Debating assisted suicide with friends

[LemonAndLime]

Sir Terry Pratchett is a famous author who suffers from Alzheimers, in the early stages. He is considering assisted suicide, is a campaigner for it, and has made a documentary in which he shares his thoughts as he journeys with a man travelling to Switzerland to kill himself. Sir Pratchett is essentially a presenter in this program.

Last week it was discussed between myself and some friends and it was clear most people were pro-assisted suicide, “choice” was mentioned. I was the only one who expressed the opinion that it was a bad thing, especially if it was available on the NHS. I got so pent up I made a speech. I talked about how people could be coerced so family don’t have to pay expensive nursing home fees (that isn’t nationalised in this country), the emphasis should be on making it easier to live with a terminal disease instead of ending life… I generally went down the “can of worms” route. I didn’t attempt to make a moral route “As a Catholic…” as I didn’t want people to think I just believed this because of my religion. I don’t, by the way.

Tonight the program was aired, our discussions above was in anticipation. Someone from my course posted to say it was “thought provoking”. A 2nd person then commented to say that it was a matter of being able to have the choice. I commented to basically say - but who will have the choice? The OP replied “the people who decided to end their lives”. And missed the point I was trying to make. She’s now posted to say that everyone should have the choice.

How do I argue against this effectively as a minority? I feel like a bit of an idiot now for arguing with them over Facebook, they’re meant to be my friends and it’s quite an emotionally charged subject. I may apologise.

Link to an article about the program - bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13758286

 

[Inquiringperson]

Sir Terry Pratchett is a famous author who suffers from Alzheimers, in the early stages. He is considering assisted suicide, is a campaigner for it, and has made a documentary in which he shares his thoughts as he journeys with a man travelling to Switzerland to kill himself. Sir Pratchett is essentially a presenter in this program.

Last week it was discussed between myself and some friends and it was clear most people were pro-assisted suicide, “choice” was mentioned. I was the only one who expressed the opinion that it was a bad thing, especially if it was available on the NHS. I got so pent up I made a speech. I talked about how people could be coerced so family don’t have to pay expensive nursing home fees (that isn’t nationalised in this country), the emphasis should be on making it easier to live with a terminal disease instead of ending life… I generally went down the “can of worms” route. I didn’t attempt to make a moral route “As a Catholic…” as I didn’t want people to think I just believed this because of my religion. I don’t, by the way.

Tonight the program was aired, our discussions above was in anticipation. Someone from my course posted to say it was “thought provoking”. A 2nd person then commented to say that it was a matter of being able to have the choice. I commented to basically say - but who will have the choice? The OP replied “the people who decided to end their lives”. And missed the point I was trying to make. She’s now posted to say that everyone should have the choice.

How do I argue against this effectively as a minority? I feel like a bit of an idiot now for arguing with them over Facebook, they’re meant to be my friends and it’s quite an emotionally charged subject. I may apologise.

Link to an article about the program - bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13758286

Tell them that assisted suicide isn’t good because a cure for a certain disease could come the hour after someone died via assisted suicide.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Sir Terry Pratchett is a famous author who suffers from Alzheimers, in the early stages. He is considering assisted suicide, is a campaigner for it, and has made a documentary in which he shares his thoughts as he journeys with a man travelling to Switzerland to kill himself. Sir Pratchett is essentially a presenter in this program.

Last week it was discussed between myself and some friends and it was clear most people were pro-assisted suicide, “choice” was mentioned. I was the only one who expressed the opinion that it was a bad thing, especially if it was available on the NHS. I got so pent up I made a speech. I talked about how people could be coerced so family don’t have to pay expensive nursing home fees (that isn’t nationalised in this country), the emphasis should be on making it easier to live with a terminal disease instead of ending life… I generally went down the “can of worms” route. I didn’t attempt to make a moral route “As a Catholic…” as I didn’t want people to think I just believed this because of my religion. I don’t, by the way.

Tonight the program was aired, our discussions above was in anticipation. Someone from my course posted to say it was “thought provoking”. A 2nd person then commented to say that it was a matter of being able to have the choice. I commented to basically say - but who will have the choice? The OP replied “the people who decided to end their lives”. And missed the point I was trying to make. She’s now posted to say that everyone should have the choice.

