Euthanasia Nitwits

[Darth Mordius]

Article

Canadian woman dies at Dignitas assisted suicide clinic in Zurich


(From the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition)

Elizabeth Jeanette MacDonald of Windsor Nova Scotia recently died at the Dignitas assisted suicide clinic in Zurich Switzerland, possibly with the help of the Right to Die Society of Canada. Ms. MacDonald, who lived many years with Multiple Sclerosis, died on June 8, 2007.

In the obituary listed in the Halifax Chronicle Herald on June 20, 2007 it stated that: "Last, but not least, we would like to thank Herr Ludwig Minelli, and the members of Dignitas in Zurich (Bernard and "Gaby", in particular), for helping Elizabeth deliver herself from the burden of a life which had become too great to bear.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is primarily concerned with the care that is provided and attitudes toward vulnerable people in Canada. The act of assisted suicide must be debated within the realm of the total social effect it has on society and primarily its effect on people with disabilities and other vulnerable Canadians.

Section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada states that: Every one who (a) counsels a person to commit suicide, or (b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

As someone with MS, Mark Pickup, the founder of Human Life Matters [email protected] says that he is concerned about the abandonment of people with MS and other disabilities. Mr. Pickup stated that: "The fact that MacDonald was accompanied to a suicide clinic represents the ultimate abandonment.

We have a responsibility to the common good of society, not just to ourselves. We must consider the wider implications to all people with MS, people with disabilities, and other people who are vulnerable.

It is very disheartening to hear these stories, said Mr. Pickup. We do not have the right to assisted suicide but we do have the right to demand the best possible care whether it be physical, psychological or spiritual.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition asks the question of Canadian legal authorities. Did someone aid, abet or counsel MacDonald to commit suicide in Zurich? Did someone travel with MacDonald in order to enable her to fulfill this act? Did the Right to Die Society of Canada provide information or counsel MacDonald? Has the Criminal Code of Canada been broken by this act?

Contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: 1-877-439-3348 or [email protected]
http://www.herald.ns.ca/announcements/d ... 0~16151294

Saw an article about this in the newspaper. This just drives me nuts. To top off the fact that this woman had to fly to Switzerland to do this, these hat-fuckers want her family prosecuted! Just where do they get off on doing this?
Then theres this Mark Pickup nitwit. Personally, when I die - naturally or otherwise - I want my family by me. If they refused to be there I would call it abandonment.

These meddlers just piss me right off.

[Justforfun000]

Just as much as you have the right to live, you have the right to die. Period. Obviously suicide in most cases should be EXTREMELY regulated, and only in the most egregious of cases should it be condoned, but a horrible, suffering illness that will not improve is certainly one of the best reasons.

[Singular Intellect]

Just as much as you have the right to live, you have the right to die. Period. Obviously suicide in most cases should be EXTREMELY regulated, and only in the most egregious of cases should it be condoned, but a horrible, suffering illness that will not improve is certainly one of the best reasons.

Question for you: Suppose an individual of healthy status and sound mind wishes to commit sucide, with their reasoning for this desire being "Not interested in life anymore" or "Life doesn't offer me enough incentive to continue".

Would you object to their right to commit suicide, or support it?

[Broomstick]

Where are these "hat-fuckers" coming from?

At the root of their concern is one, or both, of two ideas. The first is that human life is not to be delibrately taken. The second is the fear that an option to die will become a duty to die. A corrallary of the second fear is that if euthanasia becomes legal/acceptable, money will be put into that instead of help disabled people who DO want to live, but need some assistance to do so.

After all, what is and isn't tolerable varies considerably from one person to another. Here in SD.netland I have seen posts stating that this person or that would rather be dead that blind or deaf. On the other hand, we have deaf members who don't seem to be suffering to the point of wanting to die, and while I personally would be pissed off to lose my sight and very, very unhappy about it I've known enough blind people personally to realize that it's not necessarially a living hell and I'd want to adapt rather than die. Ditto for people missing limbs, in wheelchairs, suffering from severe mental disease....

