Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Physician-Assisted-Suicide/Euthanasia...

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 7:16:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Most of you should know how I feel about the subject, but I want to know what your opinions are about the idea of the terminally ill committing suicide, either on their own, through a physician, or euthanasia. (You COULD extend this idea of slf ownership to ALL people, but that's a different matter entirely). Here's a little quote (you know how I love quotes) to get the discussion started:

(From her suicide note):

Human life consists in mutual service. So grief, pain, misfortune, or "broken heart" is no excuse for cutting off one's life while any power of service remains. But when all usefulness is over, when one is assured o an unavoidable and imminent death, it is the simplest of human rights to choose a quick and easy death in lace of a slow and horrible one.

-Charlotte Perkins Gilman (who committed suicide after 6 months with breast cancer).
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 7:26:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A physician has no obligation to assist in the death of his patient. He has an obligation against that. Assuming unavoidable and imminent death is the equivalent of therapeutic nihilism. So, the first premise that would permit PAS violates the Hippocratic oath right off the bat.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 7:28:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 7:26:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
A physician has no obligation to assist in the death of his patient. He has an obligation against that. Assuming unavoidable and imminent death is the equivalent of therapeutic nihilism. So, the first premise that would permit PAS violates the Hippocratic oath right off the bat.

Ike, you still forgot the biggest negator of your Hippocratic Oath argument in our debate: the fact that two practices that were directly forbidden under the Oath re now commonplace among doctors.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 7:37:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 7:28:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/4/2011 7:26:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
A physician has no obligation to assist in the death of his patient. He has an obligation against that. Assuming unavoidable and imminent death is the equivalent of therapeutic nihilism. So, the first premise that would permit PAS violates the Hippocratic oath right off the bat.

Ike, you still forgot the biggest negator of your Hippocratic Oath argument in our debate: the fact that two practices that were directly forbidden under the Oath re now commonplace among doctors.

And you forgot that what you were referring to was in the classical hippocratic oath, when the modern oath is the one in effect, and also the one that denounces therapeutic nihilism. What in the modern oath is commonplace that renders the entire list of obligations null and void?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 7:41:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 7:37:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/4/2011 7:28:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/4/2011 7:26:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
A physician has no obligation to assist in the death of his patient. He has an obligation against that. Assuming unavoidable and imminent death is the equivalent of therapeutic nihilism. So, the first premise that would permit PAS violates the Hippocratic oath right off the bat.

Ike, you still forgot the biggest negator of your Hippocratic Oath argument in our debate: the fact that two practices that were directly forbidden under the Oath re now commonplace among doctors.

And you forgot that what you were referring to was in the classical hippocratic oath, when the modern oath is the one in effect, and also the one that denounces therapeutic nihilism. What in the modern oath is commonplace that renders the entire list of obligations null and void?

But you've just put yourself in a double bind, haven't you? If the oath hasn't changed, then it's meaning is null. If it has changed, then there's no reason why it shouldn't change further (abortion's removal is largely due to rights based examination, which is the same as my examination of PAS.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 10:12:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
People most definitely have a right to kill themselves if they are assured a slow and painful death in the near future. That quote says it pretty succinctly... I don't know how much more I can add at the moment.

Anyone whose morals would force them to prevent someone from escaping a slow and painful death is a person I most certainly would fear having as a family member.

In other words, anyone who would rather force someone to die a slow and painful death than allow them the dignity of having control over their fate- and killing themselves- is a person who I would not want to keep close.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 10:22:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've always supported euthanasia as a means to end a life that's simply going to be continued pain if let be. I see no meaningful difference between deliberately letting someone die and killing them with their permission - if anything, the latter could result in less pain making it the better choice.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 10:24:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 7:26:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
A physician has no obligation to assist in the death of his patient. He has an obligation against that. Assuming unavoidable and imminent death is the equivalent of therapeutic nihilism. So, the first premise that would permit PAS violates the Hippocratic oath right off the bat.

