Assisted Suicide

[Spite]

where implemented you usually can't just be like "okay kill me" and 15 minutes later you're dead

 

you have to be of sound mind, etc.

 

also, obligatory "talking about this as though it is a hypothetical when we've seen it done and it worked just fine"

"Just fine" is very subjective. The Saudis think their system works just fine. Doesn't mean you would think so.

 

Sound mind is a very ambiguous and difficult to define term, speaking as someone with a experience in mental health (working, not a patient). For example, can someone who has been living with pain for many years be considered to be entirely rational? Can someone under the age of 18 consent? What if someone has dementia or a similar degradation of the mind? If you are judged to not be of sound mind, can that be overturned later? If so what implications does that have for the reverse situation? Does severe and long lasting mental health problems (such as depression) not constitute a life of unbearable pain? Certainly patients think so, since a majority of patients who have a history of suicide attempts (as opposed to something spontaneous) will be known to mental health services and probably have a diagnosis.

 

As I said in my first post, the "perfect" example of someone at a late stage of a terminal illness who wants to die with dignity represents a tiny fraction of the people who are currently considering suicide. What you're suggesting isn't legalising assisted suicide, it's medical termination of palliative care patients.

[Hereno]

"Just fine" is very subjective. The Saudis think their system works just fine. Doesn't mean you would think so.

 

Sound mind is a very ambiguous and difficult to define term, speaking as someone with a experience in mental health (working, not a patient). For example, can someone who has been living with pain for many years be considered to be entirely rational? Can someone under the age of 18 consent? What if someone has dementia or a similar degradation of the mind? If you are judged to not be of sound mind, can that be overturned later? If so what implications does that have for the reverse situation? Does severe and long lasting mental health problems (such as depression) not constitute a life of unbearable pain? Certainly patients think so, since a majority of patients who have a history of suicide attempts (as opposed to something spontaneous) will be known to mental health services and probably have a diagnosis.

 

As I said in my first post, the "perfect" example of someone at a late stage of a terminal illness who wants to die with dignity represents a tiny fraction of the people who are currently considering suicide. What you're suggesting isn't legalising assisted suicide, it's medical termination of palliative care patients.

first and foremost i haven't really suggested anything, so i don't know what you're on about. but at the end of the day, that's why it really shouldn't be up to YOU to decide. it's their life. they have to live it. if they don't want to anymore, trying to force them to continue suffering so you can feel better about yourself and the system you work in is primarily selfish. for the most part, care for the mentally ill is patchy at best, and plenty of people have horror stories to tell about it if they do end up finally getting care.

 

i think it really sucks if people end up killing themselves but at least if you give them a way to, say, wait 72 hours and see if they still want to before doing it, you can let them die with dignity and not need to be cleaned up off of the pavement. the system already clearly has failed these people: just stop trying to control everything and let people do what they want. you should know that most suicides are more of a "i don't want to die but i'm not dealing with this shit anymore" type of thing, and that a lot of people who go to kill themselves end up trying to reverse it later on. there's no reason why we can't take these things into account to maximize the lives saved that could be saved while at the same time providing a real benefit to people. all you get by trying to force your way on people is people foregoing you entirely.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Hereno

[Franz Von Dietrich]

"Just fine" is very subjective. The Saudis think their system works just fine. Doesn't mean you would think so.

Lol, and you call this subjective? I'm pretty sure the "moral argument" is pretty subjective itself.

 

So, for both patients and their loved ones, real decisions are demanded: When do we stop doing all that we can do? When do we withhold which therapies and allow nature to take its course? When are we, through our own indecision and fears of mortality, allowing wondrous medical methods to perversely prolong the dying rather than the living? These intensely personal and socially expensive decisions should not be left to governments, judges or legislators better attuned to highway funding, but of course, I argue for "mercy killings".

 

But, I also believe we should help people that appear depress, so they could try and live a happy and constructive life. To generalize that every "depressed" person is on the verge of killing themself is over exaggerated, as some, not all, do it for attention. Depression can be overcomed, aslong as there's no mental issues prolonging it, which I DO believe a government should be able to intervene to help people. We shouldn't live in a society where we allow people to die, simply because they don't choose to out of bogus reasoning.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Comrade Enver Hoxha

[Nationalist]

If they're weak they die. It's all natural. 