Combing legal euthanasia with someone who would make a statement like "children with spina bifida would be better off dead - we should put them out of the misery if their parents were too stupid to abort them" tends to send a chill of fear down the backbone of folks like my Other Half who, despite spina bifida and the very real problems it causes, has nonetheless found life enjoyable and worthwhile. He's also done a number of things like scuba diving, skydiving, piloting, hanggliding, and the like which many people with normal bodies never even attempt, so you really have to wonder who's missing out on life here. There was really nothing at his birth to indicate he would have such a positive outcome - at birth his spinal cord was exposed to the open air and it required reconstructive techniques to close the defect in the vetebrae and cover it with muscle and skin. At the time, such a birth defect normally had a life expectancy of six weeks, which justified the highly experimental (for the time) and risky surgery.

By the way - he'll be 50 years old next year.

(The surgery is now routine for infants born with this condition, and these days has even better results)

So some of the "hat-fuckers" are looking at people like my spouse, who despite a poor initial prognosis did very well. And they look at people like Christopher Reeve, Hellen Keller, and Stephen Hawking who, despite very real disabilities, nonethess had or still have active, productive lives. Their argument is that before we make it easy for people with disabilities to die we first have the obligation to give them every opportunity and whatever assistance is required to enable them to live meaningful lives first.

And some of the "hat-fuckers" will argue that it is NEVER ethical to take a human life, even when that person is severely disabled.

Either category can be quite passionate because they believe they are preventing murder. Wouldn't YOU be passionate about preventing murder? Put the family in jail? Of course - don't we jail people for attempted murder?

(Please note that the above is NOT necessarially the precise personal view of the poster - parts of the above are used for dramatic effect and not as a reflection of personal views)

[Justforfun000]

Question for you: Suppose an individual of healthy status and sound mind wishes to commit sucide, with their reasoning for this desire being "Not interested in life anymore" or "Life doesn't offer me enough incentive to continue".

Would you object to their right to commit suicide, or support it?

No I think I'd object because that doesn't seem reasonable to me. Depression is not the same thing as a horribly progressive disease that induces such suffering that death could be preferable.

People can change their moods and their enjoyment of life by changing their patterns of thinking and behaviour. Life is about change ultimately, so things can always improve if you have your health (in general).

You can't have the right to die as being too easy to grant because it would be a nightmare. Only in truly extenuating circumstances and with VERY clear certainty on the person suffering that wishes to pass on should it be granted in my opinion.

[Justforfun000]

I'd also like to say in response to Broomstick's post above that I personally wouldn't consider assisting someone with suicide in the right circumstances "murder". Isn't murder taking someone's life from them AGAINST their will?

I'm actually unsure what Broomstick's position is on this, but if I interpret it correctly it's probably in between the two extremes and very likely the same as my own. I definitely DON'T support routine killing of any babies that are "defective".

[Starglider]

Would you object to their right to commit suicide, or support it?

I would not try to prevent people of sound mind taking their own life. IMHO this is a stupid and futile endeavour for practical as well as moral reasons. However my standards for 'of sound mind' would be pretty strict, were I magically empowered to enforce them (probably involving mandatory counselling and a several month 'cooling off' period, obviously not practical in reality right now). I do not condone assisted suicide unless there is extreme pain and the patient is incapacitated, but then in principle I would support genemodding all newly created humans to be able to commit suicide by act of will (by setting a 'suicide timer' mental flag every day for three months say), along with a host of other baseline 'fix the incredibly stupid things about humanity that no sentient being should have to put up with' improvements.

[Darth Mordius]

Where are these "hat-fuckers" coming from?

At the root of their concern is one, or both, of two ideas. The first is that human life is not to be delibrately taken. The second is the fear that an option to die will become a duty to die. A corrallary of the second fear is that if euthanasia becomes legal/acceptable, money will be put into that instead of help disabled people who DO want to live, but need some assistance to do so.

Naturally, I don't think we should be taking money out of helping people live and putting it into helping people die. I don't understand the idea that life must never be taken. I'm almost a pacifist, but if someone wants to die, it's their choice.

After all, what is and isn't tolerable varies considerably from one person to another. Here in SD.netland I have seen posts stating that this person or that would rather be dead that blind or deaf. On the other hand, we have deaf members who don't seem to be suffering to the point of wanting to die, and while I personally would be pissed off to lose my sight and very, very unhappy about it I've known enough blind people personally to realize that it's not necessarially a living hell and I'd want to adapt rather than die. Ditto for people missing limbs, in wheelchairs, suffering from severe mental disease....

