Thursday, October 06, 2005
Euthanasia
I'm for it. I think it's a pretty simple argument. It's your body and your choice as long as you have the mental capacity to make it. If you're suffering and you chose to end your life, that is your choice. Your family should still have rights to insurance claims as long as your condition was chronic, terminal, painful, degenerative, or mentally debilitating. There are legal ways to handle it, and Oregon has done a pretty good job. If you are old and decide your time is over, your family should be eligible for insurance claims covering funeral costs only. If life is too hard and you decide to end it all, your family gets nothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
If you're suffering and you chose to end your life, that is your choice. Your family should still have rights to insurance claims as long as your condition was chronic, terminal, painful, degenerative, or mentally debilitating.
No argument from me here. I'm not planning on dying on machines.
Yes. And the first decision of Robert's Court Monday was on whether the right to die is a state or federal issue.
I imagine this right will disolve too.
Ok...You will love and be upset by my newest post, but I have to ask these questions, so I do not yell at my husband...At least I have the blog to vent!!
I like your newly designed format, pc!
Now that you've established personal freedom to kill oneself, you could also establish that there ought not be an age limit, nor should their be any limitations on the suffering. So, if a teenage girl gets dumped by her boyfriend for another girl, and she gets very depressed which lasts for over a year. She has no more reason to live, she ought to be free to kill herself. It is after all, her life and her body.
Your body is your own, and you are free to do with it anything you want. The euthanasia issue is one of rights. Do you have the right to do whatever you want with your body? If so, how so?
If you are 18 or over 18, you have the right to do whattever you want with your body as long as it doesn't physically hurt anyone else. People, with the help of a doctor and psychologist, can determine how much they are sufferring. Let's not be silly. To suggest children should be able to do anything they choose is an absurd argument, and one people often use to dismiss what they believe is wrong.
I agree withyou PC, under certain circmstances, euthanasia is the most humane way to deal with end of life issues. Quite frankly, if you wouldn't allow your dog to suffer like that, why would you allow a loved one to?
Underground makes excellent points. Although I can empathize with suffering, and the wish to end it all, there is too much of a chance that someone may be unduly influenced in order that someone else may gain. I think it would make it very easy to murder someone. I think we also need to ask ourselves if this would cause us, as a society, to value lives even less than we currently do. Would it contribute to the mental and sociological decline of America? This isn't something to just laugh off lightly.
However, I certainly understand how someone in agony might wish to end it all sooner.
To some extent, it becomes a personal choice: do you believe that your soul is enriched by suffering and therefore you need to bear the burden you're given? Do you believe your soul will go to hell if you commit suicide? Or do you simply think we are as the animals: our lives merely simple flames that will be snuffed out and never re-occur...
Saur,
Oregon doesn't seem to be having any problems with the moral decline of its society, and neither do the other countries that allow Euthenasia. All have legislated it in a fair way that does as much as it can to prohibit rash decisions and murderous relatives. I know you're not suggesting this, but just because some people believe you go to hell if you end your own life doesn't mean that others shouldn't be given the choice. I also think that you need to be given the option to decide when your burden is too great, and if there are doctors and psychologists who agree with you, you should be able to end your life without consequences. This should be discussed in extreme cases only - terminal disease, horrible and constant pain, etc... I know you understand pain, but just because you and I are able to bare it doesn't mean that others aren't in deeper suffering. I wouldn't wish a life of that on anyone, and if they don't want it themselves, shouldn't they be able to do soemthing about it? Have you ever turned to your husband and said, when my mind starts to go, shoot me? I have, and I meant it. I have watched people suffer with Alzthiemers and I won't let myself die that way. The same goes with the final stages of multiple sclorosis and several other diseases that ravage the body and mind. If something like that happens to me, I want to be able to make the choice about how I want to live or how I want to die. Doesn't a good life deserve a decent, respectful death?
Polanco, all good points, believe me. This is an area I ride the fence on.
And, you have to ask yourself this too: at what point is it 'suicide' if you decide that you want to stop taking the drugs they're prescribing you to keep you alive? After all, those drugs weren't available 100 or even 50 years ago. So, is it truly 'suicide' if you tell everyone that you don't want your meds anymore?
