NationStates Jolt Archive

As demonstrated by criminal charges pending against the Final Exit Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Exit_Network) in Georgia, we still have a barbaric desire to force people to continue living against their will, even when they are terminally ill and in great pain. This case also appears absurd in it's broad application of anti-assisted-suicide laws to prevent advocacy.

Assisted suicide case revives right-to-die debate (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/02-27-2009/20090227005009_04.html)
By GREG BLUESTEIN Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA (AP) - The case against an alleged assisted suicide ring known as the Final Exit Network has revived a long-simmering debate over the right to die.

The network's president, its medical director and two other members are due in court Friday on charges they aided the suicide of a 58-year-old Georgia man who suffered for years from cancer of the throat and mouth.

Voters in Oregon and Washington have legalized doctor-assisted suicide, and a district judge in Montana ruled in December that such suicides are legal there, though the state Supreme Court could overturn that decision.

But most other states have laws that carry stiff penalties for those found guilty of assisting suicide. People convicted of assisting in suicide in Georgia can be sentenced to up to five years in prison.

Advocates of assisted suicide pounced on the arrests, saying they're a signal that there should be renewed dialogue over end-of-life choices.

Barbara Coombs Lee, president of the national advocacy group Compassion and Choices, said lawmakers should consider changes to allow those suffering with terminal illnesses to "die gracefully."

"We shouldn't make people feel ashamed for wanting a graceful exit at the end of their valiant fight," she said.

Critics, meanwhile, said the arrests highlight the drawbacks of assisted suicide groups.

"How is this not murder?" asked Stephen Drake of the group Not Dead Yet, an advocacy group for the disabled that opposes assisted suicide and euthanasia.

"This is predatory. These are people who get off on being there for death. They target certain types of people," he said. "And when we make laws, when we talk about people who want to commit suicide, we're getting into very dangerous territory."

Georgia authorities began investigating the group shortly after John Celmer killed himself in June. Now they say the organization may have been involved in as many as 200 other deaths around the country.

Celmer's mother says he had suffered for years from cancer, but authorities say he had recovered and was embarrassed about his appearance after surgeries when the network helped him take his life.

The group's members bristle at the term assisted suicide, saying they don't actively aid suicides but rather support and guide those who decide to end their lives on their own. Authorities, though, say the group blatantly violated the law.

Thomas E. Goodwin, the group's president, and Claire Blehr were both arrested Wednesday in metro Atlanta. The two are scheduled to appear in court Friday.

Maryland authorities arrested the group's medical director, Dr. Lawrence D. Egbert of Baltimore, and Nicholas Alec Sheridan, a Baltimore man who is a regional coordinator for the group. They were scheduled for an extradition hearing Friday.

According to court documents in the case, Blehr detailed each step of the process to an undercover agent who infiltrated the group claiming to be interested in committing suicide.

Blehr told the agent that he would place the hood on top of his own head, like a shower cap, and then inflate it by turning on the helium tank. After a few breaths, she told him the "lights would go out."

The guides would then let the helium tanks run for 20 minutes after they last felt his pulse to make sure he was dead. They would also stand by his side to ensure he didn't pull the bag off his head, according to the documents.

Some legal experts said they hope details of the network's work would help stoke a deeper discussion over assisted suicide. William Colby, an attorney who is a fellow with the Center for Practical Bioethics, said prosecuting the group wouldn't support that goal.

"People are trying to understand how we navigate the end of our lives, and we need to keep talking about it," said Colby. "But trying to round up people in groups on either extreme end of our social spectrum is not necessarily the best way to move public dialogue."

Georgia prosecutors will seek to prove the four violated the state's 1994 assisted suicide law, which defines assisted suicide as anyone publicly advertising or offering to "intentionally and actively assist another person" in ending their life.

To Jerry Dincin, the Final Exit Network's vice president, the prosecution is "the epitome of stupidity." And he said that the group's members didn't actively aid the suicides, but directed members to a manual called "The Final Exit" to guide them through the process.

"If this case goes to court, we'll be dealing with the notion of what is 'assistance,'" he said. "If we point somebody to a book, maybe that's considered assistance in the courts. But we don't think so."

---

Associated Press Writer Kate Brumback contributed to this report.

