The Right To Die - Euthanasia.

What I wrote maxdancona, was, suicide as a form of halting the life process is not something I object to. It matters not, to me, what the reason is for this action. Yes, it can be done for the reason of giving up a heart or pancreas or other organ donation. Hey, it can eve be done for the purpose of handing over the entire liver, both kidneys and both lungs along with any other usable parts. What gives anybody the right to decide for another?

What I indicated is that I do not want this to be done as a public spectacle, just so some executives at some television studio can rake in big bucks. If the dollars come as compensation from a life insurance policy, then okay, that was the decision of the departed. If a person commits to suicide in front of cameras and is a news item, I have no objection. If they set it up along with a Gofundme page to gain compensation for family, friends or charities, I have no objection.

What right do you have to stop Susan, our economic based suicide, from selling her suicide as a public spectacle? If she is killing herself for economic gain, as is her right, wouldn't she sell to the highest bidder? Obviously a mass media market is going to net her family a lot more money than GoFundMe.

Healthy people committing suicide to donate organs to presumably wealthy recipients is an interesting case. I am sure that there would be a market for this; a wealthy person who needs a heart would be willing to pay millions to a poor person who might want to guarantee the economic security of their children.

Probably more likely, there would be 18 year olds who would be raised by their family to sacrifice themselves (an 18 year old heart would be more valuable than a middle aged heart). Presumably as soon as a person reached the age of 18, they would have the legal right to commit suicide for the economic benefit of their family.

And how would you deal with suicide cults? If a religious leader convinced people that they should drink poison, does society have any right to stop them.

I applaud the purity of your beliefs. However, the consequences go against my idea of what a civilized society allows.

All kinds of things make Westerners uncomfortable. Including watching a friend or family member suffering the ravages of a terminal illness or going through the experience oneself.

Why would I want to imagine such a perverted spectacle? Seems to me such excesses could be easily addressed with appropriate statutes.

Don't think of it that way. Life is more like a process we undergo which we are allowed to turn off. We didn't have any choice about entering the world. Surely after having experienced living we should be given the option to leave the room if we wish.

My point is that what a society will allow, or forbid, depends on the values of the society. Without the society... your values are just a set of rules for yourself that don't mean anything to how you relate to other people. Morality is useful because it is a shared sense of rules and values that define how you relate to the other people in your society. The fact that the same rules are imposed on all of us is what makes them useful... the very definition of civilization.

Any society has moral rules relating to the big issues that define human existence; life and death, sex, property. These rules are different from society to society. But every society regulates all of these things.

Here is your logical problem.

I think you are agreeing that we should regulate to prevent people from the "spectacle" of suicide for entertainment. You would be preventing people from making as much money as then can for their family by killing themselves in as dramatic a fashion as possible. The fact that you don't want to imagine this type of spectacle is irrelevant. The question is would you prevent other people from participate.

I am poking at your absolutism. It sounds like you are willing to regulate some aspects of how people end their own lives... if only to prevent this perverse spectacle.

Am I right?

Of course, once you accept that society can regulate this, then we are just arguing over where the line should be drawn. You guys are all arguing from an absolute position... the more interesting argument is for true euthanasia... where you accept the right of society to prevent suicide for some reasons, but allow it in cases of extreme hardship or pain.

Exactly.
I choose.
And it suits my needs.

I'm fine with the way Wales leaves me alone - I agree with its laws and limitations.

I'm not obligated to reside here, and can relocate anytime I choose.
I am Not required to pursue its culture, language, moral-guidlines, values or National Ideals - It doesn't have any.

Now - That aside - I'm writing something on 'self-sustaining communities' and reaching out for (Non-indoctrinated) Views on whether there are/is any reason to reject assisted-termination of life.

Pros & Cons...?

I'll go into 'who' stands to gain from denying this 'choice', in time - For now, I Just want to gather any perspective regarding 'Why Not'.

Cheers, Max.

There's always a gap between the real and the ideal. Social regulations will reflect this.

But I see the choice to end one's life as a totally different matter than attaching a money-making spectacle to the act. Recognizing and legalizing the right of people to make this personal decision doesn't automatically include an open-ended commercial component.

Max.
You are consistently arguing your 'social' supplement - Every other poster, on this thread, is responding with their 'own' perspective.
And I agree with each of them, wholly.

The issue isn't 'what your society deems correct' (Obey or else).
It's 'What would society be like if...?

Have you seen the 'suicide-pod' invented by an aussie, recently?
It's going on the Swedish market any day now.

If anyone can link it for Max - That'd be awesome! I can't - Not got keyboard - Just digitext joypad.

I digress.

'Rights' are AWARDED by those in control.
'Choices' are Free.

This is clearly not true. Wales has police, and laws that reflect moral guidelines. If you break them you will be arrested and jailed.

You used the term... "for whatever reason". Whatever reason is an all-encompassing term that includes an open-ended commercial component if that is the personal choice of the person involved.

You are apparently willing to accept certain regulations of the end of life decision.