GWB - My thoughts exactly.
The old argument that if we allow euthenasia for extreme cases then people would use it for everything is a tired argument. I heard that in the 8th grade.
No offense to you, UL. It may be new to you. I've just heard it before too many times.
I hope we can agree though that if one is very old, dying of cancer, is in horrible pain, cannot even get a wink of sleep because of the pain, can't get a lung full of air, etc., that said person can opt out and get put to sleep. As GWB said if we won't allow a dog to suffer like that, how can we do that to a loved one?
i believe euthanasia is a slippery slope. you start with those who are terminally ill, but then progress to those who are a burden (expensive and difficult to care for), and finally then to those able-bodied who no longer have a desire to live.
another thing to think about: one of hitler's great evils was euthanizing society's unwanted, such as the mentally handicapped.
It can also be said that religion is a slippery slope. You start with the love of God, which progresses into oragnized relgion, which progresses into fundamentalism, which progresses into cruades, jihad, etc... My poiint is, that argument can be made about almpst anything and should not be used to exclude people from making decisions that are THEIR right to make, making your Hitler argument a little void. We're not suggesting that Euthenasia be institutionalized as a way to get rid of undesirables, we are merely suggesting that a person who is in pain or terminally ill be given the opportunity to die as they choose.
GWB:
If a dog is suffering, of course you put it down. It's a dog!
Where has our concept of human dignity gone? I know you probably will come back with "It because of human dignity that I want death with dignity."
Is there no dignity in a loved one suffering pain? Is a human a mere animal? This is precisely what happens when the pain/pleasure principle of contraception/abortion is extended to elderly human life. Next it's going to extend to young, extremely crippled children...no wait, it is happening. In Texas, during the Terri Schiavo's serene and beautiful death experience. A woman in Texas put her infant son to death who had a congenital defect. Man, I can't remember the details; I'm sure it can be googled.
Polanco: You say my argument is absurd. Congratulations, you got it. I used a reductio ad absurdum on your argument. The only problem is, how do you prove that those under 18 are not viable free-will agents. You mean they don't have the capacity to choose to kill themselves. Tell me, what are the characteristics of a mature choice to kill oneself.
In addition, you never explained the "right" to do whatever you want with your body. A right implies someone greater that ourselves who has granted this by fiat. Restating your position doesn't prove your position. This is your belief, your faith in...who, or what?
Are you saying you believe in a god who grants the right for us to kill ourselves? This might be a new religion here. Who would be a priest or minister of this new religion, Rev. Jack Kavorkian?
Underground,
A human is not a animal, which is exactly why we should be given the opportunity to die as we chose. Why is it a virtue to suffer through pain? Most animals in severe pain will make the choice to stop eating and lay down and die, but we take that option away from humans. If someone stops eating, we insert a feeding tube. If they stop breathing, we connect them to an Iron Lung. If someone decided they don't want to live that way, why shouldn't they be given that choice? If there's a more humane and less painful way we can help them end their lives, I think mercy dictates that we do so.
Againg, NO ONE is suggesting children be put to death. Those who are under 18 are not free will agents because the government says that the age of reason is 18. It's actually a lot younger than that, but we'll stick with 18 for now. It can be regulated just like everything else is. If a Euthenasia law passed, it's not like people would be running around killing themselves willy-nilly. Laws need to be applied, and as I've said before, Oregon has an excellent system for determining if a person is of sound mind.
As for a mature decision to kill yourself: let's start with your physician. A DNR is always good to have, as well as a Living Will stating the conditions in which you do not want to be kept alive (tubes, machines, etc.) Two doctors need to decide that your condition is terminal or that there is nothing that can be medically done to alieviate your pain. A psychologist needs to evaluate your state of mind and determine that you are making a ration decision on your own, without outside influence. Family is informed and objections are heard and discussed in the presence of a doctor and a psychologist. If all parties agree, the person may then end their lives in a peaceful manner and on their own terms.
