own logic. because again Palliative care used solely to assist someone with their suicide, even if it is just to make it less painful is still assisting with that suicide.

There is nothing juvenile about me throwing your own nonsense back in your face.

No ****? "Assist a suicide" in my jurisdiction and you will be prosecuted for murder. That is a fact.

Except, as I have already pointed out, it is never that black and white.
I am confident that if your jurisdiction is in the United States then the precedence set around the world and in our own country will heavily influence and final say there. The jury will take all things into account including the hypothetical patients request and agreement and that patients suffering that lead to the request.

No, you can't.

Yes, I can.

Objectively, if you pay someone to kill you, they would have to consider whether or not to comply and decide to do so.They would perform an action knowing it would kill you. That is premeditation. That is malice aforethought.

Objectively, I can point out Canada, Netherlands, Switzerland, and other countries that directly contradict that notion that assisted suicide is murder. And you would then be objectively wrong in regards to your claim that your stance is objectively correct. It's not. Period.

:screwy

An accurate summation of your entire argument - from start to end. Well done.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Peter King said:
What are you talking about, what you wrote has nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia. There is nothing aggressive with euthanasia.

If the killing is not aggressive, then the doctors are not initiating force.

So then what you are saying is that the patients are the ones initiating force, and the doctors had to kill them in self-defense. That's what your claiming, whether you know it or not, based on the words you are using.

Zinthaniel · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
Unless you're claiming that the patients are attacking the doctors, you're wrong.

No, I'm not. Check the laws that exist outside of your bubble.

Killing a human is a homicide every time, pure and simple. Deny reality all you want, it doesn't change it.

No it's not. I have evidence that proves this.

Requesting it is irrelevant. You can't give up an unalienable right.

Yes you can. Again the evidence that exist is quite contrary to your inflated opinion.

Reformedfindlay · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
What is so wrong with killing another human being in aggression? Seriously?

I can't believe I have to explain why needless homicide, particularly a type that would already be prosecuted as murder, is wrong.

Because you're violating the rights of another human being.

You cannot sell yourself into liberty, you cannot give away your right to own property, and you cannot give someone else permission to kill you.

bull****.

Inalienable simply means that no human law can ever take that right away, it is inherent.

There are inalienable rights and then rights granted by law.

I disagree with your hilariously asinine and "totalitarianistic" approach to the phrase "inalienable right."

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Zinthaniel said:
You are the one comparing doctor suicide to murder. Not me.

Translation: "NO U"

Ain't nobody got time for that.

You are the one who claims that it is ok to offer palliative care

Yes, it is okay to offer alleviation of distressing symptoms to folks, as that is helping them. It is not okay to kill folks, as that is harming them. Let me know when you grasp these basic unassailable truths.

Should American adopt the right to Doctor Assisted Suicide?

Should Doctor assisted suicide be legal?

yes

Depends on the regulation put in place and circumstances

no

IIJAFM

Chews the Cud

Tenacious

Struggler

Tenacious

Chews the Cud

Struggler

Struggler

Struggler

Struggler

Struggler

Struggler

cynical class clown

Struggler