5 ms·

> I'm pro right to die, but it's complicated. > I think I should have the right to say "Nope. I'm done with this crap." This is a pretty standard way of stakin

> I'm pro right to die, but it's complicated. > I think I should have the right to say "Nope. I'm done with this crap." This is a pretty standard way of staking out a position on this topic but I think it is quite misleading. Laws regarding euthanasia have very little if anything to do with limiting the actions of someone who wants to die or protecting their "rights". After all they can't be prosecuted after they have passed. Without some special provisions, a doctor or anyone else who assists in someone's death could be prosecuted for criminal homicide. And once you've carved out that exception you also have to devise a way to protect an individual from being killed by someone under the pretense of lawfully assisting with their suicide. So it isn't really about the "right to die" but instead is about regulating homicide. I know that sounds strange, but there are several legal principles that could be described as "regulating homicide". For example committing homicide in self-defense or in order to protect someone or as part of a lawful military action.

DoreenMichele 7y ago
Thank you for this comment.
kazinator 7y ago
It does (also) end up being about the right to die, because some people need assistance in dying, and those who help them are criminalized. In a nutshell, a right whose realization you cannot delegate to another person is not a bona fide right. Of course, delegating suicide to someone results in homicide, so everything you write is spot on. But the effect is only those who do not need help have the right to die; those who need help effectively do not.
- gwright 7y ago
  I'm not sure I agree with what you are asserting. There is the idea of "negative rights". These are rights that don't require the actions of a third party in order to be satisfied. For example, the right to not be assaulted only requires that other people not assault you. And the right to ownership of private property only requires that other people not take your property. On the other hand a "positive right" can not be satisfied without active participation of someone else and if that right is to be guaranteed it may require that someone else be forced to do something. For example, the right to an education requires that schools, teachers, books, and other materials be provided. The conceptual problem with positive rights is that they can only be guaranteed by infringing on someone else's negative rights. For example, the right to an education requires the forceable collection of taxes in order to fund the education system or perhaps the forceable assignment of careers to ensure enough teachers and administrators. Most people are willing to find a middle ground but that only goes so far as can be seen when people complain about high taxes or wasteful government spending. The difficulty with your position is that it creates a situation where someone might have to be forced to kill someone despite their wishes. Let's presume that the law has been adjusted to permit someone to assist in your suicide without putting themselves in jeopardy of being prosecuted for murder (and relaxing the law like this has its own dangers). You still need to locate a person who is willing to help you. What if you don't know any such person? What if everyone you ask says that they don't want to participate? Can you assert your right and demand that someone be forced to assist you? Since you are asserting there is a "right to die" it only follows that your desire for assistance can't be denied, someone must force someone else to assist you. The way out of this conundrum, in my opinion, is to realize that there is no such "right to die".
  - kazinator 7y ago
    > Can you assert your right and demand that someone be forced to assist you? I would say, the proper interpretation of rights such as "right to education" or "right to die" is that nobody may stand in your way of exercising them, not that others must be coerced into provisioning roles. (The coercive aspect is an interpretation taken by collectivist societies with regard to certain expensive needs.)
    - gwright 7y ago
      Ok, but then you don't need any special "right to education". You just need all usual individual freedoms (property, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc.) We could just call that "liberty". There is no need to argue about some nearly-infinite list of "rights to X" when that is all covered by the simple idea of being left alone. But the moment you say that you in order to excercise your "right to X" someone is obligated to provide something to you, then you are back into the coercion game again.
      - kazinator 7y ago
        Even if you have all sorts of freedoms, those freedoms by themselves don't allow you to attend and get a diploma from an institution that has not accepted you as a student. An institution could reject applicants for unfair reasons, and that would be one area where education as a right could be used as an instrument for intervention. (Unfair reasons would be ones that have nothing to do with academic placement or ability to pay: right to education doesn't have to mean that a school has to take everyone who applies, and those who can't pay tuition.)
        gwright 7y ago
        Of course freedoms don't guarantee an outcome. That isn't what freedom is about. In your example it assumes some higher authority that intervenes to ensure that you get what is your right. What about the person you are replacing in that incoming class? For you to get the spot that you deserve someone else has to lose their spot (assuming there is a finite capacity). Wasn't their "right" just violated? As a thought experiment you can simplify this a bit more by thinking about an even more basic necessity. Food. Is there a "right to food"? That sounds like a positive right to me. It can only be guaranteed by someone else doing something for me (i.e. providing me with food). So why should I have to pay for my groceries? Shouldn't I be able to just go somewhere and get all the food I need because it is my right? If you say that I need to pay for it, then it certainly doesn't sound like a right to me, that just sounds like commerce. Once you drop the requirement that someone else provide the food to me, then I would argue you aren't really talking about a basic "right" at that point. Certainly it is a necessity to live, but that doesn't mean that the universe will magically provide that necessity to me nor does it mean that someone else should be forced to provide it to me.
downerending 7y ago
Disagree. Yes, anyone can commit suicide. But doing so without medical assistance usually involves leaving a huge, traumatic mess for our fellow humans to deal with. For the good of all concerned, including the about-to-be deceased, reasonable self-euthanasia should be supported. (An additional benefit is that it would help identify people who are suicidally depressed for not-reasonable reasons, and get them help, or at least someone to talk to.)
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  Dying of cancer in a hospital leaves a huge traumatic mess for people to clean up too. Chances are they're cleaning up for you for days and weeks, and the trauma of dying is still going to crush your loved ones. One day of scrubbing blood vs weeks of changing bedpans, catheters, and cleaning up other messes.
  - downerending 7y ago
    Indeed--I don't advocate either of those. Rather, physician-assisted suicide should be more broadly allowed.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

