Terry Pratchett ready to be test case for suicide law

[Singular Intellect]

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

My position has never been about determing whether you, I or others think/believe there are individuals out there who contemplate suicide outside of experiencing mental illness, severe pain or terminal illness. I suspect there are, but it's irrelevent since it's not my argument.

So yes, you're quite correct, I have no supporting evidence for your strawman argument of my positon.

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.

I assume then I've made it clear I'm solely interested in logical consistency at this point, not personal beliefs?

Ergo, I repeat my previous question for the third time and the second time directly to you: do you think a group of people's emotional well being supercedes a individual's choice to live? This should be a simple yes or no answer; elaborate in any way you desire, I really am interested in your answer to that question.

[Alyrium Denryle]

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

My position has never been about determing whether you, I or others think/believe there are individuals out there who contemplate suicide outside of experiencing mental illness, severe pain or terminal illness. I suspect there are, but it's irrelevent since it's not my argument.

So yes, you're quite correct, I have no supporting evidence for your strawman argument of my positon.

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.

I assume then I've made it clear I'm solely interested in logical consistency at this point, not personal beliefs?

Ergo, I repeat my previous question for the third time and the second time directly to you: do you think a group of people's emotional well being supercedes a individual's choice to live? This should be a simple yes or no answer; elaborate in any way you desire, I really am interested in your answer to that question.

Except that when your premises have come under attack you have not defended them, and have committed numerous errors in your own logic. As a result you clearly cannot possibly be interested in anything resembling consistency.

[Singular Intellect]

Except that when your premises have come under attack you have not defended them, and have committed numerous errors in your own logic. As a result you clearly cannot possibly be interested in anything resembling consistency.

I made a post on the previous page stipulating I will drop my argument for society actively assisting suicide for individuals, and I have done so. I feel I constructed my argument poorly and lack the motivation to take it up again.

Right now I have only one question, and it was regarding Broomstick's argument the emotional well being of a group of people outweighs an individual's choice to die. Now I'm simply curious if this is still the case if a person choses to live and that desire is at odds with the emotional well being of a group of people. She provided a very solid and simple answer to the former, so it should be a simple matter to provide one for the latter.

By all means, I'd be interested in your answer as well.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The matter is one of maximizing utility. If a person dies every bit of joy that they will ever experience is gone. That is a lot of joy and happiness gone from the world. That is assuming every other person is neutral about the death.

If a person lives against the wishes of others, there is a certain diminishing return in the joy they are deprived of from the person remaining alive. Save for in extreme cases (we are talking about an entire nation calling for the death of that one person with a euphoric blood lust here) such a case would never be ethical because the person's death (and the loss of joy from ending of that single life) outweighs the suffering ended (or the joy gained, depending on how you want to phrase it) of numerous people wishing their death.

The only case where this may not hold true is if the person in question will end the lives of others and only through the individual's death can this be stopped.

[Singular Intellect]

The matter is one of maximizing utility. If a person dies every bit of joy that they will ever experience is gone. That is a lot of joy and happiness gone from the world. That is assuming every other person is neutral about the death.

An interesting point, but this 'potential' argument immediately brought to mind anti abortionist arguments. Do you subscribe to the notion that a woman should be denied abortion rights (ie: choice) based upon the potential lifetime accumulation of joy of the fetus once born as a human being?

Obviously both examples of the individual's joy are theoritical in concept since neither exists currently, but the potential is equally true in both cases.

I'm asking because I'm seeing another logical inconsistency here, whereas the 'potential' argument is valid in one case but not another, despite both being hinged on choice. This of course assumes you support abortion rights in some context (although I don't recall if you do and I won't presume).

I'm bringing this up because I dismiss the 'potential existence' of a human being as an adaquate defense for things like denying abortion rights to women, so I need a good reason as to why the 'potential existence' of joy on this subject is suddenly a valid argument.

If a person lives against the wishes of others, there is a certain diminishing return in the joy they are deprived of from the person remaining alive. Save for in extreme cases (we are talking about an entire nation calling for the death of that one person with a euphoric blood lust here) such a case would never be ethical because the person's death (and the loss of joy from ending of that single life) outweighs the suffering ended (or the joy gained, depending on how you want to phrase it) of numerous people wishing their death.

What system of measurement are you using here, exactly? What mechanism are you using to 'weigh' joy between to different sources?

Regardless, I presume I'm safe to conclude that in response to my previous question, your answer is effectively 'no'.

The only case where this may not hold true is if the person in question will end the lives of others and only through the individual's death can this be stopped.

I agree with that specific assessment.

Back to your main point though, it seems it's dependent upon the 'potential existence' of something, but that strikes me as invalid for the same reason I would dismiss that exact same argument from an anti abortionist.

