Poll: How do you feel about assisted suicide?

[Caiphus]

Presumably we're talking about a euthanasia scenario, and not helping your friend overdose on sleeping pills or something.

Yeah, I'm "for" it. The idea of it certainly makes me sad. But if they're suffering tremendously, with no prospect of recovery, and wish to die, then yeah. It makes life a little bit more sad for everyone that these situations exist, but forcing them to live against their wishes isn't going to help.

 

[Mossberg Shotty]

I have told everyone I know that if I ever wind up paralyzed(quad) or a vegetable, to just kill me then and there. All I am doing is prolonging suffering from family and friends.

I have no problems with assisted suicide. Most of the people I have found that have problems with it are uber religious people. Who also would rather see a mother die rather than have a life saving abortion. As long as the person has given their consent verbally or in writing prior to assisted suicide then I have no problem with it.

I'm not sure what the qualifications are for 'uber religious' but I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it, as long as a few prerequisites are met. I believe in God, have a giant cross tattoo on my forearm, but I haven't been to any church in over a year, so I'm not sure where I stand on the religious scale, but I think it should be a legitimate medical practice.

As long as there's a good medical reason, of course, and not just somebody who wants to die for the normal, boring reasons. Like depression, or what have you. They don't need assistance.

 

[Blow_Pop]

I have told everyone I know that if I ever wind up paralyzed(quad) or a vegetable, to just kill me then and there. All I am doing is prolonging suffering from family and friends.

I have no problems with assisted suicide. Most of the people I have found that have problems with it are uber religious people. Who also would rather see a mother die rather than have a life saving abortion. As long as the person has given their consent verbally or in writing prior to assisted suicide then I have no problem with it.

I'm not sure what the qualifications are for 'uber religious' but I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it, as long as a few prerequisites are met. I believe in God, have a giant cross tattoo on my forearm, but I haven't been to any church in over a year, so I'm not sure where I stand on the religious scale, but I think it should be a legitimate medical practice.

As long as there's a good medical reason, of course, and not just somebody who wants to die for the normal, boring reasons. Like depression, or what have you. They don't need assistance.

Uber religious meaning the people who are so gung ho on saving lives and find assisted suicide to be a sin and feel the need to condemn pretty much everyone to hell. ESPECIALLY if their religious beliefs don't match up exactly. Unfortunately I have both sides of my family like that. So I basically got condemned to hell at birth due to having a "non denominational" christian mother and a roman catholic father. I believe most people tend to use the word zealot for those people. Both work. Fanatics works too. You know the people who you can't get into a simple conversation about anything without it turning to their religious beliefs and them shoving them down your throat.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

On a personal level, I couldn't do it; if someone's meant to die, they will. I they haven't yet or don't, then there's a reason.

In terms of others, it's their call, really. Everyone's situation is different and no one can pass judgment on the pretense of "suicide is bad" or "helping to take someone's life away is bad." I just believe that there is always another way and if you are committed to take your life, you can be committed to change it first.

 

[DementedSheep]

In favour mostly for the sake of those with severe medical conditions (I'm not sure how I feel about it for those who don't tbh) but it should require a psych evaluation and a waiting period first. I also think the person with power of attorney should be able to opt for it for those in permanent vegetative state and maybe for late stage Dementia or for the person to put instructions on their file for if that happens.

 

[Rattja]

i would recommend hunting down a documentary that terry pratchet did on it. even showed whats involved and you got to see someone go through the process. i was against it but the doc showed me it could be done with dignity and respect

Tracked it down. Terry Pratchett: Choosing to die

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xnu340_terry-pratchett-choosing-to-die_shortfilms

Wow, that was very interesting to watch, thank you.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

I guess "assisted suicide" might technically be a correct term, but it has some severe connotations to it. Euthanasia and palliative care have a lot of shades and every case by itself is unique.

You are right, but not everyone knows what Euthanasia is. I didn't until I looked it up.

The idea is just that you want to end your life, and someone will help you do it. If that means shooting you, or giving you the means to do it yourself does not really matter in this case. Is it ok or not?
Now, that's a bit extreme but I hope you get the point.

I were more thinking along the lines of a pill or syringe, at a hospital or something in a controlled enviroment by experienced personell.

I didn't want to influence this too much, so the idea was if you can think of a way to do it where you would say it's ok, then it's ok. If not' its not.

It does matter quite a lot imo. I live in the country that is the most progressive for euthanasia in the world since last week (Belgium). But while I do support a dignified end and taking decisions to end your life (no matter what age you are, as long as you can realise what the implications are), I do not support anyone being able to perform "assisted suicide" at any point just like that. Because that can be used to cover up a system's failure.

One poster in this thread linked a documentary by Terry Pratchett about dignitas, a Swiss organization that helps you die. I watched it and found the whole concept appalling to be honest, although I recognize that it's the only way for some people.

1) It's not good that terminally ill patients have to travel to another country, where they die at the hands of some company. Of course, I realize this is caused by their national legislation.

2) Those who died in the documentary did not actually reach the "point of no return" yet in my opinion. Both the MS patient and the patient with the motor neuron disease were still fairly mobile. They suffered psychologically because they didn't have a "way out" in their own country and decided "get things done" asap because of that.

3) The whole concept that anyone who has a weariness of life can decide to end it, as said by the organisation's president in the documentary, is bogus imo.

Why? Because death is final and the reasons behind someone's weariness of life are left in the dark afterwards. Many people can be helped more than they think themselves. But not only that, often the social situation that people are in is the cause of their weariness, it can't be so that assisted suicide becomes a way to forget about institutional misgivings in society.

