What is the argument in favour of euthanasia for people who are not about to die?

It's also not your choice to make for someone who chooses to murder someone, is it?

 

Not definitively. Cleary information about specific cases that is in the public domain can inform opinions and decisions on general policy, especially if they're via some formal inquiry or investigation, but in most cases I don't think we can ever give a definitive answer to "Was that the best viable outcome?" based on media reporting alone. That is why there are predefined sets of policies, rules and laws that are designed to cover all possible combinations of circumstances and guide those people who need to make the key decisions do so in a consistent and reliable manner.

That is a good example actually. My moral thoughts about abortion are very much mixed and I'm not convinced there is any clear moral conclusion to the issue. My opinion on policy and laws surrounding abortion are therefore based on practical reality. I see it as a necessary evil or least-worst option in some cases but I don't think it should be treated as just another birth control option.

Because the only reasoning you appear to be giving for objecting to euthanasia is based on your personal opinions.

I'm not. You asked my opinion and I gave it. I'm specifically not saying my opinion should be automatically implemented as law. That was clearly explained by the part of my answer you deliberately and dishonestly cut out. Please stop doing that.

 

Okay, well we can only go by what we have. The story about the 23 year old could be highly inaccurate, and maybe he was actually dying of some terminal illness. But if this 23 year old was approved for medically assisted suicide purely on the basis of his depression, diabetes, and the loss of vision in one eye, then that is wrong in my view. Do you not have an opinion?

Why not?

Yes, my objection to euthanasia is based on my personal opinion. What are YOUR objections to things based on if not your opinions?

My question was: Do you think that employers should be allowed to fire people on the basis of race? My question was NOT: Do you think that employers should fire people on the basis of race? So "be allowed to" obviously meaning, should they be permitted by law. So do you think they should be permitted by law?

It certainly was not my intention to be dishonest. I just didn't see the rest of it as relevant because I immediately took your answer "no" to mean that you do not believe that it should be legal for employers to fire people on the basis of race.

 

It absolutely should be a legal right, else we are not free persons with free will and the ownership of our bodies, choices, and self. If I choose to off myself, it is not your business, not my neighbor's business, not the State Legislature's business, and damn sure is not the Congress' business. I realize that not even all Americans currently have that right, but they should.

You are on here, this whole thread essentially exists for you to argue against free persons having such a legal right, but my question to you is why? Are you against freedom? Do you think your will ought be imposed on me, regardless of my feelings on the matter? Note that I am not talking about some ridiculous situation like someone spoke of earlier where someone wants to off themselves, but lacks the balls to do it themselves, so they go the suicide by cop route, and in a best case scenario, perhaps puts a cop in a position to have to kill someone they do not want to kill, possibly resulting in a lifetime of mental trauma, or in a worst case, one where other people are killed in the process. I'm talking about simple, elegant euthanasia, just like millions of people do to their beloved pets on a regular basis.

I recently lost one of my dogs, but in her case she went from old but otherwise fine, to not herself, to deceased within 24 hours. Had the 'not herself' phase lasted for an extended period of time, I would have made the ultimate choice of having her put down for her own good, and to save her from pain and suffering.

Why would you deny something that we do for an animal in the name of humane treatment to a human being capable of making that choice for themselves???

I mean that on or about October 25th, 2017, in response to a full body septic infection, I died. During that process, I went through the classic tunnel of light that oh so many others who have had similar experiences have encountered, and after that, for the sake of brevity, and with a bit of creative license, had a conversation with an unknown entity about the nature of life, death, reality, purpose, and the bigger picture. The things I was taught/told, however you wish to view it, completely falsify most if not all manmade gods and religions, and all their bullshit thou shall and thou shall nots, as well as turning the entire concept of life after death, heaven, hell, and eternal damnation for failure to believe the right things or to obey all the petty ass rules on it's head. Put a bit more bluntly and simply, the god of the buybull does not exist, life is a temporary experience, that we repeat over and over and over again, and not always as a human, not always on this rock, in this system, galaxy, or even universe. All those little churches and their little steeples are worshiping something that isn't real, and in the process have f-ed up so much of this world over the past few millennia that it makes me want to puke.

That's not to say we're walking, talking self-aware biochemical reactions, our true nature can be called 'spiritual', but that word carries so much baggage with it, so I try to avoid it. But, there is something after this, and it ain't what you are expecting. Which is a good thing! You know when you sometimes wish, oh, if only I could be young again... Well, just wait. You will be.

