Mercy Kills: Yes, No, Maybe.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by SaintKat

Yes, but with safeguards in place. A set criteria that prospective euthanasia cases would have to fulfill.

Like others have said, I have no problems with euthanasia for someone who is terminally ill or whose quality of life is severely diminished as opposed to a regular healthy person. I'm thinking of quadriplegics and similar cases.

The only thing I actually fear about euthanasia is:

i) People of questionable mental health being given the go ahead
ii) Governments/hospitals using euthanasia as a way to get rid of undesirables in a kind of under-the-radar legalized murder

Edit: I also think it should be entirely up to the person involved, as long as they satisfy any other legal requirements.

I completely 100% agree with this sentiment.

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

Whereas someone said that people should be able to take their own life if they want to, I'm saying that taking your own life if you're not plagued by slow and fatal illnesses, or if you're not able to live a proper life, is wrong and should not be legal.

That is what I wanted to tell, your liits are the real limits to what mercy kill is itself. Killing yourself just because you want and have no plague isn't mercy kill, is it?

About religion, sorry but I'm atheist.

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

I agree that it's a religious thing.

Therefore, hypothetically and generally speaking, I support your right to fight to the last breath despite the inevitability of your fate.

I would expect that you respect mine, or others right to end their life when they choose.

So, in speaking as long as anyone keeps there beliefs to themselves, it's ok. But when they speak out against something it's wrong?

I voice my opinion that I think assisted suicide is wrong, thus I don't believe it should be legal. That doesn't supersede others right to believe what they want, but it should be held in debate about wither the practice should be legal. I have the right to voice my opinion that I believe it to be wrong, and voice it also that others shouldn't do it.

It comes down to conflict.

What comes out of that remains on the debate (like how I'm one of the few or only one against this on this topic).

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

So, in speaking as long as anyone keeps there beliefs to themselves, it's ok. But when they speak out against something it's wrong?

I voice my opinion that I think assisted suicide is wrong, thus I don't believe it should be legal. That doesn't supersede others right to believe what they want, but it should be held in debate about wither the practice should be legal. I have the right to voice my opinion that I believe it to be wrong, and voice it also that others shouldn't do it.

It comes down to conflict.

What comes out of that remains on the debate (like how I'm one of the few or only one against this on this topic).

Western secularism is founded on the fact that religion is the domain of the individual.

If you want to enforce a law which justifies itself on a particular religious belief rather than rationalism (another foundation of Western civilisation) then perhaps you should move to Iran?

You have every right to voice your opinion on the matter. But rationally speaking from purely an ethical standpoint... I ask you... which is more fair?

A law which forces everyone to follow your religious beliefs regardless of whether they believe them or not?
Or a law which lets everyone decide according to their own beliefs? Including yourself

[FeyOberon]

In some ways, this is a difficult topic. If I were asked the black-and-white question, "are you for, or against, assisted suicide?" I would invariably answer "against" -- it just doesn't sit well with my belief that suicide is wrong. However, those who argue for assisted suicide might do so out of a benevolent sense of mercy -- which is good. The issue has gray areas.

When assisted suicide starts being espoused as an individual right, a lot of doors are opened. If society says to a man who is terminally ill or severely physically handicapped: "You are living in pain; your quality of life is significantly less than that of the average man. Therefore, it is your right to choose to end your life," but says to a man who is severely depressed and has not responded to treatment: "Your pain is in your mind; your quality of life is technically equal to that of the average man. Therefore, it is not your right to choose to end your life," is that fair? If choosing to end one's own life is a personal right, who is to say which of us has that right and which does not, or whose right should be denied?

While there may be instances where allowing a person to choose to end his life is merciful to him, establishing who may, and when they may, is a frightening prospect. Allowing assisted suicide could be a dangerous precedent.

[Debi]

Originally Posted by FeyOberon

In some ways, this is a difficult topic. If I were asked the black-and-white question, "are you for, or against, assisted suicide?" I would invariably answer "against" -- it just doesn't sit well with my belief that suicide is wrong. However, those who argue for assisted suicide might do so out of a benevolent sense of mercy -- which is good. The issue has gray areas.

When assisted suicide starts being espoused as an individual right, a lot of doors are opened. If society says to a man who is terminally ill or severely physically handicapped: "You are living in pain; your quality of life is significantly less than that of the average man. Therefore, it is your right to choose to end your life," but says to a man who is severely depressed and has not responded to treatment: "Your pain is in your mind; your quality of life is technically equal to that of the average man. Therefore, it is not your right to choose to end your life," is that fair? If choosing to end one's own life is a personal right, who is to say which of us has that right and which does not, or whose right should be denied?

