NationStates Jolt Archive

An interesting thing that I've met up with in many arguments against euthanasia and suicide is the thought that for some reason or other, government should have control over when you die.

Does that make sense? I can't see how it does, personally. Would someone care to explain, or am I wrong in this perception of the argument?

An interesting thing that I've met up with in many arguments against euthanasia and suicide is the thought that for some reason or other, government should have control over when you die.

Does that make sense? I can't see how it does, personally. Would someone care to explain, or am I wrong in this perception of the argument?

I can see it making sense when your carrying a bad ass virus or something...

But other then that the persons choice to end their life is in the end up to them...

Well, if asked to make an argument for this (and I think you did) I would say that government is concerned with all people, and hence the loss of any individuals would contribute to a loss of economy, a loss of employment, a loss of taxable income... I could see government being concerned with it.

Miss Pacman rocks.

If you are of sound mind, you should be able to end your life when you see fit. If not, you should be required to get help. Or at least strongly encouraged. For those who feel reasonably that they have little chance of having a decent quality of life, they should be allowed to have a say in how much suffering they must endure. No one has the right to tell a mentally competent person that they shouldn't have control over personal decisions.

In no way should the Govenment tell you weather you can or can not die. This is something the govenment has no power over. You can refuse to eat and drink, cut your wrists ect. Now, the GOvenment should try and PREVENT it, but they can never ban it. It is as stupid as giving the death Penalty for attempted Suicide ((Sniggers as steals NS first issue thing))

Well, if asked to make an argument for this (and I think you did) I would way that government is concerned with all people, and hence the loss of any individuals would contribute to a loss of economy, a loss of employment, a loss of taxable income... I could see government being concerned with it.
Hmm. I can see how that makes sense.
Along those lines, though, a suicidal individual is probably worth less in terms of work they do than another individual, as they're most likely going to continue trying to kill themselves, and work as little as possible. At least, from my observations, it would seem that it would be more economically friendly to hand them a gun and tell 'em to have at it. Of course, that's not the right thing to do at all, but it would seem that is what would be done if it were purely economical.

Wow, i'm rambling a bit...

Outlawing suicide seems kinda pointless to me, unless you just mandate counselling for the people who attempt it. Kinda hard to do anything to those who are successful........

As for the euthenasia thing, I didn't choose when I came into this world, and I don't think that I should be able to choose when I get to leave. That's for God to decide, not the government or a doctor.

Hmm. I can see how that makes sense.
Along those lines, though, a suicidal individual is probably worth less in terms of work they do than another individual, as they're most likely going to continue trying to kill themselves, and work as little as possible. At least, from my observations, it would seem that it would be more economically friendly to hand them a gun and tell 'em to have at it. Of course, that's not the right thing to do at all, but it would seem that is what would be done if it were purely economical.
But there is no conceivable way for the government to know or anticipate the individual's potential suicide, so it's not really a factor (i.e. they are no more psychic than any individual or group). The suicidal person could work dilligently up until the very moment they decide it is right to take their life.

If you want to base morality and legality on a purely economic basis, then have a mandatory death sentence for everyone who can't work.

An interesting thing that I've met up with in many arguments against euthanasia and suicide is the thought that for some reason or other, government should have control over when you die.

Does that make sense? I can't see how it does, personally. Would someone care to explain, or am I wrong in this perception of the argument?

Suicide is relatively permanent, whereas many of the causes of suicide, such as depression, despondency, poor self-image, drug-use, loss of position, loss of money, even many medical problems, aren't.

All too often suicides, particularly young ones, would not have made the same decision when clean, un-stressed and in their right minds. By making suicide legal, we give permission to not only those who think, at the time, that they have no reason for living, we also give advance permission to anyone who may become so.

I, for one, do not relish the idea that the government is giving my children or grandchildren permission to kill themselves during what would be a temporary condition.

As for the euthenasia thing, I didn't choose when I came into this world, and I don't think that I should be able to choose when I get to leave. That's for God to decide, not the government or a doctor.
Euthanasia isn't when the government or a doctor chooses you should die, it's when you choose it.
If euthanasia is illegal, the government is choosing when some people die. It's choosing to prolong their lives as long as possible.

An interesting thing that I've met up with in many arguments against euthanasia and suicide is the thought that for some reason or other, government should have control over when you die.

Does that make sense? I can't see how it does, personally. Would someone care to explain, or am I wrong in this perception of the argument?

