First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Should a person who is suffering from a terminal illness be able to end their life?
998 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 8/6/17 , edited 8/7/17

DevinKuska wrote:

Assisted suicide isnt really assisted. Traditionally speaking its an IV with a release of a lethal toxin the recipient self doses whenever they are ready. Alternatively their are pills to do the same thing. Assisted suicide pretty much just means a doctor gives you what you need to die a quick clean death.


Not everyone thinks that even bare minimum involvement absolves themselves of guilt. Some are just that sensitive about it.
3868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / California
Offline
Posted 8/6/17
YES!!!
10567 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 8/6/17 , edited 8/6/17
Yes and they should be given assistance to end it as painlessly as possible.
37130 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/7/17 , edited 8/7/17

chaoticnerdum wrote:

There is an ethical dilemma here in regards to physician's sworn obligation to the Hippocratic oath. Assisted euthanasia/suicide clearly conflicts with this moral obligation since it is an act to end the patient's bodily life.


If a patient expresses a cognisant desire to end their life and is suffering intensely with a terminal illness one would think it inflicts a greater amount of harm upon them to refuse to comply with their wishes than to do as they ask. Death is, under such circumstances, an inevitable consequence in either case, and so is not a relevant consideration in the ethical assessment. The clinician is choosing between letting their patient suffer pain against their wishes in exchange for no appreciably better outcome or reducing their pain as requested. To me the latter is obviously the more ethical thing for a clinician to do.
643 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / Maine
Offline
Posted 8/7/17

BlueOni wrote:


chaoticnerdum wrote:

There is an ethical dilemma here in regards to physician's sworn obligation to the Hippocratic oath. Assisted euthanasia/suicide clearly conflicts with this moral obligation since it is an act to end the patient's bodily life.


If a patient expresses a cognisant desire to end their life and is suffering intensely with a terminal illness one would think it inflicts a greater amount of harm upon them to refuse to comply with their wishes than to do as they ask. Death is, under such circumstances, an inevitable consequence in either case, and so is not a relevant consideration in the ethical assessment. The clinician is choosing between letting their patient suffer pain against their wishes in exchange for no appreciably better outcome or reducing their pain as requested. To me the latter is obviously the more ethical thing for a clinician to do.


Yes, I agree. Well said. Again, I should have prefaced with: This is a statement that is brought up in regards to this issue a lot. I did not make that clear. It is not my personal opinion that it creates an ethical dilemma. Some will present it that way.
6728 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/7/17
Only the condition that they are ending their life because they choose to not because they are being pressured by their doctors to hurry up and die because their insurer does not want to pay the money for treatment.

Big difference between "right to die" and "obligation to die to add shareholder value".


34794 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 8/7/17

jtjumper wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

Who made you the arbiter of someone's life?


The Constitution did. Or rather, it made our society that.

The constitution denounces assisted suicide? Or it does not provide protections for it?

Hint


Answers to any moral question will place restrictions on someone.

What? I need a rephrase. Or maybe I am just loopy from just getting back from my 4.5 mile run today.


Weapons-free zones and gun laws reduce people's ability to arm themselves.

So?


Truth in advertising laws restrict what we can say.

So?


Dress codes and school uniforms restrict what we can wear.

So?


"Don't steal" reduces my ability to act, but we accept it as part of society.

So?


If you want to know the point of this response, it is that I do not care for word soup. Keep it relevant pl0x.
564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
All of time / God
Offline
Posted 8/7/17
yes. why do you get to choose whether i live or not, espically if it hurts to just exist!?
2626 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 8/7/17 , edited 8/7/17
people are entitled to believe in what they believe or don't, I'm stating the facts regarding my religious belief, and I'm pretty certain a possible few others. granted if they don't hail from a country that forces you to believe a certain way, that's a debate for another day.

as for the whole debate about HIV/AIDS thing, the medicine for hiv treatment isn't that cheap, if people are on a budget already, it gets worse after that and not all insurances will pay for the medicine, let alone some of it. causing even more problems. and there are some plagues that are not curable, and it's not bubonic I know the cure for that, but there are other plagues that there is no known cure, other than death. once again, if the person can afford treatment, not to mention thanks to mutations strains do appear that are antibiotic immune to. there's also the extreme cases of anthrax spores and some forms of MRSA strain. once something goes immune to antibiotics there's really no hope for the person except them suffering.
13063 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 8/7/17 , edited 8/7/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

If you want to know the point of this response, it is that I do not care for word soup. Keep it relevant pl0x.