Combing legal euthanasia with someone who would make a statement like "children with spina bifida would be better off dead - we should put them out of the misery if their parents were too stupid to abort them" tends to send a chill of fear down the backbone of folks like my Other Half who, despite spina bifida and the very real problems it causes, has nonetheless found life enjoyable and worthwhile. He's also done a number of things like scuba diving, skydiving, piloting, hanggliding, and the like which many people with normal bodies never even attempt, so you really have to wonder who's missing out on life here. There was really nothing at his birth to indicate he would have such a positive outcome - at birth his spinal cord was exposed to the open air and it required reconstructive techniques to close the defect in the vetebrae and cover it with muscle and skin. At the time, such a birth defect normally had a life expectancy of six weeks, which justified the highly experimental (for the time) and risky surgery.

By the way - he'll be 50 years old next year.

(The surgery is now routine for infants born with this condition, and these days has even better results)

Obviously, no one wants to execute people with diseases or disabilities.

So some of the "hat-fuckers" are looking at people like my spouse, who despite a poor initial prognosis did very well. And they look at people like Christopher Reeve, Hellen Keller, and Stephen Hawking who, despite very real disabilities, nonethess had or still have active, productive lives. Their argument is that before we make it easy for people with disabilities to die we first have the obligation to give them every opportunity and whatever assistance is required to enable them to live meaningful lives first.

Fine with me. As far as I can tell, the particular lady in this article had a fatal, painful disease. She had all the possible assistance to enable her to live a full life. It wasn't enough, because medical science is hardly omnipotent.

And some of the "hat-fuckers" will argue that it is NEVER ethical to take a human life, even when that person is severely disabled.

If someone wants out, it's their own bloody business. If they want to take a chemical cocktail and go out comfortably, rather than leaping off a building or blowing the back of their head off with a shotgun, I believe they should have that option.

Either category can be quite passionate because they believe they are preventing murder. Wouldn't YOU be passionate about preventing murder? Put the family in jail? Of course - don't we jail people for attempted murder?

Of course I'm passionate about preventing murder. I'm even passionate about preventing suicide: if anyone ever came to me about killing themselves, I'd try my hardest to convince them otherwise. I love life, I wish it was longer. To see someone throw theirs away pains me. That said, it's their life. If they decide, after all's said and done that they don't want to live I would support the right of even a healthy person to commit suicide, or be assisted in doing so.

(Please note that the above is NOT necessarially the precise personal view of the poster - parts of the above are used for dramatic effect and not as a reflection of personal views)

Duly noted. While the effort to inform is appreciated, I still think these peoples actions are despicable. There is nothing to be gained by hurting the family, except a feel-good high for moral crusaders.

[Broomstick]

I'd also like to say in response to Broomstick's post above that I personally wouldn't consider assisting someone with suicide in the right circumstances "murder". Isn't murder taking someone's life from them AGAINST their will?

By your definition, yes.

However, other people operate from a different position. In fact, some people call suicide "self-murder".

This is one reason we have ethical conflicts (although certainly not the only one)

I'm actually unsure what Broomstick's position is on this

Which was, in fact, my intention - I did not want to enter this debate with my own views, but rather by attempting to explain how other people could come to a very different moral position than the OP

[Gil Hamilton]

So some of the "hat-fuckers" are looking at people like my spouse, who despite a poor initial prognosis did very well. And they look at people like Christopher Reeve, Hellen Keller, and Stephen Hawking who, despite very real disabilities, nonethess had or still have active, productive lives. Their argument is that before we make it easy for people with disabilities to die we first have the obligation to give them every opportunity and whatever assistance is required to enable them to live meaningful lives first.

What people are outraged at the "hat fuckers" is that they not only want to remove any choice on the matter from how a person meets their end, but they want to throw people in jail for years for saving their love ones from considerable suffering.

I'll use an example you did. Stephen Hawking. Even with the best medical care available, there is a significant chance that he is going to die by choking to death on his own saliva, after every part of him except his brain has been completely ruined. Now, what if he decided one day, "I've had a good run, my affairs have been sorted out, the unified theory thing panned out... I'm ready to go". At what point does it give any "hat fucker" the right to tell him "No, you'll just have to let your condition kill you, and more over, if anyone tries to help you we'll send them to jail"? Why should some "hat fucker" have any say on how a person decides to meet their end or decide that a family isn't allowed to give mercy to a loved one?