There is a difference between suicide and euthanasia.

I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to commit suidice if they're so inclined.

Euthanasia is a different matter for reasons that are being argued by other people already. I'm too tired to do it myself, so I'll just say 'I agree'.

If you want to base morality and legality on a purely economic basis, then have a mandatory death sentence for everyone who can't work.
As I said, there is no way to anticipate a suicidal person will act.

Outlawing suicide seems kinda pointless to me, unless you just mandate counselling for the people who attempt it. Kinda hard to do anything to those who are successful........

As for the euthenasia thing, I didn't choose when I came into this world, and I don't think that I should be able to choose when I get to leave. That's for God to decide, not the government or a doctor.

Not being religious, I feel it's none of god's business. He/she should keep his/her nose out of my business. So should the law.

Suicide is relatively permanent, whereas many of the causes of suicide, such as depression, despondency, poor self-image, drug-use, loss of position, loss of money, even many medical problems, aren't.

All too often suicides, particularly young ones, would not have made the same decision when clean, un-stressed and in their right minds. By making suicide legal, we give permission to not only those who think, at the time, that they have no reason for living, we also give advance permission to anyone who may become so.

I, for one, do not relish the idea that the government is giving my children or grandchildren permission to kill themselves during what would be a temporary condition.
What I would propose is that counseling is needed, and in many cases medication. I was no longer suicidal after proper counseling and medication, and the few imulses I do still have I've learned to control. The thing is, some people don't seem to be helped any by the medication and counseling. To me, it would seem that attempting suicide shouldn't be a punishable act, but the government should do whatever they can to rehabilitate those people that aren't really in a position that bad that there is no solution.

I'm probably not making much sense right here, am I?

I think theres a Catch-22 involved in this issue.

One can decide to end their life at the moment of their choice, assuming the decision is sound-minded and free of mental illness.

However, the intention to end one's life is arguably a sign of mental illness, negating any rational choice.

If you are of sound mind, you should be able to end your life when you see fit. If not, you should be required to get help. Or at least strongly encouraged. For those who feel reasonably that they have little chance of having a decent quality of life, they should be allowed to have a say in how much suffering they must endure. No one has the right to tell a mentally competent person that they shouldn't have control over personal decisions.
So if someone is of a relatively sound mind and they just want to off themself for whatever reason: they can't pay the bills, their wife is a bitch, etc... you're cool with that? We're not talking euthanasia here, it's suicide.
"Sound mind" is a pretty tricky concept, despite it's constant use as legal term. (That's why the lawyers win, they are the ones who get to decide what everything means, in a court of law of course).
I think suicide blows, having thought about before and knowing a person or two who did it, it's just my opinion. I don't think it can ever be condoned as an appropriate action.
I can't think of the exact references right now, but I remember reading about some of the earliest civilizations and emerging codes, be they of social, moral or religious conviction, in many cultures and histories, there is a general consensus that intentionally ending one's life is one of the most abhorrent deeds a human could commit.
Even if you're not religious, think of life as a game. You gotta play. Suicide
is a cheap way out. You lose.

What I would propose is that counseling is needed, and in many cases medication. I was no longer suicidal after proper counseling and medication, and the few imulses I do still have I've learned to control. The thing is, some people don't seem to be helped any by the medication and counseling. To me, it would seem that attempting suicide shouldn't be a punishable act, but the government should do whatever they can to rehabilitate those people that aren't really in a position that bad that there is no solution.

I'm probably not making much sense right here, am I?

Yes, you are.

With the current pace of medical science, what may have been a death-sentance last year may be only an inconvenience this year. I realize I see things from a somewhat longer perspective than many on here, but surely you can see that keeping people from making such a final decision, one which impacts not only them as individuals but also everyone who knows them, would be the wisest course of action?

I think theres a Catch-22 involved in this issue.

One can decide to end their life at the moment of their choice, assuming the decision is sound-minded and free of mental illness.

However, the intention to end one's life is arguably a sign of mental illness, negating any rational choice.

Not true. There are situations where suicide is a rational choice.

