NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the things I am most currious about is the various rules surrounding suicide. Mainly: a person who has attempted suicide can not refuse medical treatment that is deamed neccesary. There are laws against selling things that would make suicide easy and painless, someone who has attempted suicide can be commited against their will to a mental hospital, etc.

So some of my questions are: Does a person have a right to choose when and how they wish to die? Is this right absolute or does it apply only in specific circumstances (for instance if somone has a debilitating disease). Are there instances where a person can have that right taken away (for instance someone suffering from depression). What is so bad about death that it is feared (besided the major evolutionary benifit for those who do fear it. If you don't fear dying you have less of a chance to stay alive to pro-create)

My thoughts: To be clear, I am not suicidal. However, I feel right to stop living is just as important as the right to keep living (and murder is bad because it tramples on this right). We were not given a choice whether to be alive or not and it seems inhumane to force someone into something they have no choice over. Death is a natural part of existance and can have a beauty all it's own when it is a release from a life that a person no longer recieves enjoyment from. Death will eventually happen to all of us, no matter how we try to avoid or deny it. At 18 a person is generally given (almost) all the rights of an adult. We can concievably cast the deciding vote to determine the leaders of our country. It seems that we should be given the right to control our own lives since we can make decisions that will impact others. The government should respect these decsions we make for ourselves and allow us to choose to die when and how we want, if we so desire. To put it another way, I believe if the government denies me the right to end my life, then they take responcibility for it and for making sure my life is worth living. This strikes me as the exact opposite of personal responsibility.

I agree with you. The right to life means the right to control it (your own).

I've been working on a new constitution. One of the things I put in there was a specific section dealing with right. Please allow me to share an applicable part with you.

Section 2.02 Life
(a) All citizens and non-citizens are guaranteed absolute sovereignty to their own life. Life is defined as the biological process of life and does not include within it any other rights, privileges or freedoms.
(b) All citizens and non-citizens may voluntarily end their own life. This self removal of life may only be assisted when the individual wishing to end his life is physically incapable of doing so and that inability is verified by a Judicial Officer.
(c) A fetus will not be considered an individual by law and does not fall under the direct protections of this section. Only the individual carrying the fetus may make the determination as to the life status of the fetus until it is born. Once born, the infant falls under the direct protection of this section.
(d) While minors are protected in their right to life, they do not enjoy the right to voluntarily end their life. Upon obtaining adulthood, as defined in Article I, Section 1.04, they then fall under all provisions of this section.
(e) If a person causes physical damage to (a) person(s) or property, other than their own, due to voluntary self termination, compensation will be obtained from the deceased’s estate prior to any other distribution, including any wills.
(f) No portion of this section is amendable.


Yes, part c is essentaly a carryover from another thread and any issues with it should stay there. I included the whole section in its entirety and no cross threading was intended.

There is no right to die in the US constitution. There is a right to life, but not a right to death. As far as I know there is also no federal law on the topic, so if a state decides that they would like to grant people that right, they are free to do so. Therefore, if you feel strongly about this, lobby your governor.

There is a liberal civil right to die.

If we take the individual as sovereign, the individual has the right to terminate their own life. Activity should only be curtailed when it infringes on others' rights, since this doesn't it must be respected.

I think legally people should have a right to end their lives, refuse treatment for possibly fatal conditions, and even in some cases to absolve others of taking a hand in assisting them to die.

Morally I think that people have obligations to others in their lives and whether or not they have a moral right to remove themselves from the lives of the people are interconnected to depends on the situation. A person who has no living family or friends and is not currently essential to someone else's life plans or goals cannot be said to have a moral obligation (so far as I can see) to remain alive. Arguably a person who is the sole parent and material/emotional provider for a young infant has a moral obligation (to the infant) to not end their lives.

There is a liberal civil right to die.

If we take the individual as sovereign, the individual has the right to terminate their own life. Activity should only be curtailed when it infringes on others' rights, since this doesn't it must be respected.

Where are you granted this right? Is it in the constitution? Did congress pass a law granting you this right? Otherwise, you only have that right if the state has not taken it away from you.

Where are you granted this right? Is it in the constitution? Did congress pass a law granting you this right? Otherwise, you only have that right if the state has not taken it away from you.
That is of course assuming that all rights are granted by the constitution.

Where are you granted this right? Is it in the constitution? Did congress pass a law granting you this right? Otherwise, you only have that right if the state has not taken it away from you.

My apologies, I didn't mean to reply to your post but the topic itself. I've edited the mistake.

I derived the 'right to die' from the fundamental liberal civil right that the individual should decide what 'ought' to be done, the core of the liberal method of thinking. Working from first principles, as it were.

Regarding the US Constitution, my understanding of constitionalism is that the prime function of a constitution is not designed to bestow rights so much as limit the power of government. Under liberalism, rights are inherent unless they are revoked, always in order to protect rights. But then again, your system has a Bill of Rights, unlike mine, so this makes it more complex. The US explicitly states rights, the Australian one does not. The question is of the status of the "residual rights".

The answer is to look at the common law, but I still maintain that one has an inherent civil liberty to kill oneself, regardless of the state of the law.

There is no right to die in the US constitution. There is a right to life, but not a right to death. As far as I know there is also no federal law on the topic, so if a state decides that they would like to grant people that right, they are free to do so. Therefore, if you feel strongly about this, lobby your governor.
I dont know the current legal status of suicide, but in many states (if not all) the state will often not intervene to force life prolonging treatment on an individual who has signed a living will stating that they dont wish particular heroic medical intervention to be used to prolong their dying.

In fact the state will only intervene (in many if not all states) so far as I know, if someone has asked them to (ie made an application to the courts).

Only The Officer has the right to die by their own hands.

Only The Officer has the right to die by their own hands.
The Officer of what?

I think someone has been reading too much Heinlien...

Although I usually am an advocate of personal freedoms, I am torn on this issue. A friend of mine killed herself last summer (after her father died unexpectantly), and I wish she had turned to someone (me, a professional, anyone) rather than ending her life in a sudden judgement in an emotional state. However... having a chronic illness myself (Crohn's disease), I can understand a person's desire for release sometimes. If doctors would be a little more liberal with the pain meds, maybe I wouldn't have considered it as much as I did when I was really bad a few years ago. Perhaps I am too close for objective thought on the subject, but then again, maybe that allows me to see both sides more clearly. To this day I am torn on the subject, and have yet to hear a convincing argument either way. The fact that I considered it when hospitalized makes me sympathetic to those in long-term pain, but I am glad I did not elect to do so. In hindsight, being in severe pain, being stuck in the hospital, being lonely, etc. contributed to a depressed state which was just as responsible for my feelings as the severe pain was.

Would a sane, happy, healthy person decided to die?
There seems to be something wrong with that. Like I don't believe that it is possible for a sane, happy, healthy person to want to die.

While I would not force a man to take treatments that he knew were only prolonging misery and torment. By refusing medical treatment, food water what have you and taking his own life. I would not charge the doctor who prescribed too much morphine to him with murder either.

But someone who there is question about life and a chance for quality.
I believe it would be wrong to allow that person to die unchallenged.

Regards,

JMayo

To this day I am torn on the subject, and have yet to hear a convincing argument either way.

It is a very complex issue. Isn't this the whole point of why it should be up to the individual to decide in the first place, rather than have it decided for him or her by a moralising state?

I guess the problem with allowing the decision of suicide to depressed people is determining whether or not that person is suficiently competent to make that disease. Depression is often a treatable disease after all.

The Officer of what?
The Officer Officer.

Whether in the Field or at the Desk only he can end his failures.

I however do not agree to forcing someone to live(apart from feeding them).

I will add I don't believe the state should be making laws about death and dying.

Regards,

JMayo

I think it's a sad day when people are wondering how they can govern a person's death.

Oh, how I envy animals. Their existence is not deluded with the misconception that humans are anything but animals with an over-active imagination.

"I do not believe in human perfectability. Mankind is simply more active -- not happier, nor wiser -- than it was 6000 years ago." -- Al Einstein

I think it's a sad day when people are wondering how they can govern a person's death.

Oh, how I envy animals. Their existence is not deluded with the misconception that humans are anything but animals with an over-active imagination.

"I do not believe in human perfectability. Mankind is simply more active -- not happier, nor wiser -- than it was 6000 years ago." -- Al Einstein
Excellent work but how is it relevenT

There is no right to die in the US constitution. There is a right to life, but not a right to death. As far as I know there is also no federal law on the topic, so if a state decides that they would like to grant people that right, they are free to do so. Therefore, if you feel strongly about this, lobby your governor.

But every right intrinsically has it's opposite as a right. There is only the right to free speach in the Constitution, but we have the right to remain silent. There is only the right to bear arms in the constitution, but we have the right not to own a gun. There is only the right to vote in the constitution, but we have the right not to vote. There is only the right to practice religion in our constitution, but we also have the right to not practice religion. The consitution says we have the right to live, I think the right not to live is implied.

A forced right is not a right at all. In order for something to be a right it has to be exercised on a voluntary basis.

..../snip

In fact the state will only intervene (in many if not all states) so far as I know, if someone has asked them to (ie made an application to the courts).

They will also intervene if the person has attempted suicide. If they have the right to refuse treatement is taken away.

In Germany it's not illegal to commit suicide. I guess you could call that a "right to die" and I support that.

However, I would suggest to everyone who is about to commit suicide to consult a psychologist first, because most suicidal persons are suffering from depressions and those can be cured.

There is a right to do anything one puts his/her heart to. Society may place punishments on certain actions or completely eliminate the option to take certain actions, but there is a right to do anything.

Now since suicide is a victimless action, I believe the government has no business trying to regulate it.

They will also intervene if the person has attempted suicide. If they have the right to refuse treatement is taken away.
Are you able to clarify anymore about that, for instance...

All states? In any case where someone has attempted suicide (ie have a history of doing so) or only in cases where the attempt is the reason for giving the treatment?

Do you mean the state by way of legislation/common law, or public policy, or does the state actually in the case of long term illness enforce on a case by case basis?

Sorry but can you clarify a bit more, I'm somewhat interested.

Incidently is suicide illegal in the US? If so at a federal level or state level, and if the latter is it illegal in all states or only some?

(No worries if you cant answer all or any of my questions, but it's be great if you or someone else knows and would post any answers to the above.)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that we not only have the right to die, but we have an obligation to ... unless ... ok ok ok ... I wave my right to die. Hooray! I'm immortal!

No, the Constitution doesn't gurantee a right to die ... but it doesn't guarantee a right to pie either. You can have my pie when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that we not only have the right to die, but we have an obligation to ... unless ... ok ok ok ... I wave my right to die. Hooray! I'm immortal!
Not so fast! You have to fill out the proper forms to waive your right to die, and then you have to sign them and mail them (in triplicate, of course) to the appropriate agencies. Then you have to send notice to all those who may be affected by your desicion, and they all have to sign a paper saying that you have told them that you will be immortal. Then you'll get another set of forms that must be filled out, and those have to be sent in triplicate to every agency that you didn't send any forms to last time.
At this point, you have to wait for each agency to clear your request, and then they will all send you letters of confirmation which must be signed, mailed back, lost in the mail, returned to you, and then mailed again.
Finally, you can file an request to waive your right to die with the Final Authority and schedule an interview.
This process takes about 2.7 millenia. Only one man has ever completed it, and he only managed to do so because the paperwork was started by his Great (times 66) Grandfather.
And then he forgot to sign page 12 of the form that was sent to the Angolian Beet Farmers Association, so his request didn't clear.