• 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!

Euthanasia and assisted suicide

Should a person have the right to choose death?

  • Yes

    Votes: 53 94.6%
  • No

    Votes: 3 5.4%

  • Total voters
    56
The state should stay the 'f' out of everyone's life unless they are hurting others.

If I wish to hurt myself with addictions to drugs, booze, gambling, food, porn or anything else, that is my business and absolutely none of the governments.

The same goes for suicide. My life is my own...and providing it does not directly hurt anyone else, what I choose to do with it is my business alone.

Period.


Have a nice day.

I agree with everything you say there, so long as, when you have injured yourself doing drugs, booze, gambling, food, porn or anything else, you never turn to the taxpayer for any assistance. After all, if it's your right to do what you want to your body, it's your responsibility to take care of the problems caused by your choices. That means if you end up dying in the street after overdosing, the state isn't responsible to come help you out.
 
Ultimately, I have the last word in whether I live or commit suicide. I am not the type to let others do for me. The last thing I do is live by the "black letter" of the law, nonetheless, I cannot expect another to commit this last act in my life if it carries both civil and criminal penalties. However, as the state becomes more and more paternalistic the state should have provisions for assisted suicide under certain circumstances.
 
Ultimately, I have the last word in whether I live or commit suicide. I am not the type to let others do for me. The last thing I do is live by the "black letter" of the law, nonetheless, I cannot expect another to commit this last act in my life if it carries both civil and criminal penalties. However, as the state becomes more and more paternalistic the state should have provisions for assisted suicide under certain circumstances.

As far as I'm concerned, so long as you have a legal document granting permission to assist in suicide, by the suicidee, it ought to be legal for anyone to assist you in suicide. Of course, there would have to be controls in place to stop coerced suicides, but if I want my wife to kill me because I'm terminally ill and cannot do it myself, she ought to be able to do it.
 
As far as I'm concerned, so long as you have a legal document granting permission to assist in suicide, by the suicidee, it ought to be legal for anyone to assist you in suicide. Of course, there would have to be controls in place to stop coerced suicides, but if I want my wife to kill me because I'm terminally ill and cannot do it myself, she ought to be able to do it.

Of course, if all is legal I am speaking of where it is not legal...

Moreover, my "advance directive" dictates the conditions by which I am to be terminated.
 
Of course, if all is legal I am speaking of where it is not legal...

Right now, nothing is legal. I think it all should be.

Moreover, my "advance directive" dictates the conditions by which I am to be terminated.

While I have an advance directive too, they will never terminate you. At best, they will take you off of life support. If you continue to live, they will take no further action.

I want someone to be able to kill me, not just hope nature takes it's course.
 
As far as I'm concerned, so long as you have a legal document granting permission to assist in suicide, by the suicidee, it ought to be legal for anyone to assist you in suicide. Of course, there would have to be controls in place to stop coerced suicides, but if I want my wife to kill me because I'm terminally ill and cannot do it myself, she ought to be able to do it.

I'm totally okay with that if someone is in pain. I don't know about asking family members to do it for you though. That's kind of harsh for them, I would think. I would never want my family member to have to live with that memory. Besides, if I were terminally ill and wanted to end it, I think I would feel more comfortable with an "expert" so that nothing gets messed up, because that would really suck . . . if your family member (who probably has never killed someone before) messed something up and you lived. There would be a LOT of things to think about.
 
I'm totally okay with that if someone is in pain. I don't know about asking family members to do it for you though. That's kind of harsh for them, I would think. I would never want my family member to have to live with that memory. Besides, if I were terminally ill and wanted to end it, I think I would feel more comfortable with an "expert" so that nothing gets messed up, because that would really suck . . . if your family member (who probably has never killed someone before) messed something up and you lived. There would be a LOT of things to think about.

I don't even care if they're in pain. If they want to die, let them die. My point above though was that if someone wants to die and someone else is willing to do it, it should be allowed without any negative legal consequences befalling the individual. I really don't think it ought to be left up to some professional or governmental entity whether someone can end their own life.

You want to die? Go ahead.
 
I don't even care if they're in pain. If they want to die, let them die. My point above though was that if someone wants to die and someone else is willing to do it, it should be allowed without any negative legal consequences befalling the individual. I really don't think it ought to be left up to some professional or governmental entity whether someone can end their own life.

You want to die? Go ahead.

Yes, I don't think they should be charged with a crime. I remember hearing a news story about a poor old man who did a mercy killing on his wife who was terminal with cancer and in a lot of pain, and he was arrested and put in jail. Sad.
 
Yes, I don't think they should be charged with a crime. I remember hearing a news story about a poor old man who did a mercy killing on his wife who was terminal with cancer and in a lot of pain, and he was arrested and put in jail. Sad.

