• 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
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.
Click to expand...

Your lack of compassion and mercy is no surprise.

This is why people like you are not in charge and never will be. Just because *you* make this declaration has no bearing on reality and law. Law is moving more and more towards respecting people's rights to *assisted* suicide. Your 'version' of people choosing to terminate their own lives is obscene and people requesting assistance will always be supported by the compassion of others...legal or otherwise.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Where is the question? Of course people should have the right to go painlessly. It's no good having to slam into a bus head on. That's a bad solution.
 
As long as the proper protections are put in place, then yes, it should be legal.
 
Zinthaniel said:
It absolutely does when the sole purpose of the palliation is to ASSIST in making that suicide less painful.
Your mental gymnastics with how the definitions of words work is quite the spectacle, but to fool yourself into thinking that you can navigate a discussion while imposing your own warped versions of definitions to circumvent their actual meaning is tad dishonest.
Click to expand...

I agree. The poster is trying very hard to call a rose by another name. The way I see it, if a physician is fully aware that someone is in the process of killing themselves and said physician provides any kind of pain relieving medication to make the process easier, that is the very definition of assisted suicide. There is no getting away from what's really happening: One human being helping another leave this world in the most painless way possible.
 
Zinthaniel said:
They are they same thing. So whether or not you are hypothetically conceding is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That's completely retarded, but you go on believing that palliating pain is the same thing as killing folks; by your standard, every hospice worker in all but a few states would be in prison.

You keep spinning your hyperbolic version of what Doctor assisted suicide is. It's Barbaric. It's murder. It's unethical.
Click to expand...

No hyperbole or exaggeration whatsoever; administering a lethal dose of medication to a patient violates medical ethics, it is aggressive, and it is murder.
 
Lursa said:
Your lack of compassion and mercy is no surprise.
Click to expand...

More retarded lies from you, as ever.

You're wrong, and what you said remains offensively stupid. You equivocated palliation and homicide. I think that's the most idiotic effort you've ever put forth and I could not disagree more.

It is clear that in your dishonesty you are pretending I have been convinced by you that palliation is somehow unacceptable... since it apparently needs to be said, despite all reason, I do believe in alleviating uncomfortable symptoms for these folks. That is compassionate. There is a hard line between helping and deliberately harming your patient, however.

So don't tell me about compassion and mercy when your solution is unnecessary killing. That seems to be your solution in general, to promote killing whenever possible and accuse others of moral lapses for not thinking of killing as the best solution for any problem. It's clear that you have no respect whatsoever for primum non noncere, but physicians are supposed to.

By your standard palliative workers who don't take the law into their own hands and smother granny just lack compassion and mercy. I'm sure if any of them were here they'd have some nice words for you.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
Calling the central tenet of libertarianism a "load of crap" tells me just about everything I need to know about you. Hell, it's essentially just the golden rule.
Click to expand...

It's not the central tenet.....
 
JayDubya said:
That's completely retarded, but you go on believing that palliating pain is the same thing as killing folks; by your standard, every hospice worker in all but a few states would be in prison.
Click to expand...

No it's not retarded not at all. What's retarded is your sad attempts at warping the meaning of things. Nice strawman though. Keep at that. Maybe you will convince someone to buy into your your hyperbolic ramblings.

No hyperbole or exaggeration whatsoever; administering a lethal dose of medication to a patient violates medical ethics, it is aggressive, and it is murder.
Click to expand...

Oh, but it is both a hyperbole and an exaggerate. Your line of reasoning fits both definitions to the t.
It doesn't violate anything. That has already be thoroughly explained to you. Reread previous post to you authored by quite a view different users - keep reading them until clicks.

Though I doubt it ever will. You are far to enthralled and stubborn to let go of you fake dictionary of definitions. It's why you don't understand the words - murder, aggression, violation, unethical and so on and so forth.
 
Zinthaniel said:
No it's not retarded not at all. What's retarded is your sad attempts at warping the meaning of things.
Click to expand...

That would be you doing the warping, chief.

You're equivocating giving someone relief from distressing symptoms and deliberately killing them. That's warped.

