Assisted Suicide

[Michael]

A few years ago, a terminally ill woman (with ALS) in British Columbia sued for permission to end her life.

The Canadian Supreme Court denied her petition with a landmark 5-4 ruling. Btw, all four dissenting opinions are based on different points of dissent which just shows how controversial this legal decision was - given that there are so many grounds for dissent from the majority. In other words, this legal ruling up here in Canada has all the popularity (and legal flaws) of the infamous Bush v Gore decision which is arguably, the worst SCOTUS ruling in many decades.

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodriguez_v._British_Columbia_%28Attorney_General% 29)

Needless to say, this legal decision has not be popular at all. Legal scholars have a hard time defending it, the public overwhelmingly disagrees with the ruling and politicians run and hide if you even mention the topic to them.

Well, it seems like we are going to have a rematch! The Supreme Court of Canada has just agreed to address a similar case that has just been rejected appeal. This new case again features a ALS case.

This should be interesting given that there really is no substantial legal standing for laws against suicide other than the government's will that there ought to be a law against it. Needless to say, this political view is decidedly unpopular with the public who are the ultimate arbitrators of what ought to be legal and illegal.

Anyway, it will be interesting to watch this case unfold. This is a very hot political topic up here in Canada and has been for many, many years now.

To me the key issue is the Government's assertion that suicide itself is illegal. I don't recognize this as a justified law. I see no rational, legal or constitutional justification for this law.

Indeed, the only available theoretical arguments for making suicide illegal is to assert that "all life is sacred" which, apart from being obnoxious and hypocritical, that statement orginates as a religious idea and that is entirely unacceptable basis for the law. Alternatively, the only other theoretical basis for asserting suicide is illegal would be to assert that the government has a revenue expection from citizens and suicide is a defacto 'loss' to the government and thus the government has a vested interest in protecting their assets. Either way, I wouldn't want to be the political point man having to defend this silly and unpopular policy against the public.

I recognize that legalizing suicide (or assisted suicide) would cause difficulties for legal adjudication, but difficulties of legal adjudication of the alternative cannot be held as reasons for upholding a bad law.

[Donkey]

I would humbly submit that this is a worse SCOTUS ruling than Bush v Gore. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford)

I agree with you on Assisted Suicide. There is no legitimacy in the state mandating that I live.

[Michael]

I would humbly submit that this is a worse SCOTUS ruling than Bush v Gore. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford)

I agree with you on Assisted Suicide. There is no legitimacy in the state mandating that I live.

I said the worst "in many decades". :D

The infamous Dred Scott ruling is indeed a horror story, but it comes from 1857.

[Donkey]

I said the worst "in many decades". :D

The infamous Dred Scott ruling is indeed a horror story, but it comes from 1857.

Derp. You did indeed. Must read less quickly.

[pramjockey]

I would humbly submit that this is a worse SCOTUS ruling than Bush v Gore. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford)

I agree with you on Assisted Suicide. There is no legitimacy in the state mandating that I live.

To advocate for Satan:

(Please excuse me if I goof this up, I'm trying to take a 5 minute break in a very long day at work)

I can see how the state has some legitimate claim to say, "wait a minute," let's make sure that this is the right thing:

1) a person who is committing suicide is likely suffering from a diminished capacity, and thus legally unable to make such a decision. Thus, legally, the state is required to act (through those who are required to act - the police, EMS, etc.). I can see maybe an exception when there is informed consent and the advice of a professional (physician) involved.

2) the state has to deal with the impacts. There's managing the care of a botched suicide (remember kids, it's down the street, not across the tracks) - here in the US we deal with the long term care of people who try and fail to kill themselves all the time, and it's on the taxpayers' dime, once insurance runs out. There's also the matter of dependents. Killing yourself leaves your surviving family to fend for themselves, and if they're minors, now they're wards of the state. The state has an incentive to prevent that.

I had more, but I braincramped. I'll try to think about it.

