toldailytopic: Should assisted suicide be legalized?

[Peripatetic]

Suicide is immoral (this is not merely a 'religious truth'... how many times have we heard from secular groups that "suicide is never the answer," etc.? Suicide is pretty much universally seen as a negative thing, the wrong choice). It is wrong to drag others into participating in an immoral act. If you want to commit suicide and you can do it yourself -- and the principle 'if there's a will, there's a way' is appropriate for probably 99.9% of people who want to die; death is as close as the next multi-story building -- you should do it yourself and leave others out of it.

The heart of the matter, as I see it, is that people who want someone to 'assist' their suicide are not simply looking to die; they are looking for moral approval of their act. An authority figure, such as a doctor, helping them die makes them feel better about what they're doing, without which they would feel guilty. They want to be reassured that what they are doing is OK, a good thing. In short, they want someone to act as priest, giving his blessing to the act.

Which is 'fine', I guess. But don't pretend that all you want is to die when there's something more than you want. That is very twisted indeed.

 

[Thunder's Muse]

Suicide is immoral (this is not merely a 'religious truth'... how many times have we heard from secular groups that "suicide is never the answer," etc.? Suicide is pretty much universally seen as a negative thing, the wrong choice). It is wrong to drag others into participating in an immoral act. If you want to commit suicide and you can do it yourself -- and the principle 'if there's a will, there's a way' is appropriate for probably 99.9% of people who want to die; death is as close as the next multi-story building -- you should do it yourself and leave others out of it.

The heart of the matter, as I see it, is that people who want someone to 'assist' their suicide are not simply looking to die; they are looking for moral approval of their act. An authority figure, such as a doctor, helping them die makes them feel better about what they're doing, without which they would feel guilty. They want to be reassured that what they are doing is OK, a good thing. In short, they want someone to act as priest, giving his blessing to the act.

Which is 'fine', I guess. But don't pretend that all you want is to die when there's something more than you want. That is very twisted indeed.

I agree that asking someone to help you suicide is wrong. It places a responsibilty on another person that shouldn't be theirs.

However, I also think there is a big difference between being depressed and wanting to top yourself and being a terminally ill person who simply wants to speed up the inevitable and save themselves and loved ones suffering through it all.

 

[Peripatetic]

... being a terminally ill person who simply wants to speed up the inevitable and save themselves and loved ones suffering through it all.

Again -- there's a building right across the street. The overwhelming majority of terminally ill persons are more than capable of making their way up to the roof... and making their way down off of it. Alternately, one could slit one's wrists, or jugular vein, or overdose on drugs, or eat a bullet, or take a long walk off a short dock with a heavy rock tied to one's body, or what have you. The possibilities are truly endless. Be creative.

Or is there, as I have suggested, something more they're looking for (in addition to a quick end to their life)?

 

[Ktoyou]

I agree that asking someone to help you suicide is wrong. It places a responsibilty on another person that shouldn't be theirs.

However, I also think there is a big difference between being depressed and wanting to top yourself and being a terminally ill person who simply wants to speed up the inevitable and save themselves and loved ones suffering through it all.

I agree, as to the last part, as I stated above, most persons terminally ill can take their own life, without anything more than permission to self regulate medication. Even if the highest does is not lethal, such medications which keep one from pain will result in death, in most cases, less than a month.

 

[Ktoyou]

Again -- there's a building right across the street. The overwhelming majority of terminally ill persons are more than capable of making their way up to the roof... and making their way down off of it. Alternately, one could slit one's wrists, or jugular vein, or overdose on drugs, or eat a bullet, or take a long walk off a short dock with a heavy rock tied to one's body, or what have you. The possibilities are truly endless. Be creative.

Or is there, as I have suggested, something more they're looking for (in addition to a quick end to their life)?

This is a bit nuts, no sane person would jump off a high building! Your other suggestions are goofy also, although men do sometimes shoot themselves. All one really needs to do is broil some steaks on an outdoor grill, indoors.