And some of the "hat-fuckers" will argue that it is NEVER ethical to take a human life, even when that person is severely disabled.

Either category can be quite passionate because they believe they are preventing murder. Wouldn't YOU be passionate about preventing murder? Put the family in jail? Of course - don't we jail people for attempted murder?

How can it be murder if it is not against the person's will but in fact is his will?

Besides, how many of said "hat fuckers" actually argue that is NEVER ethical to take a human life? The last pro-life anti-euthanasia person I've talked to in person I happen to know wouldn't bat an eye if Israel killed every last person in the Territories and voted for Bush on the basis of his supposed support of Israel on top of the whole pro-life thing (so he was a two issue voter instead of one issue). Exactly how pro-life is the the pro-life movement anyway and why haven't the people who have genuine think it is NEVER ethical to take a life completely divorced itself from the "hat fuckers"?

[Broomstick]

Where are these "hat-fuckers" coming from?

At the root of their concern is one, or both, of two ideas. The first is that human life is not to be delibrately taken. The second is the fear that an option to die will become a duty to die. A corrallary of the second fear is that if euthanasia becomes legal/acceptable, money will be put into that instead of help disabled people who DO want to live, but need some assistance to do so.

Naturally, I don't think we should be taking money out of helping people live and putting it into helping people die.

I find that very reassuring.

However, I have to wonder if the same people who justify captial punishment on the grounds that it's cheaper to kill someone than to maintain them in even minimal conditions for life imprisonment might be tempted to "influence" people with serious, debilitating conditions to take the cheap way out.

Also, providing the assistance - medical, equipment, and educational - needed to make a good life for people with disabilites can become extremely expensive. It's not profitable. The US has a medical system that is partly for-profit, with non-profit and charity care becoming rarer. If you aren't provided the equipment you need, perhaps you would prefer death to being imprisoned in bed 24/7 with no links to the outside world, no stimulation for your mind beyond broadcast TV, and rampaging bedsores. That does happen to people - and it's inexcusable because it is so not necessary.

I don't understand the idea that life must never be taken. I'm almost a pacifist, but if someone wants to die, it's their choice.

Then you and the Pope disagree (as just one example)

Obviously, no one wants to execute people with diseases or disabilities.

Adolf Hitler
Jack Kevorkian
Several doctors and nurses who have been prosecuted for murder over time.

Actually, frightening as it may be, there ARE people who feel they have a right to make such decisions for other people.

Fine with me. As far as I can tell, the particular lady in this article had a fatal, painful disease. She had all the possible assistance to enable her to live a full life. It wasn't enough, because medical science is hardly omnipotent.

The problem is that in the US all too many people AREN'T given "all the possible assistance".

And some of the "hat-fuckers" will argue that it is NEVER ethical to take a human life, even when that person is severely disabled.

If someone wants out, it's their own bloody business.

No, it's NOT just their business - death affects everyone connected to a person. Suicide does not take place in a vacuum. Now, there may be times when ending the suffering of one takes precedence over the sadness and suffering that death will cause others, but I think that's a very tough case to make.

If they want to take a chemical cocktail and go out comfortably, rather than leaping off a building or blowing the back of their head off with a shotgun, I believe they should have that option.

Whether they legally have it or not, I prefer (if that term is even applicable) suicides that minimally involve others. Nothing says "I'm a selfish, attention-seeking asshole" quite like doing a header off a building into a busy street or distributing one's body parts and fluids on the front end of a moving vehicle full of other human beings.

And while the severely ill/disabled are less likely than able-bodied depressives to go out in such a showy manner it's not impossible for it to occur.

I would support the right of even a healthy person to commit suicide, or be assisted in doing so.

I cannot agree.

I didn't believe that before. Since the day my sister killed herself I believe it even less.

There is nothing to be gained by hurting the family, except a feel-good high for moral crusaders.

And I repeat - for those who believe that killing anyone, for any reason, is murder it is a matter of punishing pre-meditated murder. A matter of law and order. From their viewpoint you might as well argue that it is useless to prosecute someone who kills their spouse or a co-worker since it won't bring back the murdered person.

