Printable View
This isn't an anarchist ideal by a whole long shot, I'd know being one of them. It's more of an unrealistic idealist's notion. The thing is that it would never work, we have governments for a reason and one of those reasons is that some 'sound minded' adults really can't help themselves at times.Quote:
Originally posted by Tharzon
Consenting adults of sound mine should be able to do absolutely anything they want, with no exceptions.
Its dying with dignity because you get to - in some sense- go to sleep instead of puking your guts out, shitting your pants, or bleeding out of every orifice until your body finally gives out. Not to mention the accompanying pain that most likely leaves your oscillating between fits of dispair and crying till the tears won't come no more.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
Why is it that assisted suicide is called "dying with dignity"? How is it more dignified to end your life (or have it ended for you) by some lethal drug than to wait out your end from disease? Or if you really want to end your life more quickly, what about throwing yourself off a building, being beheaded, or suffocating yourself with carbon monoxide? Why are these other methods considered less dignified - and for that matter, what exactly is the "dignity" that is sought?
By comparision, the alternatives you suggest are FAR from ideal. You forget the impact of those alternatives on the rest of society. Whoever finds these people after commiting such acts to exit themself from life are usually scarred in some way. Unfortunately as often as not it is also someone from "the victim's" family.
I once taught a first aid course to a group of train drivers who advised that the industry stats were that on average a train driver in Melbourne will kill 2 people during a 30 year career. Some of your other ideas (throwing off buildings, self beheading..) have no consideration for those that need to investigate and clean up the aftermath. Come talk to me after you've done your first "biological washaway" - trust me, its not nice.
Euthanasia offers an alternative when people in this situation can say their goodbyes in a timely manner, get their affairs in order and then quietly (and without MESS) "move on".
Having said that, I have NO IDEA as to how to manage the myriad of legal and ethical issues to allow this to happen without abuse.
It would be pretty easy to set up a list of the kinds of things that required formally logged consent (Euthanasia, Duels to the death, Bloodsport, basically anything that could or would end in death or serious injury for example) and require people wanting to engage in such activities to pass a psychiatric evaluation and log the various documents with the lawful authorities.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
Consent is an awkward thing. What about consent under duress?
You've missed my point entirely, this would be a HIGHLY regulated process, with very STRONG force of law. If you and I want pistols at dawn we should be allowed to, and we should have to go before a judge and convince them that our problems can only be solved by a duel. But if we really feel that's the only way, and we both consent to it, we should absolutely be able to do it.Quote:
If you want anarchy, you're most welcome to set yourself up outside of all laws. Go find yourself a desert island, or an under-sea colony, or something, and live anarchically. Nobody's stopping you.
This is in complete contrast to "able to do absolutely anything they want, with no exceptions". If you have to get a judge's OK before you're allowed to do something, then what happens if the judge says no? That's an exception. If you want utter and total freedom, then NOBODY - no government, no law, no judge, no magistrate, no police officer - can tell you not to do something. Regulation of any sort is in contrast to pure freedom. Note that "pure freedom" is not the ultimate expression of freedom. The GPL is a legal document designed to guarantee freedom - so it restricts your ability to restrict others' freedom. It's regulation too, if a somewhat unconventional type.Quote:
Originally posted by Tharzon
You've missed my point entirely, this would be a HIGHLY regulated process, with very STRONG force of law. If you and I want pistols at dawn we should be allowed to, and we should have to go before a judge and convince them that our problems can only be solved by a duel. But if we really feel that's the only way, and we both consent to it, we should absolutely be able to do it.
In every single thread, especially one like this, where the OP and the point that poster is trying to make is almost universal, and to find a point from which to disagree with these original suggestions, you'd have to stake out and defend some pretty ridiculous territory, someone will always heed the call of the troll and sally forth. Enter Rosuav.
This is the only one of your points that I've yet to see discounted, so here it is.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
Some lethal drugs are pretty gruesome, actually. When you look into things in some detail, there's really no non-violent way to terminate a life. Yes, there are methods of killing (or suicide) less violent and less painful than vomiting up your own interior; but nothing's painless, save perhaps an overdose of painkillers - which can backfire messily and uncomfortably if you vomit THEM up, so it may well not have worked for her.
See above. I don't know that this drug she sought and obtained would necessarily have been any better than throwing herself off a building.
Ignoring all the tailor-made concoctions that would promptly be created for the sole purpose of painless euthanasia, should it become a legal option, you could create a workable mix without any profound knowledge.
A hefty dose of morphine/heroin followed by a lethal dose of, anything. End.
Here's another can of worms...
Legalising heroin as a painkiller for terminal patients in the exact same situations that would warrant euthanasia, but who wish to stay alive until the end.
As far as I know, heroin is the most powerful painkiller known to man.
I thought we had all sort of silently agreed to dismiss Rosuav's "drugs are the same as throwing yourself off a building" comment out of hand and I personally thought he was being rather obvious with his red herring argument, but yes - what Rilthyn said. Give someone a heavy dose of pick-your-painkiller and follow it up with whatever you think is the nicest way to go given the circumstances. Problem solved.
Has anyone yet come up with a good reason why individuals should not be entitled to end their own lives?