A concrete example:in Belgium, those who suffer intolerably on a psychological level can also ask to end their life. One such case was a prisoner who had severe psychiatric problems, he had insight in his own situation and recognized that he should never be released. He asked for euthanasia because his situation was intolerable: he was locked up without adequate care in a cell that was too small without any prospect of a better future.

However, his request was denied by the doctors who examined him. Because it was the incredibly sucky situation in Belgian jails that made him long for death, not his psychiatric affliction. Our jails are massively overpopulated and psychiatric patients are often imprisoned in places where they don't belong. When the guy was given the prospect and the future of a better (jailed) life in a Dutch jail, where he could work and move and not sit on his ass in a cramped cell all day, his outlook on life changed.

It can't be that, for example, euthanasia requests are simply carried out under the excuse of: they can decide their own fate, while crappy institutional situations and social problems have caused the patient to ask for assisted suicide in the first place. You end up in a very dangerous situation then.

 

[Rattja]

I have trouble seeing any parallel to the Death Penalty except death is involved. And for that to be an issue, should we expect to see a thread about whether or not we're pro or against cancer?

Well no. The idea behind the two was that in both cases, a life of a person will end because of a choice, that being someone choosing this for you, or you choose it yourself. You don't choose to have cancer. I suppose you could choose not to get treatment but you know what I mean.
I admit it's a bit of a strech, but I don't think it's too far.

Snip

You make a good point, and I understand I could have called it something else. At the time I did not have a better word for it.

As people keeps pointing out, it is only acceptable if the person can't be cured. While I totally understand this, I still don't quite agree.
A life is yours and yours alone. Yes you have people tied to you, like loved ones and friends, but in the end the life is yours. You can do whatever you like with that life, as long as you don't mess up anyone elses. And that's where we have a problem, as you basically can't die without hurting someone. So unless you have no family, friends, pets or whatever, that will be your fate no matter what.
Should you, for any reason, decide that you do not want to live anymore what choice do you really have?
You could do it off a cliff or overdose on something, but I think we all can agree that it would be terrible for everone left behind. Even if you left a note, there would be a mile long list of unanswerd questions.
You could do something really horrible, make them hate you and then kill you, but that's even worse.
You could wait for it to happen naturally, but that would be horrible for you.

If you have a place you could go to end it, at least you had the chance to explain why. However it's doubtfull anyone would agree with you unless you had a "valid" reason.
Which is also I have a problem with, who's to say your reason is good enough?

That being said, I do see the problems with all this and why it's not legal. There are far too many things that could be exploited. It's extremly hard to ensure that the system is 100% "safe" (lack of a better word).

All things considered, what are you supposed to do if you really want to end it, but want to lessen the blow for everyone as much as possible?

 

[Aramis Night]

I do not agree with assisted suicide. If you can't do it yourself, you don't deserve the right to die. Nothing that worth doing should just be handed to someone. They should have to work for it. And if they are so pathetic that they can't manage it themselves, then they should just kill themselves because they are worthless.

Only exception being seppuku with the assistance of a kaishakunin.

Ignoring for a moment the rather offensive charges of worthlessness and pathetic-ness, why on earth would you exclude Seppuku?
Or is this a rather poor-taste joke?

What is wrong with Seppuku? I think it's equal parts beautiful, and bad ass. I just think it's qualities as a form of assisted suicide warrant an exception. Otherwise, you should be on your own in such an endeavor.

I think it's in equal parts stupid and irresponsible; you're wasting your own, presumably healthy, self (in addition to any further potential usefulness to your cause - or society as a whole - if you were so inclined) over some stupidly rigid definition of honour.
But that's just my opinion.

What I'm interested in is your logical or moral argument to excusing it from your own standards to other forms of assisted suicide - surely assisted suicide is assisted suicide whether it's a doctor, nurse, relative, or squire actually performing the act?
Surely worthlessness is worthlessness, regardless of whether it's caused by a degenerative disease or by an angsty ritual disembowelment?
In fact, if anything the Seppuku practitioner is presumably less deserving of help, because they've stuck a sword in their own gut; are the architect of their own entirely unnecessary agony.
Which can't be said about someone who's been struck down by a debilitating disease through no fault of their own.

I thought we were discussing this in the context of someone who has a fatal disease that they are wasting away from in agony. While I wasn't advocating that everyone should ritually kill themselves, I suppose I could make that case too. It would serve as an answer to the overpopulation problem. But I don't really think this is the thread for that.

 

[OneCatch]

I thought we were discussing this in the context of someone who has a fatal disease that they are wasting away from in agony. While I wasn't advocating that everyone should ritually kill themselves, I suppose I could make that case too. It would serve as an answer to the overpopulation problem. But I don't really think this is the thread for that.

I wasn't specifically talking about fatal diseases, but yeah, that's the situation where an assisted suicide provision would have most utility. I certainly wasn't/wouldn't suggest that everyone commit sepukku, whether to avoid overpopulation or otherwise.

What I'm interested in is why you'd say (in a particularly heartless manner) that someone with a debilitating condition - this guy, for example [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.842909-Poll-How-do-you-feel-about-assisted-suicide?page=2#20744666] - should have to live in extreme discomfort if they can't finish themselves off, while being apparently sympathetic to someone who inflicts the harm upon themselves and then demands similar assistance.

Is it 'rule of cool' - do you just like the idea of seppuku, so decided to exempt it?[footnote]At a risk of taking a turn for the farcical (though I actually am genuinely interested), how close to seppuku would we have to get for assisted suicide to be acceptable to you? Would you be ok with it if, say, the doctor euthanised patients by beheading them with a wakizashi instead of using a lethal injection?[/footnote]
Or is there actually a consistent, moral reason for your position?