So if someone is of a relatively sound mind and they just want to off themself for whatever reason: they can't pay the bills, their wife is a bitch, etc... you're cool with that? We're not talking euthanasia here, it's suicide.
"Sound mind" is a pretty tricky concept, despite it's constant use as legal term. (That's why the lawyers win, they are the ones who get to decide what everything means, in a court of law of course).
I think suicide blows, having thought about before and knowing a person or two who did it, it's just my opinion. I don't think it can ever be condoned as an appropriate action.
I can't think of the exact references right now, but I remember reading about some of the earliest civilizations and emerging codes, be they of social, moral or religious conviction, in many cultures and histories, there is a general consensus that intentionally ending one's life is one of the most abhorrent deeds a human could commit.
Even if you're not religious, think of life as a game. You gotta play. Suicide
is a cheap way out. You lose.
Nah; nah; nah. It's not about Bitchkitten. You should avoid making this personal, in any way.

I think theres a Catch-22 involved in this issue.

One can decide to end their life at the moment of their choice, assuming the decision is sound-minded and free of mental illness.

However, the intention to end one's life is arguably a sign of mental illness, negating any rational choice.
The thing is, why is it defined that the intention to end one's life is always a sing of mental illness? In almost all cases, it is, in which case the mental illness should be treated. But it would seem that there are cases in which there is a will to end one's life is not connected to mental illness.

Ah, I just noticed the "arguably" in your statement. That makes more sense now.

At least, from my observations, it would seem that it would be more economically friendly to hand them a gun and tell 'em to have at it. Of course, that's not the right thing to do at all, but it would seem that is what would be done if it were purely economical.

I don't see your 'of course'. If the person wishes to end his/her life and society would benefit from this death... then why not ? Of course one should first look at less permanent alternatives - like the possibility of taking away this desire - but if that is not possible...

Not true. There are situations where suicide is a rational choice.
I am of course aware of this point. A dying cancer patient can rationally choose to end their life with dignity sans pain. I would support somebody in their efforts to do so.

I was simply stating a point of view.

I think theres a Catch-22 involved in this issue.

One can decide to end their life at the moment of their choice, assuming the decision is sound-minded and free of mental illness.

However, the intention to end one's life is arguably a sign of mental illness, negating any rational choice.

I was struck with a similar line of thought a long time ago - during the Jeffrey Dahmer trial - when his plea off insanity was rejected. It appears that the US courts consider killing then buggering and cannabilising people as sane things to be do...

The thing is, why is it defined that the intention to end one's life is always a sing of mental illness? In almost all cases, it is, in which case the mental illness should be treated. But it would seem that there are cases in which there is a will to end one's life is not connected to mental illness.

Ah, I just noticed the "arguably" in your statement. That makes more sense now.
Life is good.

People who are miserable for the most part make themselves miserable. It's not life's doing; it's theirs.

That would, in my book, be a 'mental illness.'

Not true. There are situations where suicide is a rational choice.

Perhaps where the pain from severe illness is too intense to bear and there is no possibility whatsoever of aleviating it in the forseeable future. Perhaps.

suicide should be legal. The gouverment should try to help all those who have suicidal tought. but making suicide illigal is not the right way.

Yes, you are.

With the current pace of medical science, what may have been a death-sentance last year may be only an inconvenience this year. I realize I see things from a somewhat longer perspective than many on here, but surely you can see that keeping people from making such a final decision, one which impacts not only them as individuals but also everyone who knows them, would be the wisest course of action?
I personally wrestle with two viewpoints. One is that if a person's life will not improve and they are in pain, physical or mental, to the point where living is a burden to them that they cannot handle, then suicide is justified. The other is that we cannot know the future and within even a few short weeks, something may have changed for the better and their life could have improved if they had not made the choice to end their life.

Of course, then there's the whole harming others through suicide argument, which I accidentally neglected. Excuse me for that. The way I think is that as long as I am desired in this world, I would personally desire to be in it, but I had forgotten that not all people think like I do. I tend to do that...
THe problem here is measuring hurt. Who knows who hurts more, and which is the correct course of action to take?

Damn. Why can't I just be a blind ideologue? Because I can't think of a rational way to deal with this, when it is considered from both viewpoints.

Meh.

True, the majority of suicides are because of mental illness. Counseling would probably help a guy who had a bithy wife and couldn't pay his bills. Situational
depression can be helped by anti-depressants. And someone who sees suicide as the only option when marraige and financial problems get him down is arguably not quite an example of mental health.

Life is good.

People who are miserable for the most part make themselves miserable. It's not life's doing; it's theirs.

That would, in my book, be a 'mental illness.'

I'm afraid I must take issue with this.

There are many people who have a very low tolerance for things like emotional distress, physical pain, etc. There are also many people who don't have the strength or wisdom to understand that one can choose to be happy, regardless of circumstances. In these cases, it's not a case of "making themselves miserable." It's a case of not having effective coping mechanisms.