Nice strawman though. Keep at that. Maybe you will convince someone to buy into your your hyperbolic ramblings.

Oh, but it is both a hyperbole and an exaggerate. Your line of reasoning fits both definitions to the t.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole is synonymous with exaggeration. There is no exaggeration in pointing out to you that "assisted suicide" is not legal, violates the principles of medical ethics, aggressively violates the human right to life, and the act could / should / and has been prosecuted as murder.

If your location is accurate, it is a serious felony to assist in a suicide in your state. I suppose what specific criminal charge is issued would be up to prosecutorial discretion. If someone pulled that in my state, things would go very badly for them; as they should.

Zinthaniel said:
It's why you don't understand the words - murder
Click to expand...

Murder is a specific criminal charge as defined by legal jurisdiction; it is not, as you claimed "taking the life from someone who did not want to die." Do you need examples of why your effort at defining the term is a failure, or is that self-evident? A lot of humans are killed who have not expressed a desire to die. A lot of criminals don't want to die, they want to profit at the expense of others, but then they get killed while committing their crimes. If you need more examples, do let me know.

aggression
Click to expand...

The initiation of force. Killing is justified only in very limited circumstances, such as self-defense. If a patient is so helpless they cannot perform any sort of active action to kill themselves, then clearly they do not meet those criteria, as they cannot possibly be attacking anyone else. Therefore by inflicting intentional, lethal harm on them, that is aggression as you the party initiating force.

violation, unethical
Click to expand...

What is unethical is the subject of debate within the philosophy of ethics. You clearly have a divergent philosophy and you think that folks can abdicate their own natural rights. That runs counter to our country's mission statement, the Declaration of Independence, which asserts that we humans have several unalienable rights.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Basically this above, yes it should be allowed and regulated of course.
 
Dobsdot00 said:
Canada legalized gay marriage 12 years ago and now they have legalized doctor assisted suicide. God they are ahead of us.
Click to expand...

One those issue yes, they are way ahead of us. It's sad that america isn't leading the way on stuff like this.
 
JayDubya said:
You have a right to kill yourself, not to have others do killing for you.

Paying someone to kill a human in aggression is impermissible and any government that allows such a thing is backwards and barbaric.
Click to expand...

Good lord, what type of dishonesty fabrication is this. This is why I bounce around message boards, no shortage of views that are completely out of left field. I'm don't even think this post in in the right thread.
 
Zinthaniel said:
Killing in of it's self is not an act of aggression.

Being aggressive in doing so would only qualify that statement.

When an aging dog is euthanized the vet didn't aggressively kill it. The animal dies peacefully and painlessly.

There is definitely a distinction. :roll:
Click to expand...

I have to say I agree, all one has to do is look up the definition of aggression and then understand the context of assisted suicide and there's no aggression that takes place. Calming otherwise is make believe, it's some type of feeling and not anything based on reality.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, yes, it is. Ending someone's life is aggression. You don't just kill someone and somehow not act aggressively. You're being nonsensical.
Click to expand...

Assisted suicide is not aggression. Saying otherwise is actually the nonsensical part. All one has to do is look at the definition of aggression and the context of assisted suicide and you quickly understand the reality that it's not aggression.
 
JayDubya said:
Yes, it usually takes days to die of dehydration. Yes, if you keep drinking you won't die of dehydration. I was aware of these facts.

As stated, this "suffering" you refer to can be palliated. I'll say again: palliation is mercy. Killing is not mercy.

Killing is only justified when absolutely necessary, as in self-defense. Every human being has an unalienable right to life. We create governments to protect such rights.

There is nothing to celebrate about a government abandoning its chief reason for existence.
Click to expand...

I know I'm new here but are you in the right thread because you posts don't make any sense on any rational level to the topic actually being discussed. This has no impact to the right to life or government protecting that right. You are definitely in the wrong thread.
 
Zinthaniel said:
No no it's not.

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





No you are, as usual, being nonsensical. We are not using Henrin's Dictionary - we are using the conventional one. See above for the actual definition of what constitutes as aggression.

Try again.
Click to expand...