I don't think a physician has an obligation to assist in the death of their patient. However, I don't think a physician has an obligation against it. The Hippocratic oath is an oath taken in an effort to uphold ethics as a medical professional.

If the Hippocratic oath would force a doctor to force a patient to suffer a slow and painful death though the doctor would rather help a willing patient to their death, then perhaps the Hippocratic Oath needs to be changed because it isn't ethical.

American society most definitely fears death though, sometimes, death just needs to happen.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 10:26:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think it's absolutely fine as long as the person who wants to die has gone through psychiatric consultations by many psychiatrists, the person's parents and close friends support the decision, and the person has had a long time to think about it and change their mind before it is done.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 10:28:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 7:26:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
A physician has no obligation to assist in the death of his patient. He has an obligation against that. Assuming unavoidable and imminent death is the equivalent of therapeutic nihilism. So, the first premise that would permit PAS violates the Hippocratic oath right off the bat.

I think the obligation of a doctor is to do what is going to make the patient suffer the least. If death is the only way to stop them from suffering then so be it.
Andromeda_Z
Posts: 4,151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 10:36:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 10:26:04 PM, rogue wrote:
I think it's absolutely fine as long as the person who wants to die has gone through psychiatric consultations by many psychiatrists, the person's parents and close friends support the decision, and the person has had a long time to think about it and change their mind before it is done.

I agree with you on this, except for one thing. What do the person's family and friends have to do with it? It's not their life, so their morals should not be an issue.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 10:42:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm sure I read that a terminally ill people who had the option to commit suicide on-hand lived longer than expected because they kept putting it off because they wanted to live for another day.

I need to find that article, unless someone can provide.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 11:01:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 10:26:04 PM, rogue wrote:
I think it's absolutely fine as long as the person who wants to die has gone through psychiatric consultations by many psychiatrists, the person's parents and close friends support the decision, and the person has had a long time to think about it and change their mind before it is done.

I don't think the person's parents and close friends should have to support the decision. It is an individual choice.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 5:04:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
When people suffer from mental disorders, their true selves are not present. In this case, I think we have a hard time determining what kind of role self-ownership has. Imagine a person who is not depressed, but has a tough life; if asked about euthanasia, he'd give a clear no. Now assume this person starts suffering from depression and blocks rational thought; he'd say yes to euthanasia. Is it actually he who says yes to it or the illness? And does self-ownership (hereby consent) entail all kinds of mental states, or just where one can make rational decisions most of the time?

I think it's nonsensical to just say "self-ownership" and "the right to use your body however you want." Maybe you do not want euthanasia; it could just be the irrational, depressive thoughts inside you.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 5:25:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 7:16:55 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Most of you should know how I feel about the subject, but I want to know what your opinions are about the idea of the terminally ill committing suicide, either on their own, through a physician, or euthanasia. (You COULD extend this idea of slf ownership to ALL people, but that's a different matter entirely). Here's a little quote (you know how I love quotes) to get the discussion started:

(From her suicide note):

Human life consists in mutual service. So grief, pain, misfortune, or "broken heart" is no excuse for cutting off one's life while any power of service remains. But when all usefulness is over, when one is assured o an unavoidable and imminent death, it is the simplest of human rights to choose a quick and easy death in lace of a slow and horrible one.

-Charlotte Perkins Gilman (who committed suicide after 6 months with breast cancer).

When exactly is the usefulness of life over?

Everyone has to die one day. The medical practice is advanced enough to limit the pain to the min. Should the doctors euthanize them? They should be working to improve the quality of their life.