[Gil Hamilton]

Adolf Hitler
Jack Kevorkian
Several doctors and nurses who have been prosecuted for murder over time.

Actually, frightening as it may be, there ARE people who feel they have a right to make such decisions for other people.

There absolutely are people who feel they have a right to make such decisions for other people, but eugenicists and stressed out doctors make up a small percentage of them.

Most people who are against people making choices over their own lives are squarely in the pro-life camp. They are the primary source of people who feel they have a right to make decisions for other people and their lives.

No, it's NOT just their business - death affects everyone connected to a person. Suicide does not take place in a vacuum. Now, there may be times when ending the suffering of one takes precedence over the sadness and suffering that death will cause others, but I think that's a very tough case to make.

Why isn't it there business? Do people have no right to their own lives? Emotional "I don't like it" arguments aside, why shouldn't a person have the right to determine how they meet their own end? A person's own life is the only thing that really honestly belongs to them, they should certainly have a majority say in how it terminates.

I cannot agree.

I didn't believe that before. Since the day my sister killed herself I believe it even less.

Is this not an appeal to emotions? I'm sorry for your loss, but it really doesn't have any affect on the ethical argument of whether or not a person has the right to determine their own end or not.

And I repeat - for those who believe that killing anyone, for any reason, is murder it is a matter of punishing pre-meditated murder. A matter of law and order. From their viewpoint you might as well argue that it is useless to prosecute someone who kills their spouse or a co-worker since it won't bring back the murdered person.

Again - how can it be murder, if murder is taking someones life against their will and how can they justify their own hypocrisy on the matter, particularly given the Pro-Life movements undeniable connection to conservativism?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I can respect people who suicide out of personal responsibility. Someone who commits war crimes, for instance; if they choose to swallow a bullet they've done themselves and the whole world a favour. Someone who has failed in a truly massive way would be another example (the NASA engineers who signed off on the safety of the Shuttle Columbia). Suicide can be a form of atonement, and that's scarcely an eastern cultural trait--one of the captains of the Heavy Cruisers lost at the First Battle of Savo shot himself.

In the same way I can see how someone with a serious degenerative disease who chooses to commit suicide can fully be lauded. But the reason they're doing it is to spare a burden from others.

So what about the ones who can't do it themselves? Aren't they inflicting a burden on those who help them die? What does it do the psyche of a person to kill another, over and over again? They had to sideline NKVD executioners after a while or they'd become utterly mentally ruined people in the old USSR; can anyone seriously claim that Kevorkian is anything other than utterly insane by this point, for that matter? Regardless of the ethical merits of what he does he's become utterly, madly obsessed with it. How much of that is his mental reaction to the fact that he's presided over the deaths of numerous individuals?

I am exceptionally worried that because it's a medical procedure, we're going to accept volunteers for assisted suicide work. Who would possibly want to volunteer to kill someone else? What kind of psyche is that, exactly? Not a healthy one...

If we do this, at the very least, physicians should draw lots to decide who executes the procedure, with a strict limit on the number of procedures a physician can perform--I'd say five or six in a whole lifetime, one every five years at the very most. If a qualified physician isn't available is below the maximums and the time separation as listed above, the procedure should not be allowed to go through.

There are plenty of concerns to be worried about here, and not just with the families of the victims but the medical professionals who are performing the procedures themselves.

What happens to cops who have to shoot on the line of duty? Frequently they're mentally ruined, and their families end up torn apart.

Do people with degenerative diseases have any right to inflict that on someone else? Their suffering may actually be the greatest good in circumstances like that.

[Broomstick]

No, it's NOT just their business - death affects everyone connected to a person. Suicide does not take place in a vacuum. Now, there may be times when ending the suffering of one takes precedence over the sadness and suffering that death will cause others, but I think that's a very tough case to make.

Why isn't it there business?

I never said it wasn't their business. I said it's not JUST their business. Because their actions affect others there are other parties to this affair.

Do people have no right to their own lives? Emotional "I don't like it" arguments aside, why shouldn't a person have the right to determine how they meet their own end? A person's own life is the only thing that really honestly belongs to them, they should certainly have a majority say in how it terminates.

