Terry Pratchett ready to be test case for suicide law

[Singular Intellect]

You don't have to love someone to be hurt by their death. You don't even have to know the person to be hurt by their death. Or do you think people who witness suicide-by-train aren't hurt? What about the guy driving the train, who is instantly put on leave, taken to the hospital for drug testing, and subjected to inquiries and even if cleared by his employer my still be sued by the suicide's relatives because he couldn't change the laws of physics and stop that train on a dime - you think that doesn't hurt someone? Do you think that no one witnessing that is mentally traumatized by seeing a human being reduced to mush?

Or, how about the old homeless guy who offs himself - you think whoever cleans up the resulting mess is happy about that?

Thanks for demostrating that you haven't been reading my posts. I've been actively stating those are the types of situations we want to avoid.

By establishing a precedent that society is willing to help people die humanely who truly desire that outcome, we put ourselves in a better position to provide alternative solutions to those who seek to die in the first place.

Ah, so if someone truly wants to die and yet suffers from no physical pain or terminal illness, you're position is 'fuck them, they need to stick around so other people don't get hurt'?

Yes.

And I consider that absolute inhumane and cruel.

Emotional pain is a part of life. Dying is a part of life. Deal with it.

I have dealt with it you amoral shitstain.

And so you think the fact you've also dealt with this aspect of life gives you the right to insist people should not be permitted to end their lives unless they have reasons you approve of? Just where the fuck are you getting this superiority god complex from?

See above. You're basically saying 'fuck anyone who wishes to die because their death can emotionally hurt other people'. You're insisting that their feelings and their desires mean nothing compared to others, even though it's their own life in the equation.

No, I'm saying they have to have a good enough reason to justify causing that pain and "gee, I just don't feel like living" is NOT good enough!

So you've established you don't think this reason is good enough. Fair enough. Now explain why me or anyone else should be subject to your personal criteria? What makes you so fucking special that I or anyone else should adhere to your standards?

You're effectively saying that if I wanted to end my life, I have to have reasons you approve of, to which I reply "Kindly go fuck yourself."

Stop misrepresenting my words cocksucker - NOWHERE in that statement did I mention "force". Or do you think that homosexuals are incapable of choosing to withhold information on their own? Are you saying that you would force someone out of the closet no matter how THEY feel about it?

So then you're in agreement that (ideally) no one should be forced into decisions contrary to what they desire.

I care a great deal about such people, that is why I don't hand them a bottle of pills and say "swallow". The reason I don't condone their proposed action is because I care.

I'm well aware you have a fixed criteria for permitting people to end their own lives. Now I want you to justify why other people should be held to your standards rather than standards they're perfectly capable of setting for themselves. I want to know what drives you to think you can play god and dictate who live and who dies, rather than admitting people have a right to chose for themselves.

Let me put it this way: I love both my brothers very much. If one of them wanted to end their life, I would do everything in my power to give them reasons for living and staying around. If my reasons, arguments and feelings didn't change their desire and I have every reason to believe this is what they truly want, I would not stand in their way.

Then you DON'T love them. You are a worthless, scum-sucking evil piece of shit. If you aren't willing to act to protect your brothers you... you're just a monster.

What should I do then? Have them locked up? Forcibly drugged? Hammer away at them telling them what a selfish individual they are for daring to think they have the right to end ther own life without my fucking permission?

It seems to me you're operating under the premise that anyone who contemplates suicide without the excuse of severe pain or terminal illness must be 'crazy', or at the very least 'not allowed to do it'.

And I sure as fuck wouldn't pretend my personal feelings are more important than theirs. That would be seriously fucking selfish.

No - you will elevate the feelings of a suicide above all others. You still have not justified why the desires of the suicide (to die) outweigh those of multiple other people (not to suffer life-long pain).

Because their life belongs to them, not to others. What part of this do you not understand?

I love my brothers enough to concede that their life is theirs. They don't 'owe me' anything.

If you don't care enough to intervene in the suicide of a loved one then you don't love them at all.

I already stated I would intervene; by doing my best to convince them not to do it. This would encompass everything from suggesting therapy, suggesting medication, family support, etc.

But it appears the only intervention you think is 'loving' is that which absolutely prevents them from ending their life at all possible costs, even if it means binding them in chains.

You'll excuse me if I find such a perspective repulsive and worthy of absolute contempt.

I simply can not agree with your stance. You are putting one person's desire about those of everyone else who knows them. You are putting one person's pain above that of everyone else who knows them. Why is the suicide so privileged in your mind?