It's downright stupid. I think that hospitals ought to be required to follow an individual's advance directives and if they specifically say that they are to be put down, put them down. If they can't or won't do it, by all means transfer them to a facility that will. I do think people should think ahead and make legal declarations of their wishes in the instance that they find themselves unable to do so when the come comes. No one should ever be punished for carrying out someone's legal directives.
 
Right now, nothing is legal. I think it all should be.



While I have an advance directive too, they will never terminate you. At best, they will take you off of life support. If you continue to live, they will take no further action.

I want someone to be able to kill me, not just hope nature takes it's course.




Which is why I hold the position that I would do it myself.
 
I'm totally okay with that if someone is in pain. I don't know about asking family members to do it for you though. That's kind of harsh for them, I would think. I would never want my family member to have to live with that memory. Besides, if I were terminally ill and wanted to end it, I think I would feel more comfortable with an "expert" so that nothing gets messed up, because that would really suck . . . if your family member (who probably has never killed someone before) messed something up and you lived. There would be a LOT of things to think about.

Why not? I would. It'd be incredibly hard, but I can think of no more loving final act I could do for my loved ones than to help afford them a dignified death. It's really not that hard to kill someone with the right tools in a controlled setting. It's just that the very ill may be so weak or disabled that they can't do it, despite how easy it may be.

If my cat doesn't die naturally before she gets to a point where keeping her alive is cruel, I have already planned to have an at-home visit from the vet. If I can administer it myself, I will. She shouldn't be handled by some strange person she doesn't trust in her final moments. I don't want her to die scared. It's horrible for me to think about, but she is old and sick, and I don't want to get caught off guard when it's time to make that decision, so I have thought about it. I very nearly did it about a year ago, but fortunately a last-ditch medication effort brought her back to a good standard of living.

Why wouldn't I afford a human loved one the same consideration I give my cat?

No one should force the family to, of course. If they are unwilling, the person can be provided with a medical assistant to do it instead.
 
Which is why I hold the position that I would do it myself.

Which is great unless you wake up in a bed a quadriplegic. Then you're physically unable to do it yourself.
 
I don't even care if they're in pain. If they want to die, let them die. My point above though was that if someone wants to die and someone else is willing to do it, it should be allowed without any negative legal consequences befalling the individual. I really don't think it ought to be left up to some professional or governmental entity whether someone can end their own life.

You want to die? Go ahead.

I argue for some basic testing simply because there are some things that can cause suddenly suicidal desire that are easily fixed. For example, being on Chantix. It has a very strong history of causing suicidal and homicidal tendencies. All you have to do is go off it. The patient should be at least made aware of that before they make the final decision.

If they still want to, it's their life to end as they please. But giving them the opportunity to know those sorts of things is important.
 
Why not? I would. It'd be incredibly hard, but I can think of no more loving final act I could do for my loved ones than to help afford them a dignified death. It's really not that hard to kill someone with the right tools in a controlled setting. It's just that the very ill may be so weak or disabled that they can't do it, despite how easy it may be.

If my cat doesn't die naturally before she gets to a point where keeping her alive is cruel, I have already planned to have an at-home visit from the vet. If I can administer it myself, I will. She shouldn't be handled by some strange person she doesn't trust in her final moments. I don't want her to die scared. It's horrible for me to think about, but she is old and sick, and I don't want to get caught off guard when it's time to make that decision, so I have thought about it. I very nearly did it about a year ago, but fortunately a last-ditch medication effort brought her back to a good standard of living.

Why wouldn't I afford a human loved one the same consideration I give my cat?

No one should force the family to, of course. If they are unwilling, the person can be provided with a medical assistant to do it instead.

I wouldn't want a family member to do that. I would not allow it.
 
Which is great unless you wake up in a bed a quadriplegic. Then you're physically unable to do it yourself.

Thanks for the observation....:roll: Which is why I stated, "I cannot expect another to commit this last act in my life if it carries both civil and criminal penalties".
 
I argue for some basic testing simply because there are some things that can cause suddenly suicidal desire that are easily fixed. For example, being on Chantix. It has a very strong history of causing suicidal and homicidal tendencies. All you have to do is go off it. The patient should be at least made aware of that before they make the final decision.

If they still want to, it's their life to end as they please. But giving them the opportunity to know those sorts of things is important.

I would even be fine if it required a waiting period or some very basic psychological examination, just to make sure it's not caused by medicine or the like. However, anyone who wants to die, so long as they are not being externally influenced, ought to be able to do so, either on their own (I think suicide being illegal is idiotic) or with the assistance of another.
 
I agree with everything you say there, so long as, when you have injured yourself doing drugs, booze, gambling, food, porn or anything else, you never turn to the taxpayer for any assistance. After all, if it's your right to do what you want to your body, it's your responsibility to take care of the problems caused by your choices. That means if you end up dying in the street after overdosing, the state isn't responsible to come help you out.

I partly agree.

The state should not provide rehab centers and treatment centers - the private sector/charities should do that.

But if someone is dying - the state should always provide emergency medical care.