A right does not imply that something greater than ourselves has granted us anything. There are billions of people who don't believe in God and yet they still believe in personal rights and responsibilities. Our bodies are the only things on this earth that belong completely to us. This is a universal truth. What we choose to do with it is no one else's business.
I don't believe in any God, and I certainly don't believe in yours. Why do we need a religion to tell us what is right and virtuous? I am a good person and I don't believe in god. I don't need the threat of hell or the wrath of an invisible man to keep me on the right path.
People have the right to believe what they chose. But we are all judged by what we believe, are we not? The idea is to not judge others by what they believe andn to not ignore the merits of their argument simply because of those beliefs. The challenge lies in discussing a topic without allowing religion to enter into the discussion. I may believe that the sky is green, but scientific fact has proven it not ot be so. Should I continue to assert that claim, people would call me crazy. It is more virtuous to say, "I don't know", rather than to take something as fact which has not been proven, and furthermore, which may have been completely imagined by another mere human such as yourself (general, not personal).
Religion is a concept designed for those who cannot comprehend the vastness of the universe without having to believe it was created by something like ourselves. Religion is made up simply of stories told to children to explain the mysteries of the universe. The problem is, when they got older, no one told them it was all smoke and mirrors to cover up the fact that NO ONE KNOWS. It must be horrible to live your life dictated by what is written in ONE book authored 2000 years ago by a man who was probably the greatest storyteller of his time. At least, that's a lot more feasible than the alternative, but of course, I too am just speculating as one simple fact remains: none of us were there, none of us could know, and faith is something to be had in people, not in gods.
Gabriel,
The right to do with your body what you chose it the most personal right of all, and it is unchanging. No one else can own you, as evidenced by the cessation of slavery in civilized countries. If no one can own you, no one can tell you what to do with and to your body, as long as it does not injure anyone else. My body belongs to me, and only I can judge what's best for it. Who are you to step in and deny me ownership of my own body? Why are you the one who gets to decide that I shouldn't be aloowed to end my suffering? This is simply none of the government's business. No rights are given by God. Religious arguments do not belong in a court of law.
Murder, of course, is different, and I can't say I understand why you raise the question in this argument. We have not been discussing m urder. In fact, everything I have said has been against it. No one has the right to decide what happens to my body, and so to kill me would be a most egregous violation of the one universal truth. My body is mine. It is the only thing I truly own. If you try to take it away from me, I will fight to the death. I could run, but I don't want to die that way.
As for m beliefs, you are way off. I don't believe in an afterlife. I don't have any idea where I came from. What I do along the way is governed by what I know and what I can learn. My opinions change as I learn. Buddhism, by the way, is a philosophy, not a religion. If you called me Orwelian instead of Buddhist, you would still be right. There are people who practice it as a religion, and that's fine. I think it's silly, but if someone wants to worship an invisible man and think they know what happens when they die, good for them. They lose a lot of credibility when they bring these beliefs up as facts, though.
Polanco,
Actually a right IS given by fiat. You have the right of way at a four way stop. Is there something particularly humane for the person on the right to go first? No, it is given by fiat to eliminate confusion and accidents on the roadway by someone greater that all of us, our government.
People do have rights and they exercise them regardless of their beliefs. It is intrinsic to us as humans given to us by our creator. They are inalienable to us by our nature, not by our beliefs. That is why they call it "natural law," laws that exist due to the nature of things.
So when you appeal to the population that does not believe in God exercising their rights as being able to say they have rights argues besides the point. People do not have the freedom to declare the rights they possess. If they did, we'd have chaos on our hands. Men would declare conjugal rights to any or all women of their choice. Women would exercise their "rights" to shoot any CEO of their company and take the job themselves. I'm being absurd here to prove a point. Rights granted by ourselves to something are just wants with force. It's despicable.
You need some philosophical training, Polanco. I mean no offense at all. You are very bright and have great capabilities to comprehend this stuff. Read stuff by Mortimer Adler and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Go to my website and click "The Radical Academy" for starters. Great stuff.