 

We waste millions on benefits every year, cut them all off. 

[fistofdoom]

If they're weak they die. It's all natural. 

 

We waste millions on benefits every year, cut them all off. 

Sharks are stronger than us unassisted in the water. I guess every person who goes for a swim in the ocean aught to die and lifeguards are wasted money on stupid individuals who take the risk, by your logic.

[Spite]

Lol, and you call this subjective? I'm pretty sure the "moral argument" is pretty subjective itself.

 

So, for both patients and their loved ones, real decisions are demanded: When do we stop doing all that we can do? When do we withhold which therapies and allow nature to take its course? When are we, through our own indecision and fears of mortality, allowing wondrous medical methods to perversely prolong the dying rather than the living? These intensely personal and socially expensive decisions should not be left to governments, judges or legislators better attuned to highway funding, but of course, I argue for "mercy killings".

 

But, I also believe we should help people that appear depress, so they could try and live a happy and constructive life. To generalize that every "depressed" person is on the verge of killing themself is over exaggerated, as some, not all, do it for attention. Depression can be overcomed, aslong as there's no mental issues prolonging it, which I DO believe a government should be able to intervene to help people. We shouldn't live in a society where we allow people to die, simply because they don't choose to out of bogus reasoning.

 

I agree that moral arguments are subjective, I'm not sure how that is a comeback to what I said. There's no such thing as "letting nature take its course". About four in five of us would die before adulthood in a world where nature took it's course. You're using a lot of emotive languages and displaying a fair degree of ignorance about mental health. I actually don't know from your post whether you're for or against euthanasia, which says it all really.

 

first and foremost i haven't really suggested anything, so i don't know what you're on about. but at the end of the day, that's why it really shouldn't be up to YOU to decide. it's their life. they have to live it. if they don't want to anymore, trying to force them to continue suffering so you can feel better about yourself and the system you work in is primarily selfish. for the most part, care for the mentally ill is patchy at best, and plenty of people have horror stories to tell about it if they do end up finally getting care.

 

i think it really sucks if people end up killing themselves but at least if you give them a way to, say, wait 72 hours and see if they still want to before doing it, you can let them die with dignity and not need to be cleaned up off of the pavement. the system already clearly has failed these people: just stop trying to control everything and let people do what they want. you should know that most suicides are more of a "i don't want to die but i'm not dealing with this shit anymore" type of thing, and that a lot of people who go to kill themselves end up trying to reverse it later on. there's no reason why we can't take these things into account to maximize the lives saved that could be saved while at the same time providing a real benefit to people. all you get by trying to force your way on people is people foregoing you entirely.

 

So your argument is that anyone who feels suicidal for 72 hours should be able to rock up to a hospital and a doctor will give them a lethal injection? Believe it or not if you rock up to a hospital now with suicidal tendencies they'll section you for you own safety, and the majority of people with suicidal thoughts have them sporadically and for varying periods of time. I've known patients to have suicidal thoughts, be sectioned for trying to kill themselves, spend a week as an inpatient, and then go for years or decades without another attempt. Managing suicidal tendencies is a challenge for tens of thousands of people in the UK alone.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

I agree that moral arguments are subjective, I'm not sure how that is a comeback to what I said. There's no such thing as "letting nature take its course". About four in five of us would die before adulthood in a world where nature took it's course. You're using a lot of emotive languages and displaying a fair degree of ignorance about mental health. I actually don't know from your post whether you're for or against euthanasia, which says it all really.

First off and foremost, I made it very clear that I was for "mercy killing" while stating;  people having suicidal thoughts should receive help concerning their depression issues (if suicidal) as depression and suicide are both directly linked to one and another.

 

And the "letting nature take its course" is a figure of speech, not to be taken literal, as someone who is bound to die from some disease (such as cancer) whenever it'd be long-term or short-term, should be able to end their life in the form of "mercy killing" if they wish to. To sum it all up, I believe in assisted suicide to an extent.

 

"mer·cy kill·ing

noun

 

1. the killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease, typically by the administration of large doses of painkilling drugs."

    

    

    

    

   It's a very difficult moral problem. Apart from the fact you'd struggle to find doctors and nurses who would do it, not all cases are as clear as the man in permanent agony or with locked in syndrome or whatever.