The self ownership should not apply to the right to death.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:51:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 7:16:55 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Most of you should know how I feel about the subject, but I want to know what your opinions are about the idea of the terminally ill committing suicide, either on their own, through a physician, or euthanasia. (You COULD extend this idea of slf ownership to ALL people, but that's a different matter entirely). Here's a little quote (you know how I love quotes) to get the discussion started:

(From her suicide note):

Human life consists in mutual service. So grief, pain, misfortune, or "broken heart" is no excuse for cutting off one's life while any power of service remains. But when all usefulness is over, when one is assured o an unavoidable and imminent death, it is the simplest of human rights to choose a quick and easy death in lace of a slow and horrible one.

-Charlotte Perkins Gilman (who committed suicide after 6 months with breast cancer).

I'm against it. And I reject the assumption that the value of human life can be analyzed in terms of function or instrument - i.e. in terms of "useful" or "usefulness".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:57:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I like my dad's answer (he is an actual doctor):

Someone can commit suicide if they want, just don't ask a doctor to do it for them.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 7:17:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 5:04:57 AM, Mirza wrote:
When people suffer from mental disorders, their true selves are not present. In this case, I think we have a hard time determining what kind of role self-ownership has. Imagine a person who is not depressed, but has a tough life; if asked about euthanasia, he'd give a clear no. Now assume this person starts suffering from depression and blocks rational thought; he'd say yes to euthanasia. Is it actually he who says yes to it or the illness? And does self-ownership (hereby consent) entail all kinds of mental states, or just where one can make rational decisions most of the time?

I think it's nonsensical to just say "self-ownership" and "the right to use your body however you want." Maybe you do not want euthanasia; it could just be the irrational, depressive thoughts inside you.

But a depressed person or a person with a hard life is not the person we're talking about. We're talking about someone who 100% is about to face an imminent, slow and painful death.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 7:22:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 7:17:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/5/2011 5:04:57 AM, Mirza wrote:
When people suffer from mental disorders, their true selves are not present. In this case, I think we have a hard time determining what kind of role self-ownership has. Imagine a person who is not depressed, but has a tough life; if asked about euthanasia, he'd give a clear no. Now assume this person starts suffering from depression and blocks rational thought; he'd say yes to euthanasia. Is it actually he who says yes to it or the illness? And does self-ownership (hereby consent) entail all kinds of mental states, or just where one can make rational decisions most of the time?

I think it's nonsensical to just say "self-ownership" and "the right to use your body however you want." Maybe you do not want euthanasia; it could just be the irrational, depressive thoughts inside you.

But a depressed person or a person with a hard life is not the person we're talking about. We're talking about someone who 100% is about to face an imminent, slow and painful death.
I think this is a complete non-issue. Why would we even discuss what 99.99% of people would never do? Who does not suffer from a severe mental issue but wishes to kill himself?

I don't get the last part. A person is not suffering from any mental issues, but is about to face a slow death? Explicate.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 7:25:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:57:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
I like my dad's answer (he is an actual doctor):

Someone can commit suicide if they want, just don't ask a doctor to do it for them.

Yes, this is exactly what I support. A physician has no obligation to help. I reject the notion that the caregiver is to minimize pain and suffering. The caregiver, rather, is to sustain life, cure, heal, deter, or ameliorate. Lessening pain USUALLY goes hand in hand within those obligations, but once we arrive at PAS it diverges.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 7:27:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 7:22:16 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:17:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/5/2011 5:04:57 AM, Mirza wrote:
When people suffer from mental disorders, their true selves are not present. In this case, I think we have a hard time determining what kind of role self-ownership has. Imagine a person who is not depressed, but has a tough life; if asked about euthanasia, he'd give a clear no. Now assume this person starts suffering from depression and blocks rational thought; he'd say yes to euthanasia. Is it actually he who says yes to it or the illness? And does self-ownership (hereby consent) entail all kinds of mental states, or just where one can make rational decisions most of the time?

I think it's nonsensical to just say "self-ownership" and "the right to use your body however you want." Maybe you do not want euthanasia; it could just be the irrational, depressive thoughts inside you.