[The Drunk Girl]

Healthcare revolves around patient rights. It doesn't matter if a man grabs my breasts and my kook (yes, this has happened before and all he got was a warning. As it continued he was given a 30 day notice to find another facility to live in) he still had rights. If a patient/resident throws a television at you, one is unable to defend their self due to abuse. Sure there are restraints BUT you must have a doctor's order to apply them. If you can't get a hold of a doctor, you have 24 hours to get an one. Tricky stuff here, especially considering crazy family members always looking for a lawsuit and your license.

A person can write a living will and state that they don't want to be hooked up to a feeding tube or a ventilator, yet they aren't able to say I would like for a professional to aid in my death. :ummm: Seems like the same thing to me. Should every Tom, Dick, and Harry be allowed the privilege of assisted suicide? Absolutely not. Ending one's life, IMO, is not something to play with. However those with critical and untreatable diseases, such as ALS, should have that option.

I have worked with residents that have ALS. It's a horrible and scary disease. One day they might be able to walk and then the next they have no use of their legs. The constant fear of aspirating or choking while trying to eat, and the loss of independence and dignity that accompanies ALS are just two of many issues to arise.

I, for one, would not want my body to progress that far in the disease until I was practically living stone. And, that's what happens. You are totally paralyzed and alive. Who would want that? Who would want to experience their body slowly and painfully shut down?

So yes, let's assist these people who are suffering. It is much better than using a gun or razor blade. Both of these tools create messes and could possibly not work. Same goes with ODs. What is so hard in letting these people go the way they want? Give them their last bit of dignity.

[Americano]

Healthcare revolves around patient rights. It doesn't matter if a man grabs my breasts and my kook (yes, this has happened before and all he got was a warning. As it continued he was given a 30 day notice to find another facility to live in) he still had rights. If a patient/resident throws a television at you, one is unable to defend their self due to abuse. Sure there are restraints BUT you must have a doctor's order to apply them. If you can't get a hold of a doctor, you have 24 hours to get an one. Tricky stuff here, especially considering crazy family members always looking for a lawsuit and your license.

A person can write a living will and state that they don't want to be hooked up to a feeding tube or a ventilator, yet they aren't able to say I would like for a professional to aid in my death. :ummm: Seems like the same thing to me. Should every Tom, Dick, and Harry be allowed the privilege of assisted suicide? Absolutely not. Ending one's life, IMO, is not something to play with. However those with critical and untreatable diseases, such as ALS, should have that option.

I have worked with residents that have ALS. It's a horrible and scary disease. One day they might be able to walk and then the next they have no use of their legs. The constant fear of aspirating or choking while trying to eat, and the loss of independence and dignity that accompanies ALS are just two of many issues to arise.

I, for one, would not want my body to progress that far in the disease until I was practically living stone. And, that's what happens. You are totally paralyzed and alive. Who would want that? Who would want to experience their body slowly and painfully shut down?

So yes, let's assist these people who are suffering. It is much better than using a gun or razor blade. Both of these tools create messes and could possibly not work. Same goes with ODs. What is so hard in letting these people go the way they want? Give them their last bit of dignity.

Oregon is the only US state that legally recognizes Death with Dignity (http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/index.aspx).

[Donkey]

To advocate for Satan:

(Please excuse me if I goof this up, I'm trying to take a 5 minute break in a very long day at work)

I can see how the state has some legitimate claim to say, "wait a minute," let's make sure that this is the right thing:

1) a person who is committing suicide is likely suffering from a diminished capacity, and thus legally unable to make such a decision. Thus, legally, the state is required to act (through those who are required to act - the police, EMS, etc.). I can see maybe an exception when there is informed consent and the advice of a professional (physician) involved.

2) the state has to deal with the impacts. There's managing the care of a botched suicide (remember kids, it's down the street, not across the tracks) - here in the US we deal with the long term care of people who try and fail to kill themselves all the time, and it's on the taxpayers' dime, once insurance runs out. There's also the matter of dependents. Killing yourself leaves your surviving family to fend for themselves, and if they're minors, now they're wards of the state. The state has an incentive to prevent that.

I had more, but I braincramped. I'll try to think about it.

Well, I'm certainly not advocating that the state facilitate just anybody's suicide. I would start with people with terminal illness. I also have no problem in requiring a capacity test to ensure that the decision is truly that of the suicidee.

I don't think "it's messy to clean up physically and socially when a father of five drives off to kill himself in a crisis over his personal debt" (happened to a family I know tangentially not too long ago) is a valid argument against a 92 year old who still has full faculty but no longer wants to live in his failing body, plugged into a half dozen machines and laid up in a hospital bed, costing his family thousands of dollars.

[Non Sequitur]

To advocate for Satan:

(Please excuse me if I goof this up, I'm trying to take a 5 minute break in a very long day at work)

I can see how the state has some legitimate claim to say, "wait a minute," let's make sure that this is the right thing:

1) a person who is committing suicide is likely suffering from a diminished capacity, and thus legally unable to make such a decision. Thus, legally, the state is required to act (through those who are required to act - the police, EMS, etc.). I can see maybe an exception when there is informed consent and the advice of a professional (physician) involved.

2) the state has to deal with the impacts. There's managing the care of a botched suicide (remember kids, it's down the street, not across the tracks) - here in the US we deal with the long term care of people who try and fail to kill themselves all the time, and it's on the taxpayers' dime, once insurance runs out. There's also the matter of dependents. Killing yourself leaves your surviving family to fend for themselves, and if they're minors, now they're wards of the state. The state has an incentive to prevent that.

I had more, but I braincramped. I'll try to think about it.

These are essentially the two problems i see with the idea legally. However, the massive amount of money, time and resources spent on healthcare in the last two weeks of life is mind blowing. We clearly need to rethink end of life issues and care in America.

Morally i have a slightly different stance. As a preface I will say that traditionally Christian ethics have defined suicide as the taking of life (murder) and the life is you own. This is has been (especially in the medieval age) to be a double sin because 1. it is the taking of life and 2. it pretends that your life is your own and not God's. Catholic doctrine also has significant problems with suicide because the person dies having committed a mortal sin without repenting.

With that said I would ideally like to remove the term "human life is sacred" because i think it paints us into an ideological corner that is hard to justify from a Biblical perspective. There are clear situations in the Bible where the taking of like is tolerated. I don't want to use a stronger word then this because I don't think the taking of life is really ever a good thing or just. However there are clear situations in scripture (Divine command, Authorities mission to restrain evil, etc...) where life is permitted to be taken. By saying "all human life is sacred" we implicitly leave ourselves in the position of saying God commands things that are unholy. I don't quite like that logic.

Ideally we would say that the main Biblical priority is a right relationship between God and humanity and humanity with itself. Certain situations in the later category make taking human life tolerable. The example is police use of deadly force in some situations. So the real question then, from a Christian ethic stand point, is are there situations where assisted suicide prevents a breaking of the human - human relationship or even the divine - human relationship? I don't know if i really have an answer yet :shrug:

[Greendruid]

While I think that the current indefensible law in Canada is just that, there are problems with going the opposite extreme of not having some kind of law regarding suicide. Indeed, Donkey's idea of assessing each case is a potential solution so that assisted suicide could potentially be applied for by an individual. We have extended the lifespan of our species by a factor of three in the past 200 years or so and this is what has created all the problems. We are a culture obsessed with life and living and fearing death and the natural cycle of all life to pass through death. We cannot use religious doctrine to inform a law that affects everyone's ability to decide what is ultimately the only thing you are really born into the world with and are going to leave this world with, your own body and life. If particular religious groups have their conscience pricked by the idea then their practitioners need to be aware of the contradiction of terms. I feel the same way about abortion. Laws of the state must avoid influence from religious ideas and do their best to concentrate on the practical concerns of operating in this world.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

We have extended the lifespan of our species by a factor of three in the past 200 years or so.

So if the lifespan today is 84 (and I think it's probably less), the lifespan in 1811 was 28?
Er, back to the drawing-board, old bean ;)
Certainly in Europe, if someone died before they were 40, during the 18th and 19th century, they were regarded as having died very young indeed.
Mozart and Henrik Wergeland are just two examples.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Greendruid, perhaps you are right, taking into account infant mortality around 1811. It just seemed strange to me that the lifespan of 1811 was at the most 28. Are you sure?

[pramjockey]

Well, I'm certainly not advocating that the state facilitate just anybody's suicide. I would start with people with terminal illness. I also have no problem in requiring a capacity test to ensure that the decision is truly that of the suicidee.

I don't think "it's messy to clean up physically and socially when a father of five drives off to kill himself in a crisis over his personal debt" (happened to a family I know tangentially not too long ago) is a valid argument against a 92 year old who still has full faculty but no longer wants to live in his failing body, plugged into a half dozen machines and laid up in a hospital bed, costing his family thousands of dollars.

Oh, believe me, we are very much in agreement. But, those are the easier cases. It's much harder to deal with the 25 year old who ODs himself into what appears to be a permanent vegetative state. Or the 15 year old quad who doesn't want to live like that (I don't want to live like that, either).

Cherry picking out the old sick guy who wants to end his life 6 months or a year early is a no brainer.

These are essentially the two problems i see with the idea legally. However, the massive amount of money, time and resources spent on healthcare in the last two weeks of life is mind blowing. We clearly need to rethink end of life issues and care in America.

Morally i have a slightly different stance. As a preface I will say that traditionally Christian ethics have defined suicide as the taking of life (murder) and the life is you own. This is has been (especially in the medieval age) to be a double sin because 1. it is the taking of life and 2. it pretends that your life is your own and not God's. Catholic doctrine also has significant problems with suicide because the person dies having committed a mortal sin without repenting.

With that said I would ideally like to remove the term "human life is sacred" because i think it paints us into an ideological corner that is hard to justify from a Biblical perspective. There are clear situations in the Bible where the taking of like is tolerated. I don't want to use a stronger word then this because I don't think the taking of life is really ever a good thing or just. However there are clear situations in scripture (Divine command, Authorities mission to restrain evil, etc...) where life is permitted to be taken. By saying "all human life is sacred" we implicitly leave ourselves in the position of saying God commands things that are unholy. I don't quite like that logic.

Ideally we would say that the main Biblical priority is a right relationship between God and humanity and humanity with itself. Certain situations in the later category make taking human life tolerable. The example is police use of deadly force in some situations. So the real question then, from a Christian ethic stand point, is are there situations where assisted suicide prevents a breaking of the human - human relationship or even the divine - human relationship? I don't know if i really have an answer yet :shrug:

I don't have an answer, either. I've been on both sides of it, and I struggle really hard. I've assisted with bringing life into the world, and it was one of the most amazing things I've ever done. I've also unsuccessfully fought to keep life from leaving, and I still struggle with the results of that. What I have learned is that those who die don't seem to be concerned about it. The people I've watched die have never once been like "oh, shit, don't let me go." It's never been like they were going into a bad place. That's been a remarkable comfort to someone who was pretty terrified of death.

As far as a relationship with god/s/ess - I can't really speak to that. IMHO, I do believe that there is a role for the state to make sure that if a person is going to decide that they have had enough, that such decisions are made in a truly aware state of mind, after good, informed deliberation, and a real understanding of the consequences. If that person chooses to involve a spiritual leader, so be it, but I don't think that one should be forced in (and I don't believe that's what you're saying).

[MeMyselfAndI]

Interesting issue...

I am not sure what my opinion is on this. I am divided. It is same as with abortion for me: on one side is my religious upbringing, where I was told that both abortion and suicide is sin, and therefore is wrong. One the other side, people should have a right to decide what to do with their own selves, including to kill themselves, particularly if they are suffering.