    

   And this is where I assumed, and still assume, you brought the "moral argument" into play, while denouncing Hereno for using "subjective literature". 

    

Edited April 21, 2016 by Comrade Enver Hoxha

[fistofdoom]

I have no reason to believe this 'mercy killing' is not abusable in the extreme.

[James Hequ]

If they're HUMAN they die. It's all natural. 

 

We waste millions on benefits every year, cut them all off. 

ftfy

[fistofdoom]

ftfy

 

 

[Nationalist]

ftfy

I quite like how the current Tory Party are operating this style of Eugenics through their policies and cutting off aid to weak people. But I dislike their other ones. 

[James Hequ]

I quite like how the current Tory Party are operating this style of Eugenics through their policies and cutting off aid to weak people. But I dislike their other ones. 

what are "weak people"

[Nationalist]

what are "weak people"

People who are pathetic and kill themselves. People who have trouble walking and claim they're "disabled and cannot work", when in fact they're just lazy. 

[James Hequ]

why do you want to kill disabled people why are you so suicidal, 

[Hereno]

I agree that moral arguments are subjective, I'm not sure how that is a comeback to what I said. There's no such thing as "letting nature take its course". About four in five of us would die before adulthood in a world where nature took it's course. You're using a lot of emotive languages and displaying a fair degree of ignorance about mental health. I actually don't know from your post whether you're for or against euthanasia, which says it all really.

 

 

So your argument is that anyone who feels suicidal for 72 hours should be able to rock up to a hospital and a doctor will give them a lethal injection? Believe it or not if you rock up to a hospital now with suicidal tendencies they'll section you for you own safety, and the majority of people with suicidal thoughts have them sporadically and for varying periods of time. I've known patients to have suicidal thoughts, be sectioned for trying to kill themselves, spend a week as an inpatient, and then go for years or decades without another attempt. Managing suicidal tendencies is a challenge for tens of thousands of people in the UK alone.

you're not arguing against me, you're arguing the superiority of your credentials. doesn't matter, but trust me, I know what's it like. you're gonna have to do better than assuming I'm some idiot who has never dealt with mental illness.

[Ayayay]

you're gonna have to do better than assuming I'm some idiot who has never dealt with mental illness.

Yea, it's pretty obvious you've got quite a few

[Spite]

You're going to have to be more specific about the mercy killing Comrade Hoxha. Are you saying that anyone with a terminal illness should be able to choose to kill themselves at any point? Are there any other conditions? Also please bear in mind that very few illnesses are terminal until the late stages. I would consider an illness terminal when doctors begin end of life care, since they've given up hope of a cure. Usually by that point a patient has days or weeks to live anyway, and the moral cost if a doctor killing a patient (even with their consent) seems to high to me.

 

Hereno you failed to respond to any of my points. You stayed that the government should not make these sort of decisions for people, but the gave a list of conditions which would inevitably be enforced by the government. You then went on to say that if someone feels suicidal for 72 hours they should be allowed a doctor assisted suicide. Do you really think 72 hours of suicidal thoughts should be all it takes? Many people feel suicidal for 72 hours, and then live for many subsequent years. Should their period of deep depression and suicidal thoughts end it all for them? Making suicide easier might seem straightforward but it is an ethical minefield. Most people with prolonged suicidal thoughts do not successfully commit suicide, and later regret those thoughts. As a nation we should be aiming to keep those people alive long enough to get well, not encouraging them to die.

 

I can only assume nationalist is a troll. If he falls over and breaks a leg I'm sure it would be his wish for nobody to help him, so he can die of sepsis in a ditch.

[Covenant]

Should adults over a certain age (example: 25) have the right to choose self termination if they are assisted by doctors?

In my opinion no.

The reasoning is that there is no logical reason to want to kill yourself if you are a perfectly healthy adult. There are medical programs to contain things like depression. You'd be surprised how common suicidal passing thoughts come across peoples minds out of angst and unfortunate circumstances. If everyone took the easy way out there wouldn't be any reason for people to overcome obstacles in life. It creates more problems than it would logically solve.