But a depressed person or a person with a hard life is not the person we're talking about. We're talking about someone who 100% is about to face an imminent, slow and painful death.
I think this is a complete non-issue. Why would we even discuss what 99.99% of people would never do? Who does not suffer from a severe mental issue but wishes to kill himself?

I don't get the last part. A person is not suffering from any mental issues, but is about to face a slow death? Explicate.

Eh? Yeah. People who have cancer or some other disease that they will not be able to recover from. It's a "Mr/s so-and-so, you have two months to live" scenario. So your choice is to live your last days in horrible pain and misery, or kill yourself and end it already. So they don't suffer from depression or mental illness- they simply don't wish to be in great physical pain for X amount of time before their death.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 7:29:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 7:27:15 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:22:16 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:17:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/5/2011 5:04:57 AM, Mirza wrote:
When people suffer from mental disorders, their true selves are not present. In this case, I think we have a hard time determining what kind of role self-ownership has. Imagine a person who is not depressed, but has a tough life; if asked about euthanasia, he'd give a clear no. Now assume this person starts suffering from depression and blocks rational thought; he'd say yes to euthanasia. Is it actually he who says yes to it or the illness? And does self-ownership (hereby consent) entail all kinds of mental states, or just where one can make rational decisions most of the time?

I think it's nonsensical to just say "self-ownership" and "the right to use your body however you want." Maybe you do not want euthanasia; it could just be the irrational, depressive thoughts inside you.

But a depressed person or a person with a hard life is not the person we're talking about. We're talking about someone who 100% is about to face an imminent, slow and painful death.
I think this is a complete non-issue. Why would we even discuss what 99.99% of people would never do? Who does not suffer from a severe mental issue but wishes to kill himself?

I don't get the last part. A person is not suffering from any mental issues, but is about to face a slow death? Explicate.

Eh? Yeah. People who have cancer or some other disease that they will not be able to recover from. It's a "Mr/s so-and-so, you have two months to live" scenario. So your choice is to live your last days in horrible pain and misery, or kill yourself and end it already. So they don't suffer from depression or mental illness- they simply don't wish to be in great physical pain for X amount of time before their death.
In that case, euthanasia falls under the category of gambling. Doctors are often wrong, and letting some people profit from what can eventually be faulty data is not proper.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 7:31:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 6:51:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/4/2011 7:16:55 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Most of you should know how I feel about the subject, but I want to know what your opinions are about the idea of the terminally ill committing suicide, either on their own, through a physician, or euthanasia. (You COULD extend this idea of slf ownership to ALL people, but that's a different matter entirely). Here's a little quote (you know how I love quotes) to get the discussion started:

(From her suicide note):

Human life consists in mutual service. So grief, pain, misfortune, or "broken heart" is no excuse for cutting off one's life while any power of service remains. But when all usefulness is over, when one is assured o an unavoidable and imminent death, it is the simplest of human rights to choose a quick and easy death in lace of a slow and horrible one.

-Charlotte Perkins Gilman (who committed suicide after 6 months with breast cancer).

I'm against it. And I reject the assumption that the value of human life can be analyzed in terms of function or instrument - i.e. in terms of "useful" or "usefulness".

Hm, I don't understand your position. Regarding euthanasia- So, if a person is in an irreversible coma and their life (as we know it) has essentially been taken from them, you think it is morally required of us to keep their body alive?

As for assisted suicide, if a life is no longer useful to the person who lives it, soon to end, and becomes, in fact, an assured terrible burden to the person who lives it, is that not significant? Do you believe that other people have the moral right to force that person to live through terrible pain for their last days?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 7:51:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 7:29:41 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:27:15 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:22:16 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:17:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/5/2011 5:04:57 AM, Mirza wrote:
When people suffer from mental disorders, their true selves are not present. In this case, I think we have a hard time determining what kind of role self-ownership has. Imagine a person who is not depressed, but has a tough life; if asked about euthanasia, he'd give a clear no. Now assume this person starts suffering from depression and blocks rational thought; he'd say yes to euthanasia. Is it actually he who says yes to it or the illness? And does self-ownership (hereby consent) entail all kinds of mental states, or just where one can make rational decisions most of the time?