Life is good.

People who are miserable for the most part make themselves miserable. It's not life's doing; it's theirs.

That would, in my book, be a 'mental illness.'
I have seen cases in which life is not good for people, and most likely would not become good. I.E., the case of severe physical illness, putting someone in excruciating pain, with no end in sight until their death by that illness, without hope of life turning around.

I just saw the "for the most part" there. Okay, now I agree. In *almost* all cases, suicidal thoughts are caused by depression and irrationality. But I can see cases in which it might not be, I would think.

There are many people who have a very low tolerance for things like emotional distress, physical pain, etc. There are also many people who don't have the strength or wisdom to understand that one can choose to be happy, regardless of circumstances. In these cases, it's not a case of "making themselves miserable." It's a case of not having effective coping mechanisms.
Ah, that makes much sense.

I personally wrestle with two viewpoints. One is that if a person's life will not improve and they are in pain, physical or mental, to the point where living is a burden to them that they cannot handle, then suicide is justified. The other is that we cannot know the future and within even a few short weeks, something may have changed for the better and their life could have improved if they had not made the choice to end their life.

Of course, then there's the whole harming others through suicide argument, which I accidentally neglected. Excuse me for that. The way I think is that as long as I am desired in this world, I would personally desire to be in it, but I had forgotten that not all people think like I do. I tend to do that...
THe problem here is measuring hurt. Who knows who hurts more, and which is the correct course of action to take?

Damn. Why can't I just be a blind ideologue? Because I can't think of a rational way to deal with this, when it is considered from both viewpoints.

Um ... perhaps because you're intelligent? :)

We all tend to make the unwarranted assumption that others think the same way we do ( or that, if they don't, they ought to! ), which is one of the primary reasons for misunderstandings at every level of human interaction.

As to measuring pain, the medical profession gets better at that on an almost daily basis. :)

I'm afraid I must take issue with this.

There are many people who have a very low tolerance for things like emotional distress, physical pain, etc. There are also many people who don't have the strength or wisdom to understand that one can choose to be happy, regardless of circumstances. In these cases, it's not a case of "making themselves miserable." It's a case of not having effective coping mechanisms.
I'm afraid I unsympathetically lump having no coping mechanisms in with "making themselves miserable", because I feel that learning to cope is something anyone can do.

There was a supreme court case in Canada (R vs Sue Rodriguez I believe) where illness had rendered her unable to move, in a state of constant pain and suffering. The disease had not affected her mental capacity, and therefore she appealed to the supreme court for mercy. She wanted the right to legally be euthanized.

I think the appeal was actually rejected... Which is quite a shame.

An interesting thing that I've met up with in many arguments against euthanasia and suicide is the thought that for some reason or other, government should have control over when you die.

Does that make sense? I can't see how it does, personally. Would someone care to explain, or am I wrong in this perception of the argument?
No, you're right. Under appropriate conditions, it should be each individual's right to die in a respectful, painfree manner, if they choose to do so.

I'm afraid I unsympathetically lump having no coping mechanisms in with "making themselves miserable", because I feel that learning to cope is something anyone can do.

Not quite. I've known some people who were virtually incapable of learning to cope. Like most things with us large-brained, mammalian bipeds, this is probably a result of environment accentuating genetic inheritance.

No, you're right. Under appropriate conditions, it should be each individual's right to die in a respectful, painfree manner, if they choose to do so.

Eichen, who are you closest to in all the world?

There was a supreme court case in Canada (R vs Sue Rodriguez I believe) where illness had rendered her unable to move, in a state of constant pain and suffering. The disease had not affected her mental capacity, and therefore she appealed to the supreme court for mercy. She wanted the right to legally be euthanized.

I think the appeal was actually rejected... Which is quite a shame.

I agree. Most people could see that she had no quality of life. Some people might prefer to live, but she felt that the things she considered important to have a life of quality were not possible.

a government has a responsibilty to protect the rights of its citizens LIFE, liberty, and property.

Not quite. I've known some people who were virtually incapable of learning to cope. Like most things with us large-brained, mammalian bipeds, this is probably a result of environment accentuating genetic inheritance.
I actually know someone who has refused to cope (although I still think he is capable of coping) ...so I suppose you have a point there.

a government has a responsibilty to protect the rights of its citizens LIFE, liberty, and property.
You could argue that with that right to "LIFE", one also possesses the right to autonomously choose to end it.

There was a supreme court case in Canada (R vs Sue Rodriguez I believe) where illness had rendered her unable to move, in a state of constant pain and suffering. The disease had not affected her mental capacity, and therefore she appealed to the supreme court for mercy. She wanted the right to legally be euthanized.

I think the appeal was actually rejected... Which is quite a shame.

Perhaps. Yet medical pain-management, as I indicated before, is advancing by leaps and bounds. It's already possible to use microchips to block certain impulses from the brain to the body. Soon, perhaps very soon indeed, the reverse will be true and pain inpulses can be selectively blocked from body to brain without unduly interfering with other sensation.

I actually know someone who has refused to cope (although I still think he is capable of coping) ...so I suppose you have a point there.

Thank you. :)

a government has a responsibilty to protect the rights of its citizens LIFE, liberty, and property.
A government granting us a "right to life" is not granting us a "right to live." It is more a right to not have our life snuffed out by another without restitution.

You could argue that with that right to "LIFE", one also possesses the right to autonomously choose to end it.

Legally, morally, or both?

Not quite. I've known some people who were virtually incapable of learning to cope. Like most things with us large-brained, mammalian bipeds, this is probably a result of environment accentuating genetic inheritance.

I, myself have very poor coping machanisms. I have learned some as I've gotten older, but not being taught these ways of coping is only part of the problem. Part of it is biological. Both bipolar and unipolar deoression run in the family. Dysfuntional is an understatement when describing my family.

Though I frequently disagree with you, you're a man of deep thought and wisdom. :fluffle:

suicide should be legal. The gouverment should try to help all those who have suicidal tought. but making suicide illigal is not the right way.
When successful, it's hardly a prosecutable crime, now is it?

Ah, that makes much sense.

I can sometimes do that. :D

Thank you. :)

Perhaps. Yet medical pain-management, as I indicated before, is advancing by leaps and bounds. It's already possible to use microchips to block certain impulses from the brain to the body.
:eek:
I just remembered reading about that!
I think it was in Popular Science or something...
Wherever it was, the team that developed that are geniuses!

Perhaps. Yet medical pain-management, as I indicated before, is advancing by leaps and bounds. It's already possible to use microchips to block certain impulses from the brain to the body. Soon, perhaps very soon indeed, the reverse will be true and pain inpulses can be selectively blocked from body to brain without unduly interfering with other sensation.
It's not just about pain relief. She felt the disease had stolen her dignity; she could no longer dress/feed herself, and instead of dealing with the massive (not to mention expensive) burden, she wanted to skip the last months of her life.

A government granting us a "right to life" is not granting us a "right to live." It is more a right to not have our life snuffed out by another without restitution.

In theory, these are supposed to be inalienable.

A government granting us a "right to life" is not granting us a "right to live." It is more a right to not have our life snuffed out by another without restitution.

Just one point for my personal pet peeve here ...

Government does not "grant" rights. Governments exist at the will of the people, thus the government has only such "rights" as the people grant.

In theory, these are supposed to be in alienable.
...and I agree! The aliens can't have 'em. But they are, nevertheless, rights granted from a government to its people, and so are only guarantees after-the-fact (once you are killed, restitution will be made).

It's not just about pain relief. She felt the disease had stolen her dignity; she could no longer dress/feed herself, and instead of dealing with the massive (not to mention expensive) burden, she wanted to skip the last months of her life.

Then her case may indeed have been one where suicide was a viable option. I take it her case was uncurable/irreversible?

Perhaps. Yet medical pain-management, as I indicated before, is advancing by leaps and bounds. It's already possible to use microchips to block certain impulses from the brain to the body. Soon, perhaps very soon indeed, the reverse will be true and pain inpulses can be selectively blocked from body to brain without unduly interfering with other sensation.

My mother has cancer and is end stage renal failure. She and I have discussed under what circumstances she would not wish to continue. She has appointed me to make medical decisions when she is no longer able. If she decides that she no longer wishes to continue I will respect her wishes. I know this will be painful, but I feel she has the right to make these decisions and won't counter them.

BTW, doctors these days are notorious for under medicating for pain. They're terrified of the DEA coming down on them.

:eek:
I just remembered reading about that!
I think it was in Popular Science or something...
Wherever it was, the team that developed that are geniuses!

And even moreso, angels of mercy! :)

Another point: What is the point of legislating against suicide?