[K. A. Pital]

Obviously both examples of the individual's joy are theoritical in concept since neither exists currently, but the potential is equally true in both cases.

However, one brain (or one human) is developed and already exists in the society and the other is not.

Moreover, abortions as a matter of fact do have a negative utility; we allow them because we weigh them against other negative utilities - possible life of poverty, damage from badly performed abortions, death of the birthgiving individual.

If birth giving was not associated with any of these medical and social risks (consider a society where it does not threaten the carrier, neither can the born individual significantly reduce his own or the carrier's life level), I would assume that outlawing abortions would have been moral - it costs nothing for the carrier to give birth to another individual.

Besides, the developed brain is self-conscious; we might argue that suffering inflicted before the point of consciousness is only potential (as if you were to kill an animal without intellect, which we routinely do), yet in case of a developed human (who is also part of society) the suffering is no longer potential, neither for him, nor for the surrounding people.

What system of measurement are you using here, exactly? What mechanism are you using to 'weigh' joy between to different sources?

I think the utility measurements are difficult, but there are some extremes which give people a solid idea - excruciating torture is not equal to the negative utility from being slightly slapped. Negative utility from death outweighs most other cases of negative utility, so as long as we're talking about a single human (perhaps the alternative of endless strong pain being the only thing with greater negative utility than death here). These things are far from being simple, but there are methods for comparisons.

[Alyrium Denryle]

An interesting point, but this 'potential' argument immediately brought to mind anti abortionist arguments. Do you subscribe to the notion that a woman should be denied abortion rights (ie: choice) based upon the potential lifetime accumulation of joy of the fetus once born as a human being?

No.

The difference is that the person in question in this argument does in fact exist. The only thing we need quibble about is the exact quantity of joy they will experience in their lifetime. Even if we assume that the mother will not suffer by having to bear the child, at worst it is a wash.

Moreover, abortions as a matter of fact do have a negative utility; we allow them because we weigh them against other negative utilities - possible life of poverty, damage from badly performed abortions, death of the birthgiving individual.

If birth giving was not associated with any of these medical and social risks (consider a society where it does not threaten the carrier, neither can the born individual significantly reduce his own or the carrier's life level), I would assume that outlawing abortions would have been moral - it costs nothing for the carrier to give birth to another individual.

Besides, the developed brain is self-conscious; we might argue that suffering inflicted before the point of consciousness is only potential (as if you were to kill an animal without intellect, which we routinely do), yet in case of a developed human (who is also part of society) the suffering is no longer potential, neither for him, nor for the surrounding people.

As usual, he sums it up better than me.

Moreover, even if I concede that part of the argument the point still holds because the pleasure the person gains by dying (which is nil, because they are dead), is less than that obtained (or the suffering prevented) by their remaining alive. If so much as a cat will be harmed by their death, their death is unethical.

The reason this does not hold for medical cases (like terminal cancer) is because the person is going to die anyway and killing them sooner rather than later shortens the period in which they suffer, hastens the end of suffering for those they care about etc.

What system of measurement are you using here, exactly? What mechanism are you using to 'weigh' joy between to different sources?

It is a judgment call. All you can do when counting up utiles.

[Soontir C'boath]

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.

Of course, there is no reliable way to identify these people currently because there is no incentive for them to reveal it to anyone as this thread has shown, if there are people who care about them, they'd try to stop them at all costs including keeping an eye on them for future attempts. This is a discouragement since the possibility that therapy will not work and losing the chance to commit suicide when it doesn't (such as being kept in a padded room on suicide watch) can occur, then they'd rather go ahead and kill themselves without seeking alternatives.

SI's idea to have a mechanism where a person can receive help but if proven exhaustively unreliable (actively following psychological advice, changes in lifestyle, medication, happy meal, etc, doesn't work), the person should be able to have a painless death as any pleasure he derives from life continues to be outweighed by the intensity of the emotional pain he derives from life that is causing the person to want to die. It would give the person an incentive to receive help but at the same time have the assurance that if all else fails, the person still has the option to leave.

If the sonabitch has the will to kill himself, then at least add a step in that can give a chance of him changing his mind.

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.

This is assuming they would even bother to give a shit about this obligation.

[Singular Intellect]

Obviously both examples of the individual's joy are theoritical in concept since neither exists currently, but the potential is equally true in both cases.

However, one brain (or one human) is developed and already exists in the society and the other is not.

Aside from simply pointing out the existence and non existence of a functioning brain, I fail to see what this has to do with anything regarding the 'potential joy' argument.

Both cases have a particular brain making a decision that affects the utility outcome of 'potential joy', as it's being labelled.

