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.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by KenRU]

I am all for the right to die. For me in comes down to one very simple thing - if a person decides to kill themselves, they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. They do not infringe on the rights of any other person by committing suicide. Obviously I have no religious objections on the matter, but for those that do it is none of their business what someone else does.

And if that person wants to have someone help them, so that everything goes right and they don't end up in a coma or some other type of possibly prolonged state, then the person that helps them shouldn't get in trouble either.

The government needs to keep their nose out of this.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by KenRU]

This is a very good question to ask, so let's get to it, shall we? I support the Right to Die. Also, disclosure (might as well say it), I have attempted suicide once before in my life.

1) Why this is the right/good position to hold.

To forbid someone the right to end their own life (especially with the premises laid out above, I do recognise that things get dicey if the patient is in a coma) is to forbid them the ownership of their own body, their life. It is to say "You do not have the final say over what ultimately happens to you, and your body".
Is it a good idea though to end one's life? Generally speaking, no, but again, with the premises laid out above, I cannot come up with a good argument to deny that person their request.

2) Why this position shouldn't be seen as murder and just plain wrong.

Here is where it gets difficult. Most dictionaries define it as
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
The key word there being 'unlawful'. So if assisted suicide is against the law, and you help someone to end their life, then in the eyes of the law, you are a murderer.
Of course, popular opinion of the word 'murder' would invoke in people's minds the taking of someone's life without their permission.
We (as in society at large) don't want murders, meaning the second meaning just above. We don't want people being off'ed without their permission, so that is the reason we punish the act so heavily.
When it comes to assisted suicide though...why should that fall under the same word? Are you attempting to manipulate your audience when you speak out against the practice of assisted suicide, by having their minds associate the practice with the practice of taking life without permission, even though this is incorrect?

3) Why it should be the law of the land.

Because at the end of the day, if we don't own ourselves...what do we own?

4) Why the other side is wrong.

This question I cannot answer, at least not right now. [strike]As I type this, I am the first responder to the OP[/strike], (second actually) so no-one has answered for the "No Right To Die" camp. I do not want to inadvertently strawman their arguments.
I will respond though if or when such a response is made.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by Kenisaw]

I have some responses here.

if a person decides to kill themselves, they aren't hurting anyone but themselves.

Please be precise in what you mean here. Do you not consider emotional pain? If I off myself right now, quite a few people would be hurt by it.
Also, there could be all sorts of negative consequences. Off hand, I can imagine a single parent killing themselves, thus meaning their children end up in state care, which more than likely is of a lesser quality than what their parent provided them.

And if that person wants to have someone help them, so that everything goes right and they don't end up in a coma or some other type of possibly prolonged state, then the person that helps them shouldn't get in trouble either.

The government needs to keep their nose out of this.

Should the government keep out completely? Should there not be some sort of governmental oversight, to ensure that this is legit assisted suicide and not without-permission murder?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 2 by Kenisaw]

I have some responses here.

if a person decides to kill themselves, they aren't hurting anyone but themselves.

Please be precise in what you mean here. Do you not consider emotional pain? If I off myself right now, quite a few people would be hurt by it.
Also, there could be all sorts of negative consequences. Off hand, I can imagine a single parent killing themselves, thus meaning their children end up in state care, which more than likely is of a lesser quality than what their parent provided them.

I knew after I hit submit that question would come up, but it's entirely fair to ask that.

When I say hurt, I am thinking constitutional rights. They aren't infringing on the rights of anyone else. They also aren't causing anyone else physical pain (although I realize emotional pain can manifest itself physically).

Can there still be negative consequences? Sure, and your example shows that clearly. But to that I say so what? The government, or any other person, should have no say in what I can and cannot do with my own body, as long as I am not infringing on the rights of another. No one is guaranteed to go through life without getting upset, or losing a loved one, or anything else. Life, liberty, and the pursuit (not achievement) of happiness is what you get.

As it relates specifically to the kid thing, I'd have a hard time believing the vast majority would not have their kids taken care before ending their life...

And if that person wants to have someone help them, so that everything goes right and they don't end up in a coma or some other type of possibly prolonged state, then the person that helps them shouldn't get in trouble either.

The government needs to keep their nose out of this.

Should the government keep out completely? Should there not be some sort of governmental oversight, to ensure that this is legit assisted suicide and not without-permission murder?

If the police think it is murder, they will investigate it as such.

[KenRU]

To forbid someone the right to end their own life (especially with the premises laid out above, I do recognise that things get dicey if the patient is in a coma) is to forbid them the ownership of their own body, their life. It is to say "You do not have the final say over what ultimately happens to you, and your body".

An excellent point, imo. It is arguably the ultimate curtailing freedom - not allowing complete ownership of your own body. Couple that with the continued suffering that results when someone is forbidden to escape endless pain, it really does seem to way the scales in favor of one stance being the "right " one.

[Peds nurse]

]

I am all for the right to die. For me in comes down to one very simple thing - if a person decides to kill themselves, they aren't hurting anyone but themselves

.

Hello Kenru!! I do hope you are doing well!

Killing yourself does hurt people. It hurts the ones who love them. A life cannot end without pain of some sort.

They do not infringe on the rights of any other person by committing suicide. Obviously I have no religious objections on the matter, but for those that do it is none of their business what someone else does.

It is the business of those who love that person. Like I said earlier, the loss of a person effects more than just that person.

And if that person wants to have someone help them, so that everything goes right and they don't end up in a coma or some other type of possibly prolonged state, then the person that helps them shouldn't get in trouble either.

The government needs to keep their nose out of this.

Government and religion are two different issues.

I personally don't support suicide of any kind. Who are we to take what has been given to us (life)? Like I said earlier, it isn't just about us. Our lives are mingled into the lives of others. When we give up, are we not crushing hope? What are we teaching others around us?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by KenRU]

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses who defend my right to refuse a blood based medical treatements even if (which is admitedly rare) this means I lose my life, I do defend the right of a person to make decisions about their lives. That said that right is in my opinion based on the sanctity of life which belongs to God, not on prematurely ending their lives to avoid suffering.


JW

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 7 by Peds nurse]

Who are we to take what has been given to us (life)?

We are ourselves. As you said...it has been given to us. Therefore, we have or should have the final say.

When we give up, are we not crushing hope?

I can understand and even agree with you to a certain point. As I said up above, I attempted suicide once before. I gave up hope.
However, what are you going to do? Forbid people the right to take their own life?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 1 by KenRU]

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses who defend my right to refuse a blood based medical treatements even if (which is admitedly rare) this means I lose my life, I do defend the right of a person to make decisions about their lives. That said that right is in my opinion based on the sanctity of life which belongs to God, not on prematurely ending their lives to avoid suffering.


JW

Hi JW,

Thanks for responding. Your last two lines seem contradictory to me.

One line (I do defend the right of a person to make decisions about their lives) makes me think that you support someone's right to end their own life.

But the next (That said that right is in my opinion based on the sanctity of life which belongs to God, not on prematurely ending their lives to avoid suffering) makes me think that you don't.

Can you elaborate for me? Thanks!