Should American adopt the right to Doctor Assisted Suicide?

Reformedfindlay · Feb 8, 2015

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

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

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

You can't. But you can choose not to exercise it, but that right will always remain. Hence inalienable. Jaydubya simply doesn't understand the meaning of "inalienable." He's a totalitarian trying to disguise himself as a libertarian (and as you can see it's not working very well).

Peter King · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
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.

Of course it is not aggressive, in the case of legal euthanasia the patient asks for the procedure and the doctor just administers medication that will end the suffering of the patient.

And the patient is not initiating force, there is nothing forceful about it, just medication and that is the end of it. The doctors do not kill in self-defense, sorry but that is just ridiculous.

And what I am claiming is that there is nothing violent about the legal practice of euthanasia.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Luftwaffe said:
bull****.

Good topic sentence for the post that follows.

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

Yes, unalienable means inherent. You can't abdicate an unalienable right, because it is inherent.

So no one will ever have the right to kill you in aggression. Thanks for playing, buh-bye.

Zinthaniel · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
Translation: "NO U"

Ain't nobody got time for that.

Your deflection is noted. Your foot is in your mouth at this point. Everyone sees you are argument for what it is. And that is nonsense.

Get it together Jaydubya, you're better than this.

Yes, it is okay to offer alleviation of distressing symptoms to folks, as that is helping them.

It is also assisting them with their suicide. Anther fact for ya'

It is not okay to kill folks, as that is harming them.

If the greater harm is to make them continue to live in agony, then the more ethical conclusion is to give them peace.

Let me know when you grasp these basic unassailable truths.

Nothing you have said in this thread is an unassailable truth. Sorry.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Peter King said:
Of course it is not aggressive?

So who's initiating force?

in the case of legal euthanasia

Yeah, no, it isn't legal here, thanks. And this thread is specifically about America.

I know your semantic games pretty well by now, it seems.

the patient asks for the procedure and the doctor just administers medication that will end the suffering of the patient.

Right, so the patient asks the doctor to violate his rights, and the doctor complies, violating his rights by being the one to initiate force, specifically lethal force against another human being. This of course means that he has perpetrated a homicide in aggression with malice aforethought; in any sane criminal jurisdiction, this will be prosecuted as murder. In mine, it would be.

The patient asking is irrelevant; you cannot abdicate an unalienable right.

Peter King · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
Good topic sentence for the post that follows.

Yes, unalienable means inherent. You can't abdicate an unalienable right, because it is inherent.

So no one will ever have the right to kill you in aggression. Thanks for playing, buh-bye.

Unalienable human rights just mean that no-one can take them away from you. The government cannot take away these rights, the doctors cannot take away that right, but you can voluntarily want to deny yourself that right.

With euthanasia you choose to end your life, the doctor is just carrying out your wishes.

Zinthaniel · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
So who's initiating force?

Initiating force has nothing to do with aggression. Point out an actual definition of the Word Aggression from any dictionary of your choosing that gives this impression - that force alone defines an act aggressive.

I mean let's go ahead and look at the word "force" -

Force | Define Force at Dictionary.com

18.
to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something:
to force a suspect to confess.
19.
to drive or propel against resistance:
He forced his way through the crowd. They forced air into his lungs.
20.
to bring about or effect by force.
21.
to bring about of necessity or as a necessary result:
to force a smile.
22.
to put or impose (something or someone) forcibly on or upon a person:
to force one's opinions on others.
23.
to compel by force; overcome the resistance of:
to force acceptance of something.
24.
to obtain or draw forth by or as if by force; extort:

So force basically means to apply an exerted effort against something. The intensity in which that force is being applied can vary. I can force a page to turn in my book, but that doesn't mean I have aggressively done so. How do I figure? Well let's go ahead and look at the definition of "aggression" - you may be familiar with it.

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

: 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

Mhm. Interesting. So the key words are highlighted. But see how force, in of it's self, does not constitute as Aggression?

Yeah, no, it isn't legal here, thanks. And this thread is specifically about America.

That's a lie. It is legal in our country.

Right, so the patient asks the doctor to violate his rights, and the doctor complies, violating his rights by initiating force meaning he has perpetrated a homicide in aggression with malice aforethought; in any sane criminal jurisdiction, this will be prosecuted as murder. In mine, it would be.

