The Right To Death
Options
KaleidoscopeEyes1056
Posts: 2,996 Member
Last night, I was watching The West Wing and one of the issues that came up was physician assisted suicide. This had been something that I thought of before, because my boyfriend has a degenerative disease and wants to be able to make the choice to end his life when he wants to with the help of a professional. Seeing this episode, however, made me want to do more research into the matter about the moral implications of allowing or even banning physician assisted suicide.
Here are my thoughts on it. Of course I am biased, being that my boyfriend would like to have this right reserved for him at some point in the future. That being said, I'm guessing that he's not alone, that there are many people who would also like to make this decision and to have the comfort in knowing that the professional that aides them in doing this is not penalized for it.
Besides that, there are all different kinds of religious views about what happens after one dies, or when one forces death upon themselves. Personally, I believe that it would be wrong to make a general statement saying that it is immoral, because there are people who don't believe in any after life or reincarnation, nor do they believe in a deity that dictates in taking of one's own life is wrong.
Also, if the patient is in the state of mind that they can say without a doubt that they do not want to go on living, why force it on them? Of course this wouldn't include all minors. There may be some exceptions, but I wouldn't know what those would be, this is just based on what I found about it.
This would also give the family a chance for last goodbyes and to see their loved one in a state that would not be embarrassing for the patient. I know there are other cultures out there in which a person would sacrifice their life in order to keep their dignity, including Samurai.
My beliefs are that, if one has the right to life, then don't they also have the right to death? If somebody knows that they cannot go on living with whatever disease they have, don't they have the right to die in a dignified manner, with a professional instead of trying to do it themselves and possibly failing?
Other opinions?
Here are my thoughts on it. Of course I am biased, being that my boyfriend would like to have this right reserved for him at some point in the future. That being said, I'm guessing that he's not alone, that there are many people who would also like to make this decision and to have the comfort in knowing that the professional that aides them in doing this is not penalized for it.
Besides that, there are all different kinds of religious views about what happens after one dies, or when one forces death upon themselves. Personally, I believe that it would be wrong to make a general statement saying that it is immoral, because there are people who don't believe in any after life or reincarnation, nor do they believe in a deity that dictates in taking of one's own life is wrong.
Also, if the patient is in the state of mind that they can say without a doubt that they do not want to go on living, why force it on them? Of course this wouldn't include all minors. There may be some exceptions, but I wouldn't know what those would be, this is just based on what I found about it.
This would also give the family a chance for last goodbyes and to see their loved one in a state that would not be embarrassing for the patient. I know there are other cultures out there in which a person would sacrifice their life in order to keep their dignity, including Samurai.
My beliefs are that, if one has the right to life, then don't they also have the right to death? If somebody knows that they cannot go on living with whatever disease they have, don't they have the right to die in a dignified manner, with a professional instead of trying to do it themselves and possibly failing?
Other opinions?
0
Replies
-
My opinion is the same. It's my body. It's my life. The government needs to butt out. I was born and raised Catholic so suicide does make me a bit twitchy but I could rationalize speeding up the results of a terminal illness or just not doing anything to keep me alive if I were stuck in a vegetative state or kept alive via tubes and machines. I wouldn't want that and I sure wouldn't want any of my family to decide that they have the right to make me live like that. And I REALLY REALLY would resent the government butting in and saying that I have to live like that. IMO, if they want to force that condition onto someone they can foot the bill. That should change their minds pretty fast.0
-
I don't think JUST ANYONE should be allowed to get a physician assisted suicide. Like the suicide booths in Futurama? I have issues with that scenario. However, I agree that if someone has a terminal illness and is ready to leave this existence, that person should be able to do it safely and completely. Sorry, I can't add to much more to this conversation.
0 -
If your only future lies in a hospital bed, hooked to machines then I don't care if they can keep you alive for a decade. If you don't want that sort of existence you should have the right to decide, not the government.I don't think JUST ANYONE should be allowed to get a physician assisted suicide. Like the suicide booths in Futurama? I have issues with that scenario. However, I agree that if someone has a terminal illness and is ready to leave this existence, that person should be able to do it safely and completely. Sorry, I can't add to much more to this conversation.0 -
Allowing someone the "right" to end their own life, and making it against the law for physician (or anyone else) to assist you are separate issues.
