Terry Pratchett has got some convincing arguments- there's at least one documentary with him talking about it.
The man is an astounding author who is facing early onset Alzheimer's and is currently trying to get the law changed so that he will get an assisted suicide when he finally loses his mind.
You know I ment interfering with the persons who wants to end his/her life. Can a government deny a person that wish. And please don't reply, they already do it, so they can.
If a government grants the right to end your life, the person that helps is just a tool to fulfil the wish of the patient. The fact what to do with the desire to allow ending life, automatically has consequences for the assistant. So it goes hand in hand.
If a government grants the right to end your life, the person that helps is just a tool to fulfil the wish of the patient.
So you have a living person who has admitted to killing the let's (for argument's sake) call them the "victim". How do you prove that the (for argument's sake) "murderer" was just a "tool"?
When I read your messages you seem intelligent. Why don't you focus on what I am trying to say, in stead of creative writing. Do you think I mentioned this in order to kill people and say I helped them with their wishes ?
Yeah, I've got it. We can commit unassisted suicide (which, btw, used to be illegal and punishable by death). A doctor who kills you can just be considered no more human than a gun or train or pavement.
Maybe you should actually wonder why I've pointed out that the existence of suicide is a moot point.
With assisted suicide the government is not "granting you permission to end your life". It's "creating an exemption for murder".
I wrote my 12th grade high school paper on that. Well we do it to animals, why not people? Especially when they are suffering so bad. Of course the person must agree and be coherent to it.
lets face it, dying people are a pain in the ass. they need so much for so short a time, we can't seem to keep up. meanwhile, a loved one is experiencing a death that's way too slow. It's the last mercy the living can bestow upon the dying; It's the protraction of agonies, and, if wished by the dying, consists of a favor on the part of the living. A conviction of murder for doing a favor? What?
You're forgetting that by the time you need help to die, you're actually very vulnerable. Now- we have two people identical in everything but the wish to die.
The person isn't coherent (Alzheimer's is a bitch like that) as they are, they cannot consent to being killed and you can't be sure that this is where they are finally living the nightmare.
So, how do you prove consent without risking the life of someone who doesn't want to die?
He did, and it is really sad to watch a documentary about your favourite author seeking the ability to get someone to kill him.. Worse when you agree that it's about the only real choice for someone in his situation.
But.. when's the cut off for a living will? At least with a last will and testament you're quite distinctly dead.
It's quite easy to coerce the vulnerable into doing things and no difficulty at all to get the forgetful to sign wills. Then you've got those people who "don't want to be a bother" and may feel pressured into signing. And this is all "natural" failings of humanity. You don't need a Harold Shipman for this kind of thing to go wrong.
And then you've got those who start losing it and choose to be put down somewhere further on. They should be given a right to die with dignity. How do you prove they're sane enough for a living will. (Or sane enough to be asking to die for all the right reasons)
The whole thing is tricky, I can't imagine being the one to enforce a living will. Or even to ask about or insist that the doctor fulfils his "duties". Anyone I care about enough to put myself in that situation for is someone that I (at least until that moment) don't want to die.
I've yet to see any argument from the pro-life/enforced- suffering side that isn't scaremongering that doctors will start coming for old people in the night, or wheeling out (literally) a disabled person who personally doesn't want to die.
I don't really have any persuasive points but I'll just say that I think that people should be allowed to die when and however they want since it's their own life.
MinaRakastanSinua [forum info]
[PM]
Melanie
And may you be in heaven half an hour before the devil knows you’re dead
Posts: 2589
I think euthanasia should be accepted, to a point where if all treatment, medical and palliative, fails, then it should be the decision of the patient given they have the mental capacity to do so. If not then it should, as protocol suggests, the medical proxy of the patient if they are not mentally stable/capable to make such a decision.
This
When it comes to the point where there are no options for continuing life, and the remainder of your life has a severely reduced quality, I believe that someone should have the choice to end the suffering.
I'm of the opinion that everyone has the right to self-terminate whenever they so wish, and that I'll call them a coward for it. -shrug-
As far as the legality behind it is concerned, I'm pretty vague in my stance.