2009-02-27 08:27:15 GMT

What does NSG think?

EDIT: I fully admit the poll options are biased, unscientific, foolish, etc. Live with it. ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7915310.stm

I was reading this story just before I opened your thread.

In my genuine opinion on this matter, I believe that the answer to your question is every option on your poll. Application of reason will lead to this deduction.

"This is predatory. These are people who get off on being there for death. They target certain types of people," he [Stephen Drake of the group Not Dead Yet] said. "And when we make laws, when we talk about people who want to commit suicide, we're getting into very dangerous territory."


Are there really people supporting the right to die who do it so they can attend somebody's death and "get off" on it?

I'd really like to see some evidence that such people play any significant role in this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7915310.stm

I was reading this story just be for I opened your thread.

Very disturbing as the case in your article involves not just the right to die, but the right to refusal medical treatment. Even those that oppose euthanasia often recognize the second is ethical and a legal right.

I think "broad" is a generous way to put their interpretation. I just hope I don't go to jail for helping someone commit homicide cause I told someone where the nearest gun shop/kitchenware/dangerousstuffbuyingplace is.

hmm.. although if they knew he was going to try it, I guess it may hold up. I'm 100% for euthanasia, although I think its a legal quagmire, in the sense that you need to prove someone wasn't coerced into committing suicide.

Are there really people supporting the right to die who do it so they can attend somebody's death and "get off" on it?

I'd really like to see some evidence that such people play any significant role in this.

This is where my thinking was going. I can understand people wanting their loved ones to find a painless way out. I can understand other people offering to help.

I really don't get what kind of person makes that kind of comment, though - trying to make out that it's all about kicks.... it's kind of sickening. Do you think that kind of person honestly believed it?

This is where my thinking was going. I can understand people wanting their loved ones to find a painless way out. I can understand other people offering to help.

I really don't get what kind of person makes that kind of comment, though - trying to make out that it's all about kicks.... it's kind of sickening. Do you think that kind of person honestly believed it?

I really can't tell. You would have to pretty grossly mischaracterize the current right to die platform in order to claim it was about some kind of thrill of watching the death happen.

I'm not saying there aren't people out there who could conceivably be like that, but I see no indication that they are a significant or even measurable presence in the right to die debate.

Youth in Asia is punchline to joke older then most of these posters. Shame on you :P

Commie!

Why do you want to prevent doctors and hospitals from draining family assets to keep somebody alive a little longer!

All I can say is this:

Outlawing euthanasia is a form of torture.

All I can say is this:

Outlawing euthanasia is a form of torture.

The thread can end now.

Whether or not one believes in a Right to Die, it does bring up issues pertaining to ethical treatment of handicapped, sick (as well as the value of life) or injured people that have to be overcome.

Oh, so they claim pro-euthanasia people get off on killing others?

Well, anti-euthanasia people can equally be said to get off on this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AndIMustScream

We grant euthanasia to dying animals in order to avoid them suffering.

When did preventing human beings from suffering become less important than animal rights?


(No, I am not arguing that we should stop using euthanasia on animals)

I don't think there's any "right to die". Assisting people in pain with killing themselves leads places I don't care to venture.

And what's with these annoying advertisements?

I don't think there's any "right to die". Assisting people in pain with killing themselves leads places I don't care to venture.

And what's with these annoying advertisements?

Why not?

Do people not have the right to self-determination?

Do people not have the right to self-determination?

Of course, but there are always limits on our personal freedoms in society. I think if there's one place government should not dare to tread it is in ending people's lives. I empathize tremendously with those in enough pain to want to end their lives, and I might even want to if I was in such a situation, but as a precedent I don't think ending people's lives is something I want to set.

A comparison that comes to my mind (and you might think it poor, but its what jumped in my head so I'll give it anyways) is a person who is clinically depressed and wants to kill themselves. As their psychiatrist, you are going to do everything in your power to stop them. Sure, you are violating their personal freedom, but its because as a society I don't think we condone such a decision since it is made from a bad place.

And you can say, well, clinically depressed people aren't doomed to die in a few weeks/months/years, but to them it might seem like living is worst than not living, which I think makes the comparison appropriate.