'
The Constitution grants our society the right decide whether we allow assisted suicide. It allows us to regulate it.
My examples were very relevant. The other things were examples where different parts of our society can regulate things. The whole point was the society can regulate things and that our social contract (i.e. Constitution) makes society the arbiter of this issue.

Who made you the arbiter of someone's life?

Question answered.

The constitution denounces assisted suicide? Or it does not provide protections for it? :

It doesn't provide protections for it.

13063 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 8/7/17

DevinKuska wrote:


Assisted suicide isnt really assisted. Traditionally speaking its an IV with a release of a lethal toxin the recipient self doses whenever they are ready. Alternatively their are pills to do the same thing. Assisted suicide pretty much just means a doctor gives you what you need to die a quick clean death.


That's assistance, legally speaking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)
35923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 8/7/17
My grandfather spent his final year with stomach cancer in agony, addicted to prescribed painkillers that didn't help, and rambling deliriously or having flashbacks about his experiences in World War 2 - a topic he'd patently refused to discuss his entire life due to how traumatic it was.

Death with dignity laws weren't a thing back then (neither was medical marijuana, for that matter) so I've no idea what choice he might have made, but forcing anyone to go through that is simply inhumane.
345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Online
Posted 8/7/17

niotabunny wrote:

people are entitled to believe in what they believe or don't, I'm stating the facts regarding my religious belief, and I'm pretty certain a possible few others. granted if they don't hail from a country that forces you to believe a certain way, that's a debate for another day.

as for the whole debate about HIV/AIDS thing, the medicine for hiv treatment isn't that cheap, if people are on a budget already, it gets worse after that and not all insurances will pay for the medicine, let alone some of it. causing even more problems. and there are some plagues that are not curable, and it's not bubonic I know the cure for that, but there are other plagues that there is no known cure, other than death. once again, if the person can afford treatment, not to mention thanks to mutations strains do appear that are antibiotic immune to. there's also the extreme cases of anthrax spores and some forms of MRSA strain. once something goes immune to antibiotics there's really no hope for the person except them suffering.


Just my 2 cents,but you may not want to ask a question that is religious in nature if you're not comfortable with getting answers,or responses from people who don't believe in the same thing as you.

In most first world countries you can get HIV treatment for free even if you can't afford it,and your insurance won't cover it . The treatments do cost tax payer dollars,but the whole goal is to keep people alive to continue contributing to our society.
34794 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 8/7/17 , edited 8/7/17

jtjumper wrote:

My examples were very relevant.

They were not.


The whole point was the society can regulate things and that our social contract (i.e. Constitution) makes society the arbiter of this issue.

There is absolutely no one thing written in the constitution that is stopping any one state from passing a law allowing assisted suicide. It is currently illegal in 44 states per their individual regulations.



XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

Who made you the arbiter of someone's life?


Question answered.

Try again, my dear crunchy, for your answer is factually inept.



XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

The constitution denounces assisted suicide? Or it does not provide protections for it? :

It doesn't provide protections for it.

Correct.
13063 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 8/7/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

They were not.


They were for the reasons I already stated. But they were not the crux of my argument so let's agree to disagree on that point.


XxDarkSasuxX
There is absolutely no one thing written in the constitution that is stopping any one state from passing a law allowing assisted suicide. It is currently illegal in 44 states per their individual regulations.

My point was that the Constitution grants the States that power to decide whether or not allow it:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


XxDarkSasuxX


Question answered.
Try again, my dear crunchy, for your answer is factually inept.


Or maybe you didn't understand what I was saying.

XxDarkSasuxX


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

The constitution denounces assisted suicide? Or it does not provide protections for it? :

It doesn't provide protections for it.

Correct.

And thus, per the rules of the Constitution, it can be regulated (whether it's banned, allowed, or partially allowed). This was my main point.

34794 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 8/7/17 , edited 8/7/17

jtjumper wrote:

My point was that the Constitution grants the States that power to decide whether or not allow it:

Right. And the rebuttal to every single example that you made was: so what?

The question was not "Is it allowed?", it was "Should it be allowed?", and I gave my answer.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.