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.

[Bust Nak]

I'm all for the avoidance of unnecessary suffering.

But not for avoidance it enough to support any right to commit suicide?

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

But not wish to truly honor it enough to support any right to commit suicide?

You must admit that "the right to die" is a very strange right.

Mercy killing is an easy enough concept to understand, and it's even less of an issue when consent is given.

Rights usually have to do with something pleasant, and death does not normally fall into that category.

Normally doesn't, sure, but when it does fall into that category in those abnormal situations, why would you still be hesitant for support said right?

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?

No, you are suppose to aid them in ways that avoidance of unnecessary suffering, which may include suicide with less mess.

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?

Why not indeed. It should be offered to everyone. But I am willing to compromise with people who are unwilling to go the whole way, get what we can, least we get nothing at all.

[KenRU]

[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.

Glad to hear, but were about to see how much, in practice, you really mean this.

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.

To me, it seems you are waffling here. In the conditions of the OP, there is no medical care that will help alleviate suffering. So, you have all you need to know.

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 admit nothing. This thread is dealing with a very specific situation. No need to blurr the lines, please.

I have quipped earlier on this thread that it's like saying we have the right to punch ourselves in the mouths!

No it is not " especially considering the conditions given in the OP. I suggest you read them again. Hopefully you will see how ludicrous that assertion is.

Rights usually have to do with something pleasant, and death does not normally fall into that category.

Bold added to emphasize the point. Usually is not always.

And, I submit that if you cant envision a scenario where death is preferable to life in pain, than either you dont have a very good imagination, or you are woefully ignorant on the subject, and I recommend rectifying that problem.

When the Declaration of Independence listed our "inalienable" rights, death was conspicuously absent from the list.

Irrelevant.

Moreover, if we show compassion to others, we don't normally kill them.

Once again, you assert this with no explanation as to the consequence of this decision. Ok, so we dont kill them. Now we are left with a person whose wishes you have ignored and they are left in excruciating pain for the remainder of their existence, with death the only unavoidable outcome.

Where is the compassion there?

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.

No, the right to die is the way we show compassion to someone who is terminal and in pain " with no hope of relief. Which is the topic of this thread. You have yet to explain how denying this right is more compassionate then allowing it.

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.

Is it crazy to mandate (and make no mistake, that is exactly what you are suggesting) that someone live the remainder of their life in pain? With no chance of relief? When they are only going to die anyways, and have their family watch them suffer day in and day out?

That doesnt seem crazier to you? Please explain how this is the more compassionate response.

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?

You cant envision more humane methods? We do it to our pets every day when they suffer and are terminal. Why is it humane/compassionate to do to them, but not humans?

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?

Good topic, start another thread on it.

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

Im not. Are you?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 82 by KenRU]

Glad to hear, but were about to see how much, in practice, you really mean this.

So I'm on trial? Fair enough. I will take the witness stand.

In the conditions of the OP, there is no medical care that will help alleviate suffering. So, you have all you need to know.

Yes, that kind of scenario brings up some tough ethical issues. It places us in a moral dilemma. On one hand, most of us are taught from a young age that killing another person is one of the worst things we can do. On the other hand, we are taught to alleviate other people's suffering if we reasonably can. It's very difficult to know what to do in a scenario like this one.

I admit nothing.

OK, fine. To me, at least, the "right to die" is a peculiar notion. It is counter-intuitive and potentially dangerous. I don't know about you, but if some guy looked me in the eyes and told me I have a right to die, then I would turn and get as far away from that man as I could.

This thread is dealing with a very specific situation. No need to blurr the lines, please.

Then why are you saying you are going to judge my compassion? I don't see anything about my compassion or the lack of in the OP. Are you not blurring the lines?

No it is not

I agree. Punching ourselves in the mouths in far less harmful than dying.

Bold added to emphasize the point. Usually is not always.

Are you offering people an unusual "pleasant" death?

And, I submit that if you cant envision a scenario where death is preferable to life in pain, than either you dont have a very good imagination, or you are woefully ignorant on the subject, and I recommend rectifying that problem.

This argument is an ad-hominem. Please use sound logic and refrain from attacking me personally.

Irrelevant

You really should take the ethics of society as a whole into consideration when you wish to make a moral case for euthanasia. If a document like the Declaration of Independence states that we have a right to life, then you have an uphill battle claiming we have a right to die. You need to argue why we as a nation should adopt a moral that contradicts a right this nation was founded upon, the right to life. Can you do that?