I think it's nonsensical to just say "self-ownership" and "the right to use your body however you want." Maybe you do not want euthanasia; it could just be the irrational, depressive thoughts inside you.

But a depressed person or a person with a hard life is not the person we're talking about. We're talking about someone who 100% is about to face an imminent, slow and painful death.
I think this is a complete non-issue. Why would we even discuss what 99.99% of people would never do? Who does not suffer from a severe mental issue but wishes to kill himself?

I don't get the last part. A person is not suffering from any mental issues, but is about to face a slow death? Explicate.

Eh? Yeah. People who have cancer or some other disease that they will not be able to recover from. It's a "Mr/s so-and-so, you have two months to live" scenario. So your choice is to live your last days in horrible pain and misery, or kill yourself and end it already. So they don't suffer from depression or mental illness- they simply don't wish to be in great physical pain for X amount of time before their death.
In that case, euthanasia falls under the category of gambling. Doctors are often wrong, and letting some people profit from what can eventually be faulty data is not proper.

That is a good point. That is why I don't believe in the death penalty- because our law system can make mistakes.

I don't know that it is absolutely necessary for the doctors, or anyone else, to profit from assisted suicide, but I see what you mean.

I can only say that I know if I were in that position, in a bed, unable to move or hold in fluids- In other words, the worst case scenario, I can't say I wouldn't do it or let my family member do it.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 7:53:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 7:25:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:57:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
I like my dad's answer (he is an actual doctor):

Someone can commit suicide if they want, just don't ask a doctor to do it for them.

Yes, this is exactly what I support. A physician has no obligation to help. I reject the notion that the caregiver is to minimize pain and suffering. The caregiver, rather, is to sustain life, cure, heal, deter, or ameliorate. Lessening pain USUALLY goes hand in hand within those obligations, but once we arrive at PAS it diverges.

Assuming that what you say is true about a doctor not being obligated, how does it logically follow that NO doctor should be allowed to do it?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 7:57:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 5:25:44 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/4/2011 7:16:55 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Most of you should know how I feel about the subject, but I want to know what your opinions are about the idea of the terminally ill committing suicide, either on their own, through a physician, or euthanasia. (You COULD extend this idea of slf ownership to ALL people, but that's a different matter entirely). Here's a little quote (you know how I love quotes) to get the discussion started:

(From her suicide note):

Human life consists in mutual service. So grief, pain, misfortune, or "broken heart" is no excuse for cutting off one's life while any power of service remains. But when all usefulness is over, when one is assured o an unavoidable and imminent death, it is the simplest of human rights to choose a quick and easy death in lace of a slow and horrible one.

-Charlotte Perkins Gilman (who committed suicide after 6 months with breast cancer).

When exactly is the usefulness of life over?

Everyone has to die one day. The medical practice is advanced enough to limit the pain to the min. Should the doctors euthanize them? They should be working to improve the quality of their life.

The self ownership should not apply to the right to death.

That's an extremely arrogant, condescending viewpoint. It's interesting that you'd make the claim that because doctors CAN reduce the pain as a person dies, that person should have no say.

Responses like these seem to forget that patients are people with their own sense of conscious decision. Some would rather go through paliative and hospice care, and some would not. To suggest that a person who WILL die from a disease be forced to live against their will is a pretty apalling thought.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 8:06:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 7:51:15 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:29:41 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:27:15 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:22:16 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:17:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/5/2011 5:04:57 AM, Mirza wrote:
When people suffer from mental disorders, their true selves are not present. In this case, I think we have a hard time determining what kind of role self-ownership has. Imagine a person who is not depressed, but has a tough life; if asked about euthanasia, he'd give a clear no. Now assume this person starts suffering from depression and blocks rational thought; he'd say yes to euthanasia. Is it actually he who says yes to it or the illness? And does self-ownership (hereby consent) entail all kinds of mental states, or just where one can make rational decisions most of the time?