I suppose, yes, that is my opinion: if someone is suffering to the point where it becomes unbearable, they should have the right to end their life.

Though I guess my forest-dwelling uncle Fotiy
486
who as a young man was lost in the taiga, and attacked by a bear which tore off his right hand; and still somehow survived and came home (when i was a child, I remember I was scared of his wooden hand :lol:) would probably disagree. To him people who cannot fight through pain and prefer to give up are "weak and spineless". By the way, he supposedly later went back into the forest, found the bear that (he thinks) was one that maimed him, and killed it. With an ax. That's my uncle Fotiy... He went on to marry the youngest daughter of a successful keeper of elite hunting grounds (and their five sons, especially the youngest two, were my nightmare growing up, always harassed me for being short...), which he then inherited and is still there today. Putin hunts on my uncle's grounds... And he lives in a small wooden house in the middle of the forest. Not afraid of anything.

But, not everyone is like my uncle Fotiy, so that is why I support this initiative to allow people to stop their own suffering.

[Donkey]

Your uncle's beard alone makes him a total badass.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Your uncle's beard alone makes him a total badass.

That's the other thing he is famous for, after the wooden hand.

Though those beards are sort of common among men where I come from
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4514/siryoga.f/0_5fcc8_8b961781_XLhttp://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4407/siryoga.f/0_5fcc3_203de681_XL.jpghttp://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5606/siryoga.f/0_5fcc1_a49209b4_XL.jpghttp://i.rdrom.ru/pubs/4483/11840/98986.jpghttp://sibiricus.com/images/stories/sibirica/Photo/Karasi/starovery/475berg.jpg
It is a religious thing.

I cannot bring myself to grow one of those, those Karina had once asked me, for her own fun I suppose :lol: I guess that just shows how far I've moved away from my people...

[Donkey]

My Grandpa used to be a dapper dude. Then he gave up on elitism and embraced what would be his calling: sustainable farmer and activist.

However, it happened to be the late fifties and when he'd walk down the streets of Medellin people would holler "Caaaastrooooo" as he passed.

[Michael]

Though those beards are sort of common among men where I come from
Those types of beards are ALWAYS very common amongst religious groups where women are denied basic rights.

Seems to be an overt attempt to symbolically represent the idea that men and women are fundamentally different (and therefore should be treated differently with law, culture, rules, etc). Restrictive clothing rules for females are equally common in such cultures.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Restrictive clothing rules for females are equally common in such cultures.

That is true
http://lh3.ggpht.com/-MBqdYIE1MN8/S1R_SUk9lcI/AAAAAAAAAOY/I7Vg0hdUgBY/45.jpg
http://lh4.ggpht.com/-kSPtFOZvlu4/S1R0zNWXUQI/AAAAAAAABiI/0M7seb-tIXE/s512/18.jpghttp://lh4.ggpht.com/-pqrE2vhw0SU/S1R4EFZvzFI/AAAAAAAAAM0/ap4hW0Thcak/s512/39.jpg
http://lh5.ggpht.com/-kabTJX3CIwk/S1SD9u8yPbI/AAAAAAAAAPM/612n62sKPY8/s720/211.jpg
http://lh3.ggpht.com/-r4B900qHDwI/S1SEBMY2YBI/AAAAAAAAB4A/68U9cDfyzQY/s512/DSC_0058.jpg

[Michael]

To advocate for Satan:

(Please excuse me if I goof this up, I'm trying to take a 5 minute break in a very long day at work)

I can see how the state has some legitimate claim to say, "wait a minute," let's make sure that this is the right thing:

1) a person who is committing suicide is likely suffering from a diminished capacity, and thus legally unable to make such a decision. Thus, legally, the state is required to act (through those who are required to act - the police, EMS, etc.). I can see maybe an exception when there is informed consent and the advice of a professional (physician) involved.