While there may be instances where allowing a person to choose to end his life is merciful to him, establishing who may, and when they may, is a frightening prospect. Allowing assisted suicide could be a dangerous precedent.

Assisted suicide is for those who, obviously, cannot commit suicide themselves.

And by the way, assisted suicide is already allowed in some countries.
And a posteriori, it is not a "dangerous precedent"

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Western secularism is founded on the fact that religion is the domain of the individual.

If you want to enforce a law which justifies itself on a particular religious belief rather than rationalism (another foundation of Western civilisation) then perhaps you should move to Iran?

You have every right to voice your opinion on the matter. But rationally speaking from purely an ethical standpoint... I ask you... which is more fair?

A law which forces everyone to follow your religious beliefs regardless of whether they believe them or not?
Or a law which lets everyone decide according to their own beliefs? Including yourself

I've already walking an line here with several of my posts, I'm not going to go there with you. Not to mention that will take this far off topic. I'm certainly not going to turn this into an debate about religion and request that you do not either.

I'll ask you which is more fair, an law which puts an higher tax on cigarettes then coke (Pepsi etc.)? Laws in essence are NOT fair. Every Government is majority rule, only few like the US (constitution) has some measure to provide with minorities. Regardless of that, you cannot expect individuals to put away there compass to make law, (how in the first place are they supposed to have any understanding of what they view when they are asked to discard there held views), if there not an rationalist why should they be required to think like one?

Oh, I so do like your Iran comment, So many much says about that.

[FeyOberon]

Originally Posted by Debi

Assisted suicide is for those who, obviously, cannot commit suicide themselves.

That statement relies on the presumption that suicide itself is acceptable. Regardless of whether an individual feels suicide is acceptable or not, it is accurate to say that modern society frowns on suicide.

If assisted suicide is "for those who . . . cannot commit suicide themselves," then suicide by those who can do it themselves must be acceptable.

Again, my point in my previous post was: if it is one person's right to have someone kill him because he cannot do so himself, then, is it fair that a person who is capable of killing himself does not have the right, even if he wants to die just as badly?

Originally Posted by Debi

And by the way, assisted suicide is already allowed in some countries. And a posteriori, it is not a "dangerous precedent"

Yes, I am aware of that. My point was not necessarily that it is a dangerous precedent, but, rather, that it could be, particularly if it is defended as a "right."

I hope I don't seem argumentative -- I'm really just discussing.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork

I've already walking an line here with several of my posts, I'm not going to go there with you. Not to mention that will take this far off topic. I'm certainly not going to turn this into an debate about religion and request that you do not either.

I'll ask you which is more fair, an law which puts an higher tax on cigarettes then coke (Pepsi etc.)? Laws in essence are NOT fair. Every Government is majority rule, only few like the US (constitution) has some measure to provide with minorities. Regardless of that, you cannot expect individuals to put away there compass to make law, (how in the first place are they supposed to have any understanding of what they view when they are asked to discard there held views), if there not an rationalist why should they be required to think like one?

Oh, I so do like your Iran comment, So many much says about that.

I'm not walking a fine line... I'm not discussing religious ideas in themselves. I'm discussing the role and place of religion in society.

And you haven't really addressed my point. I was saying that law in most Western societies are based on rationale not belief.

The laws which tax cigarettes and alcohol higher than the price of food can be justified rationally.

Also... of course I don't expect people to put away their moral compass when making laws. However I do expect (at least in my country)... that my government, (whether I agree with it or not) can rationally justify their decisions in the spirit of the principles it was founded on.

To me that means that religion remain in the domain of the individual.

Oh and what was wrong with my Iran comment? Iran is a society which implements Muslim Shari'a law. I'm sure you can connect the dots.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by FeyOberon

That statement relies on the presumption that suicide itself is acceptable. Regardless of whether an individual feels suicide is acceptable or not, it is accurate to say that modern society frowns on suicide.

If assisted suicide is "for those who . . . cannot commit suicide themselves," then suicide by those who can do it themselves must be acceptable.

Again, my point in my previous post was: if it is one person's right to have someone kill him because he cannot do so himself, then, is it fair that a person who is capable of killing himself does not have the right, even if he wants to die just as badly?

Yes, I am aware of that. My point was not necessarily that it is a dangerous precedent, but, rather, that it could be, particularly if it is defended as a "right."

I hope I don't seem argumentative -- I'm really just discussing.

I think when people are talking about assisted suicide they are talking about euthanasia rather than suicide in general. The countries in which it is legal... there are numeruous legal and bureacratic safeguards to stop abuse of this law. For example the use of euthanasia must first be sanctioned by a qualified medical professional.

Because of the narrow scope in which people are arguing euthanasia to become acceptable (only for terminally ill patients who have very little hope of recovery ) I don't think it's encouraging suicide at all.