I think there is too much concern about whether we open the floodgates if we legalize suicide. Human beings have a natural tendency to want to continue living. Those who lose the desire to live are those in the most extreme state of pain and/or despair. This small minority of people should be given the right to end it.
By the way, as we're on the topic, is it Christian teaching that if you commit suicide, you go to hell?
I'll raise this point again as I did on the other thread.
We're not debating the right for anyone to end their own life how they choose. No one will stop you from pulling the trigger right now. Nor will anyone else get in any legal trouble from your suicide.
The debate is: should someone else be allowed to kill you at your will?
If the answer is yes, we're opening the flood gates legally for killers. What's to stop someone from simply saying "uhh...yeah...he wanted me to kill him!".
A consent form to be signed and witnessed? Or if the person is not able to sign, an indication of consent in front of two or more witnesses?
Here's a case for you, assuming that assisted suicide is legalized.
A very rich man is being kept alive by machines but unconscious. The doctors are keeping him alive because there is still a chance he could come back.
His daughter, who is the sole inheritor of his estate has her boyfriend slip some drugs into the man's IV so that he dies.
However, in that man's will is his disire to be assisted in suicide if he is in an unconscious state being kept alive on machines.
Legally, what the boyfriend did isn't murder since it was in the man's will. But we all know that the daughter hired her bf to kill him so she could get the inheritance.
What do you say to this? I think if AS is legalized, you could potentially be seeing this type of thing happen often.
Yeah, so? What's wrong? The man gets what he wants and his daughter gets what she wants. What's the problem?
Well you have many false scenarios set up here. First of all, it is not suicide if the person is unconscious. If the person had that request in their will, the plug would just be pulled or not implemented in the first place.(DNR) legally. That is not considered suicide since the person is dead without artificial means to stay alive. The decision to remove life support if not documented goes to the next of kin legally.Quote by: tman_ndsu08
Legally, the boyfriend murdered himunder your scenario.(why not just pull the plug?)
Assisted suicide by a physician is when the person in question has signed a consent.
I came to this site to debate this very subject of all things. I think that Doctor Assisted Suicide is a good thing in some cases. What a lot of you aren't saying is how part of the law is. It takes 2 different doctors saying that you have 6 Months or less to live, before you can even ask for the help, and you have to ask for the help in dying. I know that this might seem like a hard thing to think about, but think about it this way. If you have been given less than 6 months to live, because of inoperable Cancer, wouldn't you want to go the way you want, instead of on pain medication and in the hospital at the end. I know I would, and that's why I supported the law when it came to Washington a while ago, and it was passed.
Interesting development here in the UK yesterday - re the much-needed clarification of the law on this issue. Personally, I think any move towards properly-regulated assisted suicide is a good thing.
BBC NEWS | Health | Q&A: Assisted suicideWhat has the DPP published then?
He has basically set out a range of factors that influence whether a person would face prosecution or not.
The idea is that it will allow people who are asking their loved ones to help them die an indication of whether they would then face charges.
However, Mr Starmer has stopped short of saying he would offer guarantees as the individual circumstances of each case would still need to be investigated.
He has set out 16 factors that could influence the authorities in favour of a prosecution.
These include issues such as financial motive, pressuring the individual into suicide and whether the person wanting to die was under 18 or suffering from a mental illness.
There are also another 13 factors which would influence prosecutors against action.
These include the individual wanting to die asking personally on his or her own initiative help to commit suicide and whether the suspect was motivated wholly by compassion and was a spouse, partners, close relative or personal friend.
Does this change anything?
Not the law. The legislation on assisted suicide remains the same.
And Mr Starmer was also quick to point out that this does not effect the legality of euthanasia - whereby someone kills an individual who wants to die but is not able to commit suicide themselves.
Such actions are considered to be acts of murder or manslaughter.
However, the DPP said he hoped it would bring greater clarity for people in situations such as those Britons who have travelled to Dignitas.
Campaigners believe the intervention will, but, at the end of the day, prosecutors will still be exercising discretion.
All individuals who help someone die would face a police investigation during which the factors spelt out by Mr Starmer would be taken into account.
I think assisted suicide is fine. It should be an option. It used to be. Terminally ill individuals should be able to decide when they have had enough.
You can find me if you want me in the garden unless it's pouring down with rain.
We can't go on agreeing like this, Clementine, it'll be bad for both our images...
I have no problem with assisted suicide, either. Forced medical treatment seems like a worse alternative, even if done entirely at state expense.
Today's ideological enemies may be tomorrow's allies, and vice versa. So be nice to your enemies, you may need their help tomorrow.
An author I read recently (can't remember his name off-hand) argued that while active euthanasia was morally permissible and perhaps even morally obligatory in specific cases, a systematic legalization of such options would put unwanted pressure on the sick or elderly to prematurely forfeit their own life. Ultimately, the author argued that many patients would have to justify their own existence to their families and friends. This contrasts deeply with the idea that there might be a moral duty to die, depending on how much financial and emotional strain you're putting on family and friends who are perhaps in many ways morally obliged to support you and your continued existence.
“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish”
-David Hume
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks