5 ms·

A note on terminology: "euthanasia" is something you do to somebody/something. Euthanize is a transitive verb. You euthanize a pet. I firmly believe in the rig

A note on terminology: "euthanasia" is something you do to somebody/something. Euthanize is a transitive verb. You euthanize a pet. I firmly believe in the right of anybody, for any reason, to self-terminate. But that's not euthanasia. When we start getting society involved in the business of terminating people who request it? It's another level of moral and utilitarian complexity. I think a lot of folks are mixing it all together and demanding that my right to self-terminate should force the doctor down the street to help out. These two things do not have to be related. People have been offing themselves for eons. They will continue doing so without the medical establishment. I don't have any easy answers for what society should do for the mentally ill. It seems obvious to me, however, that we should certainly be able to provide food, housing, and medical treatment to them before we'd consider setting up a system to euthanize them.

pmoriarty 10y ago
"I firmly believe in the right of anybody, for any reason, to self-terminate." So if your child was about to jump out a window or run in to a busy street you wouldn't try to stop them?
- paulcole 10y ago
  If my adult partner truly wanted to die, I wouldn't stop her but I would encourage her to seek professional advice first and work to find a method that would be foolproof and avoid traumatizing civilian bystanders. So yes, I would stop her from running in front of a car.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  I would stop my child(ren) from that, but that's because I don't agree that children have that unrestricted right. Even if I did, I might still stop them (or an adult) if I believed their actions were unintentionally putting themselves in harms-way or if they were endangering others (pedestrians below or roadway users).
- ci5er 10y ago
  It's interesting that you jump directly to that interpretation. I would have interpreted it to mean that GP believes that the state should not restrict the right of an adult of sound-mind to self-terminate. Given the nature of the state, there would probably be forms and evaluations. Even if I were to agree with GP, I'd probably still stop my friend high on ketamine from walking in front of a bus (if he actually exists, that is).
  - khedoros1 10y ago
    "anybody, for any reason" is extremely inclusive. You could argue that they meant "an adult of sound mind", or some other somewhat reasonable thing, but that's not what they said. Without a clearer specification, I think it's reasonable to push at the the edge cases to try to figure out what exactly they meant, and what limits (if any) they might like to add.
    - ci5er 10y ago
      Oh, I agree. When I read GP, I was actually a bit confounded by how my reading was so automatically self-limiting.
      - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
        Thanks guys. I meant adult of sound mind. I was going to correct or reply, but I felt it would be more useful to the forum to have folks push the edges and discuss them. I don't claim to have an in-depth analysis of those edge cases. As a suggested place to start, if the state feels that you are able to live on your own -- provide yourself food and clothing, make choices about your location and lifestyle -- you should probably be able to make the decision to self terminate. Or rather, you are able to do that whether we like it or not, the question is really whether or not we feel we should use force to stop you. I don't think we should.
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    >of sound-mind How do we determine this? What's a sound mind? One may argue that if one wants to die they, by definition, aren't in a sound mind and need mental health services instead.
- Frondo 10y ago
  I would stop anyone about to jump out a window or run into a busy street because, regardless of their agency, those acts almost certainly involve others. The driver who strikes the person in this hypothetical, for example, would likely be traumatized, feeling all kinds of strong emotions for being involved in another's death. The would-be suicide has no right to impose that on the random driver whose vehicle they want to use to commit suicide.

pmoriarty 10y ago

"I firmly believe in the right of anybody, for any reason, to self-terminate." So if your child was about to jump out a window or run in to a busy street you wouldn't try to stop them?

paulcole 10y ago
If my adult partner truly wanted to die, I wouldn't stop her but I would encourage her to seek professional advice first and work to find a method that would be foolproof and avoid traumatizing civilian bystanders. So yes, I would stop her from running in front of a car.
sokoloff 10y ago
I would stop my child(ren) from that, but that's because I don't agree that children have that unrestricted right. Even if I did, I might still stop them (or an adult) if I believed their actions were unintentionally putting themselves in harms-way or if they were endangering others (pedestrians below or roadway users).
ci5er 10y ago
It's interesting that you jump directly to that interpretation. I would have interpreted it to mean that GP believes that the state should not restrict the right of an adult of sound-mind to self-terminate. Given the nature of the state, there would probably be forms and evaluations. Even if I were to agree with GP, I'd probably still stop my friend high on ketamine from walking in front of a bus (if he actually exists, that is).
- khedoros1 10y ago
  "anybody, for any reason" is extremely inclusive. You could argue that they meant "an adult of sound mind", or some other somewhat reasonable thing, but that's not what they said. Without a clearer specification, I think it's reasonable to push at the the edge cases to try to figure out what exactly they meant, and what limits (if any) they might like to add.
  - ci5er 10y ago
    Oh, I agree. When I read GP, I was actually a bit confounded by how my reading was so automatically self-limiting.
    - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
      Thanks guys. I meant adult of sound mind. I was going to correct or reply, but I felt it would be more useful to the forum to have folks push the edges and discuss them. I don't claim to have an in-depth analysis of those edge cases. As a suggested place to start, if the state feels that you are able to live on your own -- provide yourself food and clothing, make choices about your location and lifestyle -- you should probably be able to make the decision to self terminate. Or rather, you are able to do that whether we like it or not, the question is really whether or not we feel we should use force to stop you. I don't think we should.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  >of sound-mind How do we determine this? What's a sound mind? One may argue that if one wants to die they, by definition, aren't in a sound mind and need mental health services instead.
Frondo 10y ago
I would stop anyone about to jump out a window or run into a busy street because, regardless of their agency, those acts almost certainly involve others. The driver who strikes the person in this hypothetical, for example, would likely be traumatized, feeling all kinds of strong emotions for being involved in another's death. The would-be suicide has no right to impose that on the random driver whose vehicle they want to use to commit suicide.