Obviously if somebody succeeds at committing suicide, it is impossible to charge them for it.

If somebody does not succeed in killing themselves, why should they be subjected to charges? Does the state have the right to make matters worse for people who are clearly having a hard time already?

Then her case may indeed have been one where suicide was a viable option. I take it her case was uncurable/irreversible?
Yep, I believe it was... If you care to read more on the case, clicky clicky. (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-69-1135/life_society/sue_rodriguez/)

I choose not to join this debate as I have extremely mixid feelings on this whole subject.

Just one point for my personal pet peeve here ...

Government does not "grant" rights. Governments exist at the will of the people, thus the government has only such "rights" as the people grant.
Only is so much as the government is made up of the people. However, if the government is considered a separate entity, as most people do consider it, then the rights are only enforced when they are 'violated' somehow by other people. Rights are a guarantee --an agreement --between the government and the people, to the benefit of the people. The government will not violate these rights of the people. This fits the definition of 'granting' a privelige, m'thinks.

Come on, join us. *Used peer pressure on Branin* 565 damage!

BTW, doctors these days are notorious for under medicating for pain. They're terrified of the DEA coming down on them.
That is truely sad.

My mother has cancer and is end stage renal failure. She and I have discussed under what circumstances she would not wish to continue. She has appointed me to make medical decisions when she is no longer able. If she decides that she no longer wishes to continue I will respect her wishes. I know this will be painful, but I feel she has the right to make these decisions and won't counter them.

BTW, doctors these days are notorious for under medicating for pain. They're terrified of the DEA coming down on them.

You have my utmost sympathy. I've been intending to make out a "living will" for some time now, but haven't gotten around to doing so. Hmm.

The only way I would consider "pulling the plug" or ( God forbid! ) having one of my children make the decision to do so, would be when I am no longer coherent and there is no possibility for recovery. This would have to be a very unusual set of circumstances, since I fully intend to "wander out into the wilderness" as soon as I know that my senses are failing, that there is no hope of recovery, and that I'm going to become a financial burden on my family. Granted, this is a type of suicide by default, but since I have set the bar so high I don't place it in the same category as most "suicides."

Another point: What is the point of legislating against suicide?

Obviously if somebody succeeds at committing suicide, it is impossible to charge them for it.

If somebody does not succeed in killing themselves, why should they be subjected to charges? Does the state have the right to make matters worse for people who are clearly having a hard time already?

I believe the law uses that to force people to get psychiatric help. After my own attempt I tried to refuse help, but the cpos told me it was that or jail.

I, myself have very poor coping machanisms. I have learned some as I've gotten older, but not being taught these ways of coping is only part of the problem. Part of it is biological. Both bipolar and unipolar deoression run in the family. Dysfuntional is an understatement when describing my family.

Though I frequently disagree with you, you're a man of deep thought and wisdom. :fluffle:

( BLUSH! ) Awwww! You're so kind! :fluffle: backattcha!

Come on, join us. *Used peer pressure on Branin* 565 damage!
Ouch :(
If I had anything to say I would, but I have truly very mixed feelings on this topic. But this thread is making for a good read.

And even moreso, angels of mercy! :)
I was rather surprised when I read about it, as I hadn't even considered that options outside the realm of medication could be useful for pain control. I was always under the opinion that the opiate-based painkillers we currently use were as advanced as we could get. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that people have been working at finding alternative solutions all along!

Meh, I tried to find a link about this for those interested, but all I'm getting is hokey stuff that people are trying to sell at exorbitant prices, and it's not up on PopSci's website.
:(

The only way I would consider "pulling the plug" or ( God forbid! ) having one of my children make the decision to do so, would be when I am no longer coherent and there is no possibility for recovery. This would have to be a very unusual set of circumstances, since I fully intend to "wander out into the wilderness" as soon as I know that my senses are failing...
What if the "wilderness" sustains you? Is this some sort of metaphor?

Ouch :(
Ha, but we'll use the new pain management techniques to keep you from going into shock until we can airlift you to a hospital to get you properly recovered!

So there!
:D

Ouch :(
If I had anything to say I would, but I have truly very mixed feelings on this topic. But this thread is making for a good read.
Would the Jedi Mind Trick work?

You have no personal involvement in this topic. *swoosh*

You have useful things to contribute. *swoosh*

What if the "wilderness" sustains you? Is this some sort of metaphor?