There's not much the government can do if you want to end your own life, and are capable of doing so. I wouldn't say, however, that you have a "right" to assistance.0 -
Allowing someone the "right" to end their own life, and making it against the law for physician (or anyone else) to assist you are separate issues.
There's not much the government can do if you want to end your own life, and are capable of doing so. I wouldn't say, however, that you have a "right" to assistance.
What if your medical condition makes it impossible for you to end your own life? What's your rationale? We have an interesting case ongoing in the UK of a man who has limited communication (all assisted) and is severely physically disabled who wants to be assisted with euthanasia. A high court ruling is expected shortly. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/12/judge-rule-assisted-suicide-case0 -
I think there is overlap between the right to end your own life and physician-assisted suicide.
Most people who want to accelerate their end want it to be relatively peaceful and non-messy, so we are talking about a drug overdose of a controlled substance, in most cases. A physician might be asked to prescribe a fatal dose of schedule 1 drugs, and risk losing his license by doing so. I believe there should be some protection to physicians who do this for terminal patients who request pills to end their suffering. It happens now, usually with murky communications between physicians and patients, but I think it needs to be more out in the open and protected.0 -
Allowing someone the "right" to end their own life, and making it against the law for physician (or anyone else) to assist you are separate issues.
There's not much the government can do if you want to end your own life, and are capable of doing so. I wouldn't say, however, that you have a "right" to assistance.
What if your medical condition makes it impossible for you to end your own life?
If it's impossible for you to do so, then the government has an interest in protecting life, if they chose to do so. I don't think a person has an individual right that would negate the governments interest in this instance.0 -
Allowing someone the "right" to end their own life, and making it against the law for physician (or anyone else) to assist you are separate issues.
There's not much the government can do if you want to end your own life, and are capable of doing so. I wouldn't say, however, that you have a "right" to assistance.
What if your medical condition makes it impossible for you to end your own life?
If it's impossible for you to do so, then the government has an interest in protecting life, if they chose to do so. I don't think a person has an individual right that would negate the governments interest in this instance.
The government has no vested interested in prolonging someone's tortured existence when that person is of sound mind and capable of making their own medical decisions. The argument that they're "protecting life" is as subjective as my use of the term "tortured existence." I would argue that you can't protect life by insulting it.0 -
Allowing someone the "right" to end their own life, and making it against the law for physician (or anyone else) to assist you are separate issues.
There's not much the government can do if you want to end your own life, and are capable of doing so. I wouldn't say, however, that you have a "right" to assistance.
What if your medical condition makes it impossible for you to end your own life?
If it's impossible for you to do so, then the government has an interest in protecting life, if they chose to do so. I don't think a person has an individual right that would negate the governments interest in this instance.
The government has no vested interested in prolonging someone's tortured existence when that person is of sound mind and capable of making their own medical decisions. The argument that they're "protecting life" is as subjective as my use of the term "tortured existence." I would argue that you can't protect life by insulting it.
Whether it's a good idea or not for the government to make such a law isn't my point, I'm simply saying that I don't see a constitutional right to assistance. Thus, if the government decides that it wants to outlaw such a practice, I don't think that law would violate any protected right.0 -
Allowing someone the "right" to end their own life, and making it against the law for physician (or anyone else) to assist you are separate issues.
There's not much the government can do if you want to end your own life, and are capable of doing so. I wouldn't say, however, that you have a "right" to assistance.
What if your medical condition makes it impossible for you to end your own life?
If it's impossible for you to do so, then the government has an interest in protecting life, if they chose to do so. I don't think a person has an individual right that would negate the governments interest in this instance.
The government has no vested interested in prolonging someone's tortured existence when that person is of sound mind and capable of making their own medical decisions. The argument that they're "protecting life" is as subjective as my use of the term "tortured existence." I would argue that you can't protect life by insulting it.