Once again, you assert this with no explanation as to the consequence of this decision. Ok, so we dont kill them. Now we are left with a person whose wishes you have ignored and they are left in excruciating pain for the remainder of their existence, with death the only unavoidable outcome.

While it may be very sad for anybody to be in pain, I don't think it's right to say a person lacks compassion if she or he does not put that person out of misery by killing that person. Most people find killing an innocent person to be evil. If I refuse to kill a person in pain, then that doesn't make me callous. I'm simply acting on my moral that murder is wrong.

Where is the compassion there?

We need to look for alternate solutions. Is there some treatment that might help the person who is in pain? Have all other options been exhausted?

No, the right to die is the way we show compassion to someone who is terminal and in pain " with no hope of relief.

How will we grant this right to die? Will we euthanize the dying person using a gun, knife, club, or poison? Which method would you use?

Is it crazy to mandate (and make no mistake, that is exactly what you are suggesting) that someone live the remainder of their life in pain? With no chance of relief? When they are only going to die anyways, and have their family watch them suffer day in and day out?

I've known many people who live in pain. They can do it. It's part of life. They don't wish to die, and I have no desire to kill them.

Please explain how this is the more compassionate response.

I cannot measure compassion, so I cannot determine who has the greater compassion. All I know is that I respect human life and detest the idea of snuffing it out.

We do it to our pets every day when they suffer and are terminal. Why is it humane/compassionate to do to them, but not humans?

People are much better able to adapt to physical adversity than animals are, and human life is more valuable than that of animals, as I see it.

Good topic, start another thread on it.

Yes. The euthanasia threat to the elderly and disabled is a topic for an entire thread.

Im not. Are you?

You know I'm against suicide. It seemed possible that your enthusiasm for suicide might be a sign that you wanted it for yourself.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 83 by Jagella]

Is there some treatment that might help the person who is in pain? Have all other options been exhausted?

As per the OP -

The patient is terminally ill
I would typically take that to mean there are no other options, everything has been exhausted.

Will we euthanize the dying person using a gun, knife, club, or poison? Which method would you use?

Off-hand, assuming the patient is on life support (that is, medical machinery is substituting for vital bodily functions), I would give them a soporific and then turn off the support.
Basically, I would go about making the moment of death as painless as possible.

I've known many people who live in pain. They can do it. It's part of life. They don't wish to die, and I have no desire to kill them.

As per the OP -

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

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 82 by KenRU]

Glad to hear, but were about to see how much, in practice, you really mean this.

So I'm on trial? Fair enough. I will take the witness stand.

Lol, no I didnt mean it that way. But well played : )

In the conditions of the OP, there is no medical care that will help alleviate suffering. So, you have all you need to know.

Yes, that kind of scenario brings up some tough ethical issues. It places us in a moral dilemma. On one hand, most of us are taught from a young age that killing another person is one of the worst things we can do. On the other hand, we are taught to alleviate other people's suffering if we reasonably can. It's very difficult to know what to do in a scenario like this one.

But this situation is the point here. And if you dont have an opinion, or wish to provide one, then I dont understand why you are posting. Like I said above, lets see how much you really do wish to avoid unnecessary suffering.

I admit nothing.

OK, fine. To me, at least, the "right to die" is a peculiar notion. It is counter-intuitive and potentially dangerous. I don't know about you, but if some guy looked me in the eyes and told me I have a right to die, then I would turn and get as far away from that man as I could.

Your discomfort with the situation is understandable, and I agree, it should not be taken lightly. But, once again, we are talking about a very specific situation.

This thread is dealing with a very specific situation. No need to blurr the lines, please.

Then why are you saying you are going to judge my compassion?

Look above, please. The whole point of this thread is for those who have an opinion on this topic are asked to defend their stance. If you are here posting, am I wrong to assume you should be willing to do so?

I don't see anything about my compassion or the lack of in the OP.

You are 100% right, my OP does not mention compassion. My apologies.

However, that was my intent, and I did not make it clear enough, I guess.

I thought this part from the OP above made it obvious though:

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.

Are you not blurring the lines?

Lol, I was trying to make my post as clear as possible. I guess I could have been more clear.

And now you have the clarification you need, I hope.

Bold added to emphasize the point. Usually is not always.

Are you offering people an unusual "pleasant" death?

Im offering terminal people an option to avoid unending suffering. We do it for our pets, but not each other. That seems cruel and selfish to me.

And, I submit that if you cant envision a scenario where death is preferable to life in pain, than either you dont have a very good imagination, or you are woefully ignorant on the subject, and I recommend rectifying that problem.

This argument is an ad-hominem. Please use sound logic and refrain from attacking me personally.

I think it relevant. You stated that Rights are usually something pleasant. I submit that some forms of terminal illness result in a slow and unavoidably painful death. There is no pleasant right to be had here.

Irrelevant

You really should take the ethics of society as a whole into consideration when you wish to make a moral case for euthanasia.

Please equate how society mandating more suffering is a good thing for society.

If a document like the Declaration of Independence states that we have a right to life, then you have an uphill battle claiming we have a right to die.

I dont think so. I have a right to own a gun, I dont have to.

Seems like the argument is over.

You need to argue why we as a nation should adopt a moral that contradicts a right this nation was founded upon, the right to life. Can you do that?

Done. See above.

But you are still blurring the lines.

Once again, you assert this with no explanation as to the consequence of this decision. Ok, so we dont kill them. Now we are left with a person whose wishes you have ignored and they are left in excruciating pain for the remainder of their existence, with death the only unavoidable outcome.

While it may be very sad for anybody to be in pain, I don't think it's right to say a person lacks compassion if she or he does not put that person out of misery by killing that person.

Please define compassion for me then.

Most people find killing an innocent person to be evil.

Do you equate killing a suffering and terminal pet as evil?

If I refuse to kill a person in pain, then that doesn't make me callous.

No, not in my book. But denying them the right to end their suffering would.

I'm simply acting on my moral that murder is wrong.

Its not murder. Its suicide. Or at best, assisted suicide.

Where is the compassion there?

We need to look for alternate solutions.

You have already been told there arent any.

Is there some treatment that might help the person who is in pain? Have all other options been exhausted?

It seems reasonable that if the pain could be avoided it would be, given my OP. So, all options to avoid pain have been exhausted.

No, the right to die is the way we show compassion to someone who is terminal and in pain " with no hope of relief.

How will we grant this right to die? Will we euthanize the dying person using a gun, knife, club, or poison? Which method would you use?

We do this to our pets all the time. I would consult a doctor and find the least painful way.

Are you really concerned that there is no humane way to end a life? Is that the sticking point for you?

Is it crazy to mandate (and make no mistake, that is exactly what you are suggesting) that someone live the remainder of their life in pain? With no chance of relief? When they are only going to die anyways, and have their family watch them suffer day in and day out?

I've known many people who live in pain. They can do it. It's part of life. They don't wish to die, and I have no desire to kill them.

Now whos making a fallacious argument?

Are you arguing that no one exists who fits my criteria? That this argument is just a thought experiment?

Please explain how this is the more compassionate response.

I cannot measure compassion, so I cannot determine who has the greater compassion. All I know is that I respect human life and detest the idea of snuffing it out.

We could start by considering the suffering an individual is experiencing.

We do it to our pets every day when they suffer and are terminal. Why is it humane/compassionate to do to them, but not humans?

People are much better able to adapt to physical adversity than animals are,

Patently and demonstrably false. Dogs typically have a higher threshold for pain then humans.

and human life is more valuable than that of animals, as I see it.

But human suffering is less of a consideration for you then animal suffering I take it.

You get both sides of the coin, my friend. If your concern is human life is more valuable than an animals, then you are stuck with letting more humans suffer (against their wishes I might add) then you do for a domesticated animal.

Im not. Are you?

You know I'm against suicide. It seemed possible that your enthusiasm for suicide might be a sign that you wanted it for yourself.

I have no enthusiasm for suicide. Ive said multiple times that I am speaking of a very specific circumstance here. Have I not?

So, given that, it seemed possible that your post was a sarcastic jab. If it wasn't, then I have to wonder why the generalization about my enthusiasm for suicide, despite my repeated attempts to correct you.

-all the best

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 85 by KenRU]

And if you dont have an opinion, or wish to provide one, then I dont understand why you are posting.

Broadly speaking, I think that euthanasia is potentially dangerous. It's a Frankenstein's monster that like the monster could easily get out of hand with tragic consequences. It is a thinly veiled attack on the elderly and the disabled. It uses made-up stories of people who presumably want the "right to die." The reality is that not only are suffering people who want to die very rare, but many such people actually oppose euthanasia. See Not Dead Yet for one example of a group of disabled people who have organized to oppose euthanasia.

Like I said above, lets see how much you really do wish to avoid unnecessary suffering.

