Does the assisted dying debate help or hinder the plight of the would be suiciders?

[darkenmydoorstep]

Was just watching a snippet of an assisted dying debate in telly. I have come to wondering recently if the assisted dying debate (ie allowing assisted death for those with terminal illnesses etc) hinders the true right to die debate.

What I mean is, it centres around terms and conditions rather than an absolute right to die no matter what. Reminds me of before slavery was abolished. The way people pissed about trying to create better conditions for slaves.

If you're a sane consenting adult and have made provision (another consensual care arrangement) for any children or dependents you have, then I see no reason for any other criteria.

Or is it a foot in the door, a step in the right direction?

 

[Darkover]

I've been grappling with a question lately and I was hoping to gain some insights from you all. The question is: Do we have the right to die if we're healthy?

The topic of the right to die is often discussed in the context of individuals with terminal illnesses or those experiencing extreme suffering due to their health conditions. However, I am curious about the moral and philosophical implications of the right to die in cases where someone is physically and mentally healthy.

Nevertheless, it seems that autonomy and the right to self-determination are important values in our society. If we have the right to make decisions about our own lives, shouldn't this also extend to the decision to end our life even if we're healthy? On the other hand, does our responsibility towards others, like family and friends, or our potential future contributions to society, outweigh our individual right to self-determination in this case?

Furthermore, would it be ethically acceptable for doctors or other professionals to assist a healthy individual in ending their life if they so choose? Or should there be legal and ethical restrictions on this?

I'm interested in hearing arguments from various philosophical perspectives, as well as any relevant historical or cultural contexts that might help illuminate the issue.
As a final thought, I'd like to introduce an additional layer to the discussion: How would the ethical implications of the right to die change if humanity were to achieve biological immortality? If we could live indefinitely, free from aging and disease, would the arguments for or against the right to die for healthy individuals be affected? Would our responsibilities to others and society be altered in this scenario?

 

[Little_Suzy]

I have brain fog, so here's info for UK residents. All others, check your own Constitution.

To understand the constitutional "Right to Life" and how a nation preserves life, read the case I highlighted.

Life

Main articles: ECHR article 2 and Right to life
The common law ensures the protection of the right to life and that no person is deprived of life intentionally.[91]​This is achieved primarily through the criminal law and the crimes of murder and manslaughter.[92]​ Some protection is also offered by the civil law where, for example, the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 allows relatives of those killed by the wrongdoing of others to recover damages.[citation needed]​ Capital punishment had by 1998 been abolished in respect of all offences.[93]​ Under the Coroners Act 1988 there is a duty in certain circumstances for deaths to be investigated by a coroner.[94]​

The law also attaches importance to the preservation of life: aiding and abetting a suicide is a criminal offence under the Suicide Act 1961 and euthanasia is unlawful (see the Bland case).[95]​

Furthermore, there is a duty upon medical professionals to keep patients alive unless to do so would be contrary to the patient's best interests based on professional medical opinion (the Bolam Test), taking into account their quality of life in the event that treatment is continued.[96]​ The Abortion Act 1967 permits the termination of a pregnancy under certain conditions and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 requires the storage of embryos to be licensed.[97]​

There is also an obligation on the state to prevent destitution and neglect by providing relief to persons who may otherwise starve to death.[98]​[99]​

Human rights in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

 

[Forever Sleep]

Regardless of whether assisted suicide is introduced for the terminally ill, unless things change substantially in how people view life, connect to one another and play a part in this capitalist/ consummerist society, I expect there will always be opposition to non chronically ill people gaining access to assisted suicide.

I would have thought- at least by legalising it though and setting up authorised clinics, the idea that someone doesn't have to live only to suffer terribly before their death may become more widly accepted. That I would think could only be a good thing. Plus- who knows? Maybe then- more people will become empathetic to the other ways in which we suffer. I do expect it to one day extend to people with debilitating mental illness. I still don't think it will 'help' sound minded adults who simply don't want to participate in life but I don't see how its introduction could make things worse for us. Our societies are already anti-suicide. I doubt they could get much more so! Without making it illegal widespread again.

As to what @Darkover said- Do we have the right to die if we're healthy? Who do you think we need permission from? Do you think our lives belong to someone else then? Our parents, society, God?

That statement seems to suggest that we all have a duty to stay alive and to contribute to society- if we are well enough to do so. Of course- I'd say that of course is the reality. If you're not deemed ill enough to qualify for benefits and your parents won't support you- you work or you end up homeless. Basically- we're born in to slavery. Does a slave have the 'right' to rebel? Of course! What's happening to them is the immoral thing!

Where I'd say it becomes tricky is when we demmand for our 'captors'- our parents, society, the government to release us. (Help us die.) They won't- obviously. They simply won't recognise that life is that bad to begin with. They accepted the status quo and they don't understand why we won't.

Plus- mental illness is such a useful cop out. You're not so ill that you can't work (in many cases.) You're not suffering enough to be allowed to leave this place via assisted suicide but at the same time- you're too insane to be able to make decisions for yourself- especially if they include killing yourself. In fact- the moment anyone suggests they want to kill themselves, we'll call them mentally ill. They've got it made really.