Whether it's a good idea or not for the government to make such a law isn't my point, I'm simply saying that I don't see a constitutional right to assistance. Thus, if the government decides that it wants to outlaw such a practice, I don't think that law would violate any protected right.
Perhaps not a constitutional right, but how about a human right? A right to self-determination and dignity?0 -
Perhaps not a constitutional right, but how about a human right? A right to self-determination and dignity?
If you need assistance, its not exactly "self determination."
The issue of "dignity" depends how you chose to define it.0 -
Perhaps not a constitutional right, but how about a human right? A right to self-determination and dignity?
If you need assistance, its not exactly "self determination."
The issue of "dignity" depends how you chose to define it.
Many definitions of dignity, I agree, though having to have help for all your personal and intimate functions would certainly be one of my personal definitions of intolerable indignity. I disagree however that the requirement for assistance removes the 'self-determination' definition. If someone who has determined to end their own life requires help in doing so, because of a medical condition, how is that any different from that same person requiring the help of others in embarking on a treatment plan, or in taking another action they have determined for themselves, but are physically incapable of following through on? We would not deny that person help and assistance in their self-determined path in any other field, so why this one? Self-determination is necessarily mental, but not necessarily physical, in my book.0 -
Technically yes. Attempts to argue against laws banning medically assisted suicide on merits of either the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses have failed when they reached SCOTUS.
I believe the OP was speaking more generally about their own opinions, though. I think this because they used the phrase "I believe..." As in, "it's my opinion."
So if you want to talk about the technicalities of how the laws work instead of how they should work according to our individual beliefs, feel free, but it's a little tangential.
As a side note:f you need assistance, its not exactly "self determination."
The issue of "dignity" depends how you chose to define it.
Would you also state that anyone in physical rehab doesn't have self determination simply because they need assistance? If so, it's kind of a jerk thing to say. Just from a linguistic standpoint, if someone is capable of choosing a direction, they can be self determined even if they're incapable of progressing along that path without aid.0 -
I think a person should absolutely be able to make arrangements to ease their suffering if they so choose to and are of sound state of mind. At this point it becomes a medical decision, one that should be made with respect to the individual's family and their god, and nobody else.
I find it very amusing that the people who tend to be most against assisted suicide (the Teri Shaivo folks) are the ones arguing for limited government and the ones who don't want to have to pay for the persons medical bills if they get sick.0 -
"Self Determination" is more of a general principle than a "right." Anything the government might do could arguably infringe on a general "right to self determination."
Anyway, Mike is right, we're getting a little caught up in semantics, I'll try to refocus a bit and restate my opinion.
First, I think self-inflicted suicide and assisted suicide are two seperate issues.
-In self-inflicted suicide, the issue is moot, there's nothing that can be done about it.
-On the issue of Physician Assisted suicide, I think it devalues human life.0 -
Going back to the point...OK, duly stated, and I understand your distinction. What you haven't told me is why you think physician-assisted suicide devalues life? Difficult to debate if you don't state your reasoning!"Self Determination" is more of a general principle than a "right." Anything the government might do could arguably infringe on a general "right to self determination."
Anyway, Mike is right, we're getting a little caught up in semantics, I'll try to refocus a bit and restate my opinion.
First, I think self-inflicted suicide and assisted suicide are two seperate issues.
-In self-inflicted suicide, the issue is moot, there's nothing that can be done about it.
-On the issue of Physician Assisted suicide, I think it devalues human life.0 -
Going back to the point...OK, duly stated, and I understand your distinction. What you haven't told me is why you think physician-assisted suicide devalues life? Difficult to debate if you don't state your reasoning!"Self Determination" is more of a general principle than a "right." Anything the government might do could arguably infringe on a general "right to self determination."
Anyway, Mike is right, we're getting a little caught up in semantics, I'll try to refocus a bit and restate my opinion.
First, I think self-inflicted suicide and assisted suicide are two seperate issues.
-In self-inflicted suicide, the issue is moot, there's nothing that can be done about it.
-On the issue of Physician Assisted suicide, I think it devalues human life.