What makes your value asessment of someone else's life superior to their own assessment of their life? What makes you think a group is always justified to impose their will/personal desires on a smaller one or an individual?

Seems to me you're holding the dead person's "rights" as being more important of those of multiple living people left behind.

No, I'm talking about living people's rights. A person contemplating suicide is still alive, and still has rights. The arbitrary and subjective nature of rights aside, I've seen absolutely no reason to place the rights of any person over another.

Yet you can't see that a suicide's act of suicide inherently violates the rights of other people.

So by your logic, so long as the larger number of people are happy with things as they are, fuck what the individual or minority wants.

You honestly don't see a problem with this?

What I won't accept is your circular logic that mentally ill people contemplate suicide, therefore anyone contemplating suicide is mentally ill.

You will STOP mischaracterizing my position RIGHT NOW. That is NOT what I have said, I have even given fucking examples to counter that argument.

Alright, so then I'm safe to assume you are willing to accept the premise that anyone chosing to end their life does not immediately equate to mentall illness.

I don't subscribe to the notion that the effect of one's actions on others is somehow irrelevant.

Neither do I; I merely subscribe to the notion that one's decision regarding their own life ultimately supersedes the concerns of other's opinions on what they should do with their life.

People can and will be emotionally hurt by someone chosing ending their own life. That's a fact of life; however it's most certainly not an excuse to take that choice away.

[K. A. Pital]

By establishing a precedent that society is willing to help people die humanely who truly desire that outcome, we put ourselves in a better position to provide alternative solutions to those who seek to die in the first place.

How? It shows a willingness to avoid solving the issues of people who want to end their lives, by just offering them to do it instead.

And I consider that absolute inhumane and cruel.

Forcing a human to live is, sadly, not a greater cruelty than forcing or allowing him to die. Death is the ultimate suffering and the end of existence; therefore having the greatest negative utility in utilitarianism.

Now explain why me or anyone else should be subject to your personal criteria? What makes you so fucking special that I or anyone else should adhere to your standards?

No, you will have to answer to the society. In effect, you can consider social norms of this age a creation of society that has the goal of self-preservation and benefit for the majority of society's members. Suicide is not beneficial to the society, neither to the majority of men. It is therefore to be discouraged.

So then you're in agreement that (ideally) no one should be forced into decisions contrary to what they desire.

That is a very bad argument. Should the oligarch be coerced to pay taxes or not?

Hammer away at them telling them what a selfish individual they are for daring to think they have the right to end ther own life without my fucking permission?

Quite possibly yeah, because it's serious mental issues. A serious deviation from the basic human, nay, even basic biological instincts of life-preservation.

Because their life belongs to them, not to others. What part of this do you not understand?

Life is not property; and even were it a form of property, there is never solid moral evidence that property rights should be absolute.

So by your logic, so long as the larger number of people are happy with things as they are, fuck what the individual or minority wants.

That is what utilitarianism says. But hey - we do it all the time. Fuck what the "individual" (say, that would be me) wants - if I want to have an army of slaves, an army of bisexual concubines, become a drug baron and rule with an iron fist over a pauperized nation, and be a financial magnate. I am sure it is best for the society to not allow such desires of mine to come true (actually, I have no such desires, but you can easily find people who do). Socially harmful desires should not be allowed.

You honestly don't see a problem with this?

There is. The problem is balancing the interests of people. It's a very complex problem and cannot be solved by "LET ALL HAVE WHAT THEY WANT" because resources in the world are finite.

[Singular Intellect]

Just where exactly was my point of 'presenting alternative solutions' prior to enabling people to die humanely lost? Did this not compute to people as 'therapy, drugs options, social activities, etc'?

What part of 'people are going to kill themselves whether we approve or not, whether we help or not' is unclear or not understandable?

Why exactly is it so intolerable that, if we cannot convince a person to go on living, we provide them a humane and safer way to die?

[K. A. Pital]

Just where exactly was my point of 'presenting alternative solutions' prior to enabling people to die humanely lost? Did this not compute to people as 'therapy, drugs options, social activities, etc'?

That's like saying one should allow heavy drugs alongside with 'alternative' enterntainment like kid's parties with karaoke, and feel good about oneself. Death and therapy are two vastly different outcomes.

What part of 'people are going to kill themselves whether we approve or not, whether we help or not' is unclear or not understandable?

People are also going to kill others. Let's legalize murder! And also help murderers! Before we ask ourselves that the victim has negative utility in his death, we must think first of the killer! He gets positive utility, yay, because he enjoys murder, and actually wants to kill! Everyone can do as he please, the well being of others notwithstanding, so I propose - let's not coerce murderers.