I don't know if it's a good reason, but I'd say that there are all sorts of accute situations where someone might be tempted to kill themselves (like physical pain, financial ruin, horrible loss of loved ones, ostracizing humiliation) where there is a goodly chance that once their over the bump, things could improve and that person could live a normal life.Quote:
Originally posted by Darion
Has anyone yet come up with a good reason why individuals should not be entitled to end their own lives?
While I support the right for people to suicide, I also think that some of my friends who killed themselves did so at a low point in their lives, probably influenced by situational depression, hormones and drugs.
I have all sorts of difficulty balancing my belief that a person has the right to kill themselves 'just because they want to' with the reality that they might not want to if they just get through their current situation.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
Some lethal drugs are pretty gruesome, actually. When you look into things in some detail, there's really no non-violent way to terminate a life. Yes, there are methods of killing (or suicide) less violent and less painful than vomiting up your own interior; but nothing's painless, save perhaps an overdose of painkillers - which can backfire messily and uncomfortably if you vomit THEM up, so it may well not have worked for her.
Just a heads up on the pharmacology here. Morphine and other related pain relief agents are opiate derivatives, just as Heroin is. I've never heard of heroin being specifically used as a pain relief, but being in the same family I don't doubt it has some of those qualities. Its major initial effect is as an accute respiratory depressent. People who OD on heroin basically have the part of their brain that tells them to breathe shut down. This leads to low oxygen in the blood, and consequently low oxygen in the heart and brain. (Heart stops pumping, brain starts dying).Quote:
Originally posted by Rilthyn
Legalising heroin as a painkiller for terminal patients in the exact same situations that would warrant euthanasia, but who wish to stay alive until the end.
Having said all that, I honestly believe "pain free" death is well and truly possible - unless you really can't handle a needle prick. Ever held your dog while it was put down? Its hardly brutal. Massive drug OD's work similarly, and are even used in hospital environments to assist people like late stage cancer sufferers. Most folks will have heard of cases where the morphone dose has been upped to the point where it stops the breathing. Obviously these situations are pushing a very grey area in the legislation.
Other types of OD's are however FAR from pain free. The typical commonplace scenario being women (especially teenage girls) who dose up on over the couinter medications like paracetemol. Most things that are (A) available, and (B) orally ingested work slowly, and don't have significant enough effects to cause immediate death. What they will potentially do is destroy your liver function causing one or all of the following:
* A period of being unwell, likely unable to take to much medication to assist as this is also processed by the liver.
* Long term damage to liver function, may effect types of medications you can take and decrease your tolerance to things such as alcohol.
* Have enough and don't get it out of your stomach, suffer a slow agonising death over a period of three weeks or so as your organs slowly shut down and die due to the inability to process the concoction of crap you've ingested. On the bright side you'll likely be conscious for most of it, as again they'll be unable to give you too many meds cause most of those are also processed by the liver.
Drug assisted and effectively painless euthanasia is definitely possible, but it really does need to be handled by professionals and within the bounds of a robust system taking into account the relevant ethical, moral, and medical considerations.
For clarification on my point of view, it should only be an option for cases on MEDICAL grounds, where:
A) Death from the condition is 99.99% certain, AND
B) The patient IS suffering high levels of pain and discomfort, AND
C) Existing therapies are insufficient to alleviatre the suffering, AND
D) The patient (of legal age) is coherent and rationale enough to give consent.
I'd also (in principal) like to see it accessible for those who are getting old and want to "move on" before they become rambling dribbling zombies - however I think THAT is a much harder debate.
- When are they capable of such a decision?
- Can someone make that decision for them?
- Are they actually suffering?
- Even if they are.... do they know it?
It's certainly a valid concern, but it seems like that the same argument is on both sides of the table concerning regulation.Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
I don't know if it's a good reason, but I'd say that there are all sorts of accute situations where someone might be tempted to kill themselves (like physical pain, financial ruin, horrible loss of loved ones, ostracizing humiliation) where there is a goodly chance that once their over the bump, things could improve and that person could live a normal life.
While I support the right for people to suicide, I also think that some of my friends who killed themselves did so at a low point in their lives, probably influenced by situational depression, hormones and drugs.
I have all sorts of difficulty balancing my belief that a person has the right to kill themselves 'just because they want to' with the reality that they might not want to if they just get through their current situation.
Unregulated access to euthanasia will lead to people using it irresponsibly - regulated access to euthanasia will lead to people with a legitimate claim being denied and/or opens the door to government-centered abuse of the same. I am more in favor of the former than the latter.
The simple reality is that you can't legislate common sense, and attempts to do so generally fail. In general, people are irresponsible and stupid. With that in mind, I would rather err on the side of more individual freedoms and not less regardless of the potential for abuse/jumping the gun, as it were.
Not sure how I missed this little gem, but I hope everyone realizes that there is no real argument buried in here. Kravenar gave us some of the science, but suffice it to say that I doubt individuals would be ingesting a fatal dose of painkillers orally. Intravenous drugs should be taken as the general standard in this debate - to say that euthanasia can "backfire messily and uncomfortably if you vomit" is a worthless red herring at very best.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
Some lethal drugs are pretty gruesome, actually. When you look into things in some detail, there's really no non-violent way to terminate a life. Yes, there are methods of killing (or suicide) less violent and less painful than vomiting up your own interior; but nothing's painless, save perhaps an overdose of painkillers - which can backfire messily and uncomfortably if you vomit THEM up, so it may well not have worked for her.