Should A Person Have The Legal Right To End There Life?

@No0ne,

If the person is of 'sound mind,' such that they could enter into legally binding agreements, then I say Yes, absolutely.

P.S.
Do you know why suicide is banned in christianity?
Because otherwise there would be no christians.

0 Replies

@No0ne,

NoOne,

A life is simply an experience, some peoples lives are mostly a good experience, others mostly a bad experience, most of us have a bareable mixture of the two possiablities. With someone in great pain, great suffering, life is utterly a bad experience, when it is terminal there is no hope that down the road the experience of being will again become a good experience. When I see an animal in such a state I am moved by compassion to end its suffering as quickly as possiable, yet this same compassion we deny our fellow human being. I can understand the fear of abuse in mercy killing, but I cannot understand its denial, ultimately of the compassion which should be extended to all who's being is to be endless suffering. So, of course a person should have the right to end a terminal situtation were suffering is all there is.

1 Reply

@boagie,

I am about to post a thread to examine another aspect of suicide, but here I will say that yes, I do believe a person has the right to end her life. Furthermore, it is unethical to deny any person complete control over her own life, which includes the right to end it. A person does not have a legal right to end her life, but the granting of that right is due, I feel.

We often do not recognize emotional suffering as equal to its physical counterpart. I see no reason for this and believe that emotional suffering can be just as painful if not more painful than physical suffering. Those of us who have never experienced emotional suffering intense enough to warrant the consideration of suicide lack the authority and understanding to tell someone who is experiencing such suffering that she can overcome it. Those of us who have experienced such suffering, considered suicide, then abandoned the idea can speak with authority, but they still lack the understanding that not all of us are strong enough to overcome the same degree of suffering successfully.

I would not deny someone who was suffering physically the right to terminate that suffering, so how can I deny the same right to someone who is suffering emotionally?

Ideally I would like people who are suffering emotionally to explore other options such as treatment in the case of mental illness or how they might successfully overcome other adverse circumstances leading to the desire for suicide if there is no mental illness, but if they have done so and do not find these options acceptable, who am I to deny them control over their own existences?

1 Reply

@WithoutReason,

Good thread,

If we discuss "Suicide as a Right", for clarity, I think it very important we acknowledge some of the uniqueness of the issue.[INDENT] Something is a "legal" right when the laws of a given collection prohibit an action by imposing restrictions and/or punishments. Successfully executed suicide attempts can't be said to be a 'legal issue' since there's no way to punish or impose restrictions on that law-breaker (corpses locked in their cells; let out daily to get some exercise).
[/INDENT][INDENT] Attempting suicide can be considered a legal-issue since we can prohibit-and-punish the violators. As I understand it; however, this isn't done because someone violated a law - it's done generally because suicide attempts are viewed as a manifestation of mental illness wherein violators must be "... protected from themselves". This all being said; discussing the ethics of suicide perhaps is our real focus here.
[/INDENT]This sums up my opinion on the issue very well:

WithoutReason wrote:

...Furthermore, it is unethical to deny any person complete control over her own life, which includes the right to end it. A person does not have a legal right to end her life, but the granting of that right is due, I feel."

If I am said to have any control over my life, the unimpugned right to destroy it would almost have to be included. But let's take this to it's logical conclusion... If we acknowledge the legal right to attempt such an act, doesn't any such social order have an obligation to allow expression such rights in a manner that doesn't endanger or traumatize others? A primary function of any governing entity, I would think, would be to facilitate and/or account for the rights it acknowledges such citizens have.[INDENT]For example: As it is now I believe I have the right to end my life; but to do so, I need to set in motion a series of events that are very likely to harm someone else, traumatize someone (who might view the act or the scene), impose an expense on the public services (bodily disposition, emergency services, etc) or quite possibly perpetuate a health hazard by making a mess of bodily fluids.
[/INDENT]If a culture recognizes such a right, at all, the issue of assisted (or facilitated) suicide must be dealt with. And in such recognition, therein enters the realm of the legal.

Thanks

1 Reply

@No0ne,

I wish I could remember the name of the girl whose plight was well publicized a few years ago. All of the newspapers were involved. The television stations . Everyone. The question was whether her husband had the legal right to unplug the machines. I think her parents were against it. There was a big argument over the legality of it. I think the courts eventually got involved.

It should have been a private family matter. I think the publicity of it was a cruel thing.

As far as legalizing the right do die, I just don't know what that could evolve into. So my answer would be, I'm not sure.

0 Replies

@No0ne,

Morally, one does absolutely not have the right to kill one self. But I don't think morality necessarily must influence legality.
Legally there is good reason for suicide, or suicide attempts, to be illegal.
Why is drunk driving and conspiracy illegal? The action itself does not harm anyone.
It is illegal because made a law that makes it illegal. In the two examples, I mentioned, for the reason that there is great potential for harm.
So the state can outlaw suicide, for example for the reason that it will lose a taxpayer.
Also because not criminalizing it, will encourage others to do the same. In a way it is rewarding suicide attempts by offering free medical care and psychological help.

0 Replies

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

What legal right dose a person have to not allow another person the legal right to choose to end there life?

Committing suicide is not illegal. If you're dead, the DA is not going to press charges.

Attempting suicide is almost never prosecuted, whether or not it's legal or illegal -- I've taken care of god knows how many suicide attempts in my career, and I've never once seen the police take an interest.

Helping someone else commit suicide is a different matter. The problem is that it's extremely difficult to ensure that the decision to procede with suicide (or euthanasia for that matter) is being made 100% authentically by the person, and not being influenced by other people who have some sort of interest in the outcome.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

The problem is that in the US people have a right to life- that would seem to be a rather contraditory to the right to death.

1 Reply

@No0ne,

Quote:

(I never ask a qustion that I dont know the answer, and dynamics of.)

Then its not really a philosophical question.

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

The problem is that in the US people have a right to life- that would seem to be a rather contraditory to the right to death.

I don't think there's anything on the US lawbooks that establishes the "right to life". The right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the US Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document. And the conventional meaning of this unalienable right to life is that one has the right to not have thier life unwillingly taken from them -- because it's only a tiny minority of the time that someone wants to die.

It need not be interpreted as one cannot choose to die. If I have a serious disease and I choose not to be treated, is that some kind of subversion of a right to life?

0 Replies

@Khethil,

avatar6v7 wrote:

The problem is that in the US people have a right to life - that would seem to be a rather contradictory to the right to death.

I think this was mentioned a few times in the thread. There is no such thing as a "right to die" - death is inevitable, there are no rights involved; we are talking, more accurately, about the right to choose when and how to die.

Aedes wrote:

Helping someone else commit suicide is a different matter. The problem is that it's extremely difficult to ensure that the decision to proceed with suicide (or euthanasia for that matter) is being made 100% authentically by the person, and not being influenced by other people who have some sort of interest in the outcome.

This argument, especially when concerning the seriously physically disabled is quite cruel. Aside from the legality or morality of it, it implicitly seeks to tag people who are already suffering due to their physical incapacity with the additional label of 'mentally or emotionally unable to make informed decisions about their own, very personal affairs'.

Khethil wrote:

[INDENT] Attempting suicide can be considered a legal-issue since we can prohibit-and-punish the violators. As I understand it; however, this isn't done because someone violated a law - it's done generally because suicide attempts are viewed as a manifestation of mental illness wherein violators must be "... protected from themselves". This all being said; discussing the ethics of suicide perhaps is our real focus here. [/INDENT]

This I disagree with. It is certainly counter-intuitive, but I think it is very presumptuous to assume that someone wanting to not be alive is necessarily mentally ill, although many cases undoubtedly are. Contrarily, I believe that it is a possible sign of a higher than average ability for detached, abstract and rational thought. I read somewhere that some of the ancient Greek philosophers came to the conclusion that you were generally better off never having been born. Arthur Schopenhauer thought the same. I heard on 'In Our Time' on Radio 4, a philosopher whose name I can't recall was quoted as saying something to the effect that, "everybody should be educated to a high enough standard to fully understand Schopenhauer's philosophy, whereupon there would be mass suicide and, as a result, a lot less suffering in the world."

This line of thought is taken a step further by David Benatar in his book 'Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence' which argues for antinatalism. Sound logic if you ask me.

Khethil wrote:

This sums up my opinion on the issue very well:

If I am said to have any control over my life, the unimpugned right to destroy it would almost have to be included. But let's take this to it's logical conclusion... If we acknowledge the legal right to attempt such an act,doesn't any such social order have an obligation to allow expression such rights in a manner that doesn't endanger or traumatize others? A primary function of any governing entity, I would think, would be to facilitate and/or account for the rights it acknowledges such citizens have.[INDENT]For example: As it is now I believe I have the right to end my life; but to do so, I need to set in motion a series of events that are very likely to harm someone else, traumatize someone (who might view the act or the scene), impose an expense on the public services (bodily disposition, emergency services, etc) or quite possibly perpetuate a health hazard by making a mess of bodily fluids.
[/INDENT]If a culture recognizes such a right, at all, the issue of assisted (or facilitated) suicide must be dealt with. And in such recognition, therein enters the realm of the legal.

It doesn't matter what you do or what you say, if you search hard enough, you will find some idiot who is traumatised by it. It's no way to live your life and certainly no way to make legislation. If a person is going to be traumatised by your suicide, they are going to be traumatised whenever you die. Suicide just gets it out of the way early.

My own belief is that, sadly, you are not given the chance to remain unborn, so nobody has the right to deny you the choice of when and how to die.

.

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;59850 wrote:

This argument, especially when concerning the seriously physically disabled is quite cruel. Aside from the legality or morality of it, it implicitly seeks to tag people who are already suffering due to their physical incapacity with the additional label of 'mentally or emotionally unable to make informed decisions about their own, very personal affairs'.

Not sure what you do for a living, but I take care of hospitalized inpatients for a living and in the last week alone I've had two patients in this kind of condition. And indeed there are people who are awake enough to make eye contact, but incapable of speech, incapable of following commands, etc, and certainly no capacity to make complex decisions. It is for this very reason that people designate health care proxies.

We can easily do competency determinations for people. And if someone is competent to understand and make personal health care decisions, then the decision to commit suicide would be their own. If someone is NOT capable of this, then how can the legal system even possibly put such a decision in someone else's hands??

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Not sure what you do for a living, but I take care of hospitalized inpatients for a living and in the last week alone I've had two patients in this kind of condition. And indeed there are people who are awake enough to make eye contact, but incapable of speech, incapable of following commands, etc, and certainly no capacity to make complex decisions. It is for this very reason that people designate health care proxies.

We can easily do competency determinations for people. And if someone is competent to understand and make personal health care decisions, then the decision to commit suicide would be their own. If someone is NOT capable of this, then how can the legal system even possibly put such a decision in someone else's hands??

Wait a minute; I'm not trying to make the case for non-voluntary euthanasia. If anything, what I'm more concerned with is a "competent" person's right to end their life. Without getting into the non-voluntary euthanasia question, which I agree is a much stickier issue, if a competent person, ill or not, wishes to terminate their life, nobody has the legitimate right to stop them.

It's quite ironic, actually, that people in America, the world's richest country, will refuse people medical care when they need it if they can't pay for it and allow them to die, yet try to legislate and force treatment on people when they actually decide to end it themselves. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. The bible says people mustn't kill themselves, but if they die in agony of some kind of horrific cancer because they can't afford to buy treatment, that's absolutely fine...? Appalling. Utterly appalling and disgraceful.

0 Replies

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

What legal right dose a person have to not allow another person the legal right to choose to end there life?

How big of a role dose religion and psycology have in the matter, and under what cases should a person not be allowed such a right, and what reasons would some religions use to not allow such a right?

Dose it matter if the person is terminly ill, or sane or insane, depressed or happy? If so why or why not.

(I never ask a qustion that I dont know the answer, and dynamics of.)

A person does have the right to end their lives, but they don't have the right to have someone else help end their lives for them (euthanasia). I believe that a person should only be granted euthanasia in extreme cases where the pain and suffering is irreversible, physiological and unbearable.

1 Reply

@hue-man,

gojo1978 wrote:

It's quite ironic, actually, that people in America, the world's richest country, will refuse people medical care when they need it if they can't pay for it and allow them to die, yet try to legislate and force treatment on people when they actually decide to end it themselves. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. The bible says people mustn't kill themselves, but if they die in agony of some kind of horrific cancer because they can't afford to buy treatment, that's absolutely fine...? Appalling. Utterly appalling and disgraceful.

hue-man wrote:

A person does have the right to end their lives, but they don't have the right to have someone else help end their lives for them (euthanasia). I believe that a person should only be granted euthanasia in extreme cases where the pain and suffering is irreversible, physiological and unbearable.

What about the above point?

And why only physiological pain? Mental or emotional pain can be as bad.

Plus, who would be the arbiter of what was 'bearable'?

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

gojo1978 wrote:

What about the above point?

And why only physiological pain? Mental or emotional pain can be as bad.

Plus, who would be the arbiter of what was 'bearable'?

Well I agree with the point above. Psychological pain can be reversed and treated. It is not as bad as physiological pain, which has the power to induce psychological pain and suffering.

Medical professionals can best judge what is or isn't bearable. Certain conditions are known to cause continues pain and agony to the point that it is all that the person can think of.

0 Replies

Should A Person Have The Legal Right To End There Life?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know