9 ms·

Absolutely not. I believe there is a legal argument in favor of bodily autonomy which includes the right to death. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Absolutely not. I believe there is a legal argument in favor of bodily autonomy which includes the right to death. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Life is inextricably linked with death. If you have the right to live, you must also have the right to die. That belief is largely entrenched in our medical system too but stops short of doctor assisted suicide.

hprotagonist 4y ago
Does your right to die permit you to inflict trauma on others by, say, stepping in front of a train in a moment of crisis? Eating a 12 gauge and leaving your family to discover your meat splattered on the floor? etc. Am I allowed to stop that suicide? "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."
- shanebellone 4y ago
  This is such a selfish perspective. What about their trauma, pain, and sorrow?
  - hprotagonist 4y ago
    It's the exact opposite of selfish; I am pointing out that yes, people are individuals, but people are also inextricably communal as well. Choosing to end your life, like any other choice we made, is not solely about _you_ because it does not solely affect _you_. "No man is an island entire of itself; every man / is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;"
    - shanebellone 4y ago
      Death is absolute. In no circumstance can you avoid its impact. Thus, your argument is predicated upon exerting control over another human in order to control the timing of your displeasure. Preferring a loved one to suffer, indefinitely, in order to spare your feelings... is the very definition of selfish.
      - hprotagonist 4y ago
        > Preferring a loved one to suffer, indefinitely, in order to spare your feelings... is the very definition of selfish. If by this you mean "don't blow your brains out", then, yes, i agree, and i wonder if you're misreading me somehow in a way that suggests that I think you ought to be able to without interruption. Otherwise, i'm having a hard time making heads or tails of what you're saying here.
        shanebellone 4y ago
        I refuse to argue with stupid.
  - itishappy 4y ago
    That's a pretty selfish perspective yourself. Should the trauma, pain, and sorrow of others not factor into this decision? If jumping in front of a train isn't clear enough for you, should we be allowed to swerve headlong into traffic?
- runnerup 4y ago
  Language for these discussions is important. We should always put “should I be allowed” rather than “am I allowed”. I generally feel there is an inalienable right to suicide. Similar to other rights in the Declaration of Independence, this is a right that people will exercise regardless of whether it is outlawed or not and no one can stop those who wish to exercise it. It’s functionally impossible to prevent someone from committing suicide — there are countless cases where people in mental wards have a watcher-person with them 24 hours a day, less than 3 feet away at all times. And the patient will do something like suddenly sprint full speed into a wall headfirst and kill themselves. But I also believe that the person committing suicide has the duty to cause the least amount of property damage and additional overhead for others in the wake of their death. Similarly, those who survive them have the duty to process the persons death to the best of their ability. I would say that the gruesome suicides you asked about should be legal to stop, given a situation where the interruptor has a reasonable belief that: 1) there are more humane ways to commit the suicide which do less collateral damage, and 2) that the person committing suicide is not in such extreme pain that these options will take too long and cause the intervention to be a particularly cruel intermission. For example, if someone has been suffering greatly from a very bad exposure to the gympie-gympie tree and they truly need the most expedient death to relieve the pain…perhaps the train really is their best option. And it’s up to the rest of society to understand and be thankful that this person found relief from their unimaginable pain and that it is now our duty to clean up and process the aftermath.
  - itishappy 4y ago
    > Similar to other rights in the Declaration of Independence, this is a right that people will exercise regardless of whether it is outlawed or not and no one can stop those who wish to exercise it. I don't understand this argument. Should we also have an inalienable right to recreational opiates? > If someone has been suffering greatly from a very bad exposure to the gympie-gympie tree and they truly need the most expedient death to relieve the pain... This example is also confusing to me. It sounds horrific, but it's temporary and non-terminal. Not what I'd classify as a "true need for the most expedient death." I can be understanding of the desire to die in this situation, but I cannot see how this should grant everyone the right to die in the manner of their choosing. If you truly need an expedient death, as you say, the law won't stop you. Reducto ad absurdum: If I get poison ivy and can't sleep for a few nights, should I be legally allowed to swerve headlong into traffic? If we should have a right to suicide, the only way I can see it enacted is through doctor assisted suicide clinics, otherwise we open the door to even greater harm from public or botched attempts.
tshaddox 4y ago
Should you be allowed to treat someone who is unconscious? Forcibly remove someone from a burning building or vehicle?
anon291 4y ago
> Life is inextricably linked with death. Sure > If you have the right to live, you must also have the right to die. This is a non-sequitur. In fact, in so far as all human rights descend from the one in question being alive in the first place (since the dead have no rights), it makes no sense of a right to die. In the same way a right to liberty involves no right to sell one's liberty. Just like your freedom, you do not own your life. We know this because you cannot sell either your life or your freedom, thus you don't own it. Thus, despite having a right to it, you don't have the right to rid yourself of it. Here's another example. My children have a right to live in my house and receive support from me. They have no right to either sell my house or not receive support from me. Although they have a legal right to my money and protection, they cannot dispose themselves of it. Life and freedom are similar. They are something we enjoy and have a right to, but not something we own. > That belief is largely entrenched in our medical system too but stops short of doctor assisted suicide. Choosing to not undergo therapies that may or may not lengthen your life is not morally equivalent to actively choosing death.
- shanebellone 4y ago
  Straw man.
  - anon291 4y ago
    You claim a right to life implies a right to death, without any reasoning. I've pointed out why that doesn't follow (namely, the notion that one has a right to live is predicated on one being alive. You don't have rights after death). I've also pointed out that we have other rights that you cannot dispose yourself of to show that the right to life is of the same nature. What is your rebuttal?
    - shanebellone 4y ago
      You're comparing property law to bodily autonomy. How can I take you seriously?
      - 4y ago