 

[Thunder's Muse]

Again -- there's a building right across the street. The overwhelming majority of terminally ill persons are more than capable of making their way up to the roof... and making their way down off of it. Alternately, one could slit one's wrists, or jugular vein, or overdose on drugs, or eat a bullet, or take a long walk off a short dock with a heavy rock tied to one's body, or what have you. The possibilities are truly endless.

Or is there, as I have suggested, something more they're looking for (in addition to a quick end to their life)?

You may have missed the part where I said I agree with you regarding asking someone to help you take your life (or actually killing you).

I am also accutely aware of how many ways one can take their life.

A terminally ill patient is dying. It's a fact. Someone staring death in the face has to come to some sort of acceptance of the inevitable. They no doubt have gone through denial, anger, fear etc. But in the end, most have a peace and calmness about death. I think if they then choose to take their own life, it's simply about ending the suffering, not wanting to know it's ok to die.

 

[Quincy]

I would have to agree with the guys that say it should be legal. I don't think it's a matter to take lightly though. There should have to be more than one professional opinion however, I think. One person/clinic may, as mentioned, try to exploit the system. If the person is indeed in agony they shouldn't be forced to live through it if they don't want to.

 

[Peripatetic]

This is a bit nuts, no sane person would jump off a high building!

Call me crazy, but that's probably the way I'd choose go out ('with a splat') were I inclined to off myself. The reason is the foolproof nature of this method -- as long as the building is tall enough, you can bank on being dead. What you don't want to happen is to end up surviving brain-damaged or as a vegetable, which is the risk one runs with so many suicide methods.

 

[Ktoyou]

I would have to agree with the guys that say it should be legal. I don't think it's a matter to take lightly though. There should have to be more than one professional opinion however, I think. One person/clinic may, as mentioned, try to exploit the system. If the person is indeed in agony they shouldn't be forced to live through it if they don't want to.

Part of the matter here is defining terms. Can one take the 'cide' out of suicide? When is someone dying of terminal illness? What is ethical? What means are guaranteed to those dying of the pain of a terminal illness? Should someone assist, by what measure and when is that a necessary case?

 

[Quincy]

Part of the matter here is defining terms. Can one take the 'cide' out of suicide? When is someone dying of terminal illness? What is ethical? What means are guaranteed to those dying of the pain of a terminal illness? Should someone assist, by what measure and when is that a necessary case?

Personally, I think a person should get at least 3 opinions on their disease plus a psychiatric evaluation for the patient and family to make sure they aren't depressed or being influenced before this is even an option. I really have no clue on what the government would decide though.

I can imagine a situation where a person's depression has lead them to not want to live any longer, where some clinic could exploit that to make money. That disease is very treatable. The person would have just been legally murdered, in that situation. That would be unethical of course, and I think having multiple professional opinions should be necessary and will prevent that from happening.

For me it's about liberty. A person of sound mind who is suffering a terminal illness ought to have the option to end it. I think the assisted aspect would be necessary because the person should be in good mental health to make this decision. So even despite the pain they probably won't be able to commit suicide on their own. There is a very good chance they may botch it as well. So I think legally it should be assisted by someone trained. I really do hope I have the option for this if I'm ever in this situation.

 

[Sonrise]

I did have to deal with this in a certain way. Am a former medications nurse.

The orders for my first patient that was dying with cancer, was morphine every 3 to 4 hours round the clock. This kept the patient sleeping most of the time, and pain free. We have a 1/2 hour leeway, so the meds can be given 1/2 hour earlier if needed. I saw that she was going to die more from sedation than the disease, but she definitely was going to die soon.

After talking with my supervisor about it, I went ahead and administered the medication. That case never goes from my mind. I have no doubts about it being merciful.

Was that assisted suicide?