2) the state has to deal with the impacts. There's managing the care of a botched suicide (remember kids, it's down the street, not across the tracks) - here in the US we deal with the long term care of people who try and fail to kill themselves all the time, and it's on the taxpayers' dime, once insurance runs out. There's also the matter of dependents. Killing yourself leaves your surviving family to fend for themselves, and if they're minors, now they're wards of the state. The state has an incentive to prevent that.

I had more, but I braincramped. I'll try to think about it.

As I noted in the OP - the difficulty of adjudication of legality is not sufficient grounds for making something illegal.

[Michael]

Healthcare revolves around patient rights. It doesn't matter if a man grabs my breasts and my kook (yes, this has happened before and all he got was a warning. As it continued he was given a 30 day notice to find another facility to live in) he still had rights. If a patient/resident throws a television at you, one is unable to defend their self due to abuse. Sure there are restraints BUT you must have a doctor's order to apply them. If you can't get a hold of a doctor, you have 24 hours to get an one. Tricky stuff here, especially considering crazy family members always looking for a lawsuit and your license.

A person can write a living will and state that they don't want to be hooked up to a feeding tube or a ventilator, yet they aren't able to say I would like for a professional to aid in my death. :ummm: Seems like the same thing to me. Should every Tom, Dick, and Harry be allowed the privilege of assisted suicide? Absolutely not. Ending one's life, IMO, is not something to play with. However those with critical and untreatable diseases, such as ALS, should have that option.

I have worked with residents that have ALS. It's a horrible and scary disease. One day they might be able to walk and then the next they have no use of their legs. The constant fear of aspirating or choking while trying to eat, and the loss of independence and dignity that accompanies ALS are just two of many issues to arise.

I, for one, would not want my body to progress that far in the disease until I was practically living stone. And, that's what happens. You are totally paralyzed and alive. Who would want that? Who would want to experience their body slowly and painfully shut down?

So yes, let's assist these people who are suffering. It is much better than using a gun or razor blade. Both of these tools create messes and could possibly not work. Same goes with ODs. What is so hard in letting these people go the way they want? Give them their last bit of dignity.

I agree completely, though I'm willing to go much further. As far as I'm concerned, if I don't have the 'right' to end my own life at a time of my own choosing, I have no rights at all. All rights are meaningless if one has no control over one's own body.

Btw, that's the same reasoning we use to justify legal abortion - a woman must have absolute right of control over her own body or all rights become meaningless.

[Greendruid]

Greendruid, perhaps you are right, taking into account infant mortality around 1811. It just seemed strange to me that the lifespan of 1811 was at the most 28. Are you sure?

Just caught up on this thread ...

ERRATUM

That should have read 2,000 years, not 200. Over the last 200 years though, the increase has doubled, that says something for the increased rate over these last two centuries vs. the previous 1,800 years.

[dilettante]

Well, I'm certainly not advocating that the state facilitate just anybody's suicide. I would start with people with terminal illness. I also have no problem in requiring a capacity test to ensure that the decision is truly that of the suicidee.

I think the capacity test makes good sense.

But when it comes to drawing distinctions between people of full mental capacity (say, between the 70 year old with terminal cancer and the 17 year old who's a high-school outcast), does that really change the status quo on a fundamental level? It still seems like its the state deciding whether or not someone can die, which undermines the whole argument that it should be up to the person.

[dilettante]

I agree completely, though I'm willing to go much further. As far as I'm concerned, if I don't have the 'right' to end my own life at a time of my own choosing, I have no rights at all. All rights are meaningless if one has no control over one's own body.

Btw, that's the same reasoning we use to justify legal abortion - a woman must have absolute right of control over her own body or all rights become meaningless.

Hmmm... those statements seem hyperbolic to me.

I think my right to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures, my right to expression, and my right to a trial by jury are all significant and worth having even if I don't have the legal right to kill myself. And I suspect very few women would agree that the right to vote (to pick one example) would be "meaningless" if abortion were made illegal.