Again, not everyone agrees with that. Some people believe that NO ONE has a right to take human life, period. Not even their own. Unless you can provide some sort of factual basis why your beliefs are inherently superior to those of other people on this matter you might need to acknowledge that not everyone shares your base assumption in this area.

I cannot agree.

I didn't believe that before. Since the day my sister killed herself I believe it even less.

Is this not an appeal to emotions? I'm sorry for your loss, but it really doesn't have any affect on the ethical argument of whether or not a person has the right to determine their own end or not.

What, my emotional pain and suffering counts for nothing?

It is NOT an "appeal to emotion" - it IS a fact that death causes emotional pain to others, regardless of the cause of death. As I said, suicide does not occur in isolation (with extremely rare exceptions). Does the person who kills him/herself have a right or justification for causing life-long grief and pain in others, which is not an uncommon outcome of suicide? How can you argue that someone's mental distress may justify suicide then totally discount the pain of those left behind? Do you see no contradiction in that stance?

Does a person have a right to hit another person and cause them pain?

Does a person have a right to do something that will cause any form of pain to others? And if so, what justifies it?

And I repeat - for those who believe that killing anyone, for any reason, is murder it is a matter of punishing pre-meditated murder. A matter of law and order. From their viewpoint you might as well argue that it is useless to prosecute someone who kills their spouse or a co-worker since it won't bring back the murdered person.

Again - how can it be murder, if murder is taking someones life against their will and how can they justify their own hypocrisy on the matter, particularly given the Pro-Life movements undeniable connection to conservativism?

One more time - they don't define murder as "killing against their will", it's ANY KILLING OF A HUMAN BEING AT ALL. Got it? With or without the dying person's consent. They problem you are having is that you are assuming your definition of murder is universal. It's not. Some make exceptions for self-defense, but there are people for whom even self-defense does not justify killing another human being. Hell, my neighbors down the road, the Amish, have a belief system that prohits even NON-lethal physical violence, even in self-defense. There's truly a remarkable number of ethical/moral systems among humans and they aren't always mutally compatible.

[Broomstick]

If we do this, at the very least, physicians should draw lots to decide who executes the procedure, with a strict limit on the number of procedures a physician can perform

Doctors do not participate in executions in the US - even where the law permits it they can't find doctors willing to do it. Many, if not most, medical societies I'm aware of view participation in delibrate patient-killing as grounds for booting you out of the group. At least in the US, good luck getting even one doc to play along, much less enough to make lot-drawing feasible. There are exceptions, of course - Kevorkian is one - but the meme SAVE LIFE is pretty well cast in concrete during the medical education process. In most cases it takes pretty well.

[Pick]

Broomstick, during his interview on 60 minutes, Kevorkian stressed that it should always be a choice, an option, and that he didn't condone people with diseases being forced or pressured to kill themselves. In fact, he suggested that a sense of power over their eventual fate gave many the strength to live. I do not mean to suggest that you are wrong in listing him, but where is some reference material that might clear me up on his stance?


Anyway, on the OT, when my grandpa died (mesothelioma due to workplace asbestos), he was less than 115 pounds. He was six foot seven inches tall. He begged for someone to murder him, but never received that help.

If my grandma had decided to off him, as he pleaded, I would be furious to find her punished for it any more than she'd punish herself.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If we do this, at the very least, physicians should draw lots to decide who executes the procedure, with a strict limit on the number of procedures a physician can perform

Doctors do not participate in executions in the US - even where the law permits it they can't find doctors willing to do it. Many, if not most, medical societies I'm aware of view participation in delibrate patient-killing as grounds for booting you out of the group. At least in the US, good luck getting even one doc to play along, much less enough to make lot-drawing feasible. There are exceptions, of course - Kevorkian is one - but the meme SAVE LIFE is pretty well cast in concrete during the medical education process. In most cases it takes pretty well.

It's one of those jobs where anyone who volunteers to do it is automatically suspect for having serious mental issues (and with good reason), however, so if it was legalized we'd have to--force people to do it? That is fundamentally wrong also.