 

Well we DO have that right don't we? What's the alternative, that it is illegal to kill yourself? That would be a bit strange,
as it would be a little bit difficult to enforce such a law against the dead person who killed themselves.

Do you think that in order for something to be illegal, one of the reasons is that it needs to be your "neighbour's business?"

You have wrongly assumed why this thread exists. This thread exists because I was wondering what peoples'
opinions are. And yes, as part of that, I have argued against it. And by the way, it's not "freedom" to have someone kill you.

No. Why would you need to ask? Did I say anything about imposing my views on you?

Oh, so you think that assisted suicide should strictly be for people experiencing "pain and suffering?" Is that physical pain and suffering? And do you think that assisted suicide should be for adults only?

Oh, so surely you would describe your experience as "supernatural."

 

Self immolation is fraught with risks... People have even managed to f-up shooting themselves in the head!!! And ended upb with even worse problems than whatever it was they had before, possible (in some cases, almost certainly) limiting their ability to have a 'do-over' and get it right!

So, while it may not be something anyone is going to get prosecuted for, having assistance, especially if provided by a medical (or even veterinary) professional, the chances of success go to 99.99% and the pain, side-effects, and other downsides are minimized. It's a better solution for those who are hell bent, for whatever reason, in ending their existence on this rock. We came here by our own free will, and we can leave here at any time via the same means.

I can't believe you even have to ask such a stupid question. Of course the government must demonstrate some sort of compelling public interest in order for any proposed (or, even existing) law to be Constitutional. You can't just make any law that you can manage to get 50%+1 of the vote of the Legislature, Congress, or even public at large.

In fact, this is one of the most basic things by which laws are judged, if and when someone sues to get them restricted or removed... What is the 'compelling governmental interest' in having that law in the first place. Then, the next question is 'Does the Government possess the necessary Constitutional authority to do' whatever it is they want to, are trying to, or have enacted into law. This is one of the reasons that gun control laws are getting thrown out left and right, because after the recent Bruen decision, and it's bigger picture implications, it turns out most existing and proposed gun control statutes are, upon further review, actually prohibited by the Constitution itself. This topic is not gun control, but the underlying legal (and ethical) principal is identical.

As long as whoever that 'someone' is has your informed consent, it most certainly is. Anytime you are 'not allowed' to do something, by law, your freedom is restricted and diminished. For many things, rape, murder, etc., it is restricted and diminished properly. For others, smoking weed, or crack, or jumping out of a perfectly good airplane, it's nobody's business and not the proper role of a free person's government to restrict such behaviors. That includes assisted (or unassisted) suicide.

Yes. In your statement above, among other places. See, I could not give a flying f less what you think about whether or not I should take my own life, if for whatever reason I reach the point that I want to leave, it's not your place (or anyone else's) to intervene or attempt to stop me from doing so. Stay in your place and know your role.

Eh, you're getting a little deeper into the details than I have given enough thought to. But no, it should be legal for any adult for any reason, with possible procedural requirements that would need to be situationally dependent. In other words, if I'm about to die a horrible and painful death within the next 30-days, I don't have time for some government flunky to take 2-years to decide my fate for me. No, it should not be reserved for adults only, but children should naturally be subject to more scrutiny. An able minded adult should be able to check out for any reason, or no reason at all. I would not be that libertine as regards children.

But one thing to remember... For some people, just staying alive in and of itself is a form of psychological torture. You and I probably can't relate to that, because it doesn't apply to us (though I'm assuming facts about you that are not in evidence). But our individual circumstances don't apply to everyone.

No, but I may be making a semantic differentiation. I think anything that is real is as natural as the dew on a cool morning. If the afterlife is a real thing, as my and many thousands upon thousands of others experiences would indicate, then it, too, is natural. Same goes for anything normally thought of as 'supernatural', be it UFOs, ghosts, and so on.

But if you are trying to somehow shoehorn me into a religious position or statement, don't bother. I abhor manmade religion, and that's all of 'em. Especially the judeochristian abrahamic 'faiths' that have done so much harm to our species over the past who knows how many thousands of years. I consider, as just one example, a lutheran church to be as much of a cult as I do scientology or JWs.

 

We came here by our own free will? How so? That's interesting, because I was under the impression that we came here because a woman got pregnant.