Over our 'rights' though. I agree- self determination and the right to choose is prized highly in our societies. It's just that it falls short when it comes to the biggest and most important question there is- should we have the right to decide on whether we ourselves live or die?

We in fact fail spectacularly there! Being born isn't a choice for that child. We don't seem to give a shit what kind of life it's born in to. To give the adult or child parents the right to determine their own destiny, in some cases that child will (predictably) suffer. Still- again- I don't see how you could restrict people without incurring outrage.

As for- do we owe it to society, our families and loved ones to stay alive? That has to be up to the individual. Plenty of people here are staying alive (begrudgingly) for their loved ones. Depends on whether they feel able to cope with their own suffering so as not to pass suffering on to others. I just think it's a balance and only that person knows as to how much they can take.

Should they feel obliged to though? No- how is that fair? They're suffering. Why would someone who claimed to love them want them to stay and suffer?!! That's the selfish (and slightly sadistic,) thing.

Again though- they (conveniently) simply won't recognise how much that person is suffering. It's terribly convenient to simply become blind to the suffering of others in order to keep our own lives jogging along nicely. As a race- we're so good at it! On some level, we are conscious that billions of animals suffer and are slaughtered- not always hummanely for us. We know that cheap T-shirt or phone was probably made in a sweat shop. We're very good at ignoring and exploiting the suffering of others. It really shouldn't be a surprise then that we do it on a personel level too with suffering loved ones.

Starting to state that some people don't have the 'right' to suicide though I'd say denies them their right to autonomy. It's one thing to say- 'I hope you'll reconsider. I hope you'll try this and this.' It's another to say- 'you can't do this. You're not worthy of release.' Of course- our society at large does and will continue to do it- because it can reframe the whole thing saying- life isn't that bad- it's your perspective that has become distorted through mental illness. Take these pills... (Plus- they have the added support of the majority- our 'loved' ones who also don't want to see us go.)

Still- as pro-choice individuals- we personally are able to recognise one anothers right to think and do this. That's all we have really. Our own conviction that we have this right and knowing that there are other free thinking pro-choice people out there that share our views.

 

[doneforlife]

I've been grappling with a question lately and I was hoping to gain some insights from you all. The question is: Do we have the right to die if we're healthy?

The topic of the right to die is often discussed in the context of individuals with terminal illnesses or those experiencing extreme suffering due to their health conditions. However, I am curious about the moral and philosophical implications of the right to die in cases where someone is physically and mentally healthy.

Nevertheless, it seems that autonomy and the right to self-determination are important values in our society. If we have the right to make decisions about our own lives, shouldn't this also extend to the decision to end our life even if we're healthy? On the other hand, does our responsibility towards others, like family and friends, or our potential future contributions to society, outweigh our individual right to self-determination in this case?

Furthermore, would it be ethically acceptable for doctors or other professionals to assist a healthy individual in ending their life if they so choose? Or should there be legal and ethical restrictions on this?

I'm interested in hearing arguments from various philosophical perspectives, as well as any relevant historical or cultural contexts that might help illuminate the issue.
As a final thought, I'd like to introduce an additional layer to the discussion: How would the ethical implications of the right to die change if humanity were to achieve biological immortality? If we could live indefinitely, free from aging and disease, would the arguments for or against the right to die for healthy individuals be affected? Would our responsibilities to others and society be altered in this scenario?

This really blew my mind. If we don't die naturally, what would have been the approach ? For sure , it wouldn't have been the case that one would have been forced to live for... like eternity. Or may be nobody would have given birth. I can't think how society would have operated. May be meds would have been available after a specific age for you to end yourself. I actually can't think .

 

[Praestat_Mori]

"Assisted dying" to be accepted you have to be almost dead. The process is long, time consuming, expensive, perhaps stressful. No doubt, assisted suicide dying is the way to go for terminally ill people who don't want to suffer anymore. But where too draw the line? Imo there is no line to draw who ever want sot die for their personal reasons must have the right and peaceful method to do whenever they want to do it. SI is the best protection in any case imo.

 

[Mr.Tristesse]

Regardless of whether assisted suicide is introduced for the terminally ill, unless things change substantially in how people view life, connect to one another and play a part in this capitalist/ consummerist society, I expect there will always be opposition to non chronically ill people gaining access to assisted suicide.

I would have thought- at least by legalising it though and setting up authorised clinics, the idea that someone doesn't have to live only to suffer terribly before their death may become more widly accepted. That I would think could only be a good thing. Plus- who knows? Maybe then- more people will become empathetic to the other ways in which we suffer. I do expect it to one day extend to people with debilitating mental illness. I still don't think it will 'help' sound minded adults who simply don't want to participate in life but I don't see how its introduction could make things worse for us. Our societies are already anti-suicide. I doubt they could get much more so! Without making it illegal widespread again.

