Requesting one's own death

[ThinkingSapien]

First of all, I must apologise for what I think was a terribly sanctimonious tone in my previous post - I fear I’ve let my impatience with a couple of other threads bleed through into this one

No need to apologize. But all the same thanks for the consideration.

I had not heard of this particular variation, so had to look it up - but it does seem like the most advanced form of reciprocal ethics

Well, platinum is more rare than gold!

, one that requires more than just seeing the world in one’s own way. Theoretically, this might mean that even if one were personally opposed to euthanasia, such opposition might be overcome by consideration of the needs and wishes of the terminally-ill person. It’s an extremely fraught question, as to whether one could or should subvert one’s own principles for the sake of another - that seems to require an almost superhuman degree of selflessness…

Yes, even if one tries to take the Platinum Rule into consideration it’s not easy to know how successful one is at it. There’s still a bit of an inescapable tendency to project ones ego into the views of others.

on the other hand, if the terminally-ill person knew that their most trusted friend was seriously opposed to euthanasia, exercising the platinum rule would mean allowing them to hold to their own principles, even if it meant prolonging one’s own suffering. Interesting…

Good point.

When I was growing up as a Catholic, I remember often being told, when I was in pain or undergoing some other unpleasant experience, to “offer it up” - the implication being that my suffering was somehow a sacrifice to god/Jesus, or a sharing in Jesus’s redemptive sacrifice, or an acknowledgement that others in the world were suffering worse than I was.

I can’t escape the feeling that such a view could be exploited by one that wishes to maintain his position “above” some less fortunate (suffering) members within a society

 

[davidv]

How does that happen? Is it tied up with the mind of the sufferer? In other words, if the sufferer is railing against the pain and suffering, that’s not redemptive, but, if in their mind, they say something like ‘‘Jesus, I am offering this pain up as a penance for my sins and the sins of the world, in a poor imitation of what you suffered to redeem us’’ then that would be redemptive from that point on. But prior to that it isn’t redemptive?

Something about suffering the pain in resignation by remembering the pain that was suffered by Jesus for the world, in the hope that going through this pain, the persons sins might be more easily forgiven, or that indulgences could be purchased for the sins of others.

I’m not expressing that very well, it’s a bit of a mosh pit in my mind.

Sarah x

A quote from the Apostalic Letter SALVIFICI DOLORIS might help.

In order to discover the profound meaning of suffering, following the revealed word of God, we must open ourselves wide to the human subject in his manifold potentiality. We must above all accept the light of Revelation not only insofar as it expresses the transcendent order of justice but also insofar as it illuminates this order with Love, as the definitive source of everything that exists. Love is: also the fullest source of the answer to the question of the meaning of suffering. This answer has been given by God to man in the Cross of Jesus Christ.

You can read the whole letter here.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Ok. To play antithetical advocate here-…
I am curious, about something. Hypothetically, If after all the intervention techniques fail, and the said ‘woman’ in this case, after for say 2 years, the woman *still *wants to have herself killed - then my question is why not?

If she has said she wants to kill herself and hasn’t done so then chances are that she hasn’t settled on a decision yet.

If you are going to argue that she should not allowed herself to kill herself - on what grounds do you deny her this privilege to do what she wants to do with her life?

Deny? How would one deny her this ability? Shoot her with tranquilizers and tie her up so that she can do no harm? I wouldn’t do this. Nor am I in a position to do this. So I’m afraid the premise to the question fails. (I’m speaking of both females, but I will just use singular form). There are also hints that she told me because she wanted me to intervene; a conclusion that both the psychologist and I came to independently. When this occurred I had already built up a great deal of trust with the person and had already intervened several times to take care of what she thought to be awful circumstances.

Assuming, of course, she is mentally competent? Why not let a healthy person, in all aspects of her life, kill herself? What if she deems life not worth living?

Well, if she’s made that conclusion then she probably would have made use of her gun, swallowed that bottle of asprin, run her car in an enclosed space, or done something else to to follow through and I’d have no say so at that point. It’s never reached that point with me. I can’t say that for all of my friends.