The next case that sticks with me is another cancer patient and is one of our retired physicians wife. The case was handled by the doctors younger brother who also was a physican on staff. He had ordered the same routine, though I believe it was a stronger medication, but I balked this time. I could see that she was struggling to stay awake, and was not in the same amount of pain as the first case stated. I spoke to the husband, which was a bold thing to do, but felt I needed to...that I thought she was being overmedicated. Apparently he felt the same and had the orders changed. She was then able to sit up and eat and converse. She did die then several weeks later, but was from the disease, and she was kept comfortable.

The last case I had that I would share was a personal friend. She was a believer, and was of the faith movement of confession of the word, that would bring healing. Her strong faith kept her alive for several years, but it took a toll finally, on her emotionally, and she gave up. She told me it was hard on her family financially, emotionally and every other way imaginable. We had to do the round the clock medication to keep her comfortable. Will never forget her father yelling at me to let her go, when I wanted to pray for her.

These things are hard to deal with, but they have to be. And my conscience is clear. I kept to my own beliefs of being merciful when it was clear there was no hope outside of a miracle.

Assisted suicide does not need to be in my opinion for the medical staff of a whole, are mostly compassionate and will do whatever is necessary for the total wellbeing of the patients and their families.

 

[TeeJay]

I recall a thread a year or so ago along the same lines is this daily topic. It was interesting to see several responses that I wasn't expecting.

Now I will admit, the topic wasn't exactly the same...but it was kind of similar. The difference was that someone wasn't trying to commit suicide. The similarity was that someone was helping someone else die.

The scenario was brought up suppose that you were captured by the enemy and they were about to burn you at the stake. It seemed to be a consensus that people would (1) want to be killed prior to being burnt by the enemy and (2) if there was someone hiding the hills with the ability to shoot and kill the soon to be burned at the stake person, they would do it.

The conversation then turned to euthanasia in general. But here is how I think it all ties together.

Suppose you were captured by the enemy and were about to be tortured to death or burned at the stake. Would you try to kill yourself to avoid going through the trouble of being burned alive? If so, that would be suicide. Now suppose that you and another person made a pact. That pact is that IF either of you were to be captured and were about to be burned at the stake, AND your attempt at killing yourself failed, THEN the other person (assuming they had the opportunity) would kill the other person (getting a shot off while hiding from the enemy) so that they wouldn't have to suffer by being burned alive.

Isn't this the same as an assisted suicide?

I was somewhat surprised by the responses of individuals. Some people that I know are pro-life, anti assisted suicide, said they would want to be killed to avoid the torture.

How is this scenario any different than someone who is dying of a painful incurable disease? If someone were dying of ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), something I have unfortunately been a witness of, and their loved one killed them, how is that any different than being burned at the stake and having a friend shoot you if they had the chance?

I would really appreciate peoples responses as this has been on my mind since that thread a year or so ago.

Thanks.

Chat, A good, thought-provoking post.

A few years ago, I gave this some thought when Dr. Cavarkian (spelling?) was assisting people into the next world. In fact he assisted one man who did not want to go, and now the doctor is serving time.

There are two instances in the Bible of assisted suicide. One is King Saul. And King David killed the man who assisted King Saul to fall on his sword. The other was Jonah when he wanted the sailors to toss him overboard. The ship was about to sink because of the storm, so Jonah told the sailors that if they tossed him overboard, God would spare them. And God did spare them when they tossed Jonah into the sea. But notice what the sailors prayed before they threw Jonah into sea. They prayed to God to not let Jonah's blood be on their heads. These sailors instinctively knew that it was wrong to take innocent life.

We can have all sorts of scenarios like the one you posited (about to be tortured, burned, etc.). But when we put God in the picture, all scenarios have to be scrapped.

All authority rests with God. But God has granted some of His authority to governments and men. He's granted authority to governments to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. He's granted authority to parents to spank their children. And even the kids can kick the dog off the couch.

God has not granted authority to any government or individual to take innocent life. God has kept this authority for Himself, and wisely so. Man lives in two stages. One here on earth in the flesh and a future one when we die in the hereafter. Only God has authority to take people from this life into the next. In the Flood, God mercifully took innocent children out of the hands of wicked parents into His abode. Ofcourse, the wicked went to hell.

