Condemning the Right to Die

[KenRU]

Many denominations of Christianity condemn the right to die when terminally ill. I've often wondered why anyone who holds that position could condone the suffering that results, and how that position could possibly ever be seen as a good/moral/right position to hold.

To illustrate my point and for the purposes of debate, assume the following:

The patient is terminally ill.

The patient is in pain.

The patient is of sound mind.

The patient no longer wishes to suffer, and wishes to end his/her own life.

For the sake of clarity, please use the standard and common definition for all words.


Does it just boil down to, Thou Shall Not Kill? End of conversation?

How does one justify the suffering a terminally ill patient will endure - perhaps even for years - when denying that right? It never made sense to me.



For debate:
If you are opposed to the Right To Die, please make your argument:

1) Why this is the right/good position to hold.
2) Why this position shouldn't be seen as callous, cruel and/or selfish.
3) Why it should be the law of the land.
4) Why the opposing side is wrong.

If you support the Right To Die, please make your argument:

1) Why this is the right/good position to hold.
2) Why this position shouldn't be seen as murder and just plain wrong.
3) Why it should be the law of the land.
4) Why the other side is wrong.

[William]

[Replying to post 68 by Jagella]

I think we may have disagreements regarding the ease at which a dying person can choose to die at his or her own hand. I think that we should be very slow to allow people to commit suicide if we allow it at all. You seem to think it should be done with relative ease and speed. Death is not revocable, and it's a mistake that cannot be corrected.

As I said in my past post, the focus is on those who are medically at deaths door already. This is not about the whole spectrum of suicide, and why people choose to take their own lives.

OK, good. At least you do not advocate violent death.

I advocate medical assistance when there is no hope of recovery. A friend of mine who had a terminal disease hung himself due to the pain he was suffering, that no amount of drugs/alcohol could help him with. he had reached that stage after years of battle. I do no judge him as being somehow faulty for making the decision, because I know that - had the law made provision for him to be assisted to end his life through medical assistance, he would have taken that option rather than the violent one.
The point being, he had reached the end of his endurance, and hanging himself was his only option, because the law and those who helped create and keep that law, oppose suicide under any conditions, and are heartless narcissists hiding behind a pretense of morality which doesn't actually exist.

Death is not revocable, and it's a mistake that cannot be corrected.

This implies that something bad follows a persons dying, and is an idea posited by those who believe in such things. You are welcome to your beliefs as long as they are not used to judge others who don't believe the same as you or help create laws which are enforced on those you think should believe the same as you do.

That's the ideal posited by the euthanasia advocates. Life and death are rarely ideal, however. It seems unlikely to me that very many people die happily under any circumstances.

Transferring your particular take on life and death onto others and expecting that it is the same with everyone, is a false perception in which to base any argument on in the first place.

I have seen what euthanasia does in relation to pets. They simply fall to sleep and die.

About two years ago I was very ill and in a nursing home. I used a computer there to check to see if physician-assisted suicide might be available. It didn't take me long to come to my senses and seek to go on living.

My experience may be rather common. I've read that very few sick or dying people truly wish to die. They may temporarily consider it but decide against it soon after.

As long as the option is there is really the key. Obviously you were not on deaths door suffering from a terminal disease, so your point here is still wandering away from the focus of the OP. You are arguing something else and conflating different circumstance to make them appear to be the same.

I'm not a big fan of death or dying. I suppose I'm too busy trying to live and live well.

Whereas I find the death is inevitable and short of science coming up with a solution, you and I are going to die sometime, big fans or not.
For me - it is not about being a fan of death or not. it is about acceptance of it as part of this process of life as being experienced in a biological instrument.

I live and I live well enough too. In that, I have empathy for those who are at deaths door and have no desire to go through to pointless painful process of an undignified death, or for that matter, to put their loved one's in a place of having to witness such violence. I advocate the evolution of human thought in relation to this subject, that it is overdue the time we should address ideas such as "only GOD has the authority to decide when a persons time is up' and other related concepts, see them for the ignorant narcissistic precepts that they are and become better than that.

If you don't think death is a serious matter, ...

Hold on there. You said it was 'serious business'. Business always involves money. Now you have changed that to 'death is a serious matter'?

...then you may have answered your own question. Obviously we should not seek death on a whim. In almost all circumstances death is best avoided. The valuation of human life is the bedrock of civilization. Our civilization will crumble if we lose our respect for human life.

Well seriously, what I am advocating IS respect for human life. Even in relation to death and dying.
I am unsure as to what civilization you are referring to which has this 'respect for human life' because as far as I have seen, all civilizations to date are based upon disparity, which in itself is provably NOT respectful of ALL human life, but then I note you did not use the word 'all'.

As to 'seeking death on a whim', yet again in your haste to show me the wonderful way you see life, you have wandered from the focus of the topic. no one mentioned 'whim'. The subject has to do with those at deaths door and their right to receive medical assistance in the proces of their dying, rather than be left to the violence of a death without said assistance.

If I did have dictatorial powers, I'd mandate the highest quality medical care for those who need it. If death was unavoidable, then I'd have the dying placed in high-quality hospices to ease their dying. For those who must live with illnesses or injuries I'd make them a part of society granting them equal rights and opportunities and access to all that society has to offer. "Disabled" would no longer need to mean that a person must be lonely or marginalized.

So before we go rushing to the office of Dr. Kevorkian, I'd say let's try less fatal options.

I wasn't taking about dictatorial powers. I was talking about democratic powers where those with attitudes such as your own, in great numbers can affect those who see things another way but are forbidden those things because majority rules and the mind of the majority is firmly fixated on old concepts they hold to be truth but a demonstrably not.

But what you have said in the above does give me an insight into your dualism and the confusion it is creating of which you seem unable to see through.

On the one hand you speak of the value of human life and of civilization and on the other you seem to be complaining that things are not as you would really like them to be in relation to society/civilization.

But in this:

If death was unavoidable, then I'd have the dying placed in high-quality hospices to ease their dying.

It is the main focus of the thread topic, and what you are advocating is that you do not consider that medical assistance in helping these ones to die in the most comfortable and dignified manner is to be continued to be withheld from those who would want it.
When it comes to death, dying in such a manner is only marginally different than dying of the same terminal disease, homeless under a bridge - . You have a nice bed, air conditioning and so this offers a marginal difference. That is all.

Can I ask you this? Does your stance in relation to resisting medically assisted dying have anything to do with your belief in your particular idea of GOD?
If you are an atheist, please explain your position on this in terms of secularism.

Thanks

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 71 by William]

As I said in my past post, the focus is on those who are medically at deaths door already. This is not about the whole spectrum of suicide, and why people choose to take their own lives.

You do realize that a person who is not at "death's door" may be just as desperate to commit suicide as any terminally ill person? What turned me against "the right to die" is that this "right" is not offered to people who may not be elderly or disabled. Nobody is pushing for handsome and fit young men who no longer wish to live to have a right to kill themselves! If desperation to die is the criterion for euthanasia, then we should not deny this right to healthy and fit people.

A friend of mine who had a terminal disease hung himself due to the pain he was suffering, that no amount of drugs/alcohol could help him with. he had reached that stage after years of battle.

This story is horrible and very sad. I must wonder, though, what your friend felt as he was hanging by his neck dying. Was anything he was enduring bad enough to die so violently? Did he make a mistake?

This implies that something bad follows a persons dying, and is an idea posited by those who believe in such things.

Well, I consider oblivion to be bad when a person might still experience life.

Obviously you were not on deaths door suffering from a terminal disease, so your point here is still wandering away from the focus of the OP. You are arguing something else and conflating different circumstance to make them appear to be the same.

Actually I did feel like I was dying. I was wrong, but I assume you are referring to the perception of dying as a basis for euthanasia.

Whereas I find the death is inevitable and short of science coming up with a solution, you and I are going to die sometime, big fans or not.
For me - it is not about being a fan of death or not. it is about acceptance of it as part of this process of life as being experienced in a biological instrument.

Yes, we all die. Not all of us need to speed up the process, though.

I advocate the evolution of human thought in relation to this subject...

Your thought is not very evolved. Euthanasia may be as old as the human species is. It is based in the belief that we can do little for the dying and others we deem as living lives not worth living. The Spartans practiced infanticide by tossing babies with birth defects over a cliff. Nowadays with modern medicine we are much more able to allow people with illnesses and injuries to live. Our attitudes need to evolve as far as our medical science has evolved.

You said it was 'serious business'. Business always involves money. Now you have changed that to 'death is a serious matter'?

I'm not going to quibble over my use of synonyms.

I wasn't taking about dictatorial powers. I was talking about democratic powers where those with attitudes such as your own, in great numbers can affect those who see things another way but are forbidden those things because majority rules and the mind of the majority is firmly fixated on old concepts they hold to be truth but a demonstrably not.