Of course, but there are always limits on our personal freedoms in society. I think if there's one place government should not dare to tread it is in ending people's lives.

I don't think anyone has (yet) said that the government should euthanize people.

I empathize tremendously with those in enough pain to want to end their lives, and I might even want to if I was in such a situation, but as a precedent I don't think ending people's lives is something I want to set.

*cough* Death Penalty.

A comparison that comes to my mind (and you might think it poor, but its what jumped in my head so I'll give it anyways) is a person who is clinically depressed and wants to kill themselves. As their psychiatrist, you are going to do everything in your power to stop them. Sure, you are violating their personal freedom, but its because as a society I don't think we condone such a decision since it is made from a bad place.

See, a psychiatrist is going to do everything in their power to persuade the person not to take this course of action. However, unless the person is physically crazy (I.E. - thinks they're a piano, and is depressed about it) I still believe that that decision belongs to the individual.

And you can say, well, clinically depressed people aren't doomed to die in a few weeks/months/years, but to them it might seem like living is worst than not living, which I think makes the comparison appropriate.

And I support allowing them the right to do so if they are truly beyond help. It's an individual decision.

And I support allowing them the right to do so if they are truly beyond help. It's an individual decision.
I think where this doesn't hold up is saying that the individual is capable of making such a decision. A person who is clinically depressed, when attempting to make such a decision, is not acting as a rational and self-aware individual, but is instead acting upon whatever chemical imbalances are effecting them, or whatever bad things have happened in their life. They are not making decisions in a state-of-mind I would call healthy.

So perhaps by yours and my rationales combined, a person of perfect mental health could make a reasonable decision to end their lives, and this would be legal and assisted, but anyone who is making this decision based on impetus other than a rational state-of-mind could not. Of course, why anyone would make such a decision is beyond me. Which I think is the crux of the issue - why would anyone make such a decision if not being effected by such mental unhealth as to invalidate their decision?

I don't think anyone has (yet) said that the government should euthanize people.
I think in this case inaction is just as bad.

However, unless the person is physically crazy (I.E. - thinks they're a piano, and is depressed about it) I still believe that that decision belongs to the individual.

That would REALLY be crazy.

I, for instance, think I'm a piano and I couldn't be happier about it! What kind of nutcase would feel sad over thinking he's a piano?

What kind of nutcase would feel sad over thinking he's a piano?

Permanently out-of-tune in a minor key. How depressing.

I think where this doesn't hold up is saying that the individual is capable of making such a decision. A person who is clinically depressed, when attempting to make such a decision, is not acting as a rational and self-aware individual, but is instead acting upon whatever chemical imbalances are effecting them, or whatever bad things have happened in their life. They are not making decisions in a state-of-mind I would call healthy.

Sure, but I would consider any mental health state that allows you to make a competent decision to have sex (and not be raped) to be competent to commit suicide. Both can lead to permanent consequences.

So perhaps by yours and my rationales combined, a person of perfect mental health could make a reasonable decision to end their lives, and this would be legal and assisted, but anyone who is making this decision based on impetus other than a rational state-of-mind could not.

I'm glad that we can agree that you can make a rational decision to end your life. Now, we just have to come to a common definition of what warrants an irrational mind. The next part of this:

Of course, why anyone would make such a decision is beyond me.

is where we come to an impasse. There are a number of perfectly sound reasons a person would choose to die.

Which I think is the crux of the issue - why would anyone make such a decision if not being effected by such mental unhealth as to invalidate their decision?

Because they are in a situation that is not fixable, not solvable, except by death, and the amount of pain exceeds the persons' resources for dealing with that pain. In that situation, it is perfectly reasonable and rational to wish to die. Especially in the case of obviously terminal patients, who are in a lot of pain and spending lots of money to absolutely no end whatsoever, its perfectly reasonable to hang it up.

I think where this doesn't hold up is saying that the individual is capable of making such a decision. A person who is clinically depressed, when attempting to make such a decision, is not acting as a rational and self-aware individual, but is instead acting upon whatever chemical imbalances are effecting them, or whatever bad things have happened in their life. They are not making decisions in a state-of-mind I would call healthy.