Why exactly is it so intolerable that, if we cannot convince a person to go on living, we provide them a humane and safer way to die?

I do not see a reason to provide any amenities or waste any social funds and resources that can support the living on someone who decided to kill himself. That is simply not rational - any expenditures on the dying person will have a zero utility quite soon, just as he dies. For others, he would produce a temporary negative utility (his death leading to emotional and, yes, possibly financial problems among the living).

Why should this person, who harms society, get any bonus, support or encouragement for his action? I think not.

And you still have not answered just why people should not be coerced. We routinely coerce people for the benefit of society. We coerce them to share material resources to reduce suffering; we coerce them to behave; not to kill; restrain other socially harmful urges and the like. What is so special about suicide?

[Singular Intellect]

So when faced with individuals who will end their lives one way or another, society is (currently) unwilling to provide humane and clean methods of suicide for those individuals. Ergo, the overall emotional injury and costs sustained by those affected remains the same, and will be added to as well via Broomstick's stated examples of not just loved ones being affected by suicide actions (ie: jumping in front of trains, eating a bullet, etc because no other options are available or perceived).

Quite frankly, I see nothing moral or humane with this argument, but I regress. I honestly did not expect this level of resistance to my argument, and I lack the motivation to continue pushing the point.

Suffice to say I'm honestly relieved and content to know that if I chose to end my life humanely, it's well within my power to do so and well beyond society's power to stop me. To live in a society where that's not the case is a truly horrifying concept; at least for me at any rate.

[K. A. Pital]

So when faced with individuals who will end their lives one way or another, society is (currently) unwilling to provide humane and clean methods of suicide for those individuals.

Neither does society provide anything beyond an offer of medical treatment for those individuals who have other asocial urges - stealing property (cleptomaniacs), burning (pyromaniacs), etc. Why should it waste any resources beyond the offer of treatment, anyway?

You just thought that people should not be coerced not to follow asocial urges; but why? We try to coerce them all the time; softer methods for less harmful urges (alcohol, tobacco, arguably some drug forms), harder methods for very harmful urges (death penalty or penal isolation for murder). Suicide is just another asocial urge by an individual human. There is nothing that warrants special protection about suicide.

To live in a society where that's not the case is a truly horrifying concept; at least for me at any rate.

Society cannot stop you from killing yourself and imposing negative utility on a circle of people, but in no way it is obliged to aid you.

[Singular Intellect]

So when faced with individuals who will end their lives one way or another, society is (currently) unwilling to provide humane and clean methods of suicide for those individuals.

Neither does society provide anything beyond an offer of medical treatment for those individuals who have other asocial urges - stealing property (cleptomaniacs), burning (pyromaniacs), etc. Why should it waste any resources beyond the offer of treatment, anyway?

You just thought that people should not be coerced not to follow asocial urges; but why? We try to coerce them all the time; softer methods for less harmful urges (alcohol, tobacco, arguably some drug forms), harder methods for very harmful urges (death penalty or penal isolation for murder). Suicide is just another asocial urge by an individual human. There is nothing that warrants special protection about suicide.

To live in a society where that's not the case is a truly horrifying concept; at least for me at any rate.

Society cannot stop you from killing yourself and imposing negative utility on a circle of people, but in no way it is obliged to aid you.

My argument and point of view stems from my premise that people have the right to die if they wish (although all rights are arbitrary by definition). It's a point of view I hold rather passionately, even though I know it seemingly conflicts with society's general consensus on the issue.

[K. A. Pital]

Your premise is arbitrary; and you also claim that you think there is some sort of inalienable right of a human being to X. This is not the philosophy some, or most people use - rights are artificial constructs as you yourself noted. They are bestowed by the society for the well-being of it's members. Rights cannot exist outside the society, they do not arise naturally and require special mechanisms and expenses to protect and enforce. A human being just by virtue of existence has no rights.

So perhaps that's your thesis was not met with much understanding.

[Shroom Man 777]

What kind of fucked up world is living considered an inhumane cruelty?

If we're judging mental illness by what is normal and what is abnormal, then YES, desiring to kill yourself IS abnormal because people naturally and normally have a desire to live. If a person didn't want to kill himself, but wanted to chop off his fingers or slit his wrist with a butcher's knife and amputate his hand, these are also abnormal urges that need to be corrected no matter what "right" a person has to "kill/maim" himself. Eating shit is not socially normal and not a natural human behavior, would anyone go on about it's inhumane to coerce a person to choose alternate dietary preferences over eating his own fecal matter? Eating shit, lopping off your own limbs, doing drugs, and killing yourself are ALL UNHEALTHY and constitute as medical problems that should be - ideally - fixed. Only in extreme circumstances would assisted-suicide be considered, like how only in extreme circumstances do we pump people full of narcotics and opiates and morphine.

[Blayne]

I feel a great sense of sorrow for mr Pratchet and his family and wish for him the best with his decision over his own fate and that his family good luck with coping with their loss.

[Edi]

So when faced with individuals who will end their lives one way or another, society is (currently) unwilling to provide humane and clean methods of suicide for those individuals. Ergo, the overall emotional injury and costs sustained by those affected remains the same, and will be added to as well via Broomstick's stated examples of not just loved ones being affected by suicide actions (ie: jumping in front of trains, eating a bullet, etc because no other options are available or perceived).

Quite frankly, I see nothing moral or humane with this argument, but I regress. I honestly did not expect this level of resistance to my argument, and I lack the motivation to continue pushing the point.

Suffice to say I'm honestly relieved and content to know that if I chose to end my life humanely, it's well within my power to do so and well beyond society's power to stop me. To live in a society where that's not the case is a truly horrifying concept; at least for me at any rate.

Your entire argument rests on the premise that people who would off themselves no matter what can be reliably identified. They can't.

The people who will kill themselves no matter what are very few and far between, all things considered. A lot of people who attempt suicide (and sometimes succeed) are driven to it because they don't see any other way out of their perceived problems. If they get some help and support, they can often be persuaded not to go through with their idea. And until someone actually does go and kill himself/herself, we won't know whether or not they were of the "no matter what" category.

And as long as we don't know, there comes the bit about society judging value to a person AND the fact that people who live in a society have an obligation toward that society due to everything they have already gotten from it.

So try living in the real world for a while and considering more than just one angle of the issue.

As it stands right now, you're in violation of several debate rules and are sounding like broken record. Address the arguments against you, since not only your argument but its premises are under attack. Otherwise this thread may find a new home.

[Simon_Jester]

What kind of fucked up world is living considered an inhumane cruelty?

If we're judging mental illness by what is normal and what is abnormal, then YES, desiring to kill yourself IS abnormal because people naturally and normally have a desire to live... Only in extreme circumstances would assisted-suicide be considered, like how only in extreme circumstances do we pump people full of narcotics and opiates and morphine.

How extreme are extreme circumstances?

[Shroom Man 777]

How extreme are extreme circumstances?

Where there is extreme suffering that is untreatable and can't be lessened, where death becomes a preferable option? These circumstances would have to be evaluated on a case-to-case basis, since this is something you can't generalize and it varies from one person to another. Bleh.

[Broomstick]

Singular Intellect also conveniently ignores that motivation for suicide is not always "pure", that is, is not always done to just end one's life but also to deliberately hurt others. My sister was quite specific in her note that part of her intention was to hurt certain people. (And before SI starts in about her "choice" - she had a diagnosed mental illness for 17 years prior to her suicide). Look at murder-suicides, where the perpetrator insists on taking other lives before his own - do you honestly think "offering a humane option" is going to stop someone intent on killing his wife/kids/boss/others before killing himself?

Thanks for demostrating that you haven't been reading my posts. I've been actively stating those are the types of situations we want to avoid.

You're not going to ever completely avoid them. Suicides do not always want a "humane" death, some people believe they deserve to suffer. Some suicides are impulsive, or in people who show poor judgment or planning. And, as I mentioned, sometimes there is an intention to hurt others. Merely making "humane" suicide an option will not stop violent suicides.

By establishing a precedent that society is willing to help people die humanely who truly desire that outcome, we put ourselves in a better position to provide alternative solutions to those who seek to die in the first place.

No, it's giving people with a problem an easy way out that requires no effort on their part. Not to mention your "solution" requires other people to be parties to an act they find abhorrent. Perhaps you can hand someone a bag of pills knowing they'll use them to kill themselves, but many people could not bring themselves to do that, feeling that they would be in part responsible for murder. Your "solution" would coerce other people to perform immoral acts. Again, why do the desires of the suicide take precedence over everyone else?

Ah, so if someone truly wants to die and yet suffers from no physical pain or terminal illness, you're position is 'fuck them, they need to stick around so other people don't get hurt'?

Yes.

And I consider that absolute inhumane and cruel.

I consider you a lower form of life.

Emotional pain is a part of life. Dying is a part of life. Deal with it.

I have dealt with it you amoral shitstain.

And so you think the fact you've also dealt with this aspect of life gives you the right to insist people should not be permitted to end their lives unless they have reasons you approve of? Just where the fuck are you getting this superiority god complex from?

What makes you think that I would ever want to be in a position to deal with such life and death matters ever again? I am content to leave the determination of such matters in people more equipped to deal with such things than me, who have made it their profession to help such people.

See above. You're basically saying 'fuck anyone who wishes to die because their death can emotionally hurt other people'. You're insisting that their feelings and their desires mean nothing compared to others, even though it's their own life in the equation.

No, I'm saying they have to have a good enough reason to justify causing that pain and "gee, I just don't feel like living" is NOT good enough!

So you've established you don't think this reason is good enough. Fair enough. Now explain why me or anyone else should be subject to your personal criteria? What makes you so fucking special that I or anyone else should adhere to your standards?

They're not my criteria - they're society's.

In fact, the mere fact I acknowledge a possible justification for the terminally ill to end their lives makes me more liberal in this matter than the majority of people in the society in which I live.

You're effectively saying that if I wanted to end my life, I have to have reasons you approve of, to which I reply "Kindly go fuck yourself."

I'm sorry you're such a spoiled brat, but if you try to kill yourself it won't be ME who locks your worthless ass up and forcibly medicates you, it will be the society in which you live. And make no mistake, if you live in the industrialized world that IS what will happen, assuming you survive such stupidity.

Contrary to your repeated assertions, psychiatry actually does recongize that suicidal feelings are not always a sign of mental illness, and indeed, such feelings are normal in certain extreme circumstances, such as severe injury. That doesn't mean we'll let someone newly paralyzed (as an example) act on such feelings because past experience has shown that most of these people will recover an active desire to live when properly treated.

Even in a society such as Japan which arguably has the most tolerant attitude towards self-murder, attempted suicides are not simply left to die. Even in Japan medicine attempts to save their lives. The government there is trying to actively reduce the suicide rate.

Stop misrepresenting my words cocksucker - NOWHERE in that statement did I mention "force". Or do you think that homosexuals are incapable of choosing to withhold information on their own? Are you saying that you would force someone out of the closet no matter how THEY feel about it?

So then you're in agreement that (ideally) no one should be forced into decisions contrary to what they desire.

To agree to such a statement is ludicrous, as it would overturn the laws that enable society to exist. Should a man who desires to rape be allowed to do so? Should a woman who desires to steal be allowed to do so? Should someone who desire to kill be allowed to do so? The answer is no - if you insist on an exception you must make a case for it. Even when there is a reason that society might deem acceptable - stealing to save a life, for example - there may still be punitive consequences.

I care a great deal about such people, that is why I don't hand them a bottle of pills and say "swallow". The reason I don't condone their proposed action is because I care.

I'm well aware you have a fixed criteria for permitting people to end their own lives. Now I want you to justify why other people should be held to your standards rather than standards they're perfectly capable of setting for themselves. I want to know what drives you to think you can play god and dictate who live and who dies, rather than admitting people have a right to chose for themselves.

As I pointed out, in no way would I want to serve on some sort of committee choosing who's reason to die is acceptable or not. The reason I disapprove of your so-called standard is that it is one of greedy, selfish child with no concern for others. If you choose to live as a hermit outside of society I can't stop you, but so long as you are part of society you do have to contend with others whether you like it or not.

And no, I don't have "fixed criteria" - as Shroomy says, each case needs to be looked at individually. Allowing someone to end his own life is an exception to the rules of society, not a matter of "meet these criteria and it's OK". There's not a fucking checklist.

Let me put it this way: I love both my brothers very much. If one of them wanted to end their life, I would do everything in my power to give them reasons for living and staying around. If my reasons, arguments and feelings didn't change their desire and I have every reason to believe this is what they truly want, I would not stand in their way.

Then you DON'T love them. You are a worthless, scum-sucking evil piece of shit. If you aren't willing to act to protect your brothers you... you're just a monster.

What should I do then? Have them locked up? Forcibly drugged? Hammer away at them telling them what a selfish individual they are for daring to think they have the right to end ther own life without my fucking permission?

You make it sound like giving people a reason to live is torture - how fucked up are you? Yes, actively suicidal people are confined and sometimes medicated, after which they receive treatment. Most of them recover to some degree and go back out into the world. Stop portraying appropriate medical treatment as if it's jail.

It seems to me you're operating under the premise that anyone who contemplates suicide without the excuse of severe pain or terminal illness must be 'crazy', or at the very least 'not allowed to do it'.

Mentally ill until proven otherwise.

Because their life belongs to them, not to others. What part of this do you not understand?

I understand what you're saying, I just admanantly disagree with it. I can understand you without kowtowing to your point of view.

What makes you think a group is always justified to impose their will/personal desires on a smaller one or an individual?

That is contradicted by reality, where we have laws to protect unpopular opinions, where people are allowed to perform acts others consider repulsive provided no one is harmed. where we have laws to protect minorities and the weak. That does not, however, mean anything goes. There are limits to what individuals can do, because other inidivduals are just as worthy of protection and security.

So by your logic, so long as the larger number of people are happy with things as they are, fuck what the individual or minority wants.

You honestly don't see a problem with this?

I see a problem with you putting the desire of one person to die above the wants, needs, and desires of everyone else around them.

Alright, so then I'm safe to assume you are willing to accept the premise that anyone chosing to end their life does not immediately equate to mentall illness.

Oh, you FINALLY got that point!

I will, however, underline that it would be extraordinarily rare and extreme circumstances where such would apply, and even then approval would not be automatic as every other possible alternative would have to be offered/attempted first. Thus, for the example of someone terminally ill and in pain, every method of mitigating pain would have to attempted prior to approval. It would be the very last resort, taken with extreme reluctance.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Forcing someone to live against their will is stepping over the line; there's no compassionate or humane reason justifying that, obligations to others notwithststanding.

Justify this position. You keep restating it over and over axiomatically. Upon what ethical basis is this grounded which makes it different from any other obligation to others?

I agree for the most part; what I don't agree with is the suggestion that unless a individual is suffering physically or from terminal illness, the only other possible alternative is mental illness.

Then specify a condition you miserable sack of shit!

Children are a optional choice and dictated by choices made

I did not specify an individual's children. I mean all children. Or would you feel yourself not obligated to helping a lost or hungry child?

As for paying taxes, you cannot escape them and the taxes one pays are typically an accident of birth.

the only reason a person would contemplate suicide is mental illness rather than exercising choice.

Mentally ill people make choices. They are just not rational or often ethical ones.

If you're going to claim emotional blackmail is a valid reason for preventing a person from exercising choice, then you'd also have to support the action of denying a homosexual the choice of engaging in homosexual activity if it's demostrated that that choice inflicts emotional/physcological pain on other people (like loved ones).

Um... no.

Being gay is not a choice. There is zero choice there. A homosexual person has the option, and only two options, of living a healthy productive life, or denying themselves to the point that they develop clinical depression and want to kill themselves.

I suppose we should be supportive of the closeted homosexual's right to kill themselves and offer them humane options in order that they may do so, rather than actually treating the root cause of their mental illness.

I assert society has no right to dictate what choices a person makes based on who they are, whether it's who they have intercourse with or how and when they die.

On what basis?

Why, exactly, would an otherwise healthy (IE. not suffering from terminal illness) person suffer so much by being forced to continue to live, that it would outweigh the suffering they cause to others as a result of their death, unless they were suffering from a treatable mental illness?

Your idealistic notion of every human being being loved by others is nice, but unrealistic. Maybe you need to get out into the real world more.

Even homeless people and drug addicts have friends and loved ones. Perhaps you need to get into the real world more.

As a matter of fact, people who consistently think no one cares for them typically have one of two disorders. Clinical Depression or some sort of Dysphoria.

Ah, so if someone truly wants to die and yet suffers from no physical pain or terminal illness, you're position is 'fuck them, they need to stick around so other people don't get hurt'?

Yes. How much suffering can they really be enduring, to want to die so badly that the suffering they endure by continuing to live outweighs the suffering of those they harm?

Specify a case where this might possibly occur you miserable sack of slime.

Everyone is selfish; deal with it

naturalistic fallacy.

The arbitrary and subjective nature of rights aside, I've seen absolutely no reason to place the rights of any person over another.

As a utilitarian I challenge your premise that rights exist, and in fact that they are even useful or meaningful in discussions of ethical decision making.

By establishing a precedent that society is willing to help people die humanely who truly desire that outcome, we put ourselves in a better position to provide alternative solutions to those who seek to die in the first place.

No. We dont. We give people who have temporary, or treatable problems a very permanent and irrevocable solution which brings immeasurable pain to others. By sanctioning suicide and making it known that it is an acceptable option we concede any ground we may have in order to persuade against it.