How do I argue against this effectively as a minority? I feel like a bit of an idiot now for arguing with them over Facebook, they’re meant to be my friends and it’s quite an emotionally charged subject. I may apologise.

Link to an article about the program - bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13758286

Firstly, LemonAndLime, DO NOT Apologise for your beliefs!!! You are in the right, and you don’t need to back off at all. It can be terribly frustrating to feel so strongly about this topic, and then feel that no one gets it. I have that happen all the time, sometimes when I am posting on other threads. I am not a good one for giving speeches, or having facts and figures at my fingertips, no matter how strongly I feel, and that is frustrating.

I would advise getting as many facts on your side, but, most people who fling the word “choice” about tend to ignore facts if the facts disagree with their “feelings.” You will feel like you are fighting a loosing battle, but you are not. You keep up your side and pray lots and lots, not only to the Holy Spirit to give you the words you need, but also for your friends for their conversions to the right side of the matter.

Good for you, LemonAndLime! I will be praying for you.

 

[tbcrawford]

Well done LemonAndLime! You stood up for what you believe in…that can often be hard in our non religious world.Because others don’t believe in God or understand the knowledge you have it makes it tricky to have debates on their level.You have made the most relevant points possible about whose choice exactly is it? Is a person in their ‘right’ mind to be able to make an informed conscious decision etc etc.Is it best for the carer or the person suffering.The friends you have been debating with don’t understand that God alone has the right to end our lives.

Keep the good work up, good luck and God bless

 

[Spirithound]

Last week it was discussed between myself and some friends and it was clear most people were pro-assisted suicide, “choice” was mentioned. I was the only one who expressed the opinion that it was a bad thing, especially if it was available on the NHS. I got so pent up I made a speech. I talked about how people could be coerced so family don’t have to pay expensive nursing home fees (that isn’t nationalised in this country), the emphasis should be on making it easier to live with a terminal disease instead of ending life… I generally went down the “can of worms” route. I didn’t attempt to make a moral route “As a Catholic…” as I didn’t want people to think I just believed this because of my religion. I don’t, by the way.

Tonight the program was aired, our discussions above was in anticipation. Someone from my course posted to say it was “thought provoking”. A 2nd person then commented to say that it was a matter of being able to have the choice. I commented to basically say - but who will have the choice? The OP replied “the people who decided to end their lives”. And missed the point I was trying to make. She’s now posted to say that everyone should have the choice.

You’re doing it right, dear friend. If death becomes a “legitimately” prescribable “cure”, then anybody who might actually want to fight their disease is in big trouble. The government (all of them…) already prefers the cheapest way possible. If death can be by prescription, why bother with hospice and palliative care? Free those beds up for young liver transplants (almost said hip replacements, but they’d be on the block too )

 

[TimothyH]

In relation to “choice”, one could choose not to unite their suffering with the suffering of Christ and just to give up instead, but is it nor more noble to assist in the redemption of the world by offering up our suffering to Jesus? I’m sure this argument won’t fly outside of Catholicism but there it is anyway.

Can of worms indeed. Where do we draw the line? Do I get to end my life because I lost a leg in a car accident? Do I get to go to a lethal injection clinic when my girlfriend doesn’t accept my marriage proposal? Do I get to blow my brains out because my team didn’t win the championship? When do the advertisements start on TV for death clinics?

And what of choice? Nobody is questioning anyone’s ability to make a choice with regards to suicide, we are questioning the judgement of those who make that choice. Anyone is free to take a long walk off a short pier if that is what they want to do, but the judgement of one who does so is highly suspect.

-Tim-

 

[Trishie]

From the CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH regarding Euthanasia/assisted suicide

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

Suicide

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

 

[Rascalking]

Stand up or what you believe, but this is the one issue where, even though I agree with the church, it’s heartbreaking to see someone suffer. It’s a delicate issue, to say for sure.

Also, remember that Facebook is a double edged sword. Everyone can see it,so don’t say something you don’t want seen by everyone.

God bless you for fighting for the faith. Rock and roll Lemon…Rock and roll.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I would also focus on their insistance on choice. Do people ask themselves where do these ‘legitimate choices’ come from? Whose choice it is anyway? My bet is on the society that doesn’t want to waste money on the sick. I would ask if people are really making an informed, free choice if they are pressured to see suicide as the best option. We are slowly being brainwashed to accept assisted suicide as the moral option. Does that lead to free choice?

I agree with the poster who said that people ignore facts when the facts hurt their feelings. You might hit a wall with your friends and not win this debate but it doesn’t hurt to ask them tough questions and make them think. Good luck.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I would also focus on their insistance on choice. Do people ask themselves where do these ‘legitimate choices’ come from? Whose choice it is anyway? My bet is on the society that doesn’t want to waste money on the sick. I would ask if people are really making an informed, free choice if they are pressured to see suicide as the best option. We are slowly being brainwashed to accept assisted suicide as the moral option. Does that lead to free choice?

I agree with the poster who said that people ignore facts when the facts hurt their feelings. You might hit a wall with your friends and not win this debate but it doesn’t hurt to ask them tough questions and make them think. Good luck.

That’s what I’m trying to say. And thank you everyone for your support! Last night the debate on Facebook was actually pretty friendly, while every other person took the “choice” viewpoint they were very respectful, acknowledged that my opinionn was just as legitimate as their’s and no one was rude or dismissive. It was really good and I really think that some people listened to what I had to say and responded to it.

However, this morning, someone who was not involved last night (so probably hasn’t read the entire “thread”) has accused me of having blinkers and not seeing their viewpoint. All the way through the debate I have said things like “Yes choice sounds like a nice idea…” or “I can see where you’re coming from completely, but it would never just happen like that…” or “It is horrible to be in pain, yet the emphasis should be on…” so I don’t think I have been at all.

 

[kildare]

Have you seen the film Good with Viggo Mortensen? Its about a professor in 1930s Germany who writes a paper on assisted suicide and suddenly finds that his biggest fans are the Nazis. Eventually he is persuaded to join the party and things go downhill for him from there.

As much as we may think the Nazis were not just all about suffering. The raison detre of their philosophy was to improve the human race by cultivating the best specimens - those deemed to have lives worth living. This kind of philosophy was not unique to Germany and appeared all over Europe from the mid 19th century. Its roots are actually with the English philosopher Malthus.
Darwinism and the decline of religious belief “opened the eyes” to westerners about the reality of the inequality of natural life(as opposed to Christian belief that all souls are equal) and the Nazis simply followed that line of thinking to its logical conclusion. Hitler, Himmler in their warped way of thinking actually thought they were doing humanity and the planet a very big favour. They would probably even argue that the gas chambers were “humane” ways of dealing with a problem - sick though that sounds.

Now how does that tie in with individuals own choice? Surely you cant compare genoicide with mercy killing and in truth its not an entirely fair comparison but ultimately it has the same souless originator - Man should be able to do what he sees fit with human life, starting with his or her own life!
For Christians, and I think this goes for most religions, this is a big taboo, because life is neither ours to give or take. And practically speaking we dont know every course of events, nor are we always very objective, Each human is a different case so it becomes as you say, like a “can of worms”.

If you are in 1945 and a painfully wounded Hitler, after botching his attempted suicide, begs you to kill him before the Russians get him and humiliate him and torture him, would you do it?
I wouldnt! Its not my mercy to give
The law should be the same for everyone and that is why we cant agree with it.

 

[Big_Dummy]

google.com/search?hl=en&biw=999&bih=492&tbm=nws&q=obama+care+death+panels+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=90951

benningtonvalepress.com/2011/06/dr-jack-kevorkian-dies-obama-seeks-new.html

nolanchart.com/article8743_Obamas_has_no_plan_so_is_he_bankrupting_Medicare.html

firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/04/02/krugman-admits-rationing-death-panels-from-obamacare/

scaredmonkeys.com/2010/12/26/no-obamacare-death-panels-eh-an-obamacare-surprise-they-begin-jan-1-obama-added-regulation-writing-process-without-telling-anybody/

americanthinker.com/2010/10/juan_williams_and_the_obamacar.html

I forget is death panals still in obama care?

try the slipperly slope argument. assisted suicide and death panal of obama care. It would be just a matter of time. if the death panal does not come under obama, what will stop it from being put in place at lower levels later?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

However, this morning, someone who was not involved last night (so probably hasn’t read the entire “thread”) has accused me of having blinkers and not seeing their viewpoint. All the way through the debate I have said things like “Yes choice sounds like a nice idea…” or “I can see where you’re coming from completely, but it would never just happen like that…” or “It is horrible to be in pain, yet the emphasis should be on…” so I don’t think I have been at all.

