The case for tool assisted suicide.

13 posts

Flag Post

Now, Tool Assisted Suicide is the act of requesting the use of enough types of medicine that it will kill you. It doesn’t deliver much pain, but it will painlessly have you “fall asleep” and never wake up.

This act is only allowed by law in some states of America.

But the question for this, why isn’t it legal everywhere? If a human being will die soon, and is suffering greatly, shouldn’t (s)he be allowed to legally commit suicide?

Take for instance, hunting. It is common “courtesy” for when hunting to not let an animal suffer, such as if you shoot something (let’s say, a deer) and you only greatly injure it, but it is still alive, you should take another shot at it and kill it to reduce suffering.

Deer are mammals. Humans are mammals. If a deer is suffering, we should kill it. If a human suffers, we let him/her suffer until (s)he eventually dies? What is the humanity in that?

 
Flag Post

Deer are mammals. Humans are mammals. If a deer is shot dead and there is good meat on it, we should eat it. If a human is dead and there is good meat on it, we let the meat rot until it is inedible? What is the efficiency in that?

Sorry, pointing out a minor flaw in your analogy.

 
Flag Post

A majority of people suffer from the delusion that a human life is inherently valuable; so they selfishly prefer to watch others suffer than to accept that death isn’t a bad thing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Frank101:

But the question for this, why isn’t it legal everywhere? If a human being will die soon, and is suffering greatly, shouldn’t (s)he be allowed to legally commit suicide?

You would think so, yes. However, if I may, I would correct you on one point. Euthenasia is not used to enable someone to legally suicide par se, rather it is used when someone wishes to die, and is prevented from taking their own life by the nature of their ailment. That’s when euthenasia comes in, ‘death with dignity’.

They would have committed suicide themselves, if they were physically able. They are not physically able, so another must be involved. Euthenasia is as much about legally protecting those who assist in ending the suffering person’s life, as it is about ending it in the first place.

To avoid murder charges being brought up, the decision must be the patient’s and signed off on by at least two qualified medical consultants, that it is in the patient’s best interests.

The reason euthenasia is not an option in more states than Oregon, comes down to the religious influence on politics, an emotional influence rather than a practical one. Suicide is seen as sinful, so there is a prevalent belief that it will deny the patient entrance to heaven, to permit them to end their life in such a way.

 
Flag Post

The reason euthenasia is not an option in more states than Oregon, comes down to the religious influence on politics, an emotional influence rather than a practical one. Suicide is seen as sinful, so there is a prevalent belief that it will deny the patient entrance to heaven, to permit them to end their life in such a way.

I mentioned that religion shouldn’t be accounted for when making laws on another thread, but then again we all know they do it for votes. Emotional I can understand. I only believe that if the patient is able to lucidly say that they want to die.

 
Flag Post

i think i posted about this ??
anyway. it should become a business. Place the abortion and “death” centres next to each other and have people take control over their own lives. Let them choose when they want to die. add a fee of course.

it shouldnt matter if they are healthy or have mental issues, if they choose it and can sign to it, then it should be allowed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by basicbasic:
I only believe that if the patient is able to lucidly say that they want to die.

There are plenty of ways to determine lucid intent even if their voice has gone, but yes it MUST be their choice before the process can begin.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by basicbasic:
I only believe that if the patient is able to lucidly say that they want to die.

There are plenty of ways to determine lucid intent even if their voice has gone, but yes it MUST be their choice before the process can begin.

That’s what I meant, I think communicated would’ve been a better word.

 
Flag Post

First, I wanna point out that Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS is how I’ll refer to it later) are NOT the same. Euthanasia is, in the most simple terms, a mercy killing; In exact terms, it would be a practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Euthanasia requires the complicit act of another person. This meaning that the medical personal or whoever is involved is directly involved in the persons death. Whereas, with PAS, it’s just the patient’s choice to take their own life. This would be the person in pain going in and asking for the medicine to take their life. This leaves the choice in THEIR hands, not the physician or whoever is prescribing the medicine.

Euthanasia is then broken down into two different types, active and passive, but that’s something else. Active is basically putting yourself directly involved on the front lines, so to speak, by pulling the plug or whatever to kill the person, whereas, passive is just slowly letting them pass away on their own time by stopping treatment.