So perhaps by yours and my rationales combined, a person of perfect mental health could make a reasonable decision to end their lives, and this would be legal and assisted, but anyone who is making this decision based on impetus other than a rational state-of-mind could not. Of course, why anyone would make such a decision is beyond me. Which I think is the crux of the issue - why would anyone make such a decision if not being effected by such mental unhealth as to invalidate their decision?
Because they're cancerous, have already started going down the downward slope, are slowly seeing their dignity go down the drain and are suffering tremendously, and would rather go peacefully to sleep while they're still lucid rather than degenerate into comatose, life-supported vegetables after long month(s) of excruciating pain?

Yeah. Legalizing euthanasia is about people with terminal diseases, no chance of recovery, and that suffers on a daily basis. Nobody in this thread has argued for encouraging every depressed bloke to go die in a corner. But people of fit mental health with nothing to look forward to save degenerescence and suffering ought to be afforded the basic dignity of choosing how and when they'll leave this life if they so desire.

I think where this doesn't hold up is saying that the individual is capable of making such a decision.
If an individual is so heavily incapacitated that they can not make any decision for themselves, sadly, they're no longer one. By refusing them the right to make decisions, we refuse to recognize them as individuals.



Of course, why anyone would make such a decision is beyond me. Which I think is the crux of the issue - why would anyone make such a decision if not being effected by such mental unhealth as to invalidate their decision?
You see, this is called infiltrating personal preferences into the legal system.

Just because you'd rather suffer pointlessly than let go doesn't mean everyone else would.

Also, I don't see how could anyone vote for another party than I support if not being effected by such mental unhealth as to invalidate their decision.

Because they are in a situation that is not fixable, not solvable, except by death, and the amount of pain exceeds the persons' resources for dealing with that pain. In that situation, it is perfectly reasonable and rational to wish to die. Especially in the case of obviously terminal patients, who are in a lot of pain and spending lots of money to absolutely no end whatsoever, its perfectly reasonable to hang it up.
I don't disagree in principle, but where I do disagree is practice. If you'll allow me to continue my practice of using [perhaps inappropriate] comparisons, let me throw this out there. When we deal with criminals, we err on the side of caution, in an attempt to lock up as few innocents as possible. Sure, we let some guilty individuals go, but this is in our effort to have justice be as just as possible.

The same thing could be said about terminally ill patients. I know its probably uninformed of me to say it, but I do know that some persons recover from a terminal illness, or even get many more years of life than the doctors believed they would. Also, and its a tired old argument but just like the hookers in Tijuana she still has a few more years in her, who decides how much pain is too much, or how miserable life has to be before its ended, or how few weeks left to live warrants death? Patients are uninformed (I might scream that I want to die because the pain is too much when I break my rib, but obviously I am overreacting), and doctors can't ever agree on anything. I think the only way I would agree with any decisions made is if they could be standardized, and there are many obvious problems with that as well.

There are a number of perfectly sound reasons a person would choose to die.
Why would a person, unaffected by any stimuli, choose to, without any question as to the outcome, end their lives?

Its a lot of modifiers, but that's essentially who I think is capable of making such a decision.

Of course, but there are always limits on our personal freedoms in society. I think if there's one place government should not dare to tread it is in ending people's lives.

And yet you appear to advocate laws that would punish those who assist a suicide!

You don't see the contradiction in what you are saying?

I thought this thread was gonna be about the Chinese or something.

"I think if there's one place government should not dare to tread it is in injecting people with dangerous drugs against their will."

"And yet you appear to advocate laws that would punish those who inject people with dangerous drugs against their will!

You don't see the contradiction in what you are saying?"

Maybe my phrasing was off. The government should not stand by idle while people kill other people. And it shouldn't kill people either.

I don't disagree in principle, but where I do disagree is practice. If you'll allow me to continue my practice of using [perhaps inappropriate] comparisons, let me throw this out there. When we deal with criminals, we err on the side of caution, in an attempt to lock up as few innocents as possible. Sure, we let some guilty individuals go, but this is in our effort to have justice be as just as possible.

But we do punish the guilty as much as possible. It pains me to draw a comparison between felons and the terminally ill. However, I'll continue:

The same thing could be said about terminally ill patients. I know its probably uninformed of me to say it, but I do know that some persons recover from a terminal illness, or even get many more years of life than the doctors believed they would.
That may be true, but it's still not our decision to impose upon them. People have the right to self-determination.