Can you imagine how this authority--authority to take innocent life--would be abused by us if we had it? We can see this with legalized abortion. In America, approximately 5,000 innocent babies are dismembered daily. Now there's a push to kill us old folks. When that's legalized, don't leave mom or dad alone in a hospital to go get a cup of coffee.

In the final analysis, we don't have authority to take innocent life, regardless of the scenario. If I have a sniper rifle, I can take out the man with the matches and the gasoline. Him I have authority to kill. God gave me this authority. As painful as it would be to watch a loved one burn at the stake, it would be more painful long term if we disobey God and usurp authority that is His and His alone.

Our justices on the Supreme Court are lawless criminals. The have legalized the killing of babies in the womb. They usurped this authority from God. God did not grant it to them. Ask any military man what happens when he usurps authority from a higher ranking officer than he has not been granted him.

Actually, no one can stop a person from committing suicide. And there are countless easy ways to do it (in your garage with carbon monoxide for example). But what advocates of assisted suicide want is to involve me. They want my stamp of approval and they want my tax dollars to pay for it. And, most importantly, they want the Law changed to make it okay. The Law is the great teacher. The Law can teach that a bad thing is good (slavery in America) or that a good thing is bad (prohibition).

What God permits let no man forbid and what God forbids, let no man permit.

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

 

[Nick M]

The scenario was brought up suppose that you were captured by the enemy and they were about to burn you at the stake. It seemed to be a consensus that people would (1) want to be killed prior to being burnt by the enemy and (2) if there was someone hiding the hills with the ability to shoot and kill the soon to be burned at the stake person, they would do it.

Article 3

I will never surrender of my own free will

Only when evasion by an individual is impossible and further fighting would lead only to death with no significant loss to the enemy should one consider surrender. With all reasonable means of resistance exhausted and with certain death the only alternative, capture does not imply dishonor.

Now that we have covered that, for a doctor to take life because somebody doesn't like life, not sick or terminal, just doesn't like life, that is wrong. And it is wrong for that person to take their own life unjustly.

Suicide and for somebody to assist should be illegal simply because accordy to failed attempts, they didn't really want to die, but sorely wanted the attention, and didn't know what to do. If it is illegal to attempt suicide, rescue crews can attempt to revive. If it is illegal to commit suicide, then the question of assisted is irrelevant.

If someboy really want to go, you aren't going to stop them. Aside from a hog tie in a padded room.

 

[chatmaggot]

Chat, A good, thought-provoking post.

A few years ago, I gave this some thought when Dr. Cavarkian (spelling?) was assisting people into the next world. In fact he assisted one man who did not want to go, and now the doctor is serving time.

There are two instances in the Bible of assisted suicide. One is King Saul. And King David killed the man who assisted King Saul to fall on his sword. The other was Jonah when he wanted the sailors to toss him overboard. The ship was about to sink because of the storm, so Jonah told the sailors that if they tossed him overboard, God would spare them. And God did spare them when they tossed Jonah into the sea. But notice what the sailors prayed before they threw Jonah into sea. They prayed to God to not let Jonah's blood be on their heads. These sailors instinctively knew that it was wrong to take innocent life.

We can have all sorts of scenarios like the one you posited (about to be tortured, burned, etc.). But when we put God in the picture, all scenarios have to be scrapped.

All authority rests with God. But God has granted some of His authority to governments and men. He's granted authority to governments to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. He's granted authority to parents to spank their children. And even the kids can kick the dog off the couch.

God has not granted authority to any government or individual to take innocent life. God has kept this authority for Himself, and wisely so. Man lives in two stages. One here on earth in the flesh and a future one when we die in the hereafter. Only God has authority to take people from this life into the next. In the Flood, God mercifully took innocent children out of the hands of wicked parents into His abode. Ofcourse, the wicked went to hell.