Check me out!

I submit that some forms of terminal illness result in a slow and unavoidably painful death.

Your "unavoidably painful death" is hypothetical. Euthanasia proponents often make up situations to illustrate why we presumably need "the right to die." The reality is that we can advocate for better pain-control training for doctors and more effective pain medication. Hospices I understand are good at easing the pain and discomfort that dying people may experience. Let's build more hospices. We don't need to kill people and can make their lives worth living.

Please define compassion for me then.

I'd say a good definition for compassion is treatment that is meant to improve the quality of another person or animal's life.

Do you equate killing a suffering and terminal pet as evil?

I'm not sure about that issue. I'd prefer to discuss people.

But denying them the right to end their suffering would.

I really cannot stop anybody from committing suicide, but I would at least try to find a reason for that person to live.

Its not murder. Its suicide. Or at best, assisted suicide.

Then you would not kill a suffering person?

You have already been told there arent any.

Not in your hypothetical story, but in reality alternate solutions to suffering are always a possibility.

Are you really concerned that there is no humane way to end a life? Is that the sticking point for you?

That's part of why I oppose killing the suffering, but mostly I see euthanasia as phony. There's no real compassion in it.

Are you arguing that no one exists who fits my criteria? That this argument is just a thought experiment?

I've heard of such real-life cases, but I don't have all the facts on those cases.

Patently and demonstrably false. Dogs typically have a higher threshold for pain then humans.

You mentioned pets and changed it to dogs. In any case, if animals can adapt to injury, then we should allow them to live with adaptations. Just like people do!

So, given that, it seemed possible that your post was a sarcastic jab.

Ah--you're finally seeing it my way. Yes, it's a "jab" to insinuate that a person's life should be terminated. In the same way that I should not insult your life that way, you need to respect and value the rights of others.

[Bust Nak]

Broadly speaking, I think that euthanasia is potentially dangerous. It's a Frankenstein's monster that like the monster could easily get out of hand with tragic consequences. It is a thinly veiled attack on the elderly and the disabled.

This is a slippery slope argument.

It uses made-up stories of people who presumably want the "right to die." The reality is that not only are suffering people who want to die very rare...

If you acknowledge that rare exceptions exists, the how are the stories of such exceptions "made-up?"

but many such people actually oppose euthanasia. See Not Dead Yet for one example of a group of disabled people who have organized to oppose euthanasia.

They don't want it, therefore nobody else should have it? We are not talking about involuntary euthanasia here, highlighting once again slippery slope argument.

...We don't need to kill people and can make their lives worth living.

You can improve hospices all you like, but only the sufferers themselves can decide if their lives are worth living.

I'd say a good definition for compassion is treatment that is meant to improve the quality of another person or animal's life.

Except when improving it means ending it at the right time?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 85 by KenRU]

And if you dont have an opinion, or wish to provide one, then I dont understand why you are posting.

Broadly speaking, I think that euthanasia is potentially dangerous. It's a Frankenstein's monster that like the monster could easily get out of hand with tragic consequences. It is a thinly veiled attack on the elderly and the disabled.

The conditions expressed in the OP have nothing to do with the elderly. You are applying conditions and finding fault that do not exist in the OP.

It uses made-up stories of people who presumably want the "right to die."

You assert that no one ever wishes to be relieved from pain via death? Or a life they deem undignified? Really? Then you are a very lucky individual, and so are your family and friends. Others arent so lucky.

The reality is that not only are suffering people who want to die very rare,

Oh, you do admit they exist. Above you asserted the stories are made up. Im confused.

but many such people actually oppose euthanasia. See Not Dead Yet for one example of a group of disabled people who have organized to oppose euthanasia.

Perhaps you will be surprised to know that there is another side to the argument: https://www.deathwithdignity.org/take-action/

I submit that some forms of terminal illness result in a slow and unavoidably painful death.

Your "unavoidably painful death" is hypothetical.

With all due respect, that is a ridiculous assertion. Surely you recognize that many people face AIDS, MS and various forms of cancer: https://www.livescience.com/11041-10-de ... -cure.html

Death from cancer can be very painful, and the only recourse for many who are terminal is excessive morphine and to live in a semi-conscious state.

Euthanasia proponents often make up situations to illustrate why we presumably need "the right to die." The reality is that we can advocate for better pain-control training for doctors and more effective pain medication.

In my OP, these options have already been explored.

Hospices I understand are good at easing the pain and discomfort that dying people may experience.

Have you ever met someone in hospice before? You think every last one of them (those who have lost bowel control and are forced to live in diapers, or who have Alzheimers and half the time no longer remember spouses or children), shares your opinion?

Let's build more hospices

Sounds great, but it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

We don't need to kill people and can make their lives worth living.

And if you cant? Why shouldnt it be their choice?

Please define compassion for me then.

I'd say a good definition for compassion is treatment that is meant to improve the quality of another person or animal's life.

And if that isnt an option? If the quality cannot be improved?

Do you equate killing a suffering and terminal pet as evil?

I'm not sure about that issue. I'd prefer to discuss people.

I submit there is a relevant reason you are unsure of the issue. And it is a telling one.

But denying them the right to end their suffering would.

I really cannot stop anybody from committing suicide, but I would at least try to find a reason for that person to live.

As the OP states, and I (and others) have told you, those methods failed. For the purposes of this thread, what do you do now?

Its not murder. Its suicide. Or at best, assisted suicide.

Then you would not kill a suffering person?

I fail to understand your question (relevant to this topic). If you are asking me if I would end the life of someone (presumably a family member) who is terminal and in pain? Yes, I would (assuming I was confident it was the only choice available).

You have already been told there arent any.

Not in your hypothetical story, but in reality alternate solutions to suffering are always a possibility

I think you are purposefully avoiding the issue, and I will try one more time. Do you deny that there are real world examples of people who are terminal and in severe pain, with no hope of relief?

If you say yes, you believe this is true (regardless of how often), then these situations are what I wanted to discuss in this thread.

If you say no, then there is no reason for you to be posting here. As the Stormtroopers say: Move along. These arent the droids youre looking for.

Are you really concerned that there is no humane way to end a life? Is that the sticking point for you?

That's part of why I oppose killing the suffering, but mostly I see euthanasia as phony. There's no real compassion in it.

We euthanize pets all the time, and no they dont suffer. But we cant do it for people? Your responses baffle me.

Are you arguing that no one exists who fits my criteria? That this argument is just a thought experiment?

I've heard of such real-life cases, but I don't have all the facts on those cases.

For the purposes of this thread (once again) you are to assume the facts are as stated. If you cant do that, then I submit that this thread isnt for you.

Patently and demonstrably false. Dogs typically have a higher threshold for pain then humans.

You mentioned pets and changed it to dogs.

Yes, the most common pet, was that a leap you think I shouldnt make?

In any case, if animals can adapt to injury, then we should allow them to live with adaptations. Just like people do!

Now Im thinking you are arguing dishonorably. The conversation went as follows:

Me: We do it to our pets every day when they suffer and are terminal. Why is it humane/compassionate to do to them, but not humans?

You: People are much better able to adapt to physical adversity than animals are

Me: Patently and demonstrably false. Dogs typically have a higher threshold for pain then humans.

You: In any case, if animals can adapt to injury, then we should allow them to live with adaptations. Just like people do!

My point was that we as a society allow us to humanely and with dignity end our pets (dogs, for example) lives, but we dont do it for human beings. Your original assertion/argument was that people adapt better than our pets, and I showed you that that logic was false. Seems you are just saying anything at this point.

As to your new assertion, have you ever owned a pet that lived to infirmity? Watched them grow senile, wandering aimlessly, completely confused or having a tumor grow so large because it is in an inoperable location? You really are going to assert that we should let the creature live under those conditions? And argue it is the compassionate thing to do?

So, given that, it seemed possible that your post was a sarcastic jab.

Ah--you're finally seeing it my way. Yes, it's a "jab" to insinuate that a person's life should be terminated.

Good, then your response above makes this much easier to say:

I at no point said that a life should be terminated. Have you not grasped that point yet? After so many pages? Im left to believe that your twisting or ignoring of what has been repeatedly said to you is nothing more than intentional ignorance or purposeful obfuscation.

In the same way that I should not insult your life that way, you need to respect and value the rights of others.

I have repeatedly said that we should honor the patients wishes - not yours or mine. And you are saying otherwise. Clearly, YOU are the one who is not respecting the patient, not I.

The hypocrisy of your statement above is practically palpable.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 1 by KenRU]

As of this post, it is 17 for and zero against.

Very few posts so far willing to decry the right to end one's life. I confess to being a bit surprised.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 89 by KenRU]

Very few posts so far willing to decry the right to end one's life.

Seeking strength in numbers is the last refuge pf the desperate.