Should Assisted Suicide be Legalized?
Side Score: 8
Side Score: 1
Assisted Suicide is my retirement plan.
Right now you can go to Oregons and get "the pill" that will do you in. I would just go there, get the pill and be done with it.
I've always felt that I'm not of this world; that I don't fit in. Maybe if there were less people on this planet.... but since I can't control (take out) everyone else, all I can do is control (take out) myself.
No one asked to be born. They were brought to this world kicking and screaming. Some will leave the same way they came in but some want to leave with dignity.
Why should anyone care that someone wants to get off the ride? It's not like they have to stop the planet so that they get off. Maybe it's the fact that misery loves company.
I don't know how to be philosophical but those are my two cents.
Well here's my take on the situation. If someone feels like they should commit suicide and they want an assistant,than so be it. Who are we to decide whether that person should be alive or not. People commit suicide all of the time for a variety of reasons. Having someone assist them doesn't change the fact that it's their personal decision.
My argument won't be opposed to joe's, or at least that's how I figure the picture. If the question was "should I assist a friend o commit suicide" - things would be different, as to my answer, but since Legal issues are t present, I have to put moral aside, and look at the normative, the codes, functions, and so on.
What I see is this - since self-preservation is the ultimate goal, above all values and morals, since only insane lovers would sacrifice themselves to save their loved one or sacrifice themselves for any other cause except of self-mutilation or suicide as in a suicide mision in Iraq.
Thus, any man or woman that will to injure their body or commit suicide have some phychological issue (which may be true and still doesn't justify locking joe up in a mental hospital, but we're talking legal, not moral) thus legalizing assist for murder would be rediculus. Except for those who search for a creative way to get away with murder.
since self-preservation is the ultimate goal, above all values and morals, since only insane lovers would sacrifice themselves to save their loved one or sacrifice themselves for any other cause...
You're assuming a lot there. People make their own goals, and the logic of that goal cannot really be accurately judged by one not completely familiar with the circumstances ie your very own example of a suicide bomber.
If one's goal is to get to a place they truly believe exists with 60 virgens waiting for them, and the only way to obtain said goal is death, then it's not the action itself which is insane, but the belief they have based their actions on.
In the case of assisted suicide, the goal of the patient is to stop the pain. If at some point they have made a decision that stopping the pain is a higher priority than survival, I would judge not only is the action sane, but their belief, as constant pain that cannot be relieved may very well be worse than death regardless of one's belief in an afterlife.
I would also argue your assumption that saving a loved one at cost to oneself can in many circumstances be more logical than not saving them. In the case of a mother of your child, or any child, a logical conclusion would be that they are more important or potentially more important to society than oneself. In which case the most logical decision would be to sacrifice oneself. Not doing so would not only be selfish, but illogical. Of course I or you should not judge one in that situation regardless of their decision, as it is a highly emotional circumstance.
Survival is our strongest instinct, but there is nothing inherently logical about any instinct. That is why instinct is often necessary, it forces actions that would not be taken necessarily based on logic alone. Also, survival instinct is not limited to oneself in humans or any social animal. Most mammals have a degree of selflessness when it comes to the protection of family or pack. Insects regularly sacrifice themselves for the greater good. Examples of self-sacrifice are present all through nature.
So not only would legalizing assisted suicide not be ridiculous, it would be both moral and logical. The doctor would be helping the person obtain their goal of not feeling pain, money would not have to be spent supporting one who did not want to live anymore anyway, and the personal freedom western civilization preaches but rarely practices would be upheld.
Before I begin, I'd like to state, as it was apparently misunderstood, that my argument was about the legal issue, why the norms will now legalize such a notion without adding to it a landfill of paperwork to insure the person that is about to commit suicide and asks for a final help in.. whatever.
Sounds absurd, yea, but not the world record.
Yes. I understand that whatever comes near to goals and values and logic of a private human being, stayed pretty much there, that even the judgment of his best friend may be a subject of debate. Yes, in an utopia, every man acts as he pleases, whether it's building a pacifistic complex bolo'bolo style or scavenging of half eaten peers. In such a state moral codes are practical codes, that do not need to debated nor to be written down for future generations. But that's not the issue, the issue is a legal one, and I don't believe there is any room in Legal for Should, and that's why I try to explain, quite sarcastically why it is not possible, at the current paradigm to have government-approved suicide.
I don't even see what your take on sanity has to do with anything, but let me ask you this, according to your definition of it, what is the difference between sane reasoning and insane reasoning? I don't know, when I look deep into the western values, I see rotten, ROTTEN insanity, the idea of law with the help of god to extinct criminals once and for all, is right next to kukuland.
You try to draw a line between justified cause and unjustified with a sane crayon, but where exactly would you draw the line? Could you describe a law like that? Should it be: "Beyond 7.3 on Dr. Shtainzivaigen's scale of pain, it is legal for a patient to try and sign the appropriate paperwork with the signatures of two hospital directors, in order for the hospital to legally, and mercifully kill him"? should psychological tests be put upon a near-death experiencer to ensure a proper state of mind?
I couldn't articulate it better. The foundation beneath self-preservation couldn't get any more subjective and per-case than that.
I see you mainly point at dying people that are better off, pretty much who ever you ask, but.. what about.. just... depressed people? How about schizophrenic suicidals? Nihilists? Plain disappointed solipsists?
How about an age limit? Could a sixteen year old goth girl get the pill? Should she get her parents' signature as well?
What about the dude that comes into the die-lab and says he doesn't have a good reason, that he's just curious. Or that guy that has a urgent thing to say to god, and he wouldn't tell you nothing about it..
Maybe it should be a free-for-all-who-call-spell-k.i.l.l.m.e?
Maybe it's not such a bad idea..
I don't say it's ridiculous to have mercy on a friend that got bit by a giant weird-looking snake, I say it's ridiculous to suggest the institutionalization of assisted-suicide. Somethings are beyond law and order, war, love and death - are such things.