I suppose exceptionally rigorous psychiatric testing, mandatory continuous psychiatric evaluation, and extremely limiting times between each euthanasia and overall caps on the number of people euthanised by one person would be the only way to do it with volunteers. At the same time we'd have to impose exceptionally rigorous requirements on the people who want to die, too--if nothing less than to weed out as many as possible, as otherwise there'd be a terrific backlog of cases from the very necessary limits.

The human psyche is not built to put other human beings to death on a large scale, for whatever reason, and I don't want people who volunteer to do that to be walking around in society without some tremendous monitoring and restraints on them.

At the very least they need the same mental health services and general support that combat veterans get--and quite possibly a whole lot more, and it's well believed that such support and mental health services for combat veterans are highly inadequate currently.

[brianeyci]

I consider suicide to be an extremely self-centered choice. Every single one of us owes our society. Paying taxes barely makes up for the amount of suckle an average person does. Think about how much money a high school education costs, how much money social safety nets cost, and so on. Life isn't always about choice. It's about responsibility. If your parents didn't raise you to kill yourself, why the fuck would you consider it except under the most extreme circumstances? If I kill myself now, nobody is going to take care of my mother when she retires. Each citizen does have a responsibility to contribute to their society as much as possible. We are literally eating off the fruits of previous generations, soldiers who died, scientists who slaved. If your life sucks so much you want to kill yourself, I'm sure there's some marginal way you can contribute to society while spending the rest of the day comatose. Responsibility to your family and friends is also paramount. They did not invest in you to see you kill yourself and hurt them.

Only a mountain man who lives off the grid can truly say he doesn't owe society anything, and even mountain men owe in that if there was a dictatorial government willing to go in and subjugate them, they would lose their quality of life. Anybody who lives in the grid, who has friends, who has family, has more responsibility than just his own personal choice.

[Knife]

I consider suicide to be an extremely self-centered choice. Every single one of us owes our society. Paying taxes barely makes up for the amount of suckle an average person does. Think about how much money a high school education costs, how much money social safety nets cost, and so on. Life isn't always about choice. It's about responsibility. If your parents didn't raise you to kill yourself, why the fuck would you consider it except under the most extreme circumstances? If I kill myself now, nobody is going to take care of my mother when she retires. Each citizen does have a responsibility to contribute to their society as much as possible. We are literally eating off the fruits of previous generations, soldiers who died, scientists who slaved. If your life sucks so much you want to kill yourself, I'm sure there's some marginal way you can contribute to society while spending the rest of the day comatose. Responsibility to your family and friends is also paramount. They did not invest in you to see you kill yourself and hurt them.

Only a mountain man who lives off the grid can truly say he doesn't owe society anything, and even mountain men owe in that if there was a dictatorial government willing to go in and subjugate them, they would lose their quality of life. Anybody who lives in the grid, who has friends, who has family, has more responsibility than just his own personal choice.

I can agree with that. However, in the case of dying people, it's really not about killing them, rather than stopping modern tech from letting them linger on.

[Molyneux]

I can respect people who suicide out of personal responsibility. Someone who commits war crimes, for instance; if they choose to swallow a bullet they've done themselves and the whole world a favour. Someone who has failed in a truly massive way would be another example (the NASA engineers who signed off on the safety of the Shuttle Columbia). Suicide can be a form of atonement, and that's scarcely an eastern cultural trait--one of the captains of the Heavy Cruisers lost at the First Battle of Savo shot himself.

So, instead of trying to actually do some good in the world - make up for their failures - they just bow out of the race. That's one thing that has never seemed admirable to me, in any society.

can anyone seriously claim that Kevorkian is anything other than utterly insane by this point, for that matter? Regardless of the ethical merits of what he does he's become utterly, madly obsessed with it. How much of that is his mental reaction to the fact that he's presided over the deaths of numerous individuals?

I haven't seen Kevorkian in person or on video, but I haven't ever heard any allegations that he was insane or unbalanced before...

[Zixinus]

What about the notion that if we allow suffering people to commit suicide now, would we be guilty of murder if a new cure came up the horizon that could have cured the suffering person's illness?

Also, humanity has an enormous, ever-growing supply of mind-altering drugs that could ease suffering. Can't we use those?

[Broomstick]

Broomstick, during his interview on 60 minutes, Kevorkian stressed that it should always be a choice, an option, and that he didn't condone people with diseases being forced or pressured to kill themselves. In fact, he suggested that a sense of power over their eventual fate gave many the strength to live. I do not mean to suggest that you are wrong in listing him, but where is some reference material that might clear me up on his stance?

