• 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:
Did you remember that post where you defended assisted suicide? Or the other one? Or the other one?
Click to expand...

I sure do. And in doing so It was I who was defending out individual right to our lives - which includes our right to end it. You on the other hand insist on the exact opposite.

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.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. That is your strawman.

I don't care what you prefer. Your mere preferences don't alter what your rights are.
Click to expand...
My entitled to my preferences that's my right. Your dictatorial approach to human rights is disgusting.
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. I have evidence of the fact that I do. Period. You are wrong when you first posted in this thread and you are still wrong now.

It's really just that simple.
 
Zinthaniel said:
I sure do. And in doing so It was I who was defending out individual right to our lives
Click to expand...

Bull****. You're saying it doesn't exist, because you want it to be legal for you to ask someone else to kill you and have them comply.

My entitled to my preferences that's my right. Your dictatorial approach to human rights is disgusting.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, your argument against human rights is disgusting.
 
JayDubya said:
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.
Click to expand...

In states where it is legal there is not prohibition against doctors taking on the role of injecting the lethal dose, when the patient can not do it themselves.

I've been arguing about the former this entire time; you've been defending it this entire time.
Click to expand...
I am defending the right for a doctor to inject if need be. Absolutely.
Don't move the goalposts, Mr. "Your Logical Fallacy Is."
Click to expand...
I never moved it. That is yet another strawman of yours constantly insisting that I say or do things that I have not said or done.
 
JayDubya said:
Bull****. You're saying it doesn't exist, because you want it to be legal for you to ask someone else to kill you and have them comply.
Click to expand...
No I'm not saying that and no matter how many times you insist that I am saying that will it make it true.
I am defending the right to have the final say on your life. Period.



On the contrary, your argument against human rights is disgusting.
Click to expand...

To bad that that's not my argument.
 
JayDubya said:
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?
Click to expand...

What is force? What is initiation of force?

And the person who asks/initiates euthanasia is the patient. And the doctor is not doing anything he is not trained to do, he is not abusing force or initiating force. Whatever the doctor is doing is with the consent of the patient so all your force, initiation of force argument makes no sense/is not valid.

JayDubya said:
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.
Click to expand...

This thread is what people think about it. But maybe it should not be and in this thread we are discussing it.

JayDubya said:
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.
Click to expand...

His rights are not being violated if euthanasia becomes legal. And if the government can end your life, why should you not be able to do it yourself? You are not abdicating you are choosing not to invoke your rights. At the moment in the US it is illegal but this thread as said discussing the desirability of it becoming legal and from the votes here it seems that most here want it to become legal.

JayDubya said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nobody says they did not do anything, but it is done with their consent. Stronger than that it is at the request of the patient.

This is not something where a doctor walks up to a random person and administers medication to them that ends their live. That is illegal and hopefully it will remain illegal for ever because it is immoral and wrong. The doctor assisted suicide/euthanasia is not about random persons but specific persons who have a serious medical condition that is irreversible and in the end fatal. It also has to be a very painful condition. And this also again as to be done with previously given and documented consent.

JayDubya said:
Incorrect. By the definition of those words, it is always homicide and it is always in aggression. That is why it should be illegal.
Click to expand...

But not if the law has been changed to make it no longer homicide.
 
JayDubya said:
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.
Click to expand...

But is not up to you do decide what unalienable rights are. Those are given to you by your constitution. They do not apply to people living in other nations/countries.
 
You have to self-administer in Vermont.

Be clear about what it is you want to debate. Stop moving the goalposts.
 
Peter King said:
But is not up to you do decide what unalienable rights are.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

Those are given to you by your constitution.
Click to expand...

They sure as hell are not given to us by any document! The Constitution does not give rights. Government does not give rights. Governments are created by humans for the purpose of protecting our rights.

Furthermore, the Constitution does not say one word about unalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence, however, does. You know, that thing I quoted earlier, directly, and even helped with bolding and underlining.
 
It's your life, if you want to end your life it is your choice, property rights.
 
JayDubya said:
No it isn't.

They sure as hell are not! The Constitution does not give rights. Government does not give rights. Governments are created by we the people to protect our rights.

Furthermore, the Constitution does not say one word about unalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence does.
Click to expand...

Great, you the people in the United States, not you the people in China.

And the declaration of independence is solely applicable to the United States, not in other countries.

And in other countries the government does give those rights because they were appointed to do that by the people. Again, just because it happens like you stated in your post does not mean it cannot/does not happen differently in other countries.
 
Peter King said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, which is why I say that rights are issued by government. An inalienable right would have to be granted to everyone world wide. God is not in charge, government's are.
 
JayDubya said:
You have to self-administer in Vermont.
Click to expand...
No you don't. Self administering does not require injection. You simply ingest it.


Good Question: How Does Doctor-Assisted Suicide Work? « CBS Minnesota


Almost all assisted suicides take place in the home, with at least one health-care worker present. The patient takes one of two kinds of barbiturates. Seconal costs about $125 for a lethal 10 gram dose, which comes in the form of 100 individual caplets that must be broken apart to produce about three tablespoons of powder. Nembutal comes in a more convenient liquid form. It costs more than $1,000 for a dose, though, and insurance almost never covers lethal drugs.


