Discussion: Assisted Suicide

[Sentinel X]

I'd like to open a discussion thread about assisted suicide. Basically its doctors and other medical professionals assisting people in suicides and allowing them to leave in the least painful way as possible and skipping all the drama and jazz.
I was actually having a discussion about this last week, I can see how it could be good but I just don't see why the government and medical professionals should be involved if a person is commiting suicide.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Maybe I haven't seen all sides (it's a issue I haven't really read up on), but from what I can see, if someone is in enough control of their own senses, have something that there's no cure for, and wants to go out before it gets worse, I don't see why not.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Regardless of my own personal religious beliefs on assisted suicide, I have a hard time seeing why it should be illegal, if we go through the necessary steps to establish that this is something the person wants to do. That's my main concern--that someone will be "assisted" against his/her will at the behest of relatives who may be tired of footing the bill for care or a doctor who "knows what is best" for the patient.

My second concern would be that if it is legalized, doctors who don't want to participate shouldn't be forced to do so. Just like abortion, a doctor shouldn't be forced to participate in the taking of a life (whether others acknowledge it as such or not).

 

[StorminNorman]

I believe in a right to death.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I am against this.

 

[Luca]

My second concern would be that if it is legalized, doctors who don't want to participate shouldn't be forced to do so. Just like abortion, a doctor shouldn't be forced to participate in the taking of a life (whether others acknowledge it as such or not).

I disagree. A doctor has to act by law and if the law says euthanasia is legal, doctors shouldn't be able to not participate, regardless of their moral beliefs. If it is legalized a future doctor will be aware of this particular aspect of the job and has to take it into consideration in his decision. In the case of a doctor who took on his job before the legalization, he, too, should reconsider his decision, weighing in this new aspect. The requirements of a job shouldn't be altered to one's personal beliefs.

 

[SentinelMind]

I don't think the government should act in taking away life of its own individuals.

I don't think the government should be regulating the Hypocratic oath and other measures within the medical community to mandate abortions, euthenasia.

 

[Handsome Rob]

I disagree. A doctor has to act by law and if the law says euthanasia is legal, doctors shouldn't be able to not participate, regardless of their moral beliefs. If it is legalized a future doctor will be aware of this particular aspect of the job and has to take it into consideration in his decision. In the case of a doctor who took on his job before the legalization, he, too, should reconsider his decision, weighing in this new aspect. The requirements of a job shouldn't be altered to one's personal beliefs.

So, if the state you live in decided that citizens ought to "pull the lever" on death-penalty application, you would mandate that no citizen of that state should be exempted from being selected and forced to do it?

And, do you oppose "conscientious objector" status for military service?

 

[Mister Sinister]

If someone's options are slow and painful death or quick and painless death, it's a no-brainer what the humane option is.

 

[Matt]

I see no reason not to let people take their own lives.

 

[Luca]

So, if the state you live in decided that citizens ought to "pull the lever" on death-penalty application, you would mandate that no citizen of that state should be exempted from being selected and forced to do it?

But this is absurd. I don't live in the U.S. so don't know a lot about the judicial system or the act of execution, but surely the government wouldn't mandate its citizens to perform an execution?

This is also different from a doctor's situation, because a person considering to become a doctor is aware of every aspect the job brings along with it, so if he/she decides to pursue a career in that particular field, he does so consciousely, understanding that euthanasia is a part of his job. A citizen, however, should not be obligated to "pull the lever" on death-penalty application because that's not his field, as to say. For every task in a society, there are people to perform it. Once you engage and are employed in a job, that is your task. Just "being a citizen" is passive and means you have to abide by certain general rules of society. Suggesting that by living in a certain state you have to both agree with every single law and be willing to also act on those laws is naive. It's impossible for anyone to agree with everything, therefore, in the case of citizens, a certain nuance has to be present. However, as said before, once you actually take on a job, you are bound to the laws of that state.

And, do you oppose "conscientious objector" status for military service?

I'm not a native English speaker and am unfamiliar with this term. Is this about someone who has actually enlisted in the army and refuses to participate in a certain war on moral grounds? Or is it about someone who refuses to enlist on moral grounds in a country where it is mandatory to do so? Please explain.

 

[Bathead]

Refusing to serve due to personal beliefs,religious or otherwise. It was only relevant when the U.S. had the Draft system going.

 

[Luca]

Refusing to serve due to personal beliefs,religious or otherwise. It was only relevant when the U.S. had the Draft system going.

Thanks.
In that case, this is, again, different from the doctor's situation because those who served were obligated to serve by the state, at which point your personal beliefs were irrelevant to the state. So no, I do not oppose "conscientious objector" status because the person in question has no choice, contrary to a person who has the choice of becoming a doctor.

 

[Handsome Rob]

But this is absurd. I don't live in the U.S. so don't know a lot about the judicial system or the act of execution, but surely the government wouldn't mandate its citizens to perform an execution?

I doubt it would, either. But, if the government makes it legal . . .

This is also different from a doctor's situation, because a person considering to become a doctor is aware of every aspect the job brings along with it, so if he/she decides to pursue a career in that particular field, he does so consciousely, understanding that euthanasia is a part of his job. A citizen, however, should not be obligated to "pull the lever" on death-penalty application because that's not his field, as to say. For every task in a society, there are people to perform it. Once you engage and are employed in a job, that is your task. Just "being a citizen" is passive and means you have to abide by certain general rules of society. Suggesting that by living in a certain state you have to both agree with every single law and be willing to also act on those laws is naive. It's impossible for anyone to agree with everything, therefore, in the case of citizens, a certain nuance has to be present. However, as said before, once you actually take on a job, you are bound to the laws of that state.

If there is a task to be performed, then let those who want to do so perform it. If a lawyer wants to specialize his practice in tort law, he shouldn't also be made to take on criminal defense cases just because it's also in the field of law. Let a defense lawyer who wants to do it do so. If a guy wants to open up a hamburger joint, don't make him sell chicken sandwiches, too. Let a guy who wants to sell both do so. And, if a doctor doesn't want to practice in a specific area (euthanasia/doctor-assisted suicide), he shouldn't be forced to. I suspect that all you would succeed in doing is reducing the number of doctors and thus putting the greater population at risk, IMO. I imagine that it would be the same thing if obstetricians/gynecologists were told they would have to start providing abortion services. A number of them would no longer practice, and women's health would be damaged overall.

I'm not a native English speaker and am unfamiliar with this term. Is this about someone who has actually enlisted in the army and refuses to participate in a certain war on moral grounds? Or is it about someone who refuses to enlist on moral grounds in a country where it is mandatory to do so? Please explain.

Well, in the United States it would be applicable to a military draft--every male here has to register with Selective Service, which basically puts you into a database. If the government deems it necessary, it can draft citizens into military service (like we needed to in WWII). People who do not want to kill (for example, some Christian sects forbid killing even for self-defense, much less warfare) are given the option to file for Conscientious Objector status. They have to make their case for it. If approved, they may still be subject to help in the overall war effort, but not in combat.

So, for a non-native-English speaker and a non-American, you pretty much had it right.

 

[Spider-Bite]

I support assisted suicide for terminally ill patients.

 

[StorminNorman]

See, I don't understand why it should be for terminally ill patients.

If an American Woman can have the right to privacy to KILL a fetus, and has the right because its a part of her body and it can't live without her - then why can't an American Woman have the right to KILL herself..which is a part of her and can't live without her?

Since a Doctor is allowed to help assist the killing of the fetus, they should be able to help kill the woman.

 

[The Senator]

If someone wants to end his or her life, I do not see why the government should stand in the way, regardless of medical condition.

 

[Marx]

I believe in a right to death.

I see no reason not to let people take their own lives.

If someone wants to end his or her life, I do not see why the government should stand in the way, regardless of medical condition.

This is my stance as well.

 

[Luca]

I doubt it would, either. But, if the government makes it legal . . .

If the government makes it legal, it would mandate its doctors to perform euthanasia, you can't compare it to a death penalty execution.

If there is a task to be performed, then let those who want to do so perform it. If a lawyer wants to specialize his practice in tort law, he shouldn't also be made to take on criminal defense cases just because it's also in the field of law. Let a defense lawyer who wants to do it do so. If a guy wants to open up a hamburger joint, don't make him sell chicken sandwiches, too. Let a guy who wants to sell both do so. And, if a doctor doesn't want to practice in a specific area (euthanasia/doctor-assisted suicide), he shouldn't be forced to. I suspect that all you would succeed in doing is reducing the number of doctors and thus putting the greater population at risk, IMO. I imagine that it would be the same thing if obstetricians/gynecologists were told they would have to start providing abortion services. A number of them would no longer practice, and women's health would be damaged overall.

I get your point but our argument is futile if 1) we don't know exactly what doctor operates in the field where euthanasia is an issue, and 2) if we don't know what other responsibilities he has and how that would affect the number of doctors applying.

The field of law is divided into several fields: corporate law, court law, criminology, etc. Each field has different tasks and indeed, if a lawyer wants to specialize in his practice in tort law, he shouldn't also be made to take on criminal defense cases just because it's also in the field of law. Same goes for the hamburger joint.

But, like I said, the thing with doctors is that we don't know what kind of doctor in what field presides over euthanasia. Once we know that, we can move on and compare his situation with a lawyer's or a manager's.
In any case, a doctor's situation is different because it is directly linked with the well-being of a patient.

Plus, you can't say women's health would be damaged overall just based on an assumption. What's the situation in the U.S.? What doctor takes care of abortions? Who knows, maybe if euthanasia is legalized, there'll be a separate sort of doctor to actually perform it.

 

[thedeadite]

I don't see a reason that a person who either 1) is terminally ill and/or 2) passes a psychological evaluation cannot choose to end their own life legally (and painlessly).

 

[Superman]

I support assisted suicide for terminally ill patients.

What he said.


I will say this though, If they ever made it legal I don't think they should force any doctor to do it. It should be their choice to help or not.

 

[rdh007]

What he said.


I will say this though, If they ever made it legal I don't think they should force any doctor to do it. It should be their choice to help or not.

What he said.

 

[Luca]

I will say this though, If they ever made it legal I don't think they should force any doctor to do it. It should be their choice to help or not.

I respect your opinion, but could you address the issues I brought up earlier in this thread?

 

[BlackLantern]

I feel as long as the person understands the process and signs some sort of legal or witnessed document then I don't see the problem

 

[Nivek]

I classify myself as a Pro-Death Independent. If someone wants/should die, let them die.