Moreover, abortions as a matter of fact do have a negative utility; we allow them because we weigh them against other negative utilities - possible life of poverty, damage from badly performed abortions, death of the birthgiving individual.

So why are the negative utilities of a continued existence arbitrarily dismissed from consideration? Indeed, isn't that very assessment the reason one would expect an individual to contemplate suicide?

If birth giving was not associated with any of these medical and social risks (consider a society where it does not threaten the carrier, neither can the born individual significantly reduce his own or the carrier's life level), I would assume that outlawing abortions would have been moral - it costs nothing for the carrier to give birth to another individual.

Just as I would consider it morally acceptable to outlaw suicide if one pretended potential negative utility didn't exist for individuals contemplating suicide either; I fail to see the point in such speculations though. They both remain in the realm of fiction.

Besides, the developed brain is self-conscious; we might argue that suffering inflicted before the point of consciousness is only potential (as if you were to kill an animal without intellect, which we routinely do), yet in case of a developed human (who is also part of society) the suffering is no longer potential, neither for him, nor for the surrounding people.

Doesn't the existence of the anti abortionist movement itself and it's antics (people are willing to kill for the cause after all) demostrate that despite your claim suffering is only 'potential' during an abortion, many people think otherwise?

What system of measurement are you using here, exactly? What mechanism are you using to 'weigh' joy between to different sources?

I think the utility measurements are difficult, but there are some extremes which give people a solid idea - excruciating torture is not equal to the negative utility from being slightly slapped. Negative utility from death outweighs most other cases of negative utility, so as long as we're talking about a single human (perhaps the alternative of endless strong pain being the only thing with greater negative utility than death here). These things are far from being simple, but there are methods for comparisons.

When comparing positive and negative utility with regards to a individual's life, it strikes me these are entirely subjective points of view. Especially with regards to the assessment of the negative utility of death.

You yourself are stating that ulitility measurements are difficult, to which I add they are also extremely subjective in nature. Who better to decide subjective utility 'points' than the person with said subjective point of view?

[Singular Intellect]

SI's idea to have a mechanism where a person can receive help but if proven exhaustively unreliable (actively following psychological advice, changes in lifestyle, medication, happy meal, etc, doesn't work), the person should be able to have a painless death as any pleasure he derives from life continues to be outweighed by the intensity of the emotional pain he derives from life that is causing the person to want to die. It would give the person an incentive to receive help but at the same time have the assurance that if all else fails, the person still has the option to leave.

The thing is you'd have to be prepared to back up the 'assisting' part; if word got out that it's a lie and it's merely a story sold to prevent people from having that option at all, trust disappears and you're back to square one.

If the sonabitch has the will to kill himself, then at least add a step in that can give a chance of him changing his mind.

As already pointed out, most people approved for assisted suicide do not use it. The mere fact that there is an "exit option" seems to alleviate some level of suffering and anxiety.

Another point I whole heartedly agree with and an aspect of my previous argument I did not convey properly.

Assisted suicide doesn't need to be 'handing over a bottle a pills and told to swallow' or any kind of direct assistance of that nature. It can be as simple as providing people information on easy and painless options they weren't previously aware of. Something anyone with half a mind can find readily enough if they try, like nitrogen gas induced hypoxia.

[K. A. Pital]

So why are the negative utilities of a continued existence arbitrarily dismissed from consideration? Indeed, isn't that very assessment the reason one would expect an individual to contemplate suicide?

They are not; merely that they have to be pretty high for continued existence to have a greater negative utility than death. This is why I specifically mentioned "constant pain" as a reasonable qualifier. Euthanasia is actually human-assisted suicide (or killing, name as you will) rationalized on the base of greater negative utility of a time of torment. Same goes for terminally diseased, etc.

What I am saying is that the considerations to allow euthanasia have to be pretty strong to even begin to consider it; average psychological issues are very weak forms of suffering compared to the forms described above; ergo, very serious considerations should prevent assisting humans in ending their life at a whim; or rather, wasting our resources on assisting it. Because humans can, actually, kill themselves any time.

But the expenditure of the resources of the living (like meds for euthanasia, etc) better have some very solid reasons other than "IT'S MY CHOICE AND FUCK YOU ALL".

Just as I would consider it morally acceptable to outlaw suicide if one pretended potential negative utility didn't exist for individuals contemplating suicide either; I fail to see the point in such speculations though

See above. Just like you can't treat all abortions as a "lump category" (which is why degrees of allowance exist depending on abortion terms), you can't just treat all suicides as being equally reasonable and therefore devise universal rules for the entire category of suicide! This is what I'd call a very unwelcome generalization.

Doesn't the existence of the anti abortionist movement itself and it's antics (people are willing to kill for the cause after all) demostrate that despite your claim suffering is only 'potential' during an abortion, many people think otherwise?

The intellect has not come to self-awareness, as a matter of fact. What you are talking about is perception and extended empathy. The fact that some people have empathy for potential human beings, not just for the actually living, just demonstrates some of our biological instincts are rather strong and can have an impact on the norms of human reproduction. That is all.

When comparing positive and negative utility with regards to a individual's life, it strikes me these are entirely subjective points of view. Especially with regards to the assessment of the negative utility of death.

They are not completely subjective. You could derive a purely biological component of utility, i.e. the biological well-being of a human scale, to first exclude the emotional factors. This biological scale would be objective - a well-off, well-fed, clothed and sheltered human would have positive utility, factors like physical pain, malnourishment, lack of food and shelter an objectively negative one. So there is one objective component.

Pscychology is, to a large degree, subjective, but psychological distress does correlate to physical conditions - a more biologically safe and provided-for being would also have, as a general rule, better psychological condition than the one tortured, in pain, or malnourished, all of which produces enormous emotional stress.

It is very objective that death produces enormous emotional AND biological damage (the biological damage is absolute) to the dying man, and some (subjectively measured, but clearly existing) emotional damage to other beings in society.

So it's not as entirely subjective as you try to say. This is why just declaring "well, it's up to the human to decide" is greatly simplifying a complex question.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is very objective that death produces enormous emotional AND biological damage (the biological damage is absolute) to the dying man, and some (subjectively measured, but clearly existing) emotional damage to other beings in society.

It is possible, if difficult, to approximate too. Put suffering a 1-100 scale with a bee sting at 1 and being put on the rack at 100 then multiply by time scale. The linear interpolations are where a judgment call goes in.

You wont have fine-scale resolution or anything, but that does not mean the judgment is entirely subjective.

[UnderAGreySky]

I hope this does not qualify as thread necromancy, but this news is related to the discussion:

BBC Host Admits Killing Ailing Partner

By SARAH LYALL
Published: February 17, 2010

LONDON — The revelation seemed to slip out, almost as an aside. In the midst of narrating a television program about end-of-life decisions, the documentary maker Ray Gosling departed from the prepared script and declared, his voice shaking with emotion, “I killed someone once.”

He said the person had been a partner from long ago, stricken with AIDS. “In a hospital one hot afternoon, the doctor said, ‘There’s nothing we can do,’ and he was in terrible, terrible pain,” Mr. Gosling, 70, said Monday in the BBC program “Inside Out.”

(More at the site, hope it does not require registration. If so, I'll repost in full/find another link)

[Broomstick]

The problem with that scenario is our lack of information. Did this AIDS patient want to die? Or was it a case that somebody else decided his life wasn't worth living? Smothering someone because you think his life is unbearable isn't "assisted suicide", it's murder. Only if the patient wanted to die could suicide even be considered the case here, and we just do not know what the patient wanted, we only have the word of the person who killed him. Nor do we know if more could have been done to alleviate the man's pain, do we?

Now, from the same article:

In one case, Frances Inglis, 57, was sentenced to life in prison after injecting her severely brain-damaged 22-year-old son, Thomas, with heroin, as he lay in a nursing home. She said she had acted out of love and that Thomas, who had jumped from a moving ambulance after being injured in a brawl in 2007, had never been able to express his desire to end his life.

The patient in question had no say in his death, did he? Apparently he never made his wishes for such an event known (not surprising in a young man) and his mother decided to kill him because she couldn't handle the situation. That's not "assisted suicide" that is murder and it's right that she went to jail for life.

Now, this case:

In the second case, Bridget Kathleen Gilderdale, 55, was acquitted of attempted murder after helping her 31-year-old daughter, Lynn, kill herself with a lethal cocktail of drugs. The circumstances seemed clearer: for 17 years Lynn had suffered from severe myalgic encephalomyelitis that left her bedridden, in severe pain and unable to eat except through a tube. She had yearned to die, the evidence showed, and had tried several times to commit suicide before begging her mother to help her in her final attempt.

Actually does look like assisted suicide - you have someone who, apparently, can't be helped any further, who is still suffering, and who had actively expressed her wishes in the matter. That is the only case where I'd consider suicide an option, but even then I'm reluctant to endorse it, it's more of a tolerance for it. It also appears to be a case where the person in question is physically unable to act on their own behalf, which is the only time I'd tolerant the involvement of another person in the act.

The other two cases are what disturb me the most, as they appear to be instances where someone decided someone else should die, not the person who was actually killed. And there's where I see abuse creeping into the assisted suicide or euthanasia issue - one person unilaterally deciding someone else's life isn't worth living because the killer doesn't like the situation.