hprotagonist 4y ago

Does your right to die permit you to inflict trauma on others by, say, stepping in front of a train in a moment of crisis? Eating a 12 gauge and leaving your family to discover your meat splattered on the floor? etc. Am I allowed to stop that suicide? "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

shanebellone 4y ago
This is such a selfish perspective. What about their trauma, pain, and sorrow?
- hprotagonist 4y ago
  It's the exact opposite of selfish; I am pointing out that yes, people are individuals, but people are also inextricably communal as well. Choosing to end your life, like any other choice we made, is not solely about _you_ because it does not solely affect _you_. "No man is an island entire of itself; every man / is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;"
  - shanebellone 4y ago
    Death is absolute. In no circumstance can you avoid its impact. Thus, your argument is predicated upon exerting control over another human in order to control the timing of your displeasure. Preferring a loved one to suffer, indefinitely, in order to spare your feelings... is the very definition of selfish.
    - hprotagonist 4y ago
      > Preferring a loved one to suffer, indefinitely, in order to spare your feelings... is the very definition of selfish. If by this you mean "don't blow your brains out", then, yes, i agree, and i wonder if you're misreading me somehow in a way that suggests that I think you ought to be able to without interruption. Otherwise, i'm having a hard time making heads or tails of what you're saying here.
      - shanebellone 4y ago
        I refuse to argue with stupid.
- itishappy 4y ago
  That's a pretty selfish perspective yourself. Should the trauma, pain, and sorrow of others not factor into this decision? If jumping in front of a train isn't clear enough for you, should we be allowed to swerve headlong into traffic?
runnerup 4y ago
Language for these discussions is important. We should always put “should I be allowed” rather than “am I allowed”. I generally feel there is an inalienable right to suicide. Similar to other rights in the Declaration of Independence, this is a right that people will exercise regardless of whether it is outlawed or not and no one can stop those who wish to exercise it. It’s functionally impossible to prevent someone from committing suicide — there are countless cases where people in mental wards have a watcher-person with them 24 hours a day, less than 3 feet away at all times. And the patient will do something like suddenly sprint full speed into a wall headfirst and kill themselves. But I also believe that the person committing suicide has the duty to cause the least amount of property damage and additional overhead for others in the wake of their death. Similarly, those who survive them have the duty to process the persons death to the best of their ability. I would say that the gruesome suicides you asked about should be legal to stop, given a situation where the interruptor has a reasonable belief that: 1) there are more humane ways to commit the suicide which do less collateral damage, and 2) that the person committing suicide is not in such extreme pain that these options will take too long and cause the intervention to be a particularly cruel intermission. For example, if someone has been suffering greatly from a very bad exposure to the gympie-gympie tree and they truly need the most expedient death to relieve the pain…perhaps the train really is their best option. And it’s up to the rest of society to understand and be thankful that this person found relief from their unimaginable pain and that it is now our duty to clean up and process the aftermath.
- itishappy 4y ago
  > Similar to other rights in the Declaration of Independence, this is a right that people will exercise regardless of whether it is outlawed or not and no one can stop those who wish to exercise it. I don't understand this argument. Should we also have an inalienable right to recreational opiates? > If someone has been suffering greatly from a very bad exposure to the gympie-gympie tree and they truly need the most expedient death to relieve the pain... This example is also confusing to me. It sounds horrific, but it's temporary and non-terminal. Not what I'd classify as a "true need for the most expedient death." I can be understanding of the desire to die in this situation, but I cannot see how this should grant everyone the right to die in the manner of their choosing. If you truly need an expedient death, as you say, the law won't stop you. Reducto ad absurdum: If I get poison ivy and can't sleep for a few nights, should I be legally allowed to swerve headlong into traffic? If we should have a right to suicide, the only way I can see it enacted is through doctor assisted suicide clinics, otherwise we open the door to even greater harm from public or botched attempts.

tshaddox 4y ago

Should you be allowed to treat someone who is unconscious? Forcibly remove someone from a burning building or vehicle?

anon291 4y ago

> Life is inextricably linked with death. Sure > If you have the right to live, you must also have the right to die. This is a non-sequitur. In fact, in so far as all human rights descend from the one in question being alive in the first place (since the dead have no rights), it makes no sense of a right to die. In the same way a right to liberty involves no right to sell one's liberty. Just like your freedom, you do not own your life. We know this because you cannot sell either your life or your freedom, thus you don't own it. Thus, despite having a right to it, you don't have the right to rid yourself of it. Here's another example. My children have a right to live in my house and receive support from me. They have no right to either sell my house or not receive support from me. Although they have a legal right to my money and protection, they cannot dispose themselves of it. Life and freedom are similar. They are something we enjoy and have a right to, but not something we own. > That belief is largely entrenched in our medical system too but stops short of doctor assisted suicide. Choosing to not undergo therapies that may or may not lengthen your life is not morally equivalent to actively choosing death.

shanebellone 4y ago
Straw man.
- anon291 4y ago
  You claim a right to life implies a right to death, without any reasoning. I've pointed out why that doesn't follow (namely, the notion that one has a right to live is predicated on one being alive. You don't have rights after death). I've also pointed out that we have other rights that you cannot dispose yourself of to show that the right to life is of the same nature. What is your rebuttal?
  - shanebellone 4y ago
    You're comparing property law to bodily autonomy. How can I take you seriously?
    - 4y ago