You should tell that person to read the whole discussion before making such disrespectful comments about you. You sound like you are very careful not to offend anybody, which is a good quality. But sometimes people need a bit of an attitude to sit up straight and listen.
Don’t be afraid to voice your opinion. So what if they disagree?

 

[Spirithound]

I would also focus on their insistance on choice.

Yes. Another thought: For as long as we have been taking psychology seriously, we have viewed suicidal thoughts as something to be cured. Consider why this is no longer the case.

I make a two-pronged argument from this introduction. The first aims at the person who is not contemplating suicide, but supports assisted suicide. I ask that person what has changed in the world, in society, in medicine, that death appears to be a legitimate choice? I contend that nothing legitimate has changed, and so we must continue to actually treat patients instead of killing them.

The second prong regards the person who is contemplating suicide and notes that according to every medical rubric of the last several thousand years, the choices of a person who wishes to kill themself are simply not to be trusted nor acted upon.

 

[vera_dicere]

A while back I saw a doco about a pre-verbal tribe of humans. In some kind of grave site they found some bodies that had very old injuries - like broken limbs that had healed incorrectly which woudl have made the individual slower and with a limp, also their teeth were badly damaged, making it impossible for them to chew their own food. But these individuals had lived their expectancy and had died of natural causes, Why? Their little tribe of pre-verbal nomadic humans had helped carry them, had chewed their food et cetera. Now, wouldn’t it make more sense and be more useful to the whole tribe to just leave the injured and the sick?

No. Instead these pre-verbal, primitive humans cared for and carried their tribe members. Now if these “savages” can care for their own sick, why can’t we, with all our technology and medicine?

There’s no such thing as death with dignity, only living with dignity whilst dying. Being killed is not dignified. How dispicable people equate love with killing. My observation is that people who support euthanasia have been conned by the “hard” cases where holisitic pallitive care is not being carried out decently.

 

[severus68]

Sir Terry Pratchett is a famous author who suffers from Alzheimers, in the early stages. He is considering assisted suicide, is a campaigner for it, and has made a documentary in which he shares his thoughts as he journeys with a man travelling to Switzerland to kill himself. Sir Pratchett is essentially a presenter in this program.

Last week it was discussed between myself and some friends and it was clear most people were pro-assisted suicide, “choice” was mentioned. I was the only one who expressed the opinion that it was a bad thing, especially if it was available on the NHS. I got so pent up I made a speech. I talked about how people could be coerced so family don’t have to pay expensive nursing home fees (that isn’t nationalised in this country), the emphasis should be on making it easier to live with a terminal disease instead of ending life… I generally went down the “can of worms” route. I didn’t attempt to make a moral route “As a Catholic…” as I didn’t want people to think I just believed this because of my religion. I don’t, by the way.

Tonight the program was aired, our discussions above was in anticipation. Someone from my course posted to say it was “thought provoking”. A 2nd person then commented to say that it was a matter of being able to have the choice. I commented to basically say - but who will have the choice? The OP replied “the people who decided to end their lives”. And missed the point I was trying to make. She’s now posted to say that everyone should have the choice.

How do I argue against this effectively as a minority? I feel like a bit of an idiot now for arguing with them over Facebook, they’re meant to be my friends and it’s quite an emotionally charged subject. I may apologise.

Link to an article about the program - bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13758286

It is sad what is happening to him. He has been entertaining millions with his vivid imagination and will not remember basic things one day.

However he has more of a choice than others have. He has the money to have all the help he needs until he dies if he decides not to proceed. Others will not have the same real choice. They will have to depend on the resources and the love of family members and some may persuade them to make that awful “choice” assuring themselves that they are only thinking about their ill family member. The ill person may in any event feel overwhelmed by the financial and emotional burden he is and this combined with pain and suffering may decide to make this choice. That would not be a real choice made with a clear mind. Then there is the very real possibility that the person who makes such choice changes his mind at the last moment when it is too late.

Like you I would be against assisted suicide even if I was not a Christian or at all religious.Life is so precious and there are so many who want to live but their lives are taken away by cancer etc. They have no choice.

I hope the UK does not legalise this horrible thing that Switzerland has.

Good luck with this.

I am sure you have read this but for others please read this.
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/19/terry-pratchett-dignitas-death-tourism

 

[Newbie2]

“Dr.” Jack Kevorkian passed away recently in the Detroit Metro area, and it of course was big news around here.

The question of so called “assisted suicide” is an interesting debate, the Catholic view on suicide in general notwithstanding. From an areligious POV, I would ask what is the difference in the role of the “assistant” in a case of “assisted suicide” and a case of murder?

None, I would argue.

Scenario 1: Let’s say that “A” wants to commit suicide because of the unrelenting pain of bone cancer and asks “B” to help him.

Scenario 2: A expresses no desire to die, but B decides A is better off dead.

In 1, B sets up a system to kill A; an IV hooked up to fatal drugs so that all A has to do is push a button to get them flowing into his body to kill him.

or

B drives A to a bridge and helps him sit on the edge; all A has to do is lean a bit forward and he falls to his death. We could think of a hundred ways B could “help” A to kill himself.

In 2, B plants an explosive under the bed so that when A gets out of bed and steps on the floor, the bomb goes off and kills A

In both cases, B’s actions and intentions are the same. He sets up a situation where A dies. The only difference is in A’s will to live or die. B’s motivation is the same; he wants for A not to suffer.

So the difference between B’s role in 1 (“assisted suicide”) and 2 (murder) is…well…there doesn’t seem to be any difference. Legally, yep, there probably is a difference depending on the laws in any particular state. Morally…different matter, perhaps.

Morally speaking, then, A’s motivation is the crux of the argument; it it not a matter of adding “assisted” to “suicide”, it’s a matter of simply “suicide”. Does A have the right to take his own life? is the question to debate.

 

[Spirithound]

Does A have the right to take his own life? is the question to debate.

I would object to framing the debate in the context of a "right’’. Rights are granted to people whom the state deems competent to exercise them. In many places, people under the age of 18 do not have the right to vote. Conversely, people 18 and older have the right to vote because society deems them fit to make a meaningful decision. Suicide is never a meaningful decision. The desire to kill oneself has always been seen as something to be cured, not allowed.

 

[severus68]

“Dr.” Jack Kevorkian passed away recently in the Detroit Metro area, and it of course was big news around here.

The question of so called “assisted suicide” is an interesting debate, the Catholic view on suicide in general notwithstanding. From an areligious POV, I would ask what is the difference in the role of the “assistant” in a case of “assisted suicide” and a case of murder?

None, I would argue.

Scenario 1: Let’s say that “A” wants to commit suicide because of the unrelenting pain of bone cancer and asks “B” to help him.

Scenario 2: A expresses no desire to die, but B decides A is better off dead.

In 1, B sets up a system to kill A; an IV hooked up to fatal drugs so that all A has to do is push a button to get them flowing into his body to kill him.

or

B drives A to a bridge and helps him sit on the edge; all A has to do is lean a bit forward and he falls to his death. We could think of a hundred ways B could “help” A to kill himself.

In 2, B plants an explosive under the bed so that when A gets out of bed and steps on the floor, the bomb goes off and kills A

In both cases, B’s actions and intentions are the same. He sets up a situation where A dies. The only difference is in A’s will to live or die. B’s motivation is the same; he wants for A not to suffer.

So the difference between B’s role in 1 (“assisted suicide”) and 2 (murder) is…well…there doesn’t seem to be any difference. Legally, yep, there probably is a difference depending on the laws in any particular state. Morally…different matter, perhaps.

Morally speaking, then, A’s motivation is the crux of the argument; it it not a matter of adding “assisted” to “suicide”, it’s a matter of simply “suicide”. Does A have the right to take his own life? is the question to debate.

The only difference would be as to what crime A would be charged with (murder or a lesser charge) and in the mitigating factor as far as sentencing is concerned.

Even the Church accepts that people who commit suicide cannot be judged as being in their full senses. How do we talk of the right or otherwise of a person who is in such a state of mind to even want to commit suicide from a non religious or even religious view point.

Basically it should but us giving support, care and love to anyone who wishes to commit suicide to persuade such person not to do so. To me, that is what the state should do - Have such a support system. If the state sanctions assisted suicide, it will be saying’ I I am going to help you do it" to someone already confused by pain etc.