Also, and its a tired old argument but just like the hookers in Tijuana she still has a few more years in her, who decides how much pain is too much, or how miserable life has to be before its ended, or how few weeks left to live warrants death?

Wut? Where's Neo Art???

Patients are uninformed (I might scream that I want to die because the pain is too much when I break my rib, but obviously I am overreacting), and doctors can't ever agree on anything. I think the only way I would agree with any decisions made is if they could be standardized, and there are many obvious problems with that as well.

I'm curious to hear how you would standardize it. My standardization would parallel competence by the same standard by which a person could stand criminally competent.

Why would a person, unaffected by any stimuli, choose to, without any question as to the outcome, end their lives?

Name one person unaffected by any stimuli ever.

I'm curious to hear how you would standardize it.
My point is that such a standardization (to my liking) is impossible, so I can never support assisted suicide. This is less of a debate and more of you presenting your side and me presenting mine. :)

I know its probably uninformed of me to say it, but I do know that some persons recover from a terminal illness, or even get many more years of life than the doctors believed they would.
And it's their decision whether to enter prolonged suffering for a small chance of recovery, or not.

The doctors' job is to properly inform them. In a case where their mental condition is known with high certainty to improve in a reasonable time, the decision can be delayed until that time.
But it can't be taken away from the individual forever, because then we refuse to see them and as such their life as one of a human person.


Also, and its a tired old argument but just like the hookers in Tijuana she still has a few more years in her, who decides how much pain is too much, or how miserable life has to be before its ended, or how few weeks left to live warrants death?
The patient. The patient. The patient.


Why would a person, unaffected by any stimuli, choose to, without any question as to the outcome, end their lives?
Why would a person, unaffected by any stimuli, choose to, without any question as to the outcome, intoxicate themselves by digesting the refuse served in McDonald's?

My point is that such a standardization (to my liking) is impossible, so I can never support assisted suicide. This is less of a debate and more of you presenting your side and me presenting mine. :)

Impossible? I hate that word.

We standardize every other kind of mental state. There's no reason (I can think of) that we can't standardize this one. We have a standard that makes a person competent to stand trials. We have a standard that will get you committed, and we have a category for schizophrenia etc, etc, etc.

But it can't be taken away from the individual forever, because then we refuse to see them and as such their life as one of a human person.
Its interesting that you define seeing one as a human being depends on giving them control over their own death. I mean that in a good way, not trying to pick a fight.

Why would a person, unaffected by any stimuli, choose to, without any question as to the outcome, intoxicate themselves by digesting the refuse served in McDonald's?
When one chooses to eat at McDonalds, or take up smoking, the health risks are clear. (The health risks of killing one's self are even clearer, but the risks as weighed against the benefits of living are far less clear.) Obviously there are societal reasons that one would do either action, but the stimuli playing into such a decision I would dare say are less influential than those playing into the decision to end one's life.

There's no reason (I can think of) that we can't standardize this one.
The only reason for me is because we are dealing with a matter of life and death in this case. I know we have standardized (in certain states) who the government can kill for crimes committed, but this is not something I personally support.

Impossible? I hate that word.
Its so much prettier than "highly unlikely", and far more effective.

I like how the main argument against euthanasia so far has been "I'd never do it and I think nobody in their right mind could choose to do it".

Well tell ya what, I don't know how anybody in their right mind could eat brussel sprouts, and yet I'm not trying to stop them from murdering their sense of taste with that shit.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who opposes legalization of euthanasia for people of fit mental health suffering from a terminal disease with no hope of recovery is doing nothing more than pushing his own views and decisions on others without taking note of all the needless suffering and anguish it may cause.

Try to think a little from their side of things. Imagine yourself sick, dying, degenerating slowly, waking up weaker and more afraid every morning, losing your autonomy, soiling yourself, becoming increasingly dependent on other people and machines to fulfill your basic needs like nourishment and breathing or heartbeat for you. Imagine knowing you have no chance of getting better whatsoever, and all that you can ever hope to look forward is to slide in an inexorable spiral of worsening pain and suffering with, at the end, your body possibly surviving on machines alone while your brain is technically dead.

