5 ms·

I'd argue both are horrible trade-offs and can be somewhat lessened with better regulations. A person must have the right to chose the terms of their own exist

I'd argue both are horrible trade-offs and can be somewhat lessened with better regulations. A person must have the right to chose the terms of their own existence. A person shouldn't be pressured into that choice due to costs.

spritefs 4y ago
I disagree with this: > A person must have the right to chose the terms of their own existence. In the sense that a person doesn't have the right to choose to die, and shouldn't have the right to make that decision on behalf of someone else
- etchalon 4y ago
  Whether you believe a person has a "right" to choose to die or not, people are fully capable of making the choice, and whether you believe they have to right to or not, people are going to do it. But the harder you make it to do so, the more likely whatever method they end up choosing will harm someone else. A peaceful end with safe, regulated medications in an isolated enviroment is preferable to people jumping off buildings or in front of trains or in front of cars.
  - spritefs 4y ago
    > Whether you believe a person has a "right" to choose to die or not, people are fully capable of making the choice, and whether you believe they have to right to or not, people are going to do it. It's one thing to be able to do something, it's another thing to inform the person of the ability to do something and put pressure on them like this (a real conversion in Canada between a patient and hospital administrator): > “Roger, this is not my show,” the ethicist responded. “My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying.” And also jumping off buildings or in front of cars is a relatively uncommon way of committing suicide
    - etchalon 4y ago
      We can regulate the behaviors of doctors and staff in hospital to ensure they aren't pressuring people to make the choice due to costs. We can fire people who do so. Anecdotal tales of incompetence do not justify the removal of a person's basic right of self.
  - oceanplexian 4y ago
    The thing I really don’t like about the whole assisted dying debate, is when people use exactly that phraseology. It’s “peaceful”. It’s “safe”. There’s nothing safe or peaceful about your own death. When Nazi’s put people in gas chambers they used these kinds of semantic arguments to brainwash people into committing atrocities. No one knows what happens after or when we die. We found out after years in the US, after executions by injection which was considered humane was actually excruciatingly painful but the prisoners couldn’t scream because they were effectively paralyzed. The whole idea of this raises red flags to me.
- inkblotuniverse 4y ago
  Everyone has the Ape right do kill themselves at any time. But you should really do it yourself. If we were more virtuous, there would be little need for these laws- or rather, those who need a man in a coat to tell them they're allowed to die are emotional children.
seti0Cha 4y ago
> I'd argue both are horrible trade-offs and can be somewhat lessened with better regulations. I don't see how that's possible. Sure, the egregious cases by healthcare professionals can be prevented, but I don't see how you can prevent the soft pressure from friends and family, or even just self imposed guilt on the part of the patient. People who are sick often have to deal with depression. Feelings of being helpless and worthless are only going to be made worse knowing they are effectively choosing to be a burden by not allowing themselves to be killed. I would imagine a great many people who are not ready to die would do so out of a sense of shame or guilt and that seems really terrible to me. Palliative care and avoiding treatment that unnecessarily prolongs life can go a long way to easing the difficulty of dying from illness and I think are more humane than asking, explicitly or implicitly, for the disabled or dying to decide when they should die during what is certainly already a very difficult time.
smeej 4y ago
> A person must have the right to chose the terms of their own existence. I don't think this functions as a principle. It only seems like it applies very narrowly to the situation of ending one's life. People don't have a right to choose where, how, or to whom they're born. They don't get to select which aptitudes they have or where they struggle. There's very little they can do to change a great many things about their lives, but this doesn't strike us as a "violation of their rights" as much as "a fact of the human condition." I think you need an argument as to why the specific situation of choosing how and when to end one's life ought to be different. Death does come. When and how is (usually) not chosen by the person who dies. This seems like it's as much a part of the human condition as the randomness around being born.
- etchalon 4y ago
  The phrasing "terms of their own existence" is just a polite way to say, "You don't get to tell me I have to keep being alive." Obviously, you can't dictate what things happen to you, only how you respond to them.

spritefs 4y ago

I disagree with this: > A person must have the right to chose the terms of their own existence. In the sense that a person doesn't have the right to choose to die, and shouldn't have the right to make that decision on behalf of someone else

etchalon 4y ago
Whether you believe a person has a "right" to choose to die or not, people are fully capable of making the choice, and whether you believe they have to right to or not, people are going to do it. But the harder you make it to do so, the more likely whatever method they end up choosing will harm someone else. A peaceful end with safe, regulated medications in an isolated enviroment is preferable to people jumping off buildings or in front of trains or in front of cars.
- spritefs 4y ago
  > Whether you believe a person has a "right" to choose to die or not, people are fully capable of making the choice, and whether you believe they have to right to or not, people are going to do it. It's one thing to be able to do something, it's another thing to inform the person of the ability to do something and put pressure on them like this (a real conversion in Canada between a patient and hospital administrator): > “Roger, this is not my show,” the ethicist responded. “My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying.” And also jumping off buildings or in front of cars is a relatively uncommon way of committing suicide
  - etchalon 4y ago
    We can regulate the behaviors of doctors and staff in hospital to ensure they aren't pressuring people to make the choice due to costs. We can fire people who do so. Anecdotal tales of incompetence do not justify the removal of a person's basic right of self.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  The thing I really don’t like about the whole assisted dying debate, is when people use exactly that phraseology. It’s “peaceful”. It’s “safe”. There’s nothing safe or peaceful about your own death. When Nazi’s put people in gas chambers they used these kinds of semantic arguments to brainwash people into committing atrocities. No one knows what happens after or when we die. We found out after years in the US, after executions by injection which was considered humane was actually excruciatingly painful but the prisoners couldn’t scream because they were effectively paralyzed. The whole idea of this raises red flags to me.
inkblotuniverse 4y ago
Everyone has the Ape right do kill themselves at any time. But you should really do it yourself. If we were more virtuous, there would be little need for these laws- or rather, those who need a man in a coat to tell them they're allowed to die are emotional children.

seti0Cha 4y ago

> I'd argue both are horrible trade-offs and can be somewhat lessened with better regulations. I don't see how that's possible. Sure, the egregious cases by healthcare professionals can be prevented, but I don't see how you can prevent the soft pressure from friends and family, or even just self imposed guilt on the part of the patient. People who are sick often have to deal with depression. Feelings of being helpless and worthless are only going to be made worse knowing they are effectively choosing to be a burden by not allowing themselves to be killed. I would imagine a great many people who are not ready to die would do so out of a sense of shame or guilt and that seems really terrible to me. Palliative care and avoiding treatment that unnecessarily prolongs life can go a long way to easing the difficulty of dying from illness and I think are more humane than asking, explicitly or implicitly, for the disabled or dying to decide when they should die during what is certainly already a very difficult time.

smeej 4y ago

> A person must have the right to chose the terms of their own existence. I don't think this functions as a principle. It only seems like it applies very narrowly to the situation of ending one's life. People don't have a right to choose where, how, or to whom they're born. They don't get to select which aptitudes they have or where they struggle. There's very little they can do to change a great many things about their lives, but this doesn't strike us as a "violation of their rights" as much as "a fact of the human condition." I think you need an argument as to why the specific situation of choosing how and when to end one's life ought to be different. Death does come. When and how is (usually) not chosen by the person who dies. This seems like it's as much a part of the human condition as the randomness around being born.

etchalon 4y ago
The phrasing "terms of their own existence" is just a polite way to say, "You don't get to tell me I have to keep being alive." Obviously, you can't dictate what things happen to you, only how you respond to them.