Thank you I was getting ready to post a link to that myself. The definition of aggression shows there isn't any in assisted suicide. Do people often just make stuff up here?
 
JayDubya said:
More retarded lies from you, as ever.

You're wrong, and what you said remains offensively stupid. You equivocated palliation and homicide. I think that's the most idiotic effort you've ever put forth and I could not disagree more.

It is clear that in your dishonesty you are pretending I have been convinced by you that palliation is somehow unacceptable... since it apparently needs to be said, despite all reason, I do believe in alleviating uncomfortable symptoms for these folks. That is compassionate. There is a hard line between helping and deliberately harming your patient, however.

So don't tell me about compassion and mercy when your solution is unnecessary killing. That seems to be your solution in general, to promote killing whenever possible and accuse others of moral lapses for not thinking of killing as the best solution for any problem. It's clear that you have no respect whatsoever for primum non noncere, but physicians are supposed to.

By your standard palliative workers who don't take the law into their own hands and smother granny just lack compassion and mercy. I'm sure if any of them were here they'd have some nice words for you.
Click to expand...

Talk about "herp a derp" (one of your finer creations btw, illustrative of your discussion style) That is all a load of BS and has no basis in real world definitions or fact.

Your opinions arent shared by many, thankfully. However most people know they are just opinions, everyone but you.

However opinion is welcome in forum discussions.....so please....carry on :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
LaylaWindu said:
Do people often just make stuff up here?
Click to expand...

Certain posters yes, as you've noted, but please dont let that scare you off. Most are quite reasonable and we welcome new people.
 
Henrin said:
Aggression involves inflicting a harmful or other unpleasantness upon another individual. Your feelings towards the subject are secondary.
Click to expand...

Using your made up definition assisted suicide is not aggression. Your own definition and a link to the dictionary all prove your statement to be in accurate. Do you have anything else?
 
nota bene said:
I really resent that. I am a person of faith, but I'm not a nut. I don't think that the government should be in the live-or-die business anyway, but this doesn't make me a nut.
Click to expand...

Just my two cents, I'm new here so maybe there's history or something I'm not aware of but how did his comment have anything to do with you or people of faith?
I'm a person of faith and I don't see the connection? His comment was in judgment of one poster and their statements. Lastly you saying you don't think the government should be in the "live-or-die business" further separates you from the poster and views he was commenting on. I'm confused, catch me up please.
 
LaylaWindu said:
Good lord, what type of dishonesty fabrication is this.
Click to expand...

There is nothing dishonest in my statement. I think you have a right to kill yourself if you want to, as a function of your rights to liberty and property. I do not think it is ever permissible to kill another human in aggression, as a function of the right to life.

This is why I bounce around message boards, no shortage of views that are completely out of left field. I'm don't even think this post in in the right thread.
Click to expand...

Given your wretched output thus far, trolling in virtually every post, hopefully you'll just keep on bouncing.
 
JayDubya said:
Aggression is the initiation of force.

Force is sometimes justified in medical / bioethics because the medication / treatment is expected to do more good than harm for the patient.

A surgeon does not violate primum non noncere just by cutting, though cutting does constitute some harm. This is harm that the patient elects and the professional may ethically provide if it the procedure can be expected to improve the patient's health.

Intentional lethal force violates primum non noncere. It violates the patient's unalienable human right to life. It is aggression because the patient cannot abdicate that which is unalienable.
Click to expand...

There's no force in assisted suicide nor is there aggression. The content of the subject along with the definition of the words in question all show there's no aggression.
Are there a lot of posters like this here?
 
Lursa said:
That is all a load of BS and has no basis in real world definitions or fact.
Click to expand...

Per usual, no rebuttal, just this garbage.

There are very few subforums here where it is appropriate to respond to your equivocation of palliation and homicide, and this is not one of them.
 
LaylaWindu said:
There's no force in assisted suicide nor is there aggression.
Click to expand...

If an innocent living human being, clearly not attacking you, is in your presence and you perform an act that kills them, then yeah, that is the initiation of force, lethal force. That is the very definition of aggression. It is a homicide. It should be prosecuted as murder.

Kevorkian was prosecuted and convicted for murder for that very reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom