Normalizing suicide

[macska]

Another interesting conversation, where different opinions collide. It is probably true that some people would change their mind if the circumstances would change. Like if the pain would diminish if given palliative care. But the solution is not to force them, it is to try to talk to them (if possible), and let them make their own decisions. And when they make their informed decision, we should respect that decision. The movie: “Whose life is it anyway?” should be considered.

We all make mistakes, sometimes very bad mistakes. But they are OUR mistakes - even if they are fatal mistakes. And advocating a “nanny state”, which will take over the decision making process is wrong, no matter what the end result will be. If we do not respect the rights to make bad decisions, then we become irrelevant “cogs” in the big endeavor called “life” - where someone else is at the steering wheel, and we are simply dragged along for the ride, even if we wish to get off.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Thinker_Doer:

If it does not force you to participate, don’t chastise them.

This is the same logic that will be used to justify legalizing prostitution, pedophilia, necrophilia, and other forms of perversion in the next century.

Or even murder. Or robbery. Drug use.
Thinker_doer deludes himself (or herself) if he thinks assisted suicide is a “victimless crime”.

 

[signit]

First of all, I read this article elsewhere myself yesterday, and I totally agree with the Catholic belief on this and don’t agree, in fact am horrified, at what that person did.

From a strictly secular perspective , I feel I need to add something.

The countries where they allow assisted suicide always start out with “person in their right mind, only if they’re terminal, only if they’re signed off by five psychiatrists and only after a waiting period”

And then…these protections get eroded away. Rather than five psychiatrists, now it’s one psychiatrist and a NP. instead of the person signing off for themself, somebody else can be the proxy who’s “totally sure” the person would want this. Oh, and they no longer need to be terminal…

And here’s the other problem—do we revere life, or not? Do we intervene for the suicidal teenager anymore? Why? Why not?
If the proxy from the previous paragraph can decide who lives and who dies, why can’t I? Or you?

No matter how much you want to soothe yourself, there’s no way to put the brakes on once this is leagalized.

That’s almost exactly what I always say.

The minute we accept assisted suicide, we run the risk of it not truly being the person’s own decision.

Suppose Uncle Joe has a stroke. Aunt Aggie has to take care of him. Aunt Aggie complains constantly about what an inconvenience it is for her to take care of him. Maybe Uncle Joe will consider assisted suicide not because he really wants to do it but because he doesn’t want to be a burden on his wife.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Another interesting conversation, where different opinions collide. It is probably true that some people would change their mind if the circumstances would change. Like if the pain would diminish if given palliative care. But the solution is not to force them, it is to try to talk to them (if possible), and let them make their own decisions. And when they make their informed decision, we should respect that decision. The movie: “Whose life is it anyway?” should be considered.

We all make mistakes, sometimes very bad mistakes. But they are OUR mistakes - even if they are fatal mistakes. And advocating a “nanny state”, which will take over the decision making process is wrong, no matter what the end result will be. If we do not respect the rights to make bad decisions, then we become irrelevant “cogs” in the big endeavor called “life” - where someone else is at the steering wheel, and we are simply dragged along for the ride, even if we wish to get off.

Hilarious - - you think having a law against suicide is being a “nanny state”. That’s rich - - pretty sure that most governments have had laws against suicide for centuries before the “nanny state” concept existed.

Suicide legislation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[macska]

Hilarious - - you think having a law against suicide is being a “nanny state”. That’s rich - - pretty sure that most governments have had laws against suicide for centuries before the “nanny state” concept existed.

Just because there was no word for it, the state would assume the “right” to make personal decisions for you.

I have to repeat: “if you are not allowed to make incorrect decisions (mistakes), then you have no dominion over your life and body”. If you have no problem with it, that is fine. I cannot and would not wish to take the responsibility to run your life for you. Why can’t I expect similar courtesy or respect? Are you in a position to make decisions for me? Be honest about it.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The minute we accept assisted suicide, we run the risk of it not truly being the person’s own decision.

Suppose Uncle Joe has a stroke. Aunt Aggie has to take care of him. Aunt Aggie complains constantly about what an inconvenience it is for her to take care of him. Maybe Uncle Joe will consider assisted suicide not because he really wants to do it but because he doesn’t want to be a burden on his wife.

^^This. And I can tell you based on my interactions with various medical personnel when my mother was severely ill, that there are doctors out there who would advise that sick and/or elderly people be “put out of their misery” because they consider them a waste of resources to care for and can’t make them well again. Especially when the person and their family do not have money to pay for their care.

A lot of end-of-life decisions also aren’t made by the person whose life is ending, or not by them alone. They’ll delegate their power of attorney to somebody, or they’ll be influenced by whoever is spending time with them. I can totally see sick people and elderly people being pushed to just end their lives already whether it’s what they want or not. Not everybody gets around to creating a Living Will when they’re still in good health and sound mind, and there’s a concern that even if they did, those Living Wills wouldnt be respected.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Loud-living-dogma:

Hilarious - - you think having a law against suicide is being a “nanny state”. That’s rich - - pretty sure that most governments have had laws against suicide for centuries before the “nanny state” concept existed.

Just because there was no word for it, the state would assume the “right” to make personal decisions for you.

I have to repeat: “if you are not allowed to make incorrect decisions (mistakes), then you have no dominion over your life and body”. If you have no problem with it, that is fine. I cannot and would not wish to take the responsibility to run your life for you. Why can’t I expect similar courtesy? Are you in a position to make decisions for me? Be honest about it.

In ancient Athens, a person who had died by suicide (without the approval of the state) was denied the honours of a normal burial. The person would be buried alone, on the outskirts of the city, without a headstone or marker. A criminal ordinance issued by Louis XIV in 1670 was far more severe in its punishment: the dead person's body was drawn through the streets, face down, and then hung or thrown on a garbage heap. Additionally, all of the person's property was confiscated.
The ‘Burial of Suicide Act’ of 1823 abolished the legal requirement in England of burying suicides at crossroads.[4][5]

Even in modern times, legal penalties for the act of suicide have not been uncommon. By 1879, English law had begun to distinguish between suicide and homicide, though suicide still resulted in forfeiture of estate. Also, the deceased were permitted daylight burial in 1882.

So do you regard these societies as "nanny states"? Ancient Greece, Early Modern France, etc?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Many in the medical profession are frustrated with any patient whom they cannot cure. On some level to them it’s a waste of time and a failure.
It’s good that we have hospices and at least some nursing home staff who take a different view.

 

[Jeanne_S]

There is a saying” you cannot legislate morality” However,due to our secular society the push to legislate immorality is growing daily.This is a slippery slope.
As Christians in a secular environment we are called upon to fight against such treads.
Suffering is a part of life,being a Christain gives suffering meaning as Christ instructs us to take up our crosses and follow him

 

[macska]

So do you regard these societies as “nanny states”?

I used the quotes around the words, to indicate that they are not to be taken verbatim, rather allegorically. What is not allegorical is that taking away the decision from others is removing their dignity to have dominion over their life. If you advocate such an approach, you will have no ground to complain if the (hypothetical) state will treat you accordingly. (Like taking away all your money, and re-distribute it according to their preferences. After all you cannot be trusted to run your life!)

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

So, you regard Ancient Athens, Early Modern France, 1800s England, as allegorical nanny states, who didn’t trust people to run their own lives?

I think you are running from the idea that suicide has a long history on this planet as being completely verboten, and we are now attempting to legislate it as a public good to get rid of people who are expensive to look after.

 

[macska]

I think you are running from the idea that suicide has a long history on this planet as being completely verboten, and we are now attempting to legislate it as a public good to get rid of people who are expensive to look after.

You confuse two totally different questions. If someone, having her full faculties wishes to “get off”, it is not the same as “getting rid of the too expensive to keep alive” people.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

One becomes the other. Read the many articles linked in this thread. For instance:

Dutch doctor 'asked family to hold down euthanasia patient'

A doctor who was reprimanded for administering a lethal jab to a 74-year-old woman with dementia despite her 'resistance' is now under a criminal investigation in the Netherlands.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Why not read it, then explain to us how PAS is a victimless crime?

 

[Asinner]

It’s pretty telling that the states won’t allow the coroner to mark the cause of death as “suicide.” That’s exactly what it is, and everyone knows it. If all those “assistance in dying” supporters are so sure that they are right, they should have no problem owning up to what they really support. Cowards, the lot of them.

 

[macska]

One becomes the other.

No, it does not. There is no logical necessity for such a transition. Treat the questions for what they are, and not how they can be abused.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Treat the questions for what they are, and not how they can be abused.

We can’t discuss this question without discussing the very high risk of legal - not even religious, but legal - abuse of assisted suicide.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Fine, I support assisted suicide. To be honest if I was in the gentleman in the articles position I’d take the same route. I wouldn’t want to live either in endless pain, or so doped up on painkillers that I don’t know where or who I am.

I’d pass on the party though, not my thing.

 

[macska]

We can’t discuss this question without discussing the very high risk of legal - not even religious, but legal - abuse of assisted suicide.

Sure we could, if we wanted to. Just like any complicated issue, it can be discussed “what it is” and not “how it can be abused”. Both would be valid subjects, and both could be discussed separate from each other.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Tis_Bearself:

We can’t discuss this question without discussing the very high risk of legal - not even religious, but legal - abuse of assisted suicide.

Sure we could, if we wanted to. Just like any complicated issue, it can be discussed “what it is” and not “how it can be abused”. Both would be valid subjects, and both could be discussed separate from each other.

So, curious about how do you reconcile your views with what the Church teaches?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Sure we could, if we wanted to.

Taking off my Catholic hat, and putting on my legal ethics hat, I say, no we can’t.

Leaving this thread now - it’s becoming argumentative for no purpose, as well as closed minded and dismissive of those of us who have had real-life experiences in this arena.