NOW to your question xD

There are many arguments for the reasons why Euthanasia and PAS aren’t legal everywhere. A lot of them are grounded in multiple papers that I could provide you if you wish to read them. There are many arguments for the legalization of the two as well. (I will cite the authors of the articles as I go, so if it gets confusing I can provide links to the articles if needed).

Pro-Euthanasia/PAS

One argument provided by Rachel’s article (Active and Passive Euthanasia) is that active and passive Euthanasia aren’t morally different. Either way you’re taking a life. But, Active is more humane than passive, as was pointed out in your analogy. Which I’m sure you can understand there.

Another provided by Arras in “Tragic Choice” is that it takes the patient’s autonomy into mind. It allows the patient to control their lives and how they end it, and that its merciful. Both of these are understandable.

Opponent to Euthanasia/PAS

Callahan in “When Self-Determination Runs Amok” provides the following reasons for the two to not be legalized.

- How can a physician decide when a patient’s life is no longer worth living?
There isn’t a way for another person to determine when a life isn’t worth living.

- Denying the distinction between active and passive indicates that the physician is the ONLY one responsible for the patient’s death.
Why must we put the blame on just them? That’s not what the social contract of the Medical profession dictates.

- There’s a difficulty enforcing and writing the law.
Basically, would those who do it now still do it once legalized or will more take advantage of it?

- Of course there’s the slippery slope argument, which is basically if we allow this then anarchy will occur. Does this really make sense?

- Euthanasia is incompatible with the aims of medicine.
Well, the aims of medicine aren’t written in stone, so.

In all, the real tragedy is that there are legitimate cases where Euthanasia/PAS would be wise, but since it’s still an argument, these cases go without the solution or are illegally done. Then, you have the social risks. Discrimination among the poor and disabled is what is at risk. It’s not that easy to have the medical professionals take care of them in this manner. Think about that. It’s also a tragedy that the wealthy will only have the “compassionate” doctor. Meaning, only the wealthy will get offered the choice instead of those who are poor.

Well, there’s the arguments. Both sides. Enjoy. :)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by basicbasic:
I only believe that if the patient is able to lucidly say that they want to die.

There are plenty of ways to determine lucid intent even if their voice has gone, but yes it MUST be their choice before the process can begin.

I hope I’m right about how this choice can be made in advance

“Living Will”

“document declining medical treatment if dying: a document, typically signed in advance while in good health, that specifies the decisions somebody wishes to be taken about his or her medical treatment in the event of becoming incapable of making or communicating them.”

Such wills need only be written to INCLUDE PAS rather than exclude it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by basicbasic:
I only believe that if the patient is able to lucidly say that they want to die.

There are plenty of ways to determine lucid intent even if their voice has gone, but yes it MUST be their choice before the process can begin.

I hope I’m right about how this choice can be made in advance

“Living Will”

“document declining medical treatment if dying: a document, typically signed in advance while in good health, that specifies the decisions somebody wishes to be taken about his or her medical treatment in the event of becoming incapable of making or communicating them.”

Such wills need only be written to INCLUDE PAS rather than exclude it.

Do you mean DNR?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by poetic4death:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by basicbasic:
I only believe that if the patient is able to lucidly say that they want to die.

There are plenty of ways to determine lucid intent even if their voice has gone, but yes it MUST be their choice before the process can begin.

I hope I’m right about how this choice can be made in advance

“Living Will”

“document declining medical treatment if dying: a document, typically signed in advance while in good health, that specifies the decisions somebody wishes to be taken about his or her medical treatment in the event of becoming incapable of making or communicating them.”

Such wills need only be written to INCLUDE PAS rather than exclude it.

Do you mean DNR?

Yes, Do Not Resuscitate is already available (in most states?).

I’m hoping for the day when such WHILE CONGNITIVELY SOUND wills can be made that can include physician assisted life ending event…PALEE.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by poetic4death:

Untimately, we never let the decision fall to one physician alone. Two specialist consultants are always required, and their recommendations must always agree, in the case of euthenasia to a patient with no hope of recovery.

This takes the onus off the doctors, and makes it more of a sound medical decision where a second opinion was sought, and verified.