A close friend of mine had a school mate that decided to kill himself. He didn’t inform others of this. Instead he went to school and happily had some exchanges with his friends and went home to do the deed. Later after he didn’t respond to phone calls she decided to let herself into his home to check on him and found that he had taken a gun to his head. The scene was so disturbing that she was on antidepressants a few months after that until she could deal with it while remaining functional. He never left any note or hint of why he did it.

 

[Nimzovik]

**THinking Sapien wrote:"**If she has said she wants to kill herself and hasn’t done so then chances are that she hasn’t settled on a decision yet."

Nimzovik Responds:

Not the point**. Why** shouldn’t a person be allowed to take their own life if they want too? Even if totally healthy in Every regard?

This is the answer I want from you.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

**THinking Sapien wrote:"**If she has said she wants to kill herself and hasn’t done so then chances are that she hasn’t settled on a decision yet."

Nimzovik Responds:

Not the point**. Why** shouldn’t a person be allowed to take their own life if they want too? Even if totally healthy in Every regard?

This is the answer I want from you.

I know, and I already tried to answer it.

Deny? How would one deny her this ability? Shoot her with tranquilizers and tie her up so that she can do no harm? I wouldn’t do this. Nor am I in a position to do this. So I’m afraid the premise to the question fails.

I am not in a place to allow or deny. I am in a place to encourage orndiscourage. And in the case of an otherwise healthy person i would discourage it. The only people of which i know that could deny some one this capability work in memtal health facilities.

 

[Nimzovik]

Let us forget the actual cases you are dealing with. I ask, the Hypothetical question- why not permit those that wish to kill themselves - for what ever reason- that are of sound mind and body - kill themselves?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I ask, the Hypothetical question- why not permit those that wish to kill themselves - for what ever reason- that are of sound mind and body - kill themselves?

Hypthetically, how would I permit or disallow somemone from killing himself? It appears that a premise to the question is that I could do so. I already considered physical constraints in an earlier post. I have also spoken from the possibility of being a participant. But beyond that you may as well have asked me if I would permit some one to have certain thoughts since we are talking about a person that retains autonomy. Unless there is some way that you can meaningfully inform me how else some one could permit or disallow self termination of an autonomous person there’s no other way that I can see to answer you question. Hypothetical or not it seems invalid to me.

 

[shoe]

I think that since God created every person and has placed His image in everyone, a person has neither the moral right nor the spiritual right to decide when its time to come face-to-face with the Creator. Therefore, God, who gave us our beginning and has numbered our days, is the only One who has the moral authority to determine the time we are to cross over to the other side.

 

[mark_a]

Let us forget the actual cases you are dealing with. I ask, the Hypothetical question- why not permit those that wish to kill themselves - for what ever reason- that are of sound mind and body - kill themselves?

How is it that folks need permission to do this?

If I were of a mind to kill myself (and I’m not), hardly any lack of permission could stop me.

 

[Nimzovik]

Hypthetically, how would I permit or disallow somemone from killing himself? It appears that a premise to the question is that I could do so. I already considered physical constraints in an earlier post. I have also spoken from the possibility of being a participant. But beyond that you may as well have asked me if I would permit some one to have certain thoughts since we are talking about a person that retains autonomy. Unless there is some way that you can meaningfully inform me how else some one could permit or disallow self termination of an autonomous person there’s no other way that I can see to answer you question. Hypothetical or not it seems invalid to me.

Ok -perhaps I am not making myself clear. Historically there have been legal peanlties for attempting to kill oneself. Would you vote for legislation that offered No penalties? Do you *think *it is philosophically speaking, OK for people to kill themselves if they just want to? Even if they just want to kill themselves -just for their version of say -recreation? I mean -why not make it a ‘right?’ After all, it is their choice, is it not? If so-why? If not -why?

 

[atheistgirl]

I think that since God created every person and has placed His image in everyone,** a person has neither the moral right nor the spiritual right to decide when its time to come face-to-face with the Creator.** Therefore, God, who gave us our beginning and has numbered our days, is the only One who has the moral authority to determine the time we are to cross over to the other side.

Interesting.

So Max Kolbe had no moral or spiritual right to decide to go to his death in the place of another.

By doing so, he usurped a moral authority that rightly belongs to God alone.

