4 ms·

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 ri

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.
- runnerup 4y ago
  > 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? I mean, you correctly labeled the fallacy here. Yours is a plainly terrible example. The pain of poison Ivy would clearly not be so great as to require immediate relief. Returning to clarity: I think most reasonable people would agree that there exists pain which is severe enough to require immediate relief in the form of death. You might not, but I don’t think that’s reasonable. You say anything that’s “temporary and non-terminal” should not qualify for the right to die. I’m incredulous that you cannot imagine ANY torture so great that someone should be allowed to die rather than endure it for some indefinite amount of time. Instead I pose a reductio ad absurdum to you: Lets say I create a machine which causes you more pain than any human has ever experienced, but does not otherwise harm you. I connect you to this machine with a button you can press to kill yourself but it will also cause 30 seconds of pain to a random person in another room. Other prisoners in your room share your beliefs and tie your hand so that you cannot press that button. You will be connected to this machine until the final year of your life, at which point you will get one final year without this pain. Should the other prisoners let you press the button? The point here is to acknowledge that there exists a spectrum. And that somewhere on that spectrum, a person should be allowed to kill themselves even if it causes some discomfort to others. We might disagree where that point lies but my goal is for us to agree that it exists. > Should we also have an inalienable right to recreational opiates? This doesn’t fit my example at all. It’s possible to remove opiates from society if you spend enough on the project. Whereas inalienable rights like protesting the government, finding shelter, finding food, etc cannot be prevented before they occur, only punished after. A better counter example would be murder if you’d like to use that instead. Instead, I’d like to ask you what your concept of an “inalienable right” is and how “finding relief for unendurable pain” doesnt fit in your definition. An interesting corollary would be the right to self-defense. If someone unjustly attacks me and I believe the attack threatens to break my arm but does not threaten to kill me, I am allowed to use a similar degree of force to defend myself. And if, in the course of defending myself, I accidentally knock over an old lady to the ground and she dies…the attacker gets blamed for that, not me. I had a right to protect myself from the pain of a broken arm, even though it would get better eventually. If I’m a bystander, should I prevent the person from defending themself because someone else might get hurt in the frenzy and it’s only a temporary pain of a broken arm? Why do you blame the person who is being threatened with more pain, rather than the attacker (the gympie gympie tree)?
ciupicri 4y ago
> the patient will do something like suddenly sprint full speed into a wall headfirst and kill themselves Aren't the walls cushioned for exactly this reason?
- runnerup 4y ago
  Not in most hospitals.

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.

runnerup 4y ago
> 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? I mean, you correctly labeled the fallacy here. Yours is a plainly terrible example. The pain of poison Ivy would clearly not be so great as to require immediate relief. Returning to clarity: I think most reasonable people would agree that there exists pain which is severe enough to require immediate relief in the form of death. You might not, but I don’t think that’s reasonable. You say anything that’s “temporary and non-terminal” should not qualify for the right to die. I’m incredulous that you cannot imagine ANY torture so great that someone should be allowed to die rather than endure it for some indefinite amount of time. Instead I pose a reductio ad absurdum to you: Lets say I create a machine which causes you more pain than any human has ever experienced, but does not otherwise harm you. I connect you to this machine with a button you can press to kill yourself but it will also cause 30 seconds of pain to a random person in another room. Other prisoners in your room share your beliefs and tie your hand so that you cannot press that button. You will be connected to this machine until the final year of your life, at which point you will get one final year without this pain. Should the other prisoners let you press the button? The point here is to acknowledge that there exists a spectrum. And that somewhere on that spectrum, a person should be allowed to kill themselves even if it causes some discomfort to others. We might disagree where that point lies but my goal is for us to agree that it exists. > Should we also have an inalienable right to recreational opiates? This doesn’t fit my example at all. It’s possible to remove opiates from society if you spend enough on the project. Whereas inalienable rights like protesting the government, finding shelter, finding food, etc cannot be prevented before they occur, only punished after. A better counter example would be murder if you’d like to use that instead. Instead, I’d like to ask you what your concept of an “inalienable right” is and how “finding relief for unendurable pain” doesnt fit in your definition. An interesting corollary would be the right to self-defense. If someone unjustly attacks me and I believe the attack threatens to break my arm but does not threaten to kill me, I am allowed to use a similar degree of force to defend myself. And if, in the course of defending myself, I accidentally knock over an old lady to the ground and she dies…the attacker gets blamed for that, not me. I had a right to protect myself from the pain of a broken arm, even though it would get better eventually. If I’m a bystander, should I prevent the person from defending themself because someone else might get hurt in the frenzy and it’s only a temporary pain of a broken arm? Why do you blame the person who is being threatened with more pain, rather than the attacker (the gympie gympie tree)?

ciupicri 4y ago

> the patient will do something like suddenly sprint full speed into a wall headfirst and kill themselves Aren't the walls cushioned for exactly this reason?

runnerup 4y ago
Not in most hospitals.