Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jinto · 05-31-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
A person has the power to commit suicide, so they don't need a right. I find the greater question contemplates what reitualized suicide says about a culture.

And supposing a person does not have the ability to commit suicide without assistance?

And as for your culture question: It says that we aren't the kind of sadistic people who would force a person to live in constant pain just so they can die an undignified death 6 months later, rather than a peaceful death now.

Dune · 05-31-2003, 08:47 PM

Some points on doctor assisted suicide:
1) Dr. assisted suicide is AT THE PATIENTS REQUEST. ONLY. It is not up to the doctor to suggest or promote.
2) Pain management is not perfect. Current medications DO NOT alleviate pain in all cases. EVEN AT MASSIVE doses. Especially cancer patients. I have noted repeatedly on this list peoples belief that analgesics work if only the patient is given a rah-rah speach and "empowered". Empowerment goes so far, then there is biology. Current medications are not cure-alls , we haven't really improved that much on morphine.
3) Is it more ethical to allow patients to die or to force them to live for 3 months against their will and in pain.
4)Is it ethical to allow others to decide life and death descisions for you or are you the best judge of your own life (and death).

Loren Pechtel · 05-31-2003, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
A person has the power to commit suicide, so they don't need a right. I find the greater question contemplates what reitualized suicide says about a culture.

If you have the right to commit suicide then why is someone not permitted to help you?

winstonjen · 06-01-2003, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by keyser_soze
That is by far, the most compassionate, and true reality of the question that I have ever read. Thanks Dr. Rick.

I agree. A right, BY DEFINITION, is optional. A compulsory right is not a right at all - it is a duty.

dk:

Quote:

patients tend to be very motivated when empowered to manage their own pain.

So...the pain is in their mind? They're making it up? Should we then take away laws against assault and torture?

Quote:

In practical terms an inalienalbe right to life doesn't justify anything, but is necessary to a person's liberty, property and happiness in any possible world. Lets examine the concept of "Doctor assisted suicide" a little more closely. Fundamentally the physician subsumes his patients "right to life" to prescribe and administer a deadly substance. What of the patients liberty, property and happiness?...Don't be an asshole a corpse has no liberty, property or happiness rights. In fact a person without a right to life has lost any pretext of free will and intellect so has no dignity, perogative or rights at all. The only one empowered to speak for the paitent is Dr. Death, whose justification follows from Dr. Pain. In a sense, I agree with you Dr. Rick. A person under the management of Doctor Death and Dr. Pain is placed into an utterly hopeless circumstance stripped of dignity and value. Only a lunatic or a victim would make such a deal.

A personal attack against the terminally ill. The right is for the patient to REQUEST DEATH, NOT for the doctor to kill the patient on a whim or because the doctor thinks "it's in the patient's best interests."

winstonjen · 06-01-2003, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
A person has the power to commit suicide, so they don't need a right. I find the greater question contemplates what reitualized suicide says about a culture.

IMO, it says that a culture is willing to respect the wishes of those that are too weak to do it themselves. Another positive is that they don't commit suicide while they are still capable of doing it alone - and thus they live longer.

dk · 06-01-2003, 09:49 PM

winstonjen: I agree. A right, BY DEFINITION, is optional. A compulsory right is not a right at all - it is a duty.
dk: I don�t have a clue what you mean by a �compulsory right�. The inalienable (objective) right to life requires government to protect everyone�s life, so the government has the duty.

dk: patients tend to be very motivated when empowered to manage their own pain.
winstonjen: So...the pain is in their mind? dk: huh?.
winstonjen: They're making it up? dk: what?
winstonjen: Should we then take away laws against assault and torture?
dk: No, every person has dignity.

winstonjen: A personal attack against the terminally ill. The right is for the patient to REQUEST DEATH, NOT for the doctor to kill the patient on a whim or because the doctor thinks "it's in the patient's best interests."
dk: My comments were directed towards people that campaign to sign away other people�s Right to Life.

dk · 06-01-2003, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
IMO, it says that a culture is willing to respect the wishes of those that are too weak to do it themselves. Another positive is that they don't commit suicide while they are still capable of doing it alone - and thus they live longer.

I've read suicide has been linked to depression. Do doctors have a criterion to determine when a person�s to weak to commit suicide, or do they just play it by ear?

dk · 06-01-2003, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
If you have the right to commit suicide then why is someone not permitted to help you?

People have the power to commit suicide. People also have the power to kill one another.

winstonjen · 06-01-2003, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
I've read suicide has been linked to depression. Do doctors have a criterion to determine when a person�s to weak to commit suicide, or do they just play it by ear?

Isn't it obvious? When they ask for help, it is clear that they are too weak to do it alone, and only the patient can determine it.

Quote:

I don�t have a clue what you mean by a �compulsory right�. The inalienable (objective) right to life requires government to protect everyone�s life, so the government has the duty.

A compulsory right is what you're advocating - people must live so your conscience can be happy, regardless of how much pain they are in. That, IMO, is sick.

Quote:

My comments were directed towards people that campaign to sign away other people�s Right to Life.

No, they campaign to be able to take CONTROL over their own lives. I don't see why you can't understand this.

winstonjen · 06-02-2003, 01:08 AM

Here - No to Inhumane Strategies

James Murray reveals a portion of pro-life hypocrisy. He shows his support for involuntary euthanasia, and his disdain for voluntary euthanasia. How can it be better to kill someone without their consent than to kill someone with their consent? Preposterous. I will always be amazed that people like that have the intelligence to inhale and exhale.

06-02-2003, 01:08 AM	#90
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	More Religious Hypocrisy Here - No to Inhumane Strategies James Murray reveals a portion of pro-life hypocrisy. He shows his support for involuntary euthanasia, and his disdain for voluntary euthanasia. How can it be better to kill someone without their consent than to kill someone with their consent? Preposterous. I will always be amazed that people like that have the intelligence to inhale and exhale.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-31-2003, 08:47 PM	#82
Dune Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Oregon Posts: 65	Some points on doctor assisted suicide: 1) Dr. assisted suicide is AT THE PATIENTS REQUEST. ONLY. It is not up to the doctor to suggest or promote. 2) Pain management is not perfect. Current medications DO NOT alleviate pain in all cases. EVEN AT MASSIVE doses. Especially cancer patients. I have noted repeatedly on this list peoples belief that analgesics work if only the patient is given a rah-rah speach and "empowered". Empowerment goes so far, then there is biology. Current medications are not cure-alls , we haven't really improved that much on morphine. 3) Is it more ethical to allow patients to die or to force them to live for 3 months against their will and in pain. 4)Is it ethical to allow others to decide life and death descisions for you or are you the best judge of your own life (and death).

06-01-2003, 09:49 PM	#86
dk Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver Posts: 1,774	winstonjen: I agree. A right, BY DEFINITION, is optional. A compulsory right is not a right at all - it is a duty. dk: I don�t have a clue what you mean by a �compulsory right�. The inalienable (objective) right to life requires government to protect everyone�s life, so the government has the duty. dk: patients tend to be very motivated when empowered to manage their own pain. winstonjen: So...the pain is in their mind? dk: huh?. winstonjen: They're making it up? dk: what? winstonjen: Should we then take away laws against assault and torture? dk: No, every person has dignity. winstonjen: A personal attack against the terminally ill. The right is for the patient to REQUEST DEATH, NOT for the doctor to kill the patient on a whim or because the doctor thinks "it's in the patient's best interests." dk: My comments were directed towards people that campaign to sign away other people�s Right to Life.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.