[Americano]

From reading a lot of science fiction - when unskilled labor and skilled labor with no practical application become undesirable commodities and religion is confined to secrecy the state will encourage suicide by offering brief entertaining incentives to avoid maintaining non-productive citizens. Their reproduction already banned.

Don;t forget that not all that long ago going to the moon was considered fantasy.

[Donkey]

From reading a lot of science fiction - when unskilled labor and skilled labor with no practical application become undesirable commodities and religion is confined to secrecy the state will encourage suicide by offering brief entertaining incentives to avoid maintaining non-productive citizens. Their reproduction already banned.

Don;t forget that not all that long ago going to the moon was considered fantasy.

That's no less of a fantasy than the revolution that would quickly overthrow such a system.

[dilettante]

This is just off the top of my head and may be stupid (my brain is pretty tired right now - I haven't slept much lately), but if one has the right to terminate their own life, and can choose to empower someone else to terminate their life, can one sell that empowerment to another person?

Could we come to a contractual agreement such that, in exchange for a large sum of money (or whatever), you have the legal right to kill me?

[Americano]

This is just off the top of my head and may be stupid (my brain is pretty tired right now - I haven't slept much lately), but if one has the right to terminate their own life, and can choose to empower someone else to terminate their life, can one sell that empowerment to another person?

Could we come to a contractual agreement such that, in exchange for a large sum of money (or whatever), you have the legal right to kill me?

If legislation enacted legal suicide by choice with no restrictions I'd think franchised chains of kill you for X dollars would be an immediate reaction.

[dilettante]

If legislation enacted legal suicide by choice with no restrictions I'd think franchised chains of kill you for X dollars would be an immediate reaction.

Oh, no doubt.

Actually, though, I was thinking the other way 'round. That is to say, you pay me (or more likely, my estate) for the right to kill me or at least to run a significant risk thereof without legal penalty.

[Michael]

This is just off the top of my head and may be stupid (my brain is pretty tired right now - I haven't slept much lately), but if one has the right to terminate their own life, and can choose to empower someone else to terminate their life, can one sell that empowerment to another person?

Could we come to a contractual agreement such that, in exchange for a large sum of money (or whatever), you have the legal right to kill me?

We already have laws that say you can't sell bodily parts. I'm sure we could make laws that say you can't sell your own murder.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Well, I think if we allow abortions, the act of killing unborn children without their awereness, let alone consent; then we should allow this too.

[Donkey]

Well, I think if we allow abortions, the act of killing unborn children without their awereness, let alone consent; then we should allow this too.

If you wanna talk about abortions, why don't we go ahead and start an abortion thread in lieu of this one getting side tracked.

[MeMyselfAndI]

If you wanna talk about abortions, why don't we go ahead and start an abortion thread in lieu of this one getting side tracked.

Actually, I think the two issues are related.

In both cases it is about the taking of human life. I merely say that if we allow people the freedom to end the life of their unborn children; we should allow them the freedom to end their own life too.

[Donkey]

Actually, I think the two issues are related.

In both cases it is about the taking of human life. I merely say that if we allow people the freedom to end the life of their unborn children; we should allow them the freedom to end their own life too.

Well I agree the issues are related, but more because of what Michael alluded to: it has entirely to do with autonomy over ones own body.

[Non Sequitur]

We already have laws that say you can't sell bodily parts. I'm sure we could make laws that say you can't sell your own murder.

But doesn't that go against your "if I don't control over my own body I don't have rights at all" idea?

[pramjockey]

Actually, I think the two issues are related.

In both cases it is about the taking of human life. I merely say that if we allow people the freedom to end the life of their unborn children; we should allow them the freedom to end their own life too.

But there are very serious differences, as one has a consciousness, developed organs, and an independent identity, and the other doesn't.

[Michael]

But doesn't that go against your "if I don't control over my own body I don't have rights at all" idea?

Not really. I can cut out my own liver if I so choose - ergo, no violation.

I just can't sell it on the market. That's a reasonable limitation of an attempted commercial act - something the government has a right to regulate.

[Michael]

Poll question added.