It is not only humane but also in the public's best interest. If someone contracted TB or some other contagious disease because of their addiction and was forced to die on the street, the number of innocent people that could be infected could be huge.

Plus, to force someone to die on the streets would mean that person would probably have to resort to crime to survive - again, probably effecting innocent others when if the person was allowed to die in a hospital, the problem can be contained.

If a person has no health insurance and develops an ailment/condition that requires expensive medical treatment and cannot get help from charities...then they are out if luck, imo.

But the state should still give them basic medical care and provide them a bed to die in.
 
Last edited:
Suicide results from untreated mental illness.

Euthanasia is compassionate treatment of incurable horrible and painful illness.

Big ****ing difference.


Libertarian, are you sure about this?

As a libertarian, I value personal responsibility above many other things. Euthanasia is asking someone else to kill you. I personally think it's more responsible to do it yourself, rather than insisting someone else take on your own responsibility.
 
Why not? I would. It'd be incredibly hard, but I can think of no more loving final act I could do for my loved ones than to help afford them a dignified death. It's really not that hard to kill someone with the right tools in a controlled setting. It's just that the very ill may be so weak or disabled that they can't do it, despite how easy it may be.

If my cat doesn't die naturally before she gets to a point where keeping her alive is cruel, I have already planned to have an at-home visit from the vet. If I can administer it myself, I will. She shouldn't be handled by some strange person she doesn't trust in her final moments. I don't want her to die scared. It's horrible for me to think about, but she is old and sick, and I don't want to get caught off guard when it's time to make that decision, so I have thought about it. I very nearly did it about a year ago, but fortunately a last-ditch medication effort brought her back to a good standard of living.

Why wouldn't I afford a human loved one the same consideration I give my cat?

No one should force the family to, of course. If they are unwilling, the person can be provided with a medical assistant to do it instead.

If I was a cat, I think I would want to be your cat.
 
It would be much harder to kill your wife, child, husband, etc., than it would be to kill your cat. Not that you don't love your cat.
 
The state should not provide rehab centers and treatment centers - the private sector/charities should do that.

Actually, I think if you're going to be stupid enough to do any of those things, it's entirely on your back to pay for your own treatment. If you can con some private individual or charity into paying for you, that's fine, I guess, it's their money to waste however they want to.

But if someone is dying - the state should always provide emergency medical care.

Why? If you spend your life smoking 5 packs a day and you get lung cancer, it's not like you can claim you didn't know. Those warnings on the pack aren't there for decoration. You knowingly did it to yourself, how can it be the taxpayer's job to pay for your care, emergency or no? You should have paid for your own insurance, or barring that since probably you won't be able to get insurance, to put away money to fund your own care when your stupidity invariably kills you. I didn't stick those cigarettes in your mouth, why should I have to pay for your idiocy?

It is not only humane but also in the public's best interest. If someone contracted TB or some other contagious disease because of their addiction and was forced to die on the street, the number of innocent people that could be infected could be huge.

Ah, but we're not talking about diseases, we're talking about something that someone did to themselves. While the risk factors for TB are higher in smokers, at best, I'd say the individual is still responsible for paying for their own care. At best, quarantine them somewhere and let them die.

Plus, to force someone to die on the streets would mean that person would have to resort to crime to survive - again, probably effecting innocent others when if the person was allowed to die in a hospital, the problem can be contained.

I don't buy resorting to anything. If you commit a crime for *ANY* reason, you deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, period. Throw them in a prison in a bed somewhere and let them die.

If a person has no health insurance and develops an ailment/condition that requires expensive medical treatment and cannot get help from charities...then they are out if luck, imo.

They should have thought of that before they engaged in the activity.

But the state should still give them basic medical care and provide them a bed to die in.

A bed to die in? Sure. It wouldn't bother me if every smoker on the planet dropped dead tomorrow. Their actions, their responsibilities.
 
It would be much harder to kill your wife, child, husband, etc., than it would be to kill your cat. Not that you don't love your cat.

I would be able to do it. If faced with the choice between watching my loved one live in excruciating pain, knowing they will never get better, and giving them a swift release, I'd pull that trigger in a second, so long as I knew it was what they wanted me to do.
 
I would be able to do it. If faced with the choice between watching my loved one live in excruciating pain, knowing they will never get better, and giving them a swift release, I'd pull that trigger in a second, so long as I knew it was what they wanted me to do.

Perhaps you could, but it would not be easy, and it is not something you would soon forget.
 
Perhaps you could, but it would not be easy, and it is not something you would soon forget.

Who said anything about it being easy or forgettable?
 
Among other inalienable rights, we are endowed by our Creator with the right to life. Can someone cede such a fundamental right?

I am sorry, but your "creator" doesn't run our governmentor make our laws. Maybe you should move to a country, where he does, I recommend Israel, Iran, basically anyewhere in the Middle East or some parts of Africa.
 
Back
Top Bottom