Are you using "public interest" and "neighbour's business" interchangeably? Or are they different? It seems to me that "neighbour's business" is that which directly affects someone, whereas "public interest" can include that which does not necessarily directly affect people.

But if you want to get someone to kill you, but you can't because there is a ban on assisted suicide, it's not YOU who is being "not allowed" to do something. It's OTHERS who are being "not allowed" to kill you. Yet you still have the freedom to jump off the nearest bridge. If assisted suicide was available and you had it, YOU would not be the person doing the killing.

Which statement above? Show me exactly where I said anything about imposing my views on you. Which post? You won't be able to find it!

So a man who has a wife and kids who rely on him, kills himself or has assisted suicide. That is not the business of anyone else? Nobody is affected? Seriously? Perhaps you would tell the wife and kids of a man who is contemplating suicide "stay in your place and know your role" if they objected to the idea of their husband and father committing suicide.

But you're using the least controversial scenario of dying from "a horrible and painful death", but you're arguing that
it should be legal for "ANY reason." But I guess if you had said the following, it wouldn't have had quite the same dramatic effect:

In other words, if I have depression, I don't have time for some government flunky to take 2-years to decide my fate for me.

Why should children be subject to more scrutiny?

Obviously.

You referred to a conversation which you had with "an unknown entity" -- "about the nature of life, death, reality, purpose, and the bigger picture." You have referred to life as repeating "over and over and over again, and not always as a human." And you have expressed belief in "the afterlife." So you've shoehorned YOURSELF into a religious position! In a way that I have never seen before! My goodness!

What other sort of religion do you say there is other than "manmade?"

 

What is the argument in favour of euthanasia for people who are not about to die?

There is none. Suicide is the only solution.

 

The only solution for what?

 

For wanting to die.

 

Does that include assisted suicide?

 

Of course not. Suicide is a term derived from the latin meaning self killing. Add another person to the mix and it is homicide or man killing.

 

Just how loosely interpreted should "assisted" in assisted suicide be? Does selling a gun to a suicidal person count? How about verbal encouragement towards suicide? How about a doctor who sets up the killing injection but then the person injects themself?

 

Do you have opinions on those questions?

 

No. Guns can be used and misused for many things other than suicide. One can buy the gun put it in a drawer and then jump off a tall building to cause the suicide.

That would depend on several factors and be decided in a court trial. Probably it would depend on on amount and severity of the verbal encouragement.

Homicide not suicide.

 

Guns are designed to kill. True, you need not use one to kill yourself.

Why so different from guns? Can't the person take the lethal injection, put it in a drawer and then jump off a building? In both cases the seller is giving a deadly weapon to a suicidal person, no?

 

There is no other legitimate use for a lethal injection other than to kill a human being. The person providing that lethal injection knows specifically that it is being used to end a human life which is illegal. That makes them complicit.

A gun on the other hand has a myriad of legitimate, legal uses. The person providing that gun has no way of knowing it is going to be used for an illegal purpose, thus they are not complicit.

 

Simple. There is no crime in the act of injecting a lethal chemical. The crime is in providing it. The provider gave it to the person knowing what its purpose is and that it would take a human life. Homicide.

I would say that if the person provided a gun for the sole purpose of engineering a suicide that too would be homicide. A gun dealer selling a gun legally to a person they don't know isn't the same thing at all. I think you can see the difference.

 

Even if they know the person is suicidal (as was the initial question)? In either that case or the prepared lethal injection case the person could decide not to use it to kill themself in the end I suppose.

 

I guess I dont know the exact legality, but I am guessing if a person went to a gun dealer and said they were going to murder their wife, the gun dealer may have committed a crime if they sell them a gun or at least be civilly liable. I would think knowing they were going to commit suicide would be similar. Of course if a person were turned down at one place after telling them they were going to commit suicide, surely they would be smart enough to not tell the next store of their plan.

The lethal injection does not require the person to be idiotic enough to tell them their plans. Their plan is obvious.

 

Sorry, that may have been a bit too much for you @DentalFloss .

 

Okay, well we can only go by what we have. The story about the 23 year old could be highly inaccurate, and maybe he was actually dying of some terminal illness. But if this 23 year old was approved for medically assisted suicide purely on the basis of his depression, diabetes, and the loss of vision in one eye, then that is wrong in my view. Do you not have an opinion?

 

Do you have opinions on those questions?

 

It's also not your choice to make for someone who chooses to murder someone, is it?