Now imagine having the option of going away with a bit of dignity, of avoiding the suffering and humiliation, all of it by simply getting a quick and painless injection that feels like going for a good night's sleep.

Fact of the matter is, when I'll be 96 years old, terminally ill and know the end of my life is nigh, I'd appreciate being able to go without having to fear the pain.

If you think differently, that's your right entirely. But just because you do, doesn't mean you should be able to force me to go through with all that shit just on account of you wanting to shove your views on life and death down my throat.

I rest my case.

Its interesting that you define seeing one as a human being depends on giving them control over their own death.
Recognition of one as an individual requires giving them control.
Over their life, their property, their job, their decisions.

Otherwise their body is not an individual, but just that, a body. Like we don't recognize animals as individuals. In this case, this is a human body that may eventually recover to an individual, and may not. But until it does, if it has no free will and as such a right to decide, it's only a body.

I don't insist on one single way of doing it. We can either accept that a human is always an individual, even in degraded mental state, and as such may always declare their life forfeit (note that as they're not the boss to the doctors, they can't explicitly order to terminate their life; but permit to do so without limitations). Or we can translate the decision to their legal guardian they've entrusted to represent themselves. Either way, as long as there's an individual, there has to be someone to make the decisions.


When one chooses to eat at McDonalds, or take up smoking, the health risks are clear. Obviously there are societal reasons that one would do either action, but the stimuli playing into such a decision I would dare say are less influential than those playing into the decision to end one's life.
So? A person is free to act on their stimuli.

It's one case where the drop in mental condition is temporary, so the decision has to be delayed, and another when it's permanent.

So? A person is free to act on their stimuli.
We disagree that a person acting on such stimuli and deciding to end their own lives is acting of their own accord.

There is nothing after life. This is a belief I hold. So even if you lead the most miserable, painful, undignified life imaginable, at least you're alive.

We disagree that a person acting on such stimuli and deciding to end their own lives is acting of their own accord.

See, if we go this route, no person should ever be able to make any decision for themselves, as we're all products of a combination of genetics and environment. Every decision we've ever made is made not acting of our own accord.

There is nothing after life. This is a belief I hold. So even if you lead the most miserable, painful, undignified life imaginable, at least you're alive.

Not necessarily. You think pain is better than nonexistence? Government regimes throughout the ages have disagreed, hence why they will torture people to get the answers they want. If death was always worse, then they could simply threaten the people with death and immediately get the answers they want.

Not necessarily. You think pain is better than nonexistence? Government regimes throughout the ages have disagreed, hence why they will torture people to get the answers they want. If death was always worse, then they could simply threaten the people with death and immediately get the answers they want.
I think torture feels worst but death actually is. Again, if the point of living life is solely for life's sake, ending life defeats the purpose.

See, if we go this route, no person should ever be able to make any decision for themselves, as we're all products of a combination of genetics and environment. Every decision we've ever made is made not acting of our own accord.
My caveat once again is that this applies in matters of life and death.

I think torture feels worst but death actually is. Again, if the point of living life is solely for life's sake, ending life defeats the purpose.

If you do not exist (as you believe), then there is no pain, no joy, no suffering, no love, no hate, no consciousness whatsoever. You simply cease to be. How could no consciousness be worse than suffering? It's like sleeping without dreams. I would take sleeping without dreams over immense suffering any day.

We disagree that a person acting on such stimuli and deciding to end their own lives is acting of their own accord.
But who, then, should act on their accord? And if no one, is there even a person?


There is nothing after life. This is a belief I hold. So even if you lead the most miserable, painful, undignified life imaginable, at least you're alive.
This is your belief. Write a living will stating you want to be kept alive whatever the pains and the lack of chances for recovery. Mention that you'd prefer life in paralysis to life-risking therapy. Or whatever.

I don't mean sometime, I mean, now, take a pen and a piece of paper, write it down in a clear form, add your signature. Fold that piece of paper and put it in your wallet. That will ensure this belief of yours will be respected.

But there's no need to push it on others. They hold other beliefs. My beliefs, for one, are very different. I believe the life is a great fun trip - and if the fun ends, the trip is no longer worth staying on.

I think torture feels worst but death actually is. Again, if the point of living life is solely for life's sake, ending life defeats the purpose.

I fail to see why all of humanity should be forced to share your ideology or see the end of their individual lives shaped by your own vision of life and death.

As opposed to letting every individual choose according to his own understanding of life and death.

I would take sleeping without dreams over immense suffering any day.

Our disagreements are irresolvable.

I fail to see why all of humanity should be forced to share your ideology or see the end of their individual lives shaped by your own vision of life and death.

I fail to see why you're being so hostile. Why should people be forced to live by anyone else's ideology or see their lives shaped by anyone's vision of life and death? These are freedoms we give up on certain issues when we enter into a society and decide to form a government to ensure contractual obligations are maintained. One of these issues, I believe, is that of assisted suicide.

Our disagreements are irresolvable.

Yes. Which is why you shouldn't get to push your own decisions on him, or anyone else. We don't all share your belief that all life no matter how miserable and debased is better than dreamless sleep, or afterlife for those of us who believes in it, or reincarnation for those who believe in the kharmic cycle.

Stop trying to dictate the terms of my death for me. I'm not trying to tell you how to manage yours.

Yes. Which is why you shouldn't get to push your own decisions on him, or anyone else. We don't all share your belief that all life no matter how miserable and debased is better than dreamless sleep, or afterlife for those of us who believes in it, or reincarnation for those who believe in the kharmic cycle.

Stop trying to dictate the terms of my death for me. I'm not trying to tell you how to manage yours.

I fail to see why you're being so hostile. Why should people be forced to live by anyone else's ideology or see their lives shaped by anyone's vision of life and death? These are freedoms we give up on certain issues when we enter into a society and decide to form a government to ensure contractual obligations are maintained. One of these issues, I believe, is that of assisted suicide.
You're essentially telling me that I should not be master of my own destiny. Death is part of life. My death will happen. I have the freedom to choose how I live my life, as I have the freedom to choose, up to a certain extent, when and how my death will happen.

Your position claims that I should be forced to suffer a long, agonizing death, for no other reason than your inability to comprehend and accept that me, as well as many others, would prefer a quick, painless death to a long agony.

You offer no compelling reason why I should be deprived of the freedom to choose a gentler way out. You offer no compelling reason why this issue should be one on which I should give up freedom. None whatsoever, save your own views on the matter, which (although quite valid for you, and explain well why the decision you would take is consistent with your beliefs) I do not share.

Now ask yourself why I should react so strongly to this. Ask yourself how YOU would react if I was pushing for, say, mandatory euthanasia(which I'm not), which would mean that you would not have the choice to choose to keep on trying to keep your grip on life despite impossible odds. How would you react to that? Would you feel cheated, and possibly a bit hostile at those who denied you your autonomy and freedom of choice?

You're essentially telling me that I should not be master of my own destiny.
Which is nothing new. It happens every day. Why are you so surprised that I have the gall to do so?

Now ask yourself why I should react so strongly to this. Ask yourself how YOU would react if I was pushing for, say, mandatory euthanasia(which I'm not), which would mean that you would not have the choice to choose to keep on trying to keep your grip on life despite impossible odds. How would you react to that? Would you feel cheated, and possibly a bit hostile at those who denied you your autonomy and freedom of choice?
I would debate with you. Debate does not involve a position of attack, it involves a collection of points cohesively put forth as an argument. I know this is naive of me to expect on the internet, but hey. Also, I would like to point out that legislated death does not equal legislated life, no matter the circumstances.

Which is nothing new. It happens every day. Why are you so surprised that I have the gall to do so?

Except that I am the master of my own destiny, because I have freedom of choice and own my own body.

Why are you so surprised that I'd deny you, the government or whoever else that isn't me the ability to strip me of those, even if only partially?


I would debate with you. Debate does not involve a position of attack, it involves a collection of points cohesively put forth as an argument. I know this is naive of me to expect on the internet, but hey. Also, I would like to point out that legislated death does not equal legislated life, no matter the circumstances.
The very definition of debate is to attack the arguments the other side is presenting. Which is exactly what I've been doing so far. You, on the other hand, have not been debating, because you've not addressed any of the arguments I put forward. You have merely been repeating your own views in a circular manner. Which is not debate, but discourse.

Nowhere did I claim that legislated death equaled legislated life. But laws guaranteeing people the freedom to choose options to avoid suffering are necessary nonetheless.

You, on the other hand, have not been debating, because you've not addressed any of the arguments I put forward.
What I have been doing is not wasting my time. Well, I suppose I have been, but not in so deliberate a fashion. I have already acknowledged that the position you hold and the position I hold are mutually exclusive. There is no debate to be had, only, as you put it, discourse. Where you choose to go on the offensive is as pointless as my continuing this line of discussion.

The aim of the debate, at the moment, is apparently to get you to accept that:

a) not everybody shares your views, and
b) there is no solid logical reason to ban people from assisted suicide, so
c) you should therefore not support a blanket ban of it

Name one person unaffected by any stimuli ever.

Neo Art's girlfriend.

Of course, but there are always limits on our personal freedoms in society. I think if there's one place government should not dare to tread it is in ending people's lives. I empathize tremendously with those in enough pain to want to end their lives, and I might even want to if I was in such a situation, but as a precedent I don't think ending people's lives is something I want to set.

A comparison that comes to my mind (and you might think it poor, but its what jumped in my head so I'll give it anyways) is a person who is clinically depressed and wants to kill themselves. As their psychiatrist, you are going to do everything in your power to stop them. Sure, you are violating their personal freedom, but its because as a society I don't think we condone such a decision since it is made from a bad place.

And you can say, well, clinically depressed people aren't doomed to die in a few weeks/months/years, but to them it might seem like living is worst than not living, which I think makes the comparison appropriate.

I don't disagree in principle, but where I do disagree is practice. If you'll allow me to continue my practice of using [perhaps inappropriate] comparisons, let me throw this out there. When we deal with criminals, we err on the side of caution, in an attempt to lock up as few innocents as possible. Sure, we let some guilty individuals go, but this is in our effort to have justice be as just as possible.

The same thing could be said about terminally ill patients. I know its probably uninformed of me to say it, but I do know that some persons recover from a terminal illness, or even get many more years of life than the doctors believed they would. Also, and its a tired old argument but just like the hookers in Tijuana she still has a few more years in her, who decides how much pain is too much, or how miserable life has to be before its ended, or how few weeks left to live warrants death? Patients are uninformed (I might scream that I want to die because the pain is too much when I break my rib, but obviously I am overreacting), and doctors can't ever agree on anything. I think the only way I would agree with any decisions made is if they could be standardized, and there are many obvious problems with that as well.


Why would a person, unaffected by any stimuli, choose to, without any question as to the outcome, end their lives?

Its a lot of modifiers, but that's essentially who I think is capable of making such a decision.

My point is that such a standardization (to my liking) is impossible, so I can never support assisted suicide. This is less of a debate and more of you presenting your side and me presenting mine. :)

I think that some concern over the conditions under which assisted suicide may occur is fully warranted, but legislation can preserve the right to die with dignity while preventing abuses.

Take, for example, the State of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml). Among the many protections in that statute are the following non-exhaustive list:

The individual seeking death

must be an adult;
must be a legal resident of the state;
must be suffering from a terminal illness;
must make two oral requests not less than fifteen days apart to receive a lethal dose of drugs;
and must have executed a written request for such medication in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom is not a relative.



The attending physician

must confirm the diagnosis of terminal illness;
must determine that the patient is mentally competent and that the request if voluntary;
and must inform the patient of the diagnoses, his/her medical prognosis, the risk of lethal medication, the results of ingesting the lethal medication, the availability of "feasible alternatives" to taking the lethal drugs, and the patient's right to rescind the request for the drugs.



The attending physician

must also refer the patient to another physician to confirm the terminal diagnosis, the patient's mental competence, and the voluntary nature of the decision;
must refer the patient for counseling if the physician believes that the patient may be suffering from a psychiatric disorder or depression causing impaired judgment;
and must verify immediately prior to writing the prescription for the lethal drugs that the patient is making an informed decision.



Such protections (to which more could be added if necessary) seem more than adequate to ensure the right to death with dignity is not abused.

That strikes me as a very reasonable law, and I would not be completely opposed to it.