If the patient is using Seconal, it's either mixed in water to create a bitter drink or stirred into pudding or applesauce to hide the taste. The patient will slip into a coma about five minutes after taking the drug, with death coming within about half an hour.
Click to expand...

Quite different from injection.


Be clear about what it is you want to debate. Stop moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...
NO goal post was moved. Your dishonesty is glaring though.
 
Amadeus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I actually get what Jay is saying about palliation of symptoms, but it is quite a naïve assumption that all the symptoms of dehydration and starvation can be helped. And worse is that the symptoms come and go and come and go and come and go. That is how it is for some people in general. Does that sound like a peaceful death or a cruel joke?

But again, most people would not opt for physician assisted suicide or euthanasia. They are totally on board with palliation of symptoms with hospice. Depends on the patient and their own personal preference.

That being said, in hospice it is pretty common to withhold food and fluids when it is near time to die It is at a point where the patient cannot feel pain or complete comfort has been achieved. But of course, that is not what Jay is talking about. He speaks to a conscious choice of the patient to starve and dehydrate to death while fully awake and alert.
 
Henrin said:
I'm a bit curious when I lied, but whatever that's not important. What is important is that by giving them the pill you have put into motion something that will cause them to die. Yes, they will die regardless, but that is by natural causes or one that was not caused by the doctor I hope, but when the doctor puts into motion a quickening of their death they have taken a step with the intent to harm the patient. Causing someone's death is a harm because it is the causing of their body to no longer function.
Click to expand...

There's nothing objective in your post at all about harm or aggression. All you have provided is your subjective opinion of harm and nothing about aggression.
 
Krhazy said:
That was my thought as well. In any event, I obviously don't feel that assisted suicide is a fundamental right, so I have no problem conditioning the exercise of that right in socially beneficial ways. This is a secular condition. If people care that much about what happens to their organs after they die, they can commit suicide on their own.
Click to expand...

Well I agree its not a fundamental right I just wouldn't put that type of condition on it but to each their own.
 
JayDubya said:
No, by definition he is correct. Killing is always harm.

For someone who complains about other people, you seem to lack grounding in what a lot of very basic terms mean.
Click to expand...

Would you point out the objective part of the definition then, like him you will not be able to.
Killing is not always harm that is a subjective opinion at best, not objective. Nice try but definitions and what terms mean all go against you two has everybody pointed out.
 
LaylaWindu said:
Would you point out the objective part of the definition then
Click to expand...

Well you see there's this guy, he's alive, and then you deliberately inflict physical injury to his body with a gun or a lead pipe or in this case a lethal dose of medication and then his body stops working and he's dead.

So yeah, you know, the exact definition of the word "harm."
 
JayDubya said:
Well you see there's this guy, he's alive, and then you deliberately inflict physical injury to his body with a gun or a lead pipe or in this case a lethal dose of medication and then his body stops working and he's dead.

So yeah, you know, the exact definition of the word "harm."
Click to expand...
Try again, it weird you don't even make an honest attempt or use the actual definition of the word.
Sorry that's not objective harm, that's your subjective opinion of harm which has no value in relation to objective harm. I'll ask you again, using the definition would you point out the objective part of the definition please.

Here I'll help you just like I did the only other person holding on to this lie in the thread.

I want to die
I'm going to kill myself
A doctor gives me a pill that will make it easier
I take the pill
I fall asleep
I die

There is no objective harm in this scenario and there is no aggression in this scenario, neither of you have even come close to showing otherwise. At best you two have "feelings" that it causes harm but nothing objective and there's nothing that has been provided at all that there's aggression. But like I told the other guy I love watching the attempts because when people just flat out post lies I find that interesting. Debating things that can be debated is fine by me but when people just ignore definitions and context and facts its' both hilarious and interesting to me.
 
JayDubya said:
You can't give up an unalienable right.
Click to expand...

Then you cant kill yourself either.

Because that is exactly what suicide is: giving up your right to life.


Nice chattin' with ya (not really but I have enjoyed demonstrating that you have been incorrect).
 
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.
Click to expand...

The govt takes the inalienable rights from people....certainly it takes liberty. And sometimes life and often pursuit of happiness.

It's ridiculous in the extreme to say that an individual cant make those decisions **for themselves**...otherwise those rights are meaningless...burdens, impositions. And the same goes for requesting anothers participation in those things....unless those inalienable rights are in the control of the person endowed with them, they are meaningless.
 
If an individual does not have complete control over their inalienable rights....then who does?

And if it is the individual, then they have the right to to determine exactly what they do with them..including granting others the right to intercede on their behalf.

(Of course we already know that the govt has taken upon itself to infringe on individual inalienable rights in certain circumstances.)
 
Yes. Who are you to tell me when I can or can't die? If I want help then I should be able to get it too...
 
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...

I'm glad this thread was brought to my attention
Yes of course, it only needs regulated to make sure there inst force or profit off the assistance and to check for sound mindedness etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom