• 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!

Assisted suicide - How far can it go?

Which of these models do you support?

  • Holland

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • Belgium

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • Canada

    Votes: 3 18.8%

  • Switzerland

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • None

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • Total voters
    16
SCitizen said:
According to Judaism, only G-d knows. Different Rabbis have different opinions on that issue.
Click to expand...

it's smart to leave it up to god if one is a believer because basically that allows the individual to decide what works for them with their particular personal belief and thus no low level human judgement intrudes upon another
 
_Sal said:
that allows the individual to decide what works for them with their particular personal belief and thus no low level human judgement intrudes upon another
Click to expand...

To some degree I agree, but people who are not in great suffering should not be assisted in suicide.

I also believe in banning guns, motorcycles, and placing restrictions on tobacco -- these are also major causes of death.
 
SCitizen said:
To some degree I agree, but people who are not in great suffering should not be assisted in suicide.

I also believe in banning guns, motorcycles, and placing restrictions on tobacco -- these are also major causes of death.
Click to expand...

okay thanks

how would you define great suffering SCitizen?

also do you believe you have the right to restrict another's behaviour toward themselves?
 
_Sal said:
okay thanks

how would you define great suffering SCitizen?

also do you believe you have the right to restrict another's behaviour toward themselves?
Click to expand...

If someone has real suffering like terminal illness that is severe suffering. Many people commit suicide for trivial reasons.

I believe states should and do prohibit people from harming themselves. For example dangerous drugs are illegal globally.
 
SCitizen said:
If someone has real suffering like terminal illness that is severe suffering. Many people commit suicide for trivial reasons.

I believe states should and do prohibit people from harming themselves. For example dangerous drugs are illegal globally.
Click to expand...

how would you measure mental suffering?

why should society or any human being have the right to restrict someone from self harm....what would give them that right?
 
_Sal said:
how would you measure mental suffering?
Click to expand...

I hve been a patient for Autism and Depression since early '90s, but I am not a doctor.

_Sal said:
why should society or any human being have the right to restrict someone from self harm....what would give them that right?
Click to expand...

All societies ban dangerous drugs. In my opinion, anyone who wants to harm themselves for no good reason should be prevented from such step.
 
SCitizen said:
I hve been a patient for Autism and Depression since early '90s, but I am not a doctor.
Click to expand...
fair enough

what is the difference between unbearable mental suffering and unbearable physical suffering



All societies ban dangerous drugs.
Click to expand...
they may well be banned but a huge segment of the population use drugs for recreational purposes, or to self medicate in order to function

since alcohol is a drug are you in favour of banning it and going back to prohibition?

In my opinion, anyone who wants to harm themselves for no good reason should be prevented from such step.
Click to expand...
who gets to decide what is for "no good reason"
 
_Sal said:
who gets to decide what is for "no good reason"
Click to expand...

Definitely I am not an expert -- only most qualified physicians should be able to decide if someone experiences enormous suffering. If a person has lesser problems, they should be prevented from harming themselves. There should be greater restrictions on tobacco.
 
SCitizen said:
Definitely I am not an expert -- only most qualified physicians should be able to decide if someone experiences enormous suffering. If a person has lesser problems, they should be prevented from harming themselves. There should be greater restrictions on tobacco.
Click to expand...

thanks for freely expressing your opinions :thumbs:
 
chromium said:
i do agree they should have the choice, but again, let's have more integrity than our opponents and be open and straightforward. I think statistically, a self inflicted gun is the most likely to succeed and without suffering. When it comes to Oregon, there is even debate among doctors about how much Pentobarbital is needed to put different patients of different sizes truly unconscious before the heart is stopped. If it's not enough, it can cause several minutes of agony, all while the patient looks perfectly peaceful on the outside. This is the same anesthetic used for lethal injection executions, and despite being convicted murderers, doctors refuse to participate not only due to the helplessness of the condemned, but the uncertain suffering it causes
Click to expand...


I certainly wouldn't want to die by shooting myself. I believe it would easier for your family members and oneself to be injected with a drug and go peacefully. If a person kills themselves at their home, they are harming their family members psychologically for the obvious reasons including finding the body, cleaning up a grisly mess, unhooking someone from a hanging, finding someone in their own blood and so on and so forth. Another thing I can't imagine is having a loved one help me kill myself because I couldn't endure the pain any longer. I think psychologically it can do a lot of damage.

I've not read if they can or can't properly administer a drug to put someone out of their misery, so I have no comment to make. Even with that risk, it would be my preferred method with my family/loved ones surrounding me for my last minutes to say goodbye and hold hands rather than find me bloodied some place and then have to clean up a mess.
 
The quandary is that such matters involve upper-health care administrators, senior doctors, lawyers, elected 'law-makers', politicians, and therefore politics.

In the end, whatever model for assisted suicide each State or province adopts will rarely be arrived at via an avenue of fairness, dignity, and a sense of right.
Rather, there will be political chicanery, moral compromise, egregious taxation, and governmental restrictions.

And every single caring family member and/or physician (or nurse, or nurse-practitioner, or PA) will be subject to arrest and prosecution if they don't do everything just exactly-right and hunky-dory by the letter of whatever law is applicable.

In the end, what is need in the near term is only that which may be arrived at decades down the road;
A CULTURAL change in how we handle the last days of our loved ones.
(And even our OWN last days.)

And the devil is in the details.
:(
 
SCitizen said:
To some degree I agree, but people who are not in great suffering should not be assisted in suicide.

I also believe in banning guns, motorcycles, and placing restrictions on tobacco -- these are also major causes of death.
Click to expand...

I really don't see where you get off wishing to install such a nanny state, and this is coming from a socialist. In the context of this thread, you're coming from a position that self harm, even when it's far from guaranteed (like a motorcycle), is always irrational. The reason people do very risky behavior is either (in rare cases) total lack of impulse control in their brain, or because they realize we all die anyway. If you can't change this final outcome for them, you have no place trying to control how they deal with it
 
Sparky2 said:
The quandary is that such matters involve upper-health care administrators, senior doctors, lawyers, elected 'law-makers', politicians, and therefore politics.

In the end, whatever model for assisted suicide each State or province adopts will rarely be arrived at via an avenue of fairness, dignity, and a sense of right.
Rather, there will be political chicanery, moral compromise, egregious taxation, and governmental restrictions.

And every single caring family member and/or physician (or nurse, or nurse-practitioner, or PA) will be subject to arrest and prosecution if they don't do everything just exactly-right and hunky-dory by the letter of whatever law is applicable.

In the end, what is need in the near term is only that which may be arrived at decades down the road;
A CULTURAL change in how we handle the last days of our loved ones.
(And even our OWN last days.)

And the devil is in the details.
:(
Click to expand...

isn't that how all medicine operates in this country? Oh, and add to that list for-profit insurance. And wasn't this cultural change signaled in Kevorkian's acquittals?

Anyway, this thread was more to gauge which form of assisted suicide you support, regardless if you find it practical. Giving into roadblocks and technicalities is not the sign of a society that wants to function, and is a weakness i don't want to spend time on
 
chromium said:
isn't that how all medicine operates in this country? Oh, and add to that list for-profit insurance. And wasn't this cultural change signaled in Kevorkian's acquittals?

Anyway, this thread was more to gauge which form of assisted suicide you support, regardless if you find it practical. Giving into roadblocks and technicalities is not the sign of a society that wants to function, and is a weakness i don't want to spend time on
Click to expand...

Well then.
Go forward with strength and resolve, you awesome warrior for right and good.

Let us all know how it works out.
:)
 
I voted "Switzerland" but I am unsure that is even far enough. I do not believe in government ownership of a person, someone should be free to govern there own body and life... if that means ending it on their terms that is their choice. It should not be up to me what someone else does with their own life.
 
I'd like to change my opinion on euthanasia and say that I absolutely support death with dignity for terminally ill adults. I'm very unsure about child euthanasia and adult euthanasia without terminal disease but am strongly against child euthanasia without terminal disease. If there's only one restriction we should have on euthanasia, it should require the consent of the patient. Otherwise, we could end up with something like Nazi Germany which put down handicapped and the old.
 
SCitizen said:
To some degree I agree, but people who are not in great suffering should not be assisted in suicide.

I also believe in banning guns, motorcycles, and placing restrictions on tobacco -- these are also major causes of death.
Click to expand...

People use knives to kill - shall we ban those, too?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I certainly wouldn't want to die by shooting myself. I believe it would easier for your family members and oneself to be injected with a drug and go peacefully. If a person kills themselves at their home, they are harming their family members psychologically for the obvious reasons including finding the body, cleaning up a grisly mess, unhooking someone from a hanging, finding someone in their own blood and so on and so forth. Another thing I can't imagine is having a loved one help me kill myself because I couldn't endure the pain any longer. I think psychologically it can do a lot of damage.

I've not read if they can or can't properly administer a drug to put someone out of their misery, so I have no comment to make. Even with that risk, it would be my preferred method with my family/loved ones surrounding me for my last minutes to say goodbye and hold hands rather than find me bloodied some place and then have to clean up a mess.
Click to expand...

They can. Here in Canada, the doctor gives them a shot and they go to sleep. In Switzerland, they give them a drink that puts them to sleep. It's very peaceful, from what I've read.
 
Yesterday, I read about a 4 year old who is terminally ill with cancer. She has weeks, if that, to live. She is in a lot of pain and her father wrote about seeing her scream and writhe in agony. I absolutely think euthanasia should be available in a case like this, if the parents choose it.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Yesterday, I read about a 4 year old who is terminally ill with cancer. She has weeks, if that, to live. She is in a lot of pain and her father wrote about seeing her scream and writhe in agony. I absolutely think euthanasia should be available in a case like this, if the parents choose it.
Click to expand...

See, to me "the coward's way out" is the public that pretends these cases never happen. It's too sad to even contemplate, much less put on a ballot or pressure the politicians and their church and so on. But these are real people. I care about their suffering a lot more than the fears of assholes who don't have to deal with it
 
I say legalize it. That way the anti-gunners can stop bitching people using guns to commit suicide.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Yesterday, I read about a 4 year old who is terminally ill with cancer. She has weeks, if that, to live. She is in a lot of pain and her father wrote about seeing her scream and writhe in agony. I absolutely think euthanasia should be available in a case like this, if the parents choose it.
Click to expand...

As a practicality, we can always alleviate suffering. But the side effect of alleviation of suffering is sometimes death. If you keep giving morphine (or whatever)until there are no complaints or behavioral signs of pain, it could clearly hasten death. This is not euthanasia, it is comfort care.

Primarily I am for assisted suicide if a patient has the ability to understand and make the decision for himself. Otherwise it should be comfort care.

Weird thing is that I have had two family members in my home on hospice this year. They clearly had enough medication to kill themselves if they wanted to. There was never any need to ask for more.
 
chromium said:
So i believe a 6th state is about to legalize assisted suicide. America is known for taking its time to reach inevitable social change...20+ years since Kevorkian gained acquittals from a hardly liberal state. I'm curious though if in 2100 not only will "get suicide pills from a volunteer doctor if within 6 months of death" be legal in all 50 states, but where will it stop, and where should it stop? For the possibilities, as always, we look at more liberal countries today:

Holland (since 2002) - no specific timeframe, only that the patient can't recover, but the patient can be as young as 12 and needs no parental consent after age 16. However, under the Groningen Protocol, 22 newborns with spina bofida were put to death with parental consent, without prosecution. In most cases of *any* age, the doctor directly kills the patient, which is what led to Kevorkian's conviction

Belgium (2014) - legal for children of any age, similar restrictions as Holland. A huge difference though is no terminal illness is needed (Here is a docu if interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWWkUzkfJ4M). Patients have been assisted in ending their life due to botched sex changes, depression, blindness, anorexia, autism, and chronic fatigue. Although a medical review board must give consent in these cases, they seem pretty damn receptive to anything. This has led to 150% increase in suicides

Canada (imminently legal) - very similar to the western states' "6 months etc"

Switzerland (1942) - probably the most controversial, 84% support some form of assisted suicide, and it's legal for foreigners who don't even have terminal illness. That means they won't charge or extradite the doctors who assist, so long as they don't do it for selfish reasons. Still, a rather notorious clinic regularly charges up to $10,000 for 'expenses' and assisted a foreign girl in her 20s whom they told would "probably never recover" from depression. Similar to Oregon, it is kind of the 'suicide capital' of Europe for citizens of countries where it's not legal (and who have $10k). Except unlike Oregon, you don't even need to establish residence. You just need to travel to the clinic (a room in a motel) on 'the big day', after they accept your application


Let's keep in mind that in relatively liberal Canada, suicide (not even assisted) was illegal until 1972. But will the US ever become like Switzerland and should it?
Click to expand...

None of our states have assisted suicide as you describe it. We have Death with Dignity for people who are suffering horribly and actively dying.
There is a big difference - educate yourself.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Yesterday, I read about a 4 year old who is terminally ill with cancer. She has weeks, if that, to live. She is in a lot of pain and her father wrote about seeing her scream and writhe in agony. I absolutely think euthanasia should be available in a case like this, if the parents choose it.
Click to expand...
absolutely
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom