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]

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.

A1: People suffer needlessly. To enforce this through the law - that one MUST suffer needlessly (with the accompanying lack of dignity) is a travesty sourced in darker times.
A2: See A1
A3: See A1
A4: In my country it is illegal to allow an animal to suffer unnecessarily and there is a means in which they can be assisted in dying that they do not suffer. Many people who believe that this is a good thing but do not subscribe to this good thing in relation to human beings are conspicuously hypocritical in this regard. I suspect that religions which focus on the perceived evil of other human beings (and the hell that awaits them) secretly desire that people should suffer the conditions of a terminal disease to the point of death, without exception, and justify this by saying that only (their idea of) GOD has the right to end a life, and thus if the person suffers without dignity, it is (their idea of) God's will that they do.

Others may even want the person to suffer full term because that person committed some atrocity on them in the past and this satisfies justice and vengeance.

Also I think that insurance policies and hospitals etc are aligned with this type of thinking as well, and while the person yet lives, their are $ to be made. So their are two types of opposition. One from the religious and the other from the secular.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 61 by William]


"I suspect that religions which focus on the perceived evil of other human beings (and the hell that awaits them) secretly desire that people should suffer the conditions of a terminal disease to the point of death, without exception, and justify this by saying that only (their idea of) GOD has the right to end a life, and thus if the person suffers without dignity, it is (their idea of) God's will that they do. "

Keep in mind that most western countries are secular yet they hesitate to implemet it as law, why?

Sickness does something to you. You may appear to be doing well but you know your time is up if not today, soon. Your outlook on life changes. if you are sick you'd have pain or discomfort or frustration or sadness or longing or depression and 100 other things. On top of that family's encouragment to end your life would you have will to fight it - love of your family to ease your pain, how can you refuse?
Of course we do think about inheritance do we? Perhaps Governments do and know that sick, old people can easily be encouraged.

[William]

[Replying to post 62 by Monta]

Keep in mind that most western countries are secular yet they hesitate to implemet it as law, why?

They appear secular but organised religion is a creation of political secularism in the first instance, so those apparent 'overlaps' are simply indications of the similarity of two supposedly opposite stances which happen to come from the one thing.
It is the same attitude disguised as something different...one the one hand....on the other hand....both hands attached to the same body.


♦ Smoke and mirrors.

Sickness does something to you. You may appear to be doing well but you know your time is up if not today, soon. Your outlook on life changes. if you are sick you'd have pain or discomfort or frustration or sadness or longing or depression and 100 other things. On top of that family's encouragment to end your life would you have will to fight it - love of your family to ease your pain, how can you refuse?
Of course we do think about inheritance do we? Perhaps Governments do and know that sick, old people can easily be encouraged.

This Prison planet and its inmates and their slimy attitudes promoted by the systems of disparity which control them - the attitudes simply have to change on so many levels in regard to so many ways in which present society is doing and viewing things which are simply nasty relics of a dark and ignorant past.

Old people can indeed be easily encouraged. The focus of this has to do with the opening post and the person is terminally ill - dying anyway - in pain, so suffering. Thus it has reached a point beyond the feeble arguments of who gets what and how the elderly are so easily encouraged. Yep sure, if they want to die that way, fine! But having no choice is the issue, and those who want to die that way or insist that their family members die that way should not impose that dark ignorance onto others who have empathy for those who are suffering in such a way and want the option to out earlier than that type of death is naturally allowing.

[Jagella]

People suffer needlessly.

The key word is "needlessly." I believe that a person may suffer needlessly if that person is not receiving adequate treatment for pain. Sometimes a person may suffer with pain when that pain can be alleviated through the use of proper medication. It is wise to make sure that prior to any drastic measures that all other options have been exhausted.

It is also important to point out that pain can be emotional. A sick or dying person may be very depressed or anxious. If that is the case then medication along with support from friends and family may restore the will to live.

Finally, societal changes can work wonders in saving the lives of those in pain. If we as a society change our attitudes toward the aged, the disabled, and the terminally ill, then we can give those people reasons to live.

[William]

People suffer needlessly.

The key word is "needlessly." I believe that a person may suffer needlessly if that person is not receiving adequate treatment for pain. Sometimes a person may suffer with pain when that pain can be alleviated through the use of proper medication. It is wise to make sure that prior to any drastic measures that all other options have been exhausted.

It is also important to point out that pain can be emotional. A sick or dying person may be very depressed or anxious. If that is the case then medication along with support from friends and family may restore the will to live.

Finally, societal changes can work wonders in saving the lives of those in pain. If we as a society change our attitudes toward the aged, the disabled, and the terminally ill, then we can give those people reasons to live.

I am not seeing where your arguments above are focused upon the opening post, or address my own comments on the opening post and my support for individuals being lawfully allowed to make their own choice as to whether they wish to continue on with their life and let the terminal disease dictate how long that will go on for, or take matters into their own hands.

(for example) I for one, would far rather my significant other was able to choose how she wished to leave this world and to see her do so peaceable and even with a smile on her face rather than in the horror of pain and death rattles etc should she contract a terminal disease.

We would have the opportunity to prepare for the event and make it as comfortable and dignified as possible for all involved.

Bottom line in relation to the argument I present, is that just because YOU may want it to be to the full term, and are willing to go through that process, why would YOU want to demand that of everyone else and support laws which deny people alternative choices?

Did you not note that I was willing enough to allow for YOU the right to die however YOU wish to do so under those circumstances?

Why would YOU want to force ME to abide by your own beliefs in how death should be handled?

That is the question.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 65 by William]

I am not seeing where your arguments above are focused upon the opening post...

I did address in an earlier response the questions asked in the opening post. Did you miss that reply?

I for one, would far rather my significant other was able to choose how she wished to leave this world and to see her do so peaceable and even with a smile on her face rather than in the horror of pain and death rattles etc should she contract a terminal disease.

Would you support her effort to commit suicide if she chose to shoot or hang herself?

Bottom line in relation to the argument I present, is that just because YOU may want it to be to the full term, and are willing to go through that process, why would YOU want to demand that of everyone else and support laws which deny people alternative choices?

You may have missed my response that I believe a person has the right to refuse medical treatment.

Did you not note that I was willing enough to allow for YOU the right to die however YOU wish to do so under those circumstances?

Thanks, but most of the time I think more of my right to live than to die. "The right to die" is a weird notion. Do we have the right to punch ourselves in the mouths?

Why would YOU want to force ME to abide by your own beliefs in how death should be handled?

Death is serious business. I'm very concerned about how you might handle it. I tend to try to keep death to a minimum.

[William]

[Replying to post 65 by William]

I am not seeing where your arguments above are focused upon the opening post...

I did address in an earlier response the questions asked in the opening post. Did you miss that reply?

Yes. I replied to a pole question and to the questions relating to my vote on the subject. No one else's reply's were pertinent to that. It is you who have since taken issue with my position.

I for one, would far rather my significant other was able to choose how she wished to leave this world and to see her do so peaceable and even with a smile on her face rather than in the horror of pain and death rattles etc should she contract a terminal disease.

Would you support her effort to commit suicide if she chose to shoot or hang herself?

What???
No. I would suggest that she not be so silly and to take the easier option made available to assist her in departing this life, for everyone's sake.
I thought I made that clear when I mentioned being with her when she died that I would like to "see her do so peaceable and even with a smile on her face". Why in your mind you decided to conflate that with how people die by hanging or shooting themselves, frankly, leaves me suspicious as to your thought processes.
Seriously your question has nothing to do with the thread subject and perhaps should be removed?

Bottom line in relation to the argument I present, is that just because YOU may want it to be to the full term, and are willing to go through that process, why would YOU want to demand that of everyone else and support laws which deny people alternative choices?

You may have missed my response that I believe a person has the right to refuse medical treatment.

If you or anyone else wants to refuse medical treatment, that should be your right to choose. However, if one wants medical assistance in helping them to die (in the circumstances mentioned in the OP) then a person should also have the right to that.

Did you not note that I was willing enough to allow for YOU the right to die however YOU wish to do so under those circumstances?

Thanks, but most of the time I think more of my right to live than to die. "The right to die" is a weird notion. Do we have the right to punch ourselves in the mouths?

I see your position on death and dying is somewhat negative. Perhaps therein is the issue?

Why would YOU want to force ME to abide by your own beliefs in how death should be handled?

Death is serious business. I'm very concerned about how you might handle it. I tend to try to keep death to a minimum.

Death is a 'serious business'? What do you mean by that in relation to my own position? Death is an unavoidable part of the life cycle of all critters on the planet, and until if or when science comes up with a solution, death remains that way.

It is as much a part of the day as the night is, so to speak. Letting go and acceptance is a process many people would like to experience regarding death, and just because you don't count yourself as one of those types does not give you the right to dictate your attitudes/fears/concerns etc, onto their experience in an effort to deny them that right.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 67 by William]

It is you who have since taken issue with my position.

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.

What???
No.

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

I thought I made that clear when I mentioned being with her when she died that I would like to "see her do so peaceable and even with a smile on her face".

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.

However, if one wants medical assistance in helping them to die (in the circumstances mentioned in the OP) then a person should also have the right to that.

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.

I see your position on death and dying is somewhat negative. Perhaps therein is the issue?

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

Death is a 'serious business'? What do you mean by that in relation to my own position?

If you don't think 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.

...just because you don't count yourself as one of those types does not give you the right to dictate your attitudes/fears/concerns etc, onto their experience in an effort to deny them that right.

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.

[liamconnor]

[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?

[Jagella]

[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?

Some apologists claim that atheism can lead to a lack of respect for human life. The late D. James Kennedy held that belief and opposed euthanasia. So I do seem some relevance between euthanasia and apologetics.