And so you think the fact you've also dealt with this aspect of life gives you the right to insist people should not be permitted to end their lives unless they have reasons you approve of? Just where the fuck are you getting this superiority god complex from?

Where do you get your skill at grandstanding with no argument to support you? This is a skill I would like to acquire.

Forcing a human to live is, sadly, not a greater cruelty than forcing or allowing him to die. Death is the ultimate suffering and the end of existence; therefore having the greatest negative utility in utilitarianism.

I never thought of it like that... but it is true. Every future joy, every bit of utility that could have existed had that person live will no longer exist, putting death very firmly in the Negative column of a utility calc.

What part of 'people are going to kill themselves whether we approve or not, whether we help or not' is unclear or not understandable?

Oh, it is understood. But you make the mistake of equating "we cannot stop everyone" with "therefore we should not try to stop those who can be"

As a result your argument is a naturalistic fallacy and invalid.

[Shroom Man 777]

Broomstick, your arguments are wonderful and far more eloquent than my bellowing. So, I guess I'm going to bow out and leave handling SI to you since I think we're both coming from the same view but you're expressing it in a way more coherent way than I. So, because I'm exhausted from nuersings, and to avoid dogpiling, he's all yours.

[PainRack]

The fact that we still hear stories about people who suffer drawn-out painful deaths proves that we can't.

Ah, with info and proof like that I can't help but retreat in my position with fear.

Let's be fair Knife. Pain control is STILL a major problem in many areas, even in the States. The problem may rest in the realm of poor assessment and misconceptions, but it still exists.

True, but I'm assuming that the discussion of terminally ill people who want to off themselves represents people who still have a life span of 6-12 months rather than someone who will die tomorrow regardless of what happens. That is more than enough time to diagnose and treat for any mental illness so they can live out what they have.

Well, as I said, psychic pain in and as of itself is a problem to treat for those who are dying. The onset of depression or other psychic issues which may aggravate quality of life, in particular, pain usually happens quite late.
I was just highlighting the problems involved in treating pain here. We are able to manage pain very well..... until the spiritual and mental pain parts set in.

Indeed. I think I've advocated before on this board a position pretty much like Dominus; however, having seen more than my fair share of dead and dying people in all forms and my meager training, has moderated my view. Refusing to have medical science extend your life is one thing, to have it actively end your life is another. If AMA and refusing care lets you die quicker, then ok, you actually do have that right; the right to refuse medical treatment, but to have a doctor actively kill you is quite another.

Well, at the point where the CCP for dying sets in, why shouldn't active measures to hasten death be taken?

At this point in time, the only thing the medical team is doing is waiting for you to die......... in comfort. Oral toileting, some basic hydration before the organs shut down, oxygen. All medications apart from pain and sedation are removed.

If a person does wish to die at this stage, why should it be disallowed? Just for the next few days of life? Or the possibility that a miracle can happen and you recover some function...... only to die a week or so later? And of course, the person involved has no conscious interaction with the world.

Is the moral, emotional, ethical and physical issues that drastically different from the cessation of ventilator support?

A well drafted AMD could simply add another stage for intervention/lack of intervention. In this case, at the point where you are placed on the CCP for death, its possible to initate active measures for dying as opposed to mere passive measures.

[PainRack]

Well, as I said, psychic pain in and as of itself is a problem to treat for those who are dying. The onset of depression or other psychic issues which may aggravate quality of life, in particular, pain usually happens quite late.
I was just highlighting the problems involved in treating pain here. We are able to manage pain very well..... until the spiritual and mental pain parts set in.

I think I need to elaborate on this a bit. Pain is a symptom that's self reported. When discussing psychic pain, its not about psychosomatic pain, although that plays a factor. Rather, its about how pain does not represent itself physically only. The well known vicous cycle of pain goes like this, you have pain from a problem, it affects your mood, your thinking and even your nervous system, that aggravates the perception of pain which feeds into actual physical changes.... and the cycle continues.

Thus, when treating pain, breaking the cycle is one thing, but without addressing the other issues, it won't go away. And spirituality does play a role. Its strange, but it has been reported in the literature that resolution of other psychosocial issues, even including accepting the meaning of death assists in the resolution of pain.
Hence, palliative medicine espouses holistic care, including the concept of Total Pain. Where distress over spiritual, psychological or social issues presents itself as physical pain or aggravation of existing pain. We can use narcotics to address visceral pain, but it won't resolve until one address the other aspects.

Adding this to the complexity of pain management such as incidental pain, the differences between somatic and neuropathic pain, different nervous pathways....... Is it any wonder that pain management is so difficult? And this is before one gets over the primary barrier. GOOD assessment. Its simply impossible to discuss how problematic this is unless you have been in immense pain before and have been unable to resolve it..... and have others ignore you.

[Knife]

Singular Intellect and I seem to be arguing extremes while your pointing out details in between. I'll leave it at that Painrack.

[Singular Intellect]

Singular Intellect and I seem to be arguing extremes while your pointing out details in between.

I hardly consider my position an extremist one. Quite frankly, everyone here I had a discussion with seems to hold the same views I do regarding treating those with suicidal tendencies and impulses. I very much agree most individuals contemplating suicide can be (and should be) reasonably deterred and helped, thus becoming productive and relatively happy members of society.

My only exception is that when faced with individuals not mentally ill, suffering serious physical pain or terminal illness, yet still wishing to end their life, we should permit them to do so. Furthermore, I dispute any notion that anyone who contemplates suicide must be mentally ill, while conceding that suicidal tendencies often indicates a mental disorder of some sort.

The most potent argument I've heard here was the emotional repercussions one's suicide has on the greater number of others (which I certainly don't deny). However, I personally reject this argument on the same grounds I would reject the emotional well being of others being put above an individual's right to decide to live. In both cases, the individual's right to decide their own fate is being superceded by the emotional well being of a numerically superior group. Obviously the former has been promoted here, but unless I'm greatly mistaken, the latter wouldn't be. I don't find that a logically consistent position; it effectly states 'a person is permitted to chose their own fate, but only so long as the choice picked is living'. That's like saying an individual is permitted to vote, but only so long as they understand there's only one acceptable voting option; voting the other way means it's rendered invalid.

[Broomstick]

Singular Intellect and I seem to be arguing extremes while your pointing out details in between.

I hardly consider my position an extremist one.

But everyone else considers you extreme. Perhaps you should re-examine your self-evaluation of your position in regards to the rest of the world.

My only exception is that when faced with individuals not mentally ill, suffering serious physical pain or terminal illness, yet still wishing to end their life, we should permit them to do so.

Can you provide even ONE real life example of such a person?

Furthermore, I dispute any notion that anyone who contemplates suicide must be mentally ill, while conceding that suicidal tendencies often indicates a mental disorder of some sort.

NO ONE IS TAKING THAT POSITION YOU FUCKING MORON! Absolutely NO ONE here is making the blanket statement that "anyone who contemplates suicide must be mentally ill". Not one fucking person! What the FUCK is your problem with reading comprehension?

[Singular Intellect]

But everyone else considers you extreme. Perhaps you should re-examine your self-evaluation of your position in regards to the rest of the world.

Popularity issues don't really concern me; logic does.

So I'll ask you directly: would you assert the emotional well being of a group of people over that of an individual's choice to live? I brought up this reasoning in my last post.

My only exception is that when faced with individuals not mentally ill, suffering serious physical pain or terminal illness, yet still wishing to end their life, we should permit them to do so.

Can you provide even ONE real life example of such a person?

If you think no such person can exist, I don't understand your objection to the concept.

But to answer your question, I have no examples I care to mention, plus I don't see how one goes about empirically validating any such examples to begin with.

Furthermore, I dispute any notion that anyone who contemplates suicide must be mentally ill, while conceding that suicidal tendencies often indicates a mental disorder of some sort.

NO ONE IS TAKING THAT POSITION YOU FUCKING MORON! Absolutely NO ONE here is making the blanket statement that "anyone who contemplates suicide must be mentally ill". Not one fucking person! What the FUCK is your problem with reading comprehension?

I'm countering an established position that many people do take (at least in my experience); not what you specifically are taking. I had assumed this would be evident.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But to answer your question, I have no examples I care to mention, plus I don't see how one goes about empirically validating any such examples to begin with.

Then concede the argument.

[Singular Intellect]

But to answer your question, I have no examples I care to mention, plus I don't see how one goes about empirically validating any such examples to begin with.

Then concede the argument.

My argument is that people not mentally ill, in severe pain or terminally ill should be permitted the choice of deciding whether they live or die. Not whether you or others believe they exist or not. To be blunt, your beliefs on that matter don't interest me.

[Broomstick]

no such person can exist, I don't understand your objection to the concept.

So your position has no support, even from you. You're just trolling.

To be blunt, your beliefs on that matter don't interest me.

To be blunt, you've made it abundantly clear that the beliefs of others don't matter to you at all.