'Laws' are not 'moral guidelines'.
They are behavioural-limitations.

I agree with the behavioural-limitations in the UK, Max.
But they don't control my thoughts.

I didn't wake up yesterday, thinking 'I'll post this thread on a2k and hope someone posts an interesting response - for me to counter'.
I didn't wake up yesterday, thinking 'a2k will offer me some insight'.

I've spent years on this subject - I'm not pissing about headwa...ng (Excuse the phrase - Was apt on philosophy-forum) with idiots (Not an insult 'observation')

I'm offering the subject for intelligent discussion.

Max - Go away - If you've no GENUINE reason for denying the choices of individual entities.

You can ignore me. You can't post on a public site and not have someone like me come along and point out the logical problems in what you write. Either answer, or ignore. But please stop the childish insults.

There isn't anyone else coming to discuss this intelligently. I am all you have here.

I have been answering the absolutism on a philosophical level. There are plenty of practical reasons for civilized society to regulate suicide.

- Protection for people with mental illness. By banning suicide, you give people more of an incentive to get help.

- Prevention of abuses. Suicide for organ harvesting, Suicide for entertainment, Suicide for economic reasons... there are all sorts of things that most human beings find troubling. By banning suicide, you avoid these practices.

- Discouragement of religious or philosophical reasons promotion of suicide. Several religious cultures, such as Jonestown, made suicide into a religious duty. By banning suicide you send a clear rejection of these religious beliefs.

- Protection from abusers persuading or coercing others into suicide. If suicide is a consensual act, there are all sorts of means for someone with leverage to push you into killing yourself. Imagine "#MeToo" with victims who can't talk.

I'm blocking you.

Oh good! That will save us both a lot of trouble.

I discussed this, at length, today, with a friend, at work.
He pointed out 'Nassim Haramein's' recent tweet on the aussie suicide-capsule (I don't follow, fb, twitter, any social connective bollux).
But others update me.
Age-restriction came up.

Should a 3, 5, 7, 11-yr-old also have the same choices acknowledged?

We deliberated - And agreed - Who are we to determine who (Any age-group) has freedom of choice, and who does not?
I am nobody's keeper, Master or babysitter - Sign the dotted-line - Capsule - Tatty-bye.

I for one have always believed that the right to live implicitly means that you have the right to decide when to end this existence.

There are caveats, since, as max mentions, we do not live in isolation, but we are part of a larger social construct of people around us, from friends to employers/employees to family, whose existence will be impacted in one way or another if we decide to take our own life.

However, the main problem I see with making suicide a crime against social morality, is that by taking one's life one willfully seeks to end their participation in said society, and thus automatically is no longer bound to such moral clauses. And while it can be argued this is a selfish way of thinking, suicide is a rather egotistical act in and of itself: so thinking of suicide in and of itself seems to imply that one chooses to ignore such morals.

IMHO, there should be some sort of official agency where people can go if they wish to end their life, and which will, after sufficient checks on whether the desire is based on a rational, well thought out decision and is not in one way or another stimulated by an outside agency(financially or otherwise), agree to terminate this life in the most humane manner possible.

There are some solid benefits to this:
a) a possibility to give treatment or help to those people who wish to commit suicide on a irrational, or improperly thought through, decision.
b) probably the best way possible to give closure to the group of people close to this person, somewhat softening the traumatic impact a suicide can have on them.
c) the least painful means to end one's life, with the additional benefit of lessening the potential impact the act of suicide itself can have on those directly confronted with the act itself or the results (e.g., the people observing a jumper, discovering a drowned body, or the machinist driving a train/subway that people opt to jump in front of, the neighbor checking to see why their neighbor is so quiet these last couple of days, etc.)
d) The possibility to immediately 'harvest' donor organs to help others. It can even be arranged in such a manner that by using the services of said agency to end one's life, one automatically gives permission to this agency to harvest their organs to be used for others.

I agree with this. I believe in physician-assisted suicide in cases where the quality of life clearly merits this decision. Of course, this agency would pass judgement based on our values of society. Presumably there would be people they would turn away.

I was objecting to the idea that people can end their life "for whatever reason". I believe there are good reasons for wanting, and for providing, physician-assisted suicide.

I also want to point out two interest groups that have a lot to say on the topic.

1. There are many people whose lives were saved because society prevented them from committing suicide. There are many people who are grateful for this intervention. If you make suicide easy for any reason... these people will never get the chance to be saved.

It is not hard to find people who are extremely grateful for the people who preventing them from ending their own lives. These people have a valid voice.

2. The strongest opposition to physician-assisted suicide comes from people who are severely handicapped. These people also certainly have a valid voice, the are the people who have the best reasons for ending their lives.

They feel that having easy suicide for any reason cheapens life in general... and cheapens their lives (as disabled people) specifically.

I think the voice of disabled advocates in this discussion is extremely powerful... even though I don't completely agree with them.

'Meet the Elon Musk of suicide'
Just run a search under above heading.
Feel free to copy link to this thread - I can't - Tech inapt.