Ya don' kno, do ya? ;)

Ya don' kno, do ya? ;)
:) I can figure it. I've just never heard this particular metaphor before.

I would say that everyone should be free to choose to die, either by suicide or euthanasia. If they are stupid enough to commit suicide, good riddance.
If they are suffering and would rather die, euthanasia is ok by me.

Would the Jedi Mind Trick work?

You have no personal involvement in this topic. *swoosh*

You have useful things to contribute. *swoosh*
Nope. Didn't work. I don't have much personal involvment in this topic, nor much anything useful to contribute. The mixed feeling comes from an utter hate for death, stemming from a period in my life when I was suiciadal. Let's not go into anymore detail than that. But I also have a deep respect for the rights and feelings of others, including that. I have mixed feelings. I don't belive death is ever a solution, but I also don't belive in hindering others rights of choice.

I would say that everyone should be free to choose to die, either by suicide or euthanasia. If they are stupid enough to commit suicide, good riddance.
If they are suffering and would rather die, euthanasia is ok by me.

We'll see if you still feel that way after a nice case of severe clinical depression. :gundge:

I don't feel that euthenasia or suicide are a "right". Neither is "life." I do believe life is better than the alternative, even if it involves pain --however...

I also recognize that if an individual is determined, they will choose their time of termination regardless of laws, mores or even personal beliefs. Whether it be throwing themselves infront of a fast-moving train, or sacrificing themselves for the benefit of others, the choice takes place in a single moment, and it is theirs.

Government has no involvement in this.

The mixed feeling comes from an utter hate for death, stemming from a period in my life when I was suiciadal. Let's not go into anymore detail than that.
I'd call that personal involvement ..but maybe that's just me.

:) I can figure it. I've just never heard this particular metaphor before.

I'll let ya off the hook then.

I've always admired the courage and devotion to family of the Nez Perce Indians of North America. One of the folkways of their Tribe was that the older members, when they could no longer contribute to the welfare of the Tribe, simply wandered out into the wilderness to die, thus freeing the Tribe of both the burden of caring for them and the burden of making a terrible decision.

As a veteran, I want ( and am entitled to ) a full military funeral, but before that, if I'm able, I want to exercise my courage one last time. I've already made arrangements with my older son, who is a Nurse, to drive me to a spot on a back road in North Carolina's Nantahala Forest. I'll take a bottle of water perhaps, and walk as far as I can manage. Then I'll sit down, try to remember as much of my life as I can, and allow nature to take its course.

My son has instructions to locate what is left of my body, have an undertaker dress me in my dress green uniform, and give me a military burial.

Too bad I won't be there to see it! :)

I would say that everyone should be free to choose to die, either by suicide or euthanasia. If they are stupid enough to commit suicide, good riddance.
If they are suffering and would rather die, euthanasia is ok by me.

How utterly ... Darwinian of you. :rolleyes:

Eutrusca, isn't that called passive euthanasia?

I've always admired the courage and devotion to family of the Nez Perce Indians of North America. One of the folkways of their Tribe was that the older members, when they could no longer contribute to the welfare of the Tribe, simply wandered out into the wilderness to die, thus freeing the Tribe of both the burden of caring for them and the burden of making a terrible decision.

As a veteran, I want ( and am entitled to ) a full military funeral, but before that, if I'm able, I want to exercise my courage one last time. I've already made arrangements with my older son, who is a Nurse, to drive me to a spot on a back road in North Carolina's Nantahala Forest. I'll take a bottle of water perhaps, and walk as far as I can manage. Then I'll sit down, try to remember as much of my life as I can, and allow nature to take its course.

My son has instructions to locate what is left of my body, have an undertaker dress me in my dress green uniform, and give me a military burial.
Somehow, it seems more noble for the Indian doing it. I wonder why...

I seriously mean no offense.

The native has a religious mythology supporting his actions, that stems back to a belief in the sanctity of life. This mythology is not a part of our Western civilization. Would you do this feeling you could truely no longer contribute to our society?

Eutrusca, isn't that called passive euthanasia?

( shrug ) I called it "suicide by default," but if you prefer to call it something else, be my guest. :)

I'll let ya off the hook then.

I've always admired the courage and devotion to family of the Nez Perce Indians of North America. One of the folkways of their Tribe was that the older members, when they could no longer contribute to the welfare of the Tribe, simply wandered out into the wilderness to die, thus freeing the Tribe of both the burden of caring for them and the burden of making a terrible decision.

As a veteran, I want ( and am entitled to ) a full military funeral, but before that, if I'm able, I want to exercise my courage one last time. I've already made arrangements with my older son, who is a Nurse, to drive me to a spot on a back road in North Carolina's Nantahala Forest. I'll take a bottle of water perhaps, and walk as far as I can manage. Then I'll sit down, try to remember as much of my life as I can, and allow nature to take its course.

My son has instructions to locate what is left of my body, have an undertaker dress me in my dress green uniform, and give me a military burial.

Too bad I won't be there to see it! :)
An interesting plan.
I hadn't known of that custom either. Thanks for explaining it.

Somehow, it seems more noble for the Indian doing it. I wonder why...

I seriously mean no offense.

The native has a religious mythology supporting his actions, that stems back to a belief in the sanctity of life. This mythology is not a part of our Western civilization. Would you do this feeling you could truely no longer contribute to our society?

Yes, Native American customs seem to make more sense to me than our European derived ones. With the exception of some Wiccan beliefs.
But I'm a bit of a tree hugger anyway.

Somehow, it seems more noble for the Indian doing it. I wonder why...

I seriously mean no offense.

The native has a religious mythology supporting his actions, that stems back to a belief in the sanctity of life. This mythology is not a part of our Western civilization. Would you do this feeling you could truely no longer contribute to our society?

I would do this ( whatever it's called! ) only when I was certain there was no hope for improvement in whatever my condition might be, and when I knew I would become a financial burden on my family. There is a difference. Slight, but there. :)

I have an absolute horror of dying in some antiseptic hospital room, hooked up to all sorts of "life-saving" devices with more tubes and wires than a cyborg in the repair shop! I could probably settle for dying at home surrounded by my children and grandchildren, but not many hospitals will let you do that if they need the money. [/CYNACISM]

It's the idea that I would be making one last contribution to the welfare of my family, the biosphere, and to my own sense of independence. Plus, I just like the romanticism of it. I'm incurably romantic! :)

( Not to mention that I've always thought of myself as some sort of "Noble Savage!" ) :D

Yes, Native American customs seem to make more sense to me than our European derived ones. With the exception of some Wiccan beliefs.
But I'm a bit of a tree hugger anyway.
We are further removed from our European heritage than natives are from theirs.

tree :fluffle: tree

I have an absolute horror of dying in some antiseptic hospital room, hooked up to all sorts of "life-saving" devices with more tubes and wires than a cyborg in the repair shop! I could probably settle for dying at home surrounded by my children and grandchildren, but not many hospitals will let you do that if they need the money.
Oh, golly, I'm with you there.

I remember watching a film some time ago about an old man dying at home. It was filmed in Ireland, I believe. He was at home with all his family, the doctor came to his house to treat him a couple of times a week. It was a documentary and followed the man right up to his death. The shots of his death rattle was a little freaky, but overall I found it beautiful and touching. I remember thinking that it was the way I wanted to go.

Unfortunately, 85% of Americans will die in some sort of healthcare institution. Perhaps we're too interested in prolonging life and not enough interested in making the time count.

I remember watching a film some time ago about an old man dying at home. It was filmed in Ireland, I believe. He was at home with all his family, the doctor came to his house to treat him a couple of times a week. It was a documentary and followed the man right up to his death. The shots of his death rattle was a little freaky, but overall I found it beautiful and touching. I remember thinking that it was the way I wanted to go.

Unfortunately, 85% of Americans will die in some sort of healthcare institution. Perhaps we're too interested in prolonging life and not enough interested in making the time count.

Death is simply a part of life, sweet lady. We in most of Western society have institutionalized and sanitized death because we are in denial. I suspect the death of another reminds us too much of our own mortality. ( Personally, I think we need to be reminded, but that's another thread. )

I'm certainly no fan of pain, having experienced more than my share during my brief time on this ball of mud, but pain tends to accumulate with years. For those who die of "old age," death often comes as an old friend intent on setting you free.

What a shame to meet him wreathed in tubes and surrounded by those most in denial: members of the medical profession. :)

Perhaps we're too interested in prolonging life and not enough interested in making the time count.
I agree. Quality over quantity.

I agree. Quality over quantity.

Perzactly! All any of us actually have is the here and right friggin' now. Stop wasting your time by either thinking about all the trouble you've been in, or worrying about all the trouble you're going to get in and start living life completely today.

This has been a public service announcement by Eutrusca, Inc. All rights reserved.