Sorry, but none of us can have society to be everything we want it to be. If the majority of people see euthanasia as a bad idea, then it probably won't be accepted.

...what you are advocating is that you do not consider that medical assistance in helping these ones to die in the most comfortable and dignified manner is to be continued to be withheld from those who would want it.

I think I'd be more an advocate of euthanasia if I knew that the people who were supposedly going to benefit from it were clamoring for it. Where are the groups of elderly or disabled people who are demanding the "right to die"? The disability-rights groups I am familiar with strongly oppose euthanasia. One such group is Not Dead Yet.

Does your stance in relation to resisting medically assisted dying have anything to do with your belief in your particular idea of GOD?

My frowning upon euthanasia largely results from my being a paraplegic who needs to use a wheelchair. I must endure all the lies about disability and the bigotry those lies are used to cover up. I see "the right to die" as yet another one of those lies.

If you are an atheist, please explain your position on this in terms of secularism.

We atheists don't want to be killed either!

[William]

[Replying to post 72 by Jagella]

You do realize that a person who is not at "death's door" may be just as desperate to commit suicide as any terminally ill person? What turned me against "the right to die" is that this "right" is not offered to people who may not be elderly or disabled. Nobody is pushing for handsome and fit young men who no longer wish to live to have a right to kill themselves! If desperation to die is the criterion for euthanasia, then we should not deny this right to healthy and fit people.

It does not matter. The OP is clearly not trying to address that. Attempting to conflate the two only muddies the waters. The better idea would be to start another thread to debate that.

This story is horrible and very sad. I must wonder, though, what your friend felt as he was hanging by his neck dying. Was anything he was enduring bad enough to die so violently? Did he make a mistake?

Wondering, judging, filling in the gaps or whatever, there is no justifiable reason for going there as those questions are not only inappropriate but unnecessary for that.

You have been informed that he was suffering terribly from a terminal illness and there was no lawful provision for him to be helped through medical assistance to end his life, so he took the only other option available to him.
THAT should be enough for any normal individual to empathize with, without expressing some personal need for morbid detail, doncha think?

On that note, I understand that some members have posted expressing their dislike for the notion of medically assisted suicide, and that you appear to be one of them. What I also find curious is that all the votes show 100% in favor, so I have to assume that they declined to vote, which seem strange to say the least.

In relation to you, why did you not vote? Or, did you vote in favor and are now taking the opposite position in order to argue with me?

Apart from that, I found you comment above to be far too distasteful and stopped reading the rest of your post. I have a rule of thumb that I cease interaction in debate when the arguments become personally distasteful or circular, as I understand it to being a waste of time, space and intelligence to continue on at that point. I think we have reached that point and have nothing more to add.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 73 by William]

It does not matter. The OP is clearly not trying to address that. Attempting to conflate the two only muddies the waters. The better idea would be to start another thread to debate that.

Obviously I disagree. Whenever we consider euthanasia, we are wise to consider ulterior motives. Is the push for "the right to die" truly based in honoring the wishes of the sick and the dying, or is it actually the wishes of those who wish to rid the world of the sick and the dying that inspire euthanasia?

Wondering, judging, filling in the gaps or whatever, there is no justifiable reason for going there as those questions are not only inappropriate but unnecessary for that.

Sorry, but it's downright foolish not to consider the horrors of a violent death when we discuss the ethics of euthanasia. If the act of killing oneself or another person presumably for escaping pain results in something worse than the pain, then obviously euthanasia is not a truly good death.

THAT should be enough for any normal individual to empathize with, without expressing some personal need for morbid detail, doncha think?

Morbid detail? We are talking about death, and you don't wish to discuss "morbid details"?

In relation to you, why did you not vote? Or, did you vote in favor and are now taking the opposite position in order to argue with me?

I missed that poll.

Apart from that, I found you comment above to be far too distasteful and stopped reading the rest of your post. I have a rule of thumb that I cease interaction in debate when the arguments become personally distasteful or circular, as I understand it to being a waste of time, space and intelligence to continue on at that point. I think we have reached that point and have nothing more to add.

This is not the first time a proponent of euthanasia finds my scrutiny of "the right to die" to be distasteful and leaves the discussion. Whenever I uncover euthanasia to be what it is, its proponents head for the hills. People simply cannot face the truth.

[William]

[Replying to post 74 by Jagella]

This is not the first time a proponent of euthanasia finds my scrutiny of "the right to die" to be distasteful and leaves the discussion. Whenever I uncover euthanasia to be what it is, its proponents head for the hills. People simply cannot face the truth.

I have not run anywhere and your assessment of what happened in this instance ( and thus most likely most other ones) is that rather than accept that your comments were off-color (to put it mildly) as you were informed and in that, think about changing the approach in your style of communication, you simply placed an interpretation of the event which made you look righteous in your own eyes - the one who stands strong in ones truth while all before you flee for the hills.

I have better things to do with my time and intelligence than to entertain such methodology.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 75 by William]

I think we have reached that point and have nothing more to add.

You obviously changed your mind.

...your comments were off-color ...

I'd describe my comments and questions about your friend's horrible and tragic death as "to the point." I just hope that he did not suffer too much having hanged himself. You evidently don't wish to consider what he went through. If we do consider the suffering at the point of suicide, then maybe we might dissuade others from taking their own lives.

...you simply placed an interpretation of the event which made you look righteous in your own eyes...

I do believe my position on euthanasia is righteous, of course. You don't see your position as righteous?

In the words of Queen:

Don't try suicide
You are just going to hate it

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 1 by KenRU]

Why is this OP on C and A and not on Ethics? What is the apologetic value of this question?

Do you deny one of the main opposing views (if not the only) on the right to end one's life is religiously based?

Are not the Catholic Church and most evangelical religions opposed to this right?

[KenRU]

Whenever we consider euthanasia, we are wise to consider ulterior motives. Is the push for "the right to die" truly based in honoring the wishes of the sick and the dying, or is it actually the wishes of those who wish to rid the world of the sick and the dying that inspire euthanasia?

The ulterior motive, for the purposes of THIS thread, is to avoid unnecessary suffering.

Wondering, judging, filling in the gaps or whatever, there is no justifiable reason for going there as those questions are not only inappropriate but unnecessary for that.

Sorry, but it's downright foolish not to consider the horrors of a violent death when we discuss the ethics of euthanasia. If the act of killing oneself or another person presumably for escaping pain results in something worse than the pain, then obviously euthanasia is not a truly good death.

Admitting the need that we need to control the how (in order to prevent MORE suffering which is what the patient wants in the FIRST PLACE) does not mean we should oppose the right.

The purpose of this thread is to examine why, under very obvious circumstances, one would oppose the right to die, and how that can be considered a compassionate stance - given the conditions listed in the OP.

-all the best

[KenRU]

I do believe my position on euthanasia is righteous, of course.

I'm confused, do you support the right for someone to end their own life? I thought earlier you did, but maybe I misunderstood.

You don't see your position as righteous?

In the context of the conditions laid out in the OP, allowing the patient to end his life is clearly compassionate. I refrain from using Righteous as I don't think you and I define it the same way.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 78 by KenRU]

The ulterior motive, for the purposes of THIS thread, is to avoid unnecessary suffering.

I'm all for the avoidance of unnecessary suffering.

Admitting the need that we need to control the how (in order to prevent MORE suffering which is what the patient wants in the FIRST PLACE) does not mean we should oppose the right.

Assuming that we wish to truly honor, within reason, what the patient wants regarding medical care, then we're on the same side.

The purpose of this thread is to examine why, under very obvious circumstances, one would oppose the right to die, and how that can be considered a compassionate stance - given the conditions listed in the OP.

You must admit that "the right to die" is a very strange right. I have quipped earlier on this thread that it's like saying we have the right to punch ourselves in the mouths! Rights usually have to do with something pleasant, and death does not normally fall into that category. When the Declaration of Independence listed our "inalienable" rights, death was conspicuously absent from the list. Moreover, if we show compassion to others, we don't normally kill them. As I hope you can see, the right to die is a very different way of looking at people who may be injured or ill.

I'm confused, do you support the right for someone to end their own life? I thought earlier you did, but maybe I misunderstood.

I really do not support any right to commit suicide. It's crazy to do so. What are we going to do? Just stand aside while some person leaps from a tall building ready to clean up the mess on the street below?

In the context of the conditions laid out in the OP, allowing the patient to end his life is clearly compassionate.

I've often wondered why the right to die is only offered to those who are very ill. If it's such an important right, then why not offer it to everybody? Why not show such compassion to those who are healthy and fit?

Finally, if you are contemplating suicide, then I urge you to get help!