That's what he said - what did he, in fact, do?

It has been seen wherever euthanaisa is an option that some people given the pills/potion/whatever choose not to use them after all. And, as Kervorkian (and others) has pointed out, it's a matter of giving control back to the person. I would venture to say that a system where ALL the euthanaisa perscriptions are actually used is one where abuses may be occurring.

There is much on the public record for Kevorkian. However, my personal views regarding him are based in no small part on the time when I was a long term disability administrator and some of the people who's cases I worked with had their end under Kevorkian. Because I am bound by confidentiality rules I can not disclose the details of any of those cases. In one instance, the ability of the woman to even communicate her desires was questionable, but there was evidence that ending her life was, indeed, something she would have chosen and that she did give consent. In other cases... very questionable. Very, very questionable especially in the larger context of bankruptcy-level medical bills and family pressures.

Euthanasia is and probably should continue to be a very controversial and difficult choice. It is so vital that any right to this not be abused, that the safeguards be carefully maintained, and everything around it be out in the open.

It's one of those jobs where anyone who volunteers to do it is automatically suspect for having serious mental issues (and with good reason), however, so if it was legalized we'd have to--force people to do it? That is fundamentally wrong also.

Indeed.

But why must a doctor do this?

I see nothing wrong with maintaining doctors as those who preserve life and having some other party be the euthanizer. A family member, perhaps - with strict pre- and post- counseling. We would probably still need some non-related volunteers, but perhaps one could volunteer but once in a lifetime. Even then, it would only be necessary when the patient him/herself can not swallow the pills or drive the injection home. Many people with terminal illness/debility can still manage that much at least.

[Knife]

What about the notion that if we allow suffering people to commit suicide now, would we be guilty of murder if a new cure came up the horizon that could have cured the suffering person's illness?

Also, humanity has an enormous, ever-growing supply of mind-altering drugs that could ease suffering. Can't we use those?

True, but in some cases (not all mind you) you're not killing them as much as you're not letting machines keep them barely living.

[Broomstick]

I haven't seen Kevorkian in person or on video, but I haven't ever heard any allegations that he was insane or unbalanced before...

His sanity - as well as his ethics - have been questioned for decades in the medical community. Until he started killing people, though, none of it hit the mainstream.

[Pick]

Broomstick, during his interview on 60 minutes, Kevorkian stressed that it should always be a choice, an option, and that he didn't condone people with diseases being forced or pressured to kill themselves. In fact, he suggested that a sense of power over their eventual fate gave many the strength to live. I do not mean to suggest that you are wrong in listing him, but where is some reference material that might clear me up on his stance?

That's what he said - what did he, in fact, do?

It has been seen wherever euthanaisa is an option that some people given the pills/potion/whatever choose not to use them after all. And, as Kervorkian (and others) has pointed out, it's a matter of giving control back to the person. I would venture to say that a system where ALL the euthanaisa perscriptions are actually used is one where abuses may be occurring.

There is much on the public record for Kevorkian. However, my personal views regarding him are based in no small part on the time when I was a long term disability administrator and some of the people who's cases I worked with had their end under Kevorkian. Because I am bound by confidentiality rules I can not disclose the details of any of those cases. In one instance, the ability of the woman to even communicate her desires was questionable, but there was evidence that ending her life was, indeed, something she would have chosen and that she did give consent. In other cases... very questionable. Very, very questionable especially in the larger context of bankruptcy-level medical bills and family pressures.

Euthanasia is and probably should continue to be a very controversial and difficult choice. It is so vital that any right to this not be abused, that the safeguards be carefully maintained, and everything around it be out in the open.

I'll respect your perspective on this, but I personally wouldn't set him alongside Hitler. There's at least significant ambiguity with Kevorkian. I don't see, even from his actions, where I would claim he "wants all diseased people killed". Even in the event of the medical bills and family pressures overshadowing things, that would almost make me question more the families who might want to be released from their burden--and willing to convince a doctor that is what the patient would wish. Also, Kevorkian does at least seem to genuinely believe that he is doing this for the sake of the patients, which can hardly be something the Fuhrer could claim.