As to what @Darkover said- Do we have the right to die if we're healthy? Who do you think we need permission from? Do you think our lives belong to someone else then? Our parents, society, God?

That statement seems to suggest that we all have a duty to stay alive and to contribute to society- if we are well enough to do so. Of course- I'd say that of course is the reality. If you're not deemed ill enough to qualify for benefits and your parents won't support you- you work or you end up homeless. Basically- we're born in to slavery. Does a slave have the 'right' to rebel? Of course! What's happening to them is the immoral thing!

Where I'd say it becomes tricky is when we demmand for our 'captors'- our parents, society, the government to release us. (Help us die.) They won't- obviously. They simply won't recognise that life is that bad to begin with. They accepted the status quo and they don't understand why we won't.

Plus- mental illness is such a useful cop out. You're not so ill that you can't work (in many cases.) You're not suffering enough to be allowed to leave this place via assisted suicide but at the same time- you're too insane to be able to make decisions for yourself- especially if they include killing yourself. In fact- the moment anyone suggests they want to kill themselves, we'll call them mentally ill. They've got it made really.

Over our 'rights' though. I agree- self determination and the right to choose is prized highly in our societies. It's just that it falls short when it comes to the biggest and most important question there is- should we have the right to decide on whether we ourselves live or die?

We in fact fail spectacularly there! Being born isn't a choice for that child. We don't seem to give a shit what kind of life it's born in to. To give the adult or child parents the right to determine their own destiny, in some cases that child will (predictably) suffer. Still- again- I don't see how you could restrict people without incurring outrage.

As for- do we owe it to society, our families and loved ones to stay alive? That has to be up to the individual. Plenty of people here are staying alive (begrudgingly) for their loved ones. Depends on whether they feel able to cope with their own suffering so as not to pass suffering on to others. I just think it's a balance and only that person knows as to how much they can take.

Should they feel obliged to though? No- how is that fair? They're suffering. Why would someone who claimed to love them want them to stay and suffer?!! That's the selfish (and slightly sadistic,) thing.

Again though- they (conveniently) simply won't recognise how much that person is suffering. It's terribly convenient to simply become blind to the suffering of others in order to keep our own lives jogging along nicely. As a race- we're so good at it! On some level, we are conscious that billions of animals suffer and are slaughtered- not always hummanely for us. We know that cheap T-shirt or phone was probably made in a sweat shop. We're very good at ignoring and exploiting the suffering of others. It really shouldn't be a surprise then that we do it on a personel level too with suffering loved ones.

Starting to state that some people don't have the 'right' to suicide though I'd say denies them their right to autonomy. It's one thing to say- 'I hope you'll reconsider. I hope you'll try this and this.' It's another to say- 'you can't do this. You're not worthy of release.' Of course- our society at large does and will continue to do it- because it can reframe the whole thing saying- life isn't that bad- it's your perspective that has become distorted through mental illness. Take these pills... (Plus- they have the added support of the majority- our 'loved' ones who also don't want to see us go.)

Still- as pro-choice individuals- we personally are able to recognise one anothers right to think and do this. That's all we have really. Our own conviction that we have this right and knowing that there are other free thinking pro-choice people out there that share our views.

If you only you ran.....things.

 

[Slow_Farewell]

Gotta love @Forever Sleep's posts. It's two sides of the coin, a one-without-the-other. Well put.
My take? step in the right direction. Better something than nothing. Like Han said in Tokyo Drift, "50% of something is better than 100% of nothing"

 

[Forever Sleep]

If you only you ran.....things.

Lol! My God, it would be a disaster if I ran things! Really- anything to be honest. I don't envy the people that try to govern us. Probably some have good intentions at least. Just imagine trying to keep everyone happy though! Looks like a losing battle to me! Thanks for your vote of confidence though.

 

[CPY]

That's why I think the only legitimate way to ensure the right to die is abolishing suicide prevention and allow that all substances and equipment used for CTB'ing be sold freely and without restrictions

This "assisted suicide" will always have useless restrictions, hiccups and paperworks one has to deal with

 

[UKscotty]

I think its important to separate right to die and then assisting suicide.

Most of us in the west have a right to die, in that self harm and suicide is not illegal. So we are free to CTB whenever we like, so long as no one else is put at risk.

The ask of a nation state to support that and provide the means is another thing entirely. How would you even define terminal? Lots of people with depression recover and become happy and useful members of society, so depression alone is a risky criteria for assisting suicide in my view.

It also needs to be not rash or quick. A lot of people say they want to CTB or that life is pointless, but they don't CTB when it comes to it.

I think its a very complicated topic, which is why counties are only just starting to address it now.

 

[Mr.Tristesse]

Lol! My God, it would be a disaster if I ran things! Really- anything to be honest. I don't envy the people that try to govern us. Probably some have good intentions at least. Just imagine trying to keep everyone happy though! Looks like a losing battle to me! Thanks for your vote of confidence though.

Well, it's frustrating because everything you said in that post is very logical and rationally sound but none of it will penetrate people's skulls at all.