Can you imagine how this authority--authority to take innocent life--would be abused by us if we had it? We can see this with legalized abortion. In America, approximately 5,000 innocent babies are dismembered daily. Now there's a push to kill us old folks. When that's legalized, don't leave mom or dad alone in a hospital to go get a cup of coffee.

In the final analysis, we don't have authority to take innocent life, regardless of the scenario. If I have a sniper rifle, I can take out the man with the matches and the gasoline. Him I have authority to kill. God gave me this authority. As painful as it would be to watch a loved one burn at the stake, it would be more painful long term if we disobey God and usurp authority that is His and His alone.

Our justices on the Supreme Court are lawless criminals. The have legalized the killing of babies in the womb. They usurped this authority from God. God did not grant it to them. Ask any military man what happens when he usurps authority from a higher ranking officer than he has not been granted him.

Actually, no one can stop a person from committing suicide. And there are countless easy ways to do it (in your garage with carbon monoxide for example). But what advocates of assisted suicide want is to involve me. They want my stamp of approval and they want my tax dollars to pay for it. And, most importantly, they want the Law changed to make it okay. The Law is the great teacher. The Law can teach that a bad thing is good (slavery in America) or that a good thing is bad (prohibition).

What God permits let no man forbid and what God forbids, let no man permit.

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

Thanks for your comment Tom. I agreed with you up until I became engaged in the thread from 2008 that I gave earlier (here). When I saw some people that I knew were pro-lifers advocating killing a friend that was being burned that caused me to think about the issue more closely. Of course the burning example is just an analogy and could easily be substituted with a disease such as ALS (as I mentioned earlier). The point being made is that there is someone dying of an excruciating death...is it merciful to kill if they so desire and can't do it themselves.

Again, I appreciate the remarks.

 

[Granite]

My feeling is that it should be legalized because in some situations I have no problem with someone wanting to end their life if they are in pain and just counting the days before they die. However, it is something that is open to a lot of abuse and manipulation, as has been mentioned, so it would need a lot of caution and oversight. It's a tough question.

A reasonable post.

I wonder if in some cases a refusal to let someone go, or a reluctance to support assisted suicide, is more about those who will go on living rather than those who wish to die...

 

[Psalmist]

Yes, it should be legal. There is no reason to prolong someone's suffering, or guarantee them an agonizing death, if they choose to die on their own terms and in their own way.

One problem with your assessment is often times terminally ill people who wish to have their life terminated early is, they are NOT dying on their own terms. Often times they have been slowly and carefully manipulated by friends, family, and "medical professionals" into believing they are doing the right thing. You can imagine that someone in that predicament might be easily manipulated.

I couldn't rep you for this, you pass around some rep . . . So here it is :thumb:
​

 

[Psalmist]

A reasonable post.

I wonder if in some cases a refusal to let someone go, or a reluctance to support assisted suicide, is more about those who will go on living rather than those who wish to die...

...prolonging the inevitable.

But I do not support assisted suicide either.​

 

[Granite]

...prolonging the inevitable.

But I do not support assisted suicide either.​

What's merciful about prolonginig the inevitable? Whose benefit is that really for?

 

[Ecumenicist]

I sometimes wonder whether if an uninsured person had a heart attack, how they would make the choice to raise a flag and call 911 or just let it take its course. The cost of critical care and all would bankrupt a family, and a heart attack would leave a person less capable of providing for them.

Would this be like throwing one's self on a grenade to protect ones family?

This is not a purely academic question, several of us here at TOL have mentioned being without health insurance.

 

[bybee]

A hydra-headed dilemma

A hydra-headed dilemma

What's merciful about prolonginig the inevitable? Whose benefit is that really for?

That is a very good question. Under normal circumstances death is simply something that occurs sooner or later depending on the vicissitude's of life. But every life is unique. Not every situation is unique. I cannot, in good conscience, ask one of my loved one's to murder me. There are instances wherein keeping a dying person comfortable is what is called for. That means "No Heroics", no life sustaining measures are continued. The potential for abuse of legalized euthansia is far ranging and dangerous, IMHO. bybee