Gabriel,
You can't say I'm going nowhere, nor did I. I said I don't believe in an afterlife, not that one does not exist. I don't know what's going to happen to me when I die. I'll find out when I get there. I believe evolution is the most viable theory, but still, cannot be entirely known. I don't profess to know that evolution is correct, nor am I opposed to other theories. My moral beliefs are a compilation of what I learned form my parents, society, law, and things that I've read.
It is theoretically possible to own another person, however, even slaves have a choice in how they live and what they can do to their bodies. A slave still has the ability to end his or her own life. A slave owner cannot make a person do anything. The choice to comply or not is in itself an exercise in deciding what happens to your body. A slave can cut themselves, kill themselves, starve themselves, choose to run away, choose to stay, choose to work, etc. It may not be a good choice, but it is still a choice. To legislate what a person can do to his or her own body make a choice for a person. You are saying, "You must live. This choice is not yours." If the choice to live or die is not my choice, whose is it?
right
1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms; protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property; civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts; natural rights accepted by civilized societies; human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor; and such U.S. constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. 2) adj. just, fair, correct.
It does not say who grants these rights, whether it is human decency, law, or god. I would say that intense physical pain, mental degeneration, or terminal cancer would definitely interfere with the enjoyment of life or property and therefore; I should be able to protect myself against it in any way I can as long as I don't interfere with someone else's rights.
So, in your opinion Polanco, who does get to decide what our rights are? Each one of us? If I decide my life is too difficult and I do not want to muddle through anymore, do I have a right to deprive my husband of a wife, or my children of their mother? If I'm sick and will die anyway, sooner rather than later, does that make it okay? Who says? You can say you have a right to do with your body what you want, but coming with your "rights" are responsibilities. Demanding repeatedly that you have a right, doesn't mean you necessarily possess that right, either.
I'm impressed by Gabriel, whose blog indicates is a very intelligent, homeschooled teen. Great reasoning skills, Gabriel!
Always,
Perhaps I have been approaching this from the wrong direction. I guess for my position to be clearly understood we must agree that:
Everyone posesses free will.
Everyone should be allowed to exercise that will as long as they do not cause harm to another person.
If these two things are true, it is wrong for legistlation to be enacted inhibiting a person's ability to exercise their free will in the event that their actions will not harm another person.
If you find yourself in incurable and severe pain, mentally degenerating so much that you are no longer yourself, or suffering from a terminal illness, your husband and children will be deprived of you anyway. How do you want to spend your last moments with them? Your choice may be to decline slowly and painfully while your family watches. Some people don't want that for themselves or for their family. It is THEIR choice to make, not yours, not the government's. THEIRS. Who are you to take that away from them?
Gabriel,
One of the rights is "protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property". If I am suffering and I chose to end that suffering, that choice is protecting my enjoyment of life because my life will not be enjoyable and have no hope of being so if it is continued in this manner.
I understand the legal rights we have as citizens, but these rights are based on natural law, that which our "Declaration" assumes to be true. Natural Law is based on a theistic world view. If there is no God, you may have legal rights, but you have to support them with might and guns. You have no appeal to anything greater than ourselves. Ultimately, it becomes an issue where the one or group that has the greatest might or guns, gets to say what are our rights.
Scenario...say the Chinese invade the United States, completely overrun our land and take over. They then institute laws making all non-Chinese into a slave class. You have no appeal to rights then. You have to clean out the honey-buckets whether you like it or not. You can't appeal to rights, because legally you have none. You can't appeal to rights because you don't like it. You are a second-rate human; who cares what you feel. All of this can be done by the government. This is precisely what happened in Germany and Italy in 1939.
These scenarios are real life, happening all over the globe. Take the Sudan for example.
So in keeping with euthanasia, just because you don't like the fact that you're dying of cancer, or that you feel pain, or that you are an "inconvenience" to your family does not give you the "right" to kill yourself. Again, this kind of thinking is a negative effect of a decandent culture driven by hedonism. The gods of comfort, ease, or convenience drive our thinking.
If you do not commit suicide, you will not enjoy the life that does continue.
Great point Gabriel!
Post a Comment