I'm trying to decide if he needs a rationale for holding the belief that medically assisted suicide devalues life. I think at some point we can just hold values and those can act as basis for other arguments. It's really just his opinion. I don't happen to share it, but I don't think he needs to justify it either.
Some we can debate other we can't. It's kind of like if someone says they believe that same-sex marriage devalues all other marriages. They can think that, and I can disagree with them. It's what they decide to do with with that opinion that end up mattering more.
I guess we could take this to another related avenue and say that people who believe that MAS are attempting to write laws that ban it. THEN we get to have a debate. Why does one person's value system on this matter get to dictate the law? In this case, I think someone who holds the opinion that MAS devalues life should really be forced to show a rational basis for their beliefs, and then there are the arguments about dignity, etc.0 -
"Self Determination" is more of a general principle than a "right." Anything the government might do could arguably infringe on a general "right to self determination."
Anyway, Mike is right, we're getting a little caught up in semantics, I'll try to refocus a bit and restate my opinion.
First, I think self-inflicted suicide and assisted suicide are two seperate issues.
-In self-inflicted suicide, the issue is moot, there's nothing that can be done about it.
-On the issue of Physician Assisted suicide, I think it devalues human life.
Devalues? Only in some detached, esoteric way. From what I have seen, most people do not make these decisions casually, nor do their families. It's a heart-wrenching process, focused on the best choice for the patient and to make their final passage more comfortable and more dignified. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is the essence of "valuing human life", allowing a loved one to make their peace with death on their own terms, rather than being forcibly subjected to lingering pain, or the indignity of existing solely as an externally animated lump of flesh.0 -
As an interesting aside to the discussion, I recently witnessed this process first hand. An elderly relative fell, broke a hip, and developed pneumonia--the grim reaper trifecta. The relative still lived alone (triple digits here) and was of reasonably sound mind and health for the age.
But at that age, this particular strain of pneumonia was incurable. After being informed of this and of what the process of dying of pneumonia would be like, the relative stated that " I just want to go to sleep". As lung function started to decline, the morphine was increased--knowing this would depress the breathing further. At the same time, the oxygen was also decreased. Even with this, the relative hung on for a couple of days. Finally, the full oxygen mask was removed and the end followed within the hour.
Obviously, the doctors and nurses knew how to do this. I suppose it technically wasn't "physician assisted suicide", but they definitely greased the slide, so to speak.
Again, I don't see how anyone could consider this "devaluing life". It was bad enough as it was on the immediate family to endure this for a week or so.0 -
Going back to the point...OK, duly stated, and I understand your distinction. What you haven't told me is why you think physician-assisted suicide devalues life? Difficult to debate if you don't state your reasoning!"Self Determination" is more of a general principle than a "right." Anything the government might do could arguably infringe on a general "right to self determination."
Anyway, Mike is right, we're getting a little caught up in semantics, I'll try to refocus a bit and restate my opinion.
First, I think self-inflicted suicide and assisted suicide are two seperate issues.
-In self-inflicted suicide, the issue is moot, there's nothing that can be done about it.
-On the issue of Physician Assisted suicide, I think it devalues human life.
I'm trying to decide if he needs a rationale for holding the belief that medically assisted suicide devalues life. I think at some point we can just hold values and those can act as basis for other arguments. It's really just his opinion. I don't happen to share it, but I don't think he needs to justify it either.
Some we can debate other we can't. It's kind of like if someone says they believe that same-sex marriage devalues all other marriages. They can think that, and I can disagree with them. It's what they decide to do with with that opinion that end up mattering more.
I guess we could take this to another related avenue and say that people who believe that MAS are attempting to write laws that ban it. THEN we get to have a debate. Why does one person's value system on this matter get to dictate the law? In this case, I think someone who holds the opinion that MAS devalues life should really be forced to show a rational basis for their beliefs, and then there are the arguments about dignity, etc.
Guess I didn't express myself very well - what I was trying to point out was that I hear his opinion, and I respect his right to feel that way, and if he doesn't want to give his reasons, that's fine, but it does make it difficult to have a debate about the issue, which is what usually happens on this forum
I'd be very interested to understand why he thinks as he does. 0