 

Exceptions: If you are irreparably crippled (Like Steven Hawking shit, not just leg movement) Or if a family member is turned into a mental vegetable due to an accident or medical condition, Or if you have an untreatable illness that will cause you to break down painfully until you die such as cancers and parkinsons, I believe it should be legal to allow euthanization in that area. (But I stress that the situation would have to be urgent. much of Cancer is very treatable, as are other illnesses. I mean when it gets near the late stages.)

Edited April 22, 2016 by Covenant

[Andrezj Kolarov]

What if they simply have soul crushing depression and no longer wish to live?

The answer is socialism. Socialism cures depression because every citizen can live and work knowing that they are actually contributing to the greater good instead of filling the pockets of a fat capitalist. Depression is a product of a soulless individualist society which pits workers against each other instead of working together to solve the problems. In capitalist society citizens have no sense of direction in life and are prone to hopelessness, resulting in alcoholism, drug abuse, over-eating/obesity, sexual depravity and suicide. Depression would gradually disappear, along with all social ills, on the transition to communism.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Andrezj Kolarov

[fistofdoom]

The answer is socialism. Socialism cures depression because every citizen can live and work knowing that they are actually contributing to the greater good instead of filling the pockets of a fat capitalist. Depression is a product of a soulless individualist society which pits workers against each other instead of working together to solve the problems. In capitalist society citizens have no sense of direction in life and are prone to hopelessness, resulting in alcoholism, drug abuse, over-eating/obesity, sexual depravity and suicide. Depression would gradually disappear, along with all social ills, on the transition to communism.

 

socialism doesnt fix any of those things

[Hereno]

You're going to have to be more specific about the mercy killing Comrade Hoxha. Are you saying that anyone with a terminal illness should be able to choose to kill themselves at any point? Are there any other conditions? Also please bear in mind that very few illnesses are terminal until the late stages. I would consider an illness terminal when doctors begin end of life care, since they've given up hope of a cure. Usually by that point a patient has days or weeks to live anyway, and the moral cost if a doctor killing a patient (even with their consent) seems to high to me.

 

Hereno you failed to respond to any of my points. You stayed that the government should not make these sort of decisions for people, but the gave a list of conditions which would inevitably be enforced by the government. You then went on to say that if someone feels suicidal for 72 hours they should be allowed a doctor assisted suicide. Do you really think 72 hours of suicidal thoughts should be all it takes? Many people feel suicidal for 72 hours, and then live for many subsequent years. Should their period of deep depression and suicidal thoughts end it all for them? Making suicide easier might seem straightforward but it is an ethical minefield. Most people with prolonged suicidal thoughts do not successfully commit suicide, and later regret those thoughts. As a nation we should be aiming to keep those people alive long enough to get well, not encouraging them to die.

 

I can only assume nationalist is a troll. If he falls over and breaks a leg I'm sure it would be his wish for nobody to help him, so he can die of sepsis in a ditch.

the decision that is being made by the government is whether or not they will allow people to take their own lives

 

think about that for a minute and the answer should be obvious that the collective does not own your life more than you do

 

the question then becomes what, if any, measures should we take to help people who are suicidal.

 

1. giving them a "fake death" to see if they freak out and immediately start wanting it reversed

2. making them wait a certain period of time, like the 72 hours the state can legally mandate you be on suicide watch, to see if they still want to do it

 

at the end of the day, if someone wants to die, you cannot stop them while being humane. sure, you can straight-jacket them and throw them in a padded cell all day, but that's not humane. prisons full of people in solitary confinement because you just value their lives so much (clearly) should not come across to you as a good thing. personally, i think the above measures are just fine. you might want to make them wait a week, or a month, or whatever, but just extending the time period doesn't make me heinously "wrong". and the more barriers you put up, the less likely people are to even go to the hospital, instead just opting to take their lives themselves where you can't do ANYTHING for them.

 

The answer is socialism. Socialism cures depression because every citizen can live and work knowing that they are actually contributing to the greater good instead of filling the pockets of a fat capitalist. Depression is a product of a soulless individualist society which pits workers against each other instead of working together to solve the problems. In capitalist society citizens have no sense of direction in life and are prone to hopelessness, resulting in alcoholism, drug abuse, over-eating/obesity, sexual depravity and suicide. Depression would gradually disappear, along with all social ills, on the transition to communism.

ever heard of rat park?

Edited April 22, 2016 by Hereno