Euthanasia (1 Viewer)

[Ennaybur]

Furthermore, like kfunk said in the previous thread, how do we determine agency and rational decision? If one was in chronic pain then they are obviously not of their right minds

 

[Enteebee]

The point from atheism I'm wondering about is like this:

A rational agent has a right to chose what he/she thinks is best for themselves.
Paternalism is wrong (in this situation)
Having a terminal illness and living in pain is a worse option for the person suffering it. Dying is the better option.

Therefore euthanasia is okay.

But, as an atheist I'm struggling with the premise that death is better than a life of pain. We only have one life (imo), even one full of pain and with a knowledge that you will die is surely better than nothing, forever more.

That's just theoretically. In practice we bring up all the issues of fallibility or remarkable recoveries or (even if it's <10% chance of it happening) important/significant things happening at a point past the one they would have chosen eithanasia, if it had been available.

I do somewhat agree tbh, I believe that experiencing great pain is a greater joy than experiencing nothingness however I find our mind seems to shut out these commitments when we are placed in such scenarios. I've been very sick before, throwing up for 24 hours... I can see how if that continued for several months or years I would fail to continue to see the beauty in the world, even if to me it makes somewhat logical sense to appreciate being able to at least... be. I can appreciate that people can become quite desperate to find a way out of the pain, the hurt which consumes their life and takes away even the desire to exist.

 

[Ennaybur]

I do somewhat agree tbh, I believe that experiencing great pain is a greater joy than experiencing nothingness however I find our mind seems to shut out these commitments when we are placed in such scenarios. I've been very sick before, throwing up for 24 hours... I can see how if that continued for several months or years I would fail to continue to see the beauty in the world, even if to me it makes somewhat logical sense to appreciate being able to at least... be. I can appreciate that people can become quite desperate to find a way out of the pain, the hurt which consumes their life and takes away even the desire to exist.

so does that mean that you think it's okay?

or just that it's understandable that people want to kill themselves, but regardless, we shouldn't let them.

My grandma's sick. She won't get better. And I think, 'that's such an awful quality of living, it would be preferable to be dead than live like that', but then again she's mentally active with no brain defects [(afaik) which actually kind of makes matters worse because then you're well aware of what you're going through and the situation], but there's no way I could advocate euthanasia in that circumstance.

In a more painful one, my attitudes might change.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

well the issue is, where the line is between "voluntary euthanasia" and "suicide."

also, whether it is a chronic disease, a chronically terminal disease or someone on life support.

I don't see anything wrong with suicide. Both situations would need psychological counselling and whatnot (as suicide needs now), but er, you know, one and the same.

 

[scaredytiger]

I don't see anything wrong with suicide. Both situations would need psychological counselling and whatnot (as suicide needs now), but er, you know, one and the same.

i said this before, i was discussing it in a objective political sense.

 

[Ennaybur]

I don't see anything wrong with suicide. Both situations would need psychological counselling and whatnot (as suicide needs now), but er, you know, one and the same.

why do you find it okay?

is it because (a la waf and nolan) everyone has the absolute right over their own body?

 

[Ennaybur]

i said this before, i was discussing it in a objective political sense.

can you explain this further?

 

[ur_inner_child]

As an atheist, I dont know if you can support anything at all???

Iron!

 

[scaredytiger]

can you explain this further?

well, they are the main reasons of controversy on the issue. which is why there is no legislation.

also the whole "sanctity of life" issue comes up. which is where people(often religious) can consider that when keeping someone alive only by machines, it is acceptable to allow them to die.

but once you get past "sanctity of life" there is the "are we going to allow suicide now?" argument. many people ask "then where you draw the line?"

there are essentially three types of voluntary euthanasia:
- the person is on life support
- the person is terminally ill
- the person has a low quality of life

and there are various degrees of "terminally ill" and "low quality of life," so the question is asked: where is it okay to decide a lethal injection is the answer?

 

[u-borat]

Iron!

anda wine.

people should be allowed to make their own decisions as to whether to live or die. imo.

 

[Captin gay]

Each state should have a council that decides whether, or not to end the life.

 

[Ennaybur]

well, they are the main reasons of controversy on the issue. which is why there is no legislation.

also the whole "sanctity of life" issue comes up. which is where people(often religious) can consider that when keeping someone alive only by machines, it is acceptable to allow them to die.

but once you get past "sanctity of life" there is the "are we going to allow suicide now?" argument. many people ask "then where you draw the line?"

there are essentially three types of voluntary euthanasia:
- the person is on life support
- the person is terminally ill
- the person has a low quality of life

and there are various degrees of "terminally ill" and "low quality of life," so the question is asked: where is it okay to decide a lethal injection is the answer?

and do you have any personal opinions on the matter?

 

[scaredytiger]

my personal opinion? i dont know.
i can see both sides of the argument.


i suppose i believe that euthanasia could be applicable in the lifesupport cases.

im morally cloudy regarding other cases.

 

[Ennaybur]

so you think that it's okay to turn off something that's assisting them to live; if they don't survive without it, it's not exactly 'killing' a person.

But you're against anything active, such as using drugs to kill a person who's in pain?

 

[Enteebee]

so you think that it's okay to turn off something that's assisting them to live; if they don't survive without it, it's not exactly 'killing' a person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_double_effect

 

[scaredytiger]

so you think that it's okay to turn off something that's assisting them to live; if they don't survive without it, it's not exactly 'killing' a person.

But you're against anything active, such as using drugs to kill a person who's in pain?

well, i think its okay for someone to say "i dont want to live if im depending on something to keep me alive"

im not sure about active measures, because terminally ill patients can want to die one day and want every moment they have left the next. same is applicable to those who have a "low quality of life."

 

[Graney]

why do you find it okay?

is it because (a la waf and nolan) everyone has the absolute right over their own body?

I strongly believe in right to suicide. I think a completely healthy person of sound mind can come to a logical conclusion that it is time to end their life, and the state should have no place in influencing the decision.

There is no rational arguement I'm aware of to oppose access to safe and legal suicide methods.

Euthanasia is more of a grey area if the recipient can't consent, but otherwise go for your life.

 

[Enteebee]

I strongly believe in right to suicide. I think a completely healthy person of sound mind can come to a logical conclusion that it is time to end their life, and the state should have no place in influencing the decision.

There is no rational arguement I'm aware of to oppose access to safe and legal suicide methods.

Euthanasia is more of a grey area if the recipient can't consent, but otherwise go for your life.

What if I were to say no one of sound mind should want to kill themselves, especially in cases where they're suffering no pain? I mean shouldn't the desire to end a happy life speak of some psychological failing? There's an innate value in life, it's something which a 'sane' person doesn't consider... death is always an 'evil', perhaps sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. We have saved the lives of suicidal people who have gotten past their desire for suicide, surely at the very least we need a requirement that this desire be lingering for quite some time? This must be a decision that a sane person takes with some great consideration.

 

[Ennaybur]

I strongly believe in right to suicide. I think a completely healthy person of sound mind can come to a logical conclusion that it is time to end their life, and the state should have no place in influencing the decision.

There is no rational arguement I'm aware of to oppose access to safe and legal suicide methods.

Euthanasia is more of a grey area if the recipient can't consent, but otherwise go for your life.

lolpun

 

[Graney]

What if I were to say no one of sound mind should want to kill themself, especially in cases where they're suffering no pain? I mean shouldn't the desire to end a happy life speak of some psychological failing?

That's the general perception of our society on suicide, and one I think I would have trouble shaking you from.

"The majority of individuals who commit suicide do not have a diagnosable mental illness. They are people just like you and I who at a particular time are feeling isolated, desperately unhappy and alone. Suicidal thoughts and actions may be the result of life's stresses and losses that the individual feels they just can't cope with."
Appleby and Condonis, "Hearing the cry: Suicide Prevention", 1990.

I believe some people are born, or by circumstance come to be living a life that they feel is completely unendurable. There is often no cause, and the many people who battle lifelong with 'depression' (such a general diagnosis for a wide range of conditions I have issue with), shows that there is realistically no prospect of cure or remission for many.

Most of those will choose to seek treatment and try to live a decent life. For those who find existence completely intolerable for no reason, and know they have no prospect of remission, I don't see why society should force the continuation of suffering.

I think the opposition to legalised suicide comes from a view that suicide is never a rational act, and that if the individual recieved appropriate treatment they would lose their negative feeling. It is a fallacy to my mind to assume that everyone has the potential to live a content life. And a cruel one to those who have to endure it as a result. It is the healthy presuming to know the minds of the discontent.

For arguements sake, let's say it was an irrational choice of a damaged mind. Imo, the individual should still have the liberty and choice of their own destiny.

What is so special about someone else's life, that it must be protected from themselves when they have no wish and no purpose to continue? Simply, without god, what reason is there to force a man to live?