While the other poor victims could be said to have been murdered by the Nazis, Max Kolbe volunteered to go, which, in effect, was committing suicide.

I guess context changes everything.

Sarah x

 

[Nimzovik]

Hmmmmmmm… Sacrificing one’s life for others and setting an example of being self sacrificial compared to committing assisted suicide are moral equivalents in your cosmology eh?

Another example: The soldier that falls on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers is committing suicide and God is going to castigate him for this? Mehtinks not.

 

[atheistgirl]

Hmmmmmmm… Sacrificing one’s life for others and setting an example of being self sacrificial compared to committing assisted suicide are moral equivalents in your cosmology eh?

Another example: The soldier that falls on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers is committing suicide and God is going to castigate him for this? Mehtinks not.

Just highlighting the blanket claim by shoe that: a person has neither the moral right nor the spiritual right to decide when its time to come face-to-face with the Creator is problematic, when you consider someone sacrificing their life for others, is, in effect, deciding it is time to come fact to face with their Creator. They know their action will result in their death.

On an objective level, this is no different to some one committing suicide.

In both cases, a deliberate decision to end one’s life is taken.

So the claim, **a person has neither the moral right nor the spiritual right to decide when its time to come face-to-face with the Creator ** needs some reworking I think.

Sarah x

 

[mark_a]

Just highlighting the blanket claim by shoe that: a person has neither the moral right nor the spiritual right to decide when its time to come face-to-face with the Creator is problematic, when you consider someone sacrificing their life for others, is, in effect, deciding it is time to come fact to face with their Creator. They know their action will result in their death.

Would you say the same about soldiers in wartime?

I realize the following would not matter to you, but Jesus said that the greatest friend would lay down his life for you. And according to Christianity He did it!

Best wishes!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Ok -perhaps I am not making myself clear. Historically there have been legal peanlties for attempting to kill oneself.

How about the death penalty for attempted suicide and life in prison for successful suicides?

Sounds pointless, doesn’t it. There has been legislation in the past to treat suicide as a criminal offense. As far as i know it isnt treated like this any more as doing so served no purpose.

Would you vote for legislation that offered No penalties? Do you *think *it is philosophically speaking, OK for people to kill themselves if they just want to? Even if they just want to kill themselves -just for their version of say -recreation? I mean -why not make it a ‘right?’ After all, it is their choice, is it not? If so-why? If not -why?

No, I would not support such legislation. Seems pointless.

When an able bodied person attempts to kill himself there is sometimes other ramifications. If some one jumps off an overpass into a street then in addition to hurting/killing ones self there are others that may be killed and injured in the process along with property damage. As a result those injured may raise legal action against the suicidal person or his estate. I see no reason to block consideration of claims filed for injury and damages. Though that all has less to do with a right to death and more to do with the calateral damage.

Please pardon my mistakes. Sent from my Android tablet.

 

[shoe]

Interesting.

So Max Kolbe had no moral or spiritual right to decide to go to his death in the place of another.

By doing so, he usurped a moral authority that rightly belongs to God alone.

While the other poor victims could be said to have been murdered by the Nazis, Max Kolbe volunteered to go, which, in effect, was committing suicide.

I guess context changes everything.

Sarah x

To exchange one’s life in order that another person may continue to live is not suicide; rather, it is the ultimate sacrifice, since the point of doing such a thing is not to kill oneself, but to save the other person: “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

I think it’s safe to believe that Father Maximilian Kolbe did not wish to starve to death at the hands of the Nazis when he made the offer to endure the punishment of a fellow prisoner. He was probably hoping that the Allies would either win the war before his death occurred or at least liberate Auschwitz. Personally, I think it was just as natural for Father Maximilian Kolbe to lay down his life for that soul made in God’s image as it is for mothers and fathers to lay down their lives for their children.

 

[Nimzovik]

Thinking Sapien Wrote:

"No, I would not support such legislation.** Seems pointless**.

When an able bodied person attempts to kill himself there is sometimes other ramifications. If some one jumps off an overpass into a street then in addition to hurting/killing ones self there are others that may be killed and injured in the process along with property damage. As a result those injured may raise legal action against the suicidal person or his estate. I see no reason to block consideration of claims filed for injury and damages. Though that all has less to do with a right to death and more to do with the calateral damage."