Thank you for this comment.

kazinator 7y ago

It does (also) end up being about the right to die, because some people need assistance in dying, and those who help them are criminalized. In a nutshell, a right whose realization you cannot delegate to another person is not a bona fide right. Of course, delegating suicide to someone results in homicide, so everything you write is spot on. But the effect is only those who do not need help have the right to die; those who need help effectively do not.

gwright 7y ago
I'm not sure I agree with what you are asserting. There is the idea of "negative rights". These are rights that don't require the actions of a third party in order to be satisfied. For example, the right to not be assaulted only requires that other people not assault you. And the right to ownership of private property only requires that other people not take your property. On the other hand a "positive right" can not be satisfied without active participation of someone else and if that right is to be guaranteed it may require that someone else be forced to do something. For example, the right to an education requires that schools, teachers, books, and other materials be provided. The conceptual problem with positive rights is that they can only be guaranteed by infringing on someone else's negative rights. For example, the right to an education requires the forceable collection of taxes in order to fund the education system or perhaps the forceable assignment of careers to ensure enough teachers and administrators. Most people are willing to find a middle ground but that only goes so far as can be seen when people complain about high taxes or wasteful government spending. The difficulty with your position is that it creates a situation where someone might have to be forced to kill someone despite their wishes. Let's presume that the law has been adjusted to permit someone to assist in your suicide without putting themselves in jeopardy of being prosecuted for murder (and relaxing the law like this has its own dangers). You still need to locate a person who is willing to help you. What if you don't know any such person? What if everyone you ask says that they don't want to participate? Can you assert your right and demand that someone be forced to assist you? Since you are asserting there is a "right to die" it only follows that your desire for assistance can't be denied, someone must force someone else to assist you. The way out of this conundrum, in my opinion, is to realize that there is no such "right to die".
- kazinator 7y ago
  > Can you assert your right and demand that someone be forced to assist you? I would say, the proper interpretation of rights such as "right to education" or "right to die" is that nobody may stand in your way of exercising them, not that others must be coerced into provisioning roles. (The coercive aspect is an interpretation taken by collectivist societies with regard to certain expensive needs.)
  - gwright 7y ago
    Ok, but then you don't need any special "right to education". You just need all usual individual freedoms (property, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc.) We could just call that "liberty". There is no need to argue about some nearly-infinite list of "rights to X" when that is all covered by the simple idea of being left alone. But the moment you say that you in order to excercise your "right to X" someone is obligated to provide something to you, then you are back into the coercion game again.
    - kazinator 7y ago
      Even if you have all sorts of freedoms, those freedoms by themselves don't allow you to attend and get a diploma from an institution that has not accepted you as a student. An institution could reject applicants for unfair reasons, and that would be one area where education as a right could be used as an instrument for intervention. (Unfair reasons would be ones that have nothing to do with academic placement or ability to pay: right to education doesn't have to mean that a school has to take everyone who applies, and those who can't pay tuition.)
      - gwright 7y ago
        Of course freedoms don't guarantee an outcome. That isn't what freedom is about. In your example it assumes some higher authority that intervenes to ensure that you get what is your right. What about the person you are replacing in that incoming class? For you to get the spot that you deserve someone else has to lose their spot (assuming there is a finite capacity). Wasn't their "right" just violated? As a thought experiment you can simplify this a bit more by thinking about an even more basic necessity. Food. Is there a "right to food"? That sounds like a positive right to me. It can only be guaranteed by someone else doing something for me (i.e. providing me with food). So why should I have to pay for my groceries? Shouldn't I be able to just go somewhere and get all the food I need because it is my right? If you say that I need to pay for it, then it certainly doesn't sound like a right to me, that just sounds like commerce. Once you drop the requirement that someone else provide the food to me, then I would argue you aren't really talking about a basic "right" at that point. Certainly it is a necessity to live, but that doesn't mean that the universe will magically provide that necessity to me nor does it mean that someone else should be forced to provide it to me.

downerending 7y ago

Disagree. Yes, anyone can commit suicide. But doing so without medical assistance usually involves leaving a huge, traumatic mess for our fellow humans to deal with. For the good of all concerned, including the about-to-be deceased, reasonable self-euthanasia should be supported. (An additional benefit is that it would help identify people who are suicidally depressed for not-reasonable reasons, and get them help, or at least someone to talk to.)

blaser-waffle 7y ago
Dying of cancer in a hospital leaves a huge traumatic mess for people to clean up too. Chances are they're cleaning up for you for days and weeks, and the trauma of dying is still going to crush your loved ones. One day of scrubbing blood vs weeks of changing bedpans, catheters, and cleaning up other messes.
- downerending 7y ago
  Indeed--I don't advocate either of those. Rather, physician-assisted suicide should be more broadly allowed.