No right has been violated. The patient has a right to choose death, especially if they are suffering and they can choose to then seek professional help in doing so.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Peter King said:
Unalienable human rights just mean that no-one can take them away from you.

If you understand that no one can take them away from you, then you wouldn't proceed with anything else you have to say.

but you can voluntarily want to deny yourself that right

.

No. Unalienable means you cannot abdicate the right. You can kill yourself, but you cannot give anyone else permission to do so; if you try, that permission is not legally valid nor does it make the killing morally permissible.

Peter King · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
So who's initiating force?

The patient is asking for the help of the doctor to end his/her life.

JayDubya said:
Yeah, no, it isn't legal here, thanks. And this thread is specifically about America.

I know your semantic games pretty well by now, it seems.

And this poll was about whether or not doctor assisted suicide should be legal/lawful in the United States and my comments were about that too, they were a response to your post and I just asked, what is wrong with a patient asking (under specific conditions) a doctor to help them end their life/suffering.

Nothing semantic about it at all.

JayDubya said:
Right, so the patient asks the doctor to violate his rights, and the doctor complies, violating his rights by being the one to initiate force, specifically lethal force against another human being. This of course means that he has perpetrated a homicide in aggression with malice aforethought; in any sane criminal jurisdiction, this will be prosecuted as murder. In mine, it would be.

The patient asking is irrelevant; you cannot abdicate an unalienable right.

He does not ask the doctor to violate his rights, he is asking the doctor to honor his wishes to end his/her suffering. And if it becomes legal in the United States that the doctor would be honoring the patients wish.

And you can keep throwing the word "force" around but that word has nothing to do with euthanasia at all. Nothing force, nothing forceful, no initiation of force, nothing whatsoever. It is a very peaceful and docile procedure.

And if it is legal, it would not be homicide in aggression at all.

And a patient has the unalienable right to not have his life taken from him against his wish, if he wants to end his life than he has chosen not to invoke his rights, because they are his rights, not anybody else's and what he does with his right is his business. His freedom to do with what he wants.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Zinthaniel said:
Initiating force has nothing to do with aggression.

Uggggggggghhhhhhhhh.

We're not talking about emotions.

You cherry picked a definition, let's look at it.

UNPROVOKED ATTACK
MAKING ATTACKS, UNPROVOKED VIOLATION
HOSTILE, INJURIOUS, DESTRUCTIVE

So yeah. AKA, "the initiation of force."

No right has been violated.

Okay dude, I get it. You don't believe in the human right to life. You don't have to keep belaboring the point. Unfortunately, I still have to want your right to life protected even though you don't give a **** about it.

sawdust · Feb 8, 2015

Peter King said:
Unalienable human rights just mean that no-one can take them away from you. The government cannot take away these rights, the doctors cannot take away that right, but you can voluntarily want to deny yourself that right.

With euthanasia you choose to end your life, the doctor is just carrying out your wishes.

While I agree with you whole heartedly about euthanasia, I have an issue with unalienable rights. I know that gets thrown around a lot but it's my belief that all rights are issued by government. As an example of this, I offer the one child policy in China. Children who are killed by the government because their birth violates that policy have no right to life in China, although I personally believe they should.

Peter King · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
If you understand that no one can take them away from you, then you wouldn't proceed with anything else you have to say.

No. Unalienable means you cannot abdicate the right. You can kill yourself, but you cannot give anyone else permission to do so; if you try, that permission is not legally valid nor does it make the killing morally permissible.

They are rights that can not be taken from you, but in the case of euthanasia, doctor assisted suicide or just regular suicide, you are the one who chooses to no longer make use of those rights.

The rights have not been taken away, not been transferred or not denied, you choose to not use that right that you have.

Reformedfindlay · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
Good topic sentence for the post that follows.

Yes, unalienable means inherent. You can't abdicate an unalienable right, because it is inherent.

So no one will ever have the right to kill you in aggression. Thanks for playing, buh-bye.

They're not killing you in PAS. There's a difference between PAS and Euthanasia.

They're simply giving me the means to which you then kill yourself.

That being said, I think euthanasia should also be legal with the informed and emotionally competent consent of the person wanting to be killed.

What would you prefer? Someone try in vain to slit their wrists and end up wasting **** loads of taxpayer money when they get sent to the hospital for care?

Reformedfindlay · Feb 8, 2015

Peter King said:
They are rights that can not be taken from you, but in the case of euthanasia, doctor assisted suicide or just regular suicide, you are the one who chooses to no longer make use of those rights.

The rights have not been taken away, not been transferred or not denied, you choose to not use that right that you have.

Exactly. The right was never given away. It was simply not exercised. You still had it, it's inalienable since it can never leave you. But you chose not to exercise it.

Don't mind the totalitarian disguised as a libertarian trying to tell you otherwise.

Zinthaniel · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
We're not talking about emotions.

I never said we were. Strange how you can't create a rebuttal without first putting words in your oppositions mouth.

You cherry picked a definition, let's look at it.

Cherry picked? I copy and pasted the entire definition for everyone to see.

UNPROVOKED ATTACK
MAKING ATTACKS, UNPROVOKED VIOLATION
HOSTILE, INJURIOUS, DESTRUCTIVE

Look up the word unprovoked, contrary to being provoked by a request.

Look up the word Violation, it's contrary to partaking in a mutual agreement in which both parties are willingly participating and not being imposed upon.

Look up the word hostile - as in not doing something for the sake of compassion and mercy.

So yeah. AKA, "the initiation of force."

Nope. Not even close.

Okay dude, I get it.

Yeah, no you really don't. It's something you are having a hard time grasping.

You don't believe in the human right to life.

Do I? I don't recall ever saying that, but does insisting that I did say that somehow make my rebuttal easier for you to attack.

Your Logical Fallacy is Strawman

You don't have to keep belaboring the point.

A point that I never made can't possibly have been belabored by me.

Unfortunately, I still have to want your right to life protected even though you don't give a **** about it.

You don't want my rights protected. Which is why you would sooner have me starve to death than to allow me to request my physician assist in suicide. A death that would be infinitely more preferable than starvation.

Reformedfindlay · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
Uggggggggghhhhhhhhh.

We're not talking about emotions.

You cherry picked a definition, let's look at it.

UNPROVOKED ATTACK
MAKING ATTACKS, UNPROVOKED VIOLATION
HOSTILE, INJURIOUS, DESTRUCTIVE

So yeah. AKA, "the initiation of force."

Okay dude, I get it. You don't believe in the human right to life. You don't have to keep belaboring the point. Unfortunately, I still have to want your right to life protected even though you don't give a **** about it.

Sucks to suck. Current trends in society are going to begin to lean in favor of PAS being legal.

I'm just withholding my "in your face!" celebration for when the time comes.

Reformedfindlay · Feb 8, 2015

Zinthaniel said:
Initiating force has nothing to do with aggression. Point out an actual definition of the Word Aggression from any dictionary of your choosing that gives this impression - that force alone defines an act aggressive.

I mean let's go ahead and look at the word "force" -

Force | Define Force at Dictionary.com

So force basically means to apply an exerted effort against something. The intensity in which that force is being applied can vary. I can force a page to turn in my book, but that doesn't mean I have aggressively done so. How do I figure? Well let's go ahead and look at the definition of "aggression" - you may be familiar with it.

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

Mhm. Interesting. So the key words are highlighted. But see how force, in of it's self, does not constitute as Aggression?

That's a lie. It is legal in our country.

No right has been violated. The patient has a right to choose death, especially if they are suffering and they can choose to then seek professional help in doing so.

It's legal in a couple states, not all, but it will get there.

Jaydubya is going to have a fit when it does.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Peter King said:
The patient is asking for the help of the doctor to end his/her life.

That doesn't answer the question. The physician is clearly using force, and a lethal amount of force at that; the patient is alive, then the doctor does something, and this something directly causes the patient to die.

Who is the first one in this scenario to employ force?

And this poll was about whether or not doctor assisted suicide should be legal/lawful in the United States

So don't assert "legal" like it's already the case. 3 states allow the prescription of fatal medication that you self-administer. The doctor killing you is legal in exactly zero states.

He does not ask the doctor to violate his rights

Yes he does. By requesting someone else to kill you in aggression, you are asking them to violate your right to life, a right you cannot abdicate. In the United States, this will result in criminal charges for the other person should they take your request, and that is entirely appropriate.

And you can keep throwing the word "force" around but that word has nothing to do with euthanasia at all.

Sure, PK. No action occurs whatsoever. You just walk up, administer medication, the person dies, and you didn't do anything. Sure, that's not force - I mean, it is by the definition of the word, but not in your book, apparently. So let's go with your "definition."

If I were to walk up to some random person and administer that medication to them, and they died, you'd probably want that to be illegal, probably charges of murder. But you'd have no basis for that law, because as you just claimed, there was no force involved, I only gave them medication. If I didn't initiate force against that person, and by your standard, I didn't, then I did nothing wrong.

And if it is legal, it would not be homicide in aggression at all.

Incorrect. By the definition of those words, it is always homicide and it is always in aggression. That is why it should be illegal.

Peter King · Feb 8, 2015

sawdust said:
While I agree with you whole heartedly about euthanasia, I have an issue with unalienable rights. I know that gets thrown around a lot but it's my belief that all rights are issued by government. As an example of this, I offer the one child policy in China. Children who are killed by the government because their birth violates that policy have no right to life in China, although I personally believe they should.

But unalienable rights in the US are something different than the unalienable rights are in China. Maybe China has no unalienable rights.

There is no world wide universal inalienable rights. There is something like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but no government is forced to imply they if they do not adopt these rules.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Luftwaffe said:
What would you prefer? Someone try in vain to slit their wrists and end up wasting **** loads of taxpayer money when they get sent to the hospital for care?

Well, there's simply no excuse for that. Down the road, not across the tracks. Haven't these people used Google before?

And no, I would never waste taxpayer money on healthcare services for an individual requesting them.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Peter King said:
But unalienable rights in the US are something different than the unalienable rights are in China.

No they are not.

It's the Chinese people's duty to stand up for their rights and cast off any government that is destructive or violates their rights. If they won't, that's on them.

Zinthaniel · Feb 8, 2015

Luftwaffe said:
It's legal in a couple states, not all, but it will get there.

Jaydubya is going to have a fit when it does.

I'm aware. But to simply say it is not legal in the states is incorrect since it is in a few. Had he said it's not entirely legal then his statement would be true. But he won't phrase his sentences like that, because his whole argument is that it's an objective truth that assisted suicide is unethical and murder.

So he, dishonestly, pretends that his position is one that is held world wide. When it's not.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Zinthaniel said:
Do I? I don't recall ever saying that

Did you remember that post where you defended assisted suicide? Or the other one? Or the other one?

Maybe you remember one of them, I dunno. But each time you did that, yeah, you confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't care about the human right to life.

]You don't want my rights protected. Which is why you would sooner have me starve to death than to allow me to request my physician assist in suicide. A death that would be infinitely more preferable than starvation.

I don't care what you prefer. Your mere preferences don't alter what your rights are.

If you want to kill yourself, I think you have a right to do that. You don't have a right to have someone else do it for you.

Peter King · Feb 8, 2015

JayDubya said:
Uggggggggghhhhhhhhh.

We're not talking about emotions.

You cherry picked a definition, let's look at it.

UNPROVOKED ATTACK
MAKING ATTACKS, UNPROVOKED VIOLATION
HOSTILE, INJURIOUS, DESTRUCTIVE

So yeah. AKA, "the initiation of force."

Okay dude, I get it. You don't believe in the human right to life. You don't have to keep belaboring the point. Unfortunately, I still have to want your right to life protected even though you don't give a **** about it.

No attack takes places with euthanasia, no unprovoked violation either.

The initiation of force is the act of one man initiating force against another, as opposed to retaliatory force. Force includes such acts as murder, theft, threats, and fraud. It is acting against another person without their consent. The initiation of force is never moral.

Initiation of Force

The overall component that makes initiation of force reprehensible is because it is done without the consent of that person. And euthanasia is done entirely at the behest of the patient/is totally done with their consent.

JayDubya · Feb 8, 2015

Zinthaniel said:
I'm aware. But to simply say it is not legal in the states is incorrect since it is in a few.

What Kevorkian did to get convicted for murder remains illegal in every state.

Exactly 3 states allow you to self-administer a lethal dose of medication.

I've been arguing about the former this entire time; you've been defending it this entire time.

Don't move the goalposts, Mr. "Your Logical Fallacy Is."

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

cynical class clown

Struggler

Struggler

Struggler

Struggler

cynical class clown

cynical class clown

cynical class clown

cynical class clown

Struggler

Struggler

Struggler

Struggler

Struggler