BBC Shows Suicide on Air

What would you do if?

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

BBC Shows Suicide on Air

Post #1

Post by rikuoamero »

So I was on Facebook yesterday, and I found out that the BBC had shown this clip


and as far as I can gather, it's real. It's not staged or anything. Basically, a British man with motor neuron disease who was partially paralysed travelled to a Swiss clinic where he consented to taking a lethal drug. The moment when he turned on the drip is shown, but not the actual moment of death.
So thoughts? Should the BBC or any broadcaster in general show suicides on air? Is suicide ethical or moral? In your opinion, if they are, was it ethical or moral in this man's case? What about assisted suicides?
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: BBC Shows Suicide on Air

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

Should the BBC or any broadcaster in general show suicides on air?

Yes. Especially since they are still controversial. But even at any time, and person who chooses suicide should be respected for their choice and their "event" should be handled however they see fit. After all why should a person be made to die alone or in shame just because they chose to end their own life. Their choice should be embraced and supported.

Is suicide ethical or moral?

I personally support suicide as being an ethical choice, at least in a case where the person who has chosen suicide is thinking clearly and maturely. I don't support suicide for young people who are simply disgruntled with life. But I would support suicide for a young person who had a severely debilitating or painful medical situation.

In your opinion, if they are, was it ethical or moral in this man's case?

I don't know what his problems where, but if he chose to die I respect his choice. I don't bother judging his "morality" if there is such a thing as a God I would leave moral judgments up to the God. It's not my place to judge anyone's morality. If it were my place to judge him I would not judge his actions to be immoral, no.

What about assisted suicides?

I fully support assisted suicides in cases where the patient is unable to perform the task on their own but has requested it. I also support assisted suicides in cases where the patient is unable to respond but the doctors and loved ones have agreed that to put them out of their suffering would be the best thing.

I would put an animal that was suffering out of its misery, why should I do any less for a human? :-k

Obviously I'm talking about cases where recovery is extremely unlikely. If a person has a chance to recovery and returning to a state of good health again, that's a totally different situation.

But yes, I totally support both suicide and assisted suicide, and I think these events should be respected, if there is a request to have the event aired on a public media I see no problem with that at all.

For me there is no ethical dilemma here at all. People should have the right to die. They're naturally going to die anyway, so it's not like they are changing their fate, all they are doing is controlling the timing of it. ;)
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9458
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: BBC Shows Suicide on Air

Post #3

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

BBC should be praised for tackling the issues surrounding the right to die.

puddleglum
Sage
Posts: 685
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:35 pm
Contact:

Re: BBC Shows Suicide on Air

Post #4

Post by puddleglum »

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]
I would put an animal that was suffering out of its misery, why should I do any less for a human?
With humans, death doesn't always mean the end of suffering.

http://legacy.esvbible.org/search/luke+16%3A19-31/

We were created by God and our lives belong to him. We have no right to end the life of any human, including ourselves, without God's permission.
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24863
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Re: BBC Shows Suicide on Air

Post #5

Post by Goat »

puddleglum wrote: [Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]
I would put an animal that was suffering out of its misery, why should I do any less for a human?
With humans, death doesn't always mean the end of suffering.

http://legacy.esvbible.org/search/luke+16%3A19-31/

We were created by God and our lives belong to him. We have no right to end the life of any human, including ourselves, without God's permission.

That is a claim, and that claim is in a very old book. However, I do not see any objective evidence that claim is correct. Do you have evidence that the author of Luke was right?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: BBC Shows Suicide on Air

Post #6

Post by rikuoamero »

puddleglum wrote: [Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]
I would put an animal that was suffering out of its misery, why should I do any less for a human?
With humans, death doesn't always mean the end of suffering.

http://legacy.esvbible.org/search/luke+16%3A19-31/

We were created by God and our lives belong to him. We have no right to end the life of any human, including ourselves, without God's permission.
By this logic, the Doctor from Star Trek Voyager would have no right to turn off his program if his creator didn't wish it.
In case you don't know who I'm talking about or the implications, basically, Star Trek Voyager is a Star Trek spin off series about a starship (Voyager) that gets transported to the other side of the galaxy, whose crew now faces a 70 year journey to get back home.
The Doctor (who goes unnamed for the entire series, save for a couple of alternate timeline episodes here and there) is a tangible holographic artificial intelligence, originally meant to serve as a backup and aide to the ship's chief medical officer. However, the Doctor becomes this officer when the real one is killed in the first episode.
However, he is not recognised by the crew as a living thinking entity in his own right (not at first). The first season has plenty of scenes where the crew treat him like he's not even there. He even complains to the captain that he's often left turned on all night, with literally nothing to do (because he doesn't have the authorisation to turn on and off his program when he wishes).
Even if his creator had wanted the Doctor to have the ability to turn himself off when he wished, this creator is a computer programmer called Doctor Zimmerman who lives on a space station orbiting Jupiter. Unreachable by Voyager.

So think about this please. In the context of Voyager, we have an AI (who by the show's end can definitely be called a living being, equal to the flesh and blood crew) who's creator is unreachable and whose existence (at least at the start of the show) can be called awful. He's not even acknowledged to be real, to have thoughts and feelings of his own. He's left on with nothing to do.
Going by your claim, he should just accept that, and my question is...
Why?
Let's assume Zimmerman intends for the holographic doctors to never have the ability to turn themselves off for the entire run of the series. Why should this constrain the Doctor? Should the Doctor just go "He's my creator, therefore what he says, goes, irregardless of what I want"?

What you outline there is perhaps the worst form of slavery imaginable. Where someone who was created by something else is forbidden from ending their own existence, no matter how bad or painful it gets simply because...what? How does what you say NOT reduce a person to basically a piece of property? Is that what you think God views us as? Toys to be played with, discarded on a whim with no concern as to what we want?

UPDATE - I just remembered. In Season 7, there was an episode that showed what happened to other holographic doctors who were replaced with newer, more up to date programs. The obsolete versions weren't deleted - instead they're shown mining on an asteroid, basically slaves. It was an episode that explored the rights of holographic beings in the Star Trek universe (and how they basically weren't afforded any).
There's also an episode where an alien race, the Hirogen, use fully aware AI holograms as prey in hunts (the Hirogen are a hunter society). These holograms are killed and brought back, their only purpose to run from their creator-hunters and die painfully.

I have just given you a sample of possibilities where your claim of "creators alone have the right to decide life and death" can be twisted so very easily to mean pain and torment for the created.
I'm probably correct in guessing that scenarios such as these never crossed your mind.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

postroad
Prodigy
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:58 am

Post #7

Post by postroad »

Perhaps someone could devote the person wishing to die to the Lord. At that point there could have a ceremony/sacrifice and everything would be Lawful?


Leviticus 27:28-29New International Version (NIV)

28 “‘But nothing that a person owns and devotes[a] to the Lord—whether a human being or an animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord.

29 “‘No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; they are to be put to death.

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7954
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: BBC Shows Suicide on Air

Post #8

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

Feels a bit Roman circus to me. I think a suicide show would rate quite well personally.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Edit preferences to remove all the fluff: ucp.php?i=ucp_prefs&mode=view

Post Reply