Nimzovik Responds: Bold lettering Mine. Underlining mine.

Yes indeed, the ‘collateral damage’ point is not the issue here.

It is the ‘pointless’ adjective you employed that I am finding noteworthy. Is it ‘pointless’ to deny some one the right to kill themselves? Just who are you to inflict your value system on another? If that is what they want? To those that want to kill themselves,and are of sound mind and body, exercising their right may just not seem ‘pointless’ to them. It is not up to you to, think for them, as to what is pointless and what is not pointless.

Why not let a person kill themselves, with the proviso they do it without harm to others? Would it not decrease the - as Dickens had one of his characters say - ‘decrease the surplus population?’

So I ask again. Why not let the person kill themselves? It may be that their *rights *that are involved.

 

[Nimzovik]

Just highlighting the blanket claim by shoe that: a person has neither the moral right nor the spiritual right to decide when its time to come face-to-face with the Creator is problematic, when you consider someone sacrificing their life for others, is, in effect, deciding it is time to come fact to face with their Creator. They know their action will result in their death.

On an objective level, this is no different to some one committing suicide.

In both cases, a deliberate decision to end one’s life is taken.

So the claim, **a person has neither the moral right nor the spiritual right to decide when its time to come face-to-face with the Creator **needs some reworking I think.

Sarah x

Actually, Mr. Kolbe did not. Mr. Kolbe left the choice to "decide when its time to come face-to-face with the Creator" for Mr. Kolbe, to the Nazi’s. He put *them, the Nazis, *to the test, and left his fate in their hands. They could have repented and *not have *killed Mr. (Saint) Kolbe.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is the ‘pointless’ adjective you employed that I am finding noteworthy. Is it ‘pointless’ to deny some one the right to kill themselves?

I should point out the questions you posed to me in our last exchange was on whether or not I would support a law placing a penalty on some one that tries to kill themself. This is different from deny some one the ability to kill themself. And for able bodied people I’ve already explained why this is meaningless to me short of physically binding a person.

Just who are you to inflict *your *value system on another?

I haven’t. I’ve even expressed to where my authority doesn’t extend. Perhaps you’ve misinterpreted the statement that “I would not support such legislation” to mean that I would actively try to push some other legislation. If so that isn’t what it means. And I think this misunderstanding is being used as a premise for some of the following questions.

If that is what they* want?* To those that want to kill themselves,and are of sound mind and body, exercising their right may just not seem ‘pointless’ to them. It is not up to you to, think for them, as to what is pointless and what is not pointless.

These are among the questions that I think are based on the misunderstood statement. Since the premise to these questions seems to be false I’ll skip over them for now.

Why not let a person kill themselves, with the proviso they do it without harm to others? Would it not decrease the - as Dickens had one of his characters say - ‘decrease the surplus population?’

Regardless of whether or not the person does harm to another

So I ask again. Why not let the person kill themselves? It may be that their *rights *that are involved.

Hmmmm…this concept of allowing some one to self terminate has returned. Please refer to my earlier responses on this.
"ThinkingSapien:

I’m not sure what “Allow” would mean since I have no such authority over other humans.

Hypthetically, how would I permit or disallow somemone from killing himself? It appears that a premise to the question is that I could do so. I already considered physical constraints in an earlier post. I have also spoken from the possibility of being a participant. But beyond that you may as well have asked me if I would permit some one to have certain thoughts since we are talking about a person that retains autonomy. Unless there is some way that you can meaningfully inform me how else some one could permit or disallow self termination of an autonomous person there’s no other way that I can see to answer you question. Hypothetical or not it seems invalid to me.

 

[Nimzovik]

**Thinking Sapien Wrote: “**Hmmmm…this concept of allowing some one to self terminate has returned. Please refer to my earlier responses on this.”

Hmmmmm… Terminating one’s self is *kernel *to the issue being discussed. The thread title is ‘Requesting one’s death’ yes? Which is in essence - terminating one’s self. Methinks we need to get to the nitty gritty of the value of Human life, whether the said life is in pain or not.