I somewhat see the point Corpsie is making, and it's definitely the main conundrum, but on the other hand, I think the idea that an adult cannot be held responsible for their actions to be a really stupid one.
I've always been of the belief that insanity shouldn't be an applicable defense in court except in the case of accidents.
If someone maliciously kills people because they're nutso, I think they should be tried as a murderer.
If someone wants to kill themselves because they're nutso... well, it doesn't really matter, now, does it?
But if that person wants someone else to kill them, because they are unwilling or unable to do it themselves, I think they should be able to get a lawyer and a notary present, make the necessary arrangements, and let the "angel of death" be vindicated.
We (United States) allow boxing licenses to vindicate paid fighters from murder charges when they pummel someone to death for entertainment, don't we?
I think if we can put animals out of their misery and it be known as "humane" then shouldn't it also be humane to allow a person to be put out of their pain and misery especially if they are terminally ill.
I think the idea that an adult cannot be held responsible for their actions to be a really stupid one.
In normal circumstances- yes. However, facing a slow death/being reduced to the intellect of a child is an exceptional situation. Once Alzheimer's hits you're no longer dealing with an "adult". Even in the early stages, the person is easily confused and so living wills become tricky to authenticate.
I've always been of the belief that insanity shouldn't be an applicable defense in court except in the case of accidents.
It's usually not a defence but a mitigating circumstance, you still committed the crime and sentencing concerns itself with chances of re-offending. Pleading insanity isn't the get out of jail free card that popular media thinks- it's getting sectioned.
I think they should be able to get a lawyer and a notary present, make the necessary arrangements, and let the "angel of death" be vindicated.
I'm concerned about this "angel of death". The only person I'd trust with this licence to kill would be those who'd need to be pressured into taking someone's life.
Once Alzheimer's hits you're no longer dealing with an "adult". Even in the early stages, the person is easily confused and so living wills become tricky to authenticate.
So should we also consider the maturity and intelligence of individuals as well as age? Should stupid people have their rights removed?
I don't think that people who commit suicide or need assisted suicide are cowards. It's pretty ridiculous to say that facing the ultimate end is the "easy" way out. You have to be in a desperate situation to think that DYING is the better alternative. You'd literally have to be insane to think something like "I don't feel like having responsibilities anymore, I think I'll just die instead of looking for other options." I don't think that living a horrible life makes you an amazing bad ass nor do I think killing yourself makes you one. It's also in bad taste to speak ill of the dead, especially when they're basically a victim.
So should we also consider the maturity and intelligence of individuals as well as age?
Well it's all a matter of consent- if you can abuse a position of power and rape a vulnerable person and all the other things that are considered a crime because you're essentially abusing the vulnerability of a person- then there's a question about how much of your marbles are needed for you to consent to a fatal contract.
"I don't really have any persuasive points but I'll just say that I think that people should be allowed to die when and however they want since it's their own life."
If a government grants the right to end your life, the person that helps is just a tool to fulfil the wish of the patient.
( ok the moment the Government starts granting people "THEIR RIGHT" to die shows that they see the people as property to do with as they please.It should be your right as a living himan being no matter what if the illnes is terminal and painful to to beable to end it without consent from any government)
The fact what to do with the desire to allow ending life, automatically has consequences for the assistant. So it goes hand in hand.
(see my reply above,plus the perosn that helped you end you're suffering should not be prosecuted because they showed mercy actaully.)
Suffer?You have my word you won't suffer,because the dead don't suffer!
the person that helps is just a tool to fulfil the wish of the patient.
The person that helps is a human being who is willing to kill another, helpless human being.
If a government grants the right to end your life,
Suicide stopped being illegal in 1961.
Murder is still illegal.
So is manslaughter.
So is murder caused by negligence.
In fact, the taking of anyone's life but your own is illegal.
It should be your right as a living himan being no matter what if the illnes is terminal and painful to to beable to end it without consent from any government
However, it should not be your right as a healthy human being to manufacture or fraudulently obtain consent to kill another human being.
The fact what to do with the desire to allow ending life, automatically has consequences for the assistant.
Also pretending that people like Harold Shipman don't exist has a lot of consequences for those who are vulnerable and don't want to die.