I think it's nonsensical to just say "self-ownership" and "the right to use your body however you want." Maybe you do not want euthanasia; it could just be the irrational, depressive thoughts inside you.

But a depressed person or a person with a hard life is not the person we're talking about. We're talking about someone who 100% is about to face an imminent, slow and painful death.
I think this is a complete non-issue. Why would we even discuss what 99.99% of people would never do? Who does not suffer from a severe mental issue but wishes to kill himself?

I don't get the last part. A person is not suffering from any mental issues, but is about to face a slow death? Explicate.

Eh? Yeah. People who have cancer or some other disease that they will not be able to recover from. It's a "Mr/s so-and-so, you have two months to live" scenario. So your choice is to live your last days in horrible pain and misery, or kill yourself and end it already. So they don't suffer from depression or mental illness- they simply don't wish to be in great physical pain for X amount of time before their death.
In that case, euthanasia falls under the category of gambling. Doctors are often wrong, and letting some people profit from what can eventually be faulty data is not proper.

That is a good point. That is why I don't believe in the death penalty- because our law system can make mistakes.

I don't know that it is absolutely necessary for the doctors, or anyone else, to profit from assisted suicide, but I see what you mean.

I can only say that I know if I were in that position, in a bed, unable to move or hold in fluids- In other words, the worst case scenario, I can't say I wouldn't do it or let my family member do it.
I think the death penalty analogy does not hold water. With death penalty, the risk is often highly beneficial. Criminals do get caught. With euthanasia, there's no criminal being removed; nothing benefits the society. The risk of euthanasia is not positive, because you either end up with killing an innocent person because he felt too bad temporarily, or doctors use faulty data and kill the innocent person, and thereof profit from his death.

I think it is far more ethical to offer the most available and effective means of treatment for people who happen to be in a very bad situation.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 8:29:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 8:06:31 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:51:15 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:29:41 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:27:15 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:22:16 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:17:33 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/5/2011 5:04:57 AM, Mirza wrote:
When people suffer from mental disorders, their true selves are not present. In this case, I think we have a hard time determining what kind of role self-ownership has. Imagine a person who is not depressed, but has a tough life; if asked about euthanasia, he'd give a clear no. Now assume this person starts suffering from depression and blocks rational thought; he'd say yes to euthanasia. Is it actually he who says yes to it or the illness? And does self-ownership (hereby consent) entail all kinds of mental states, or just where one can make rational decisions most of the time?

I think it's nonsensical to just say "self-ownership" and "the right to use your body however you want." Maybe you do not want euthanasia; it could just be the irrational, depressive thoughts inside you.

But a depressed person or a person with a hard life is not the person we're talking about. We're talking about someone who 100% is about to face an imminent, slow and painful death.
I think this is a complete non-issue. Why would we even discuss what 99.99% of people would never do? Who does not suffer from a severe mental issue but wishes to kill himself?

I don't get the last part. A person is not suffering from any mental issues, but is about to face a slow death? Explicate.

Eh? Yeah. People who have cancer or some other disease that they will not be able to recover from. It's a "Mr/s so-and-so, you have two months to live" scenario. So your choice is to live your last days in horrible pain and misery, or kill yourself and end it already. So they don't suffer from depression or mental illness- they simply don't wish to be in great physical pain for X amount of time before their death.
In that case, euthanasia falls under the category of gambling. Doctors are often wrong, and letting some people profit from what can eventually be faulty data is not proper.

That is a good point. That is why I don't believe in the death penalty- because our law system can make mistakes.

I don't know that it is absolutely necessary for the doctors, or anyone else, to profit from assisted suicide, but I see what you mean.

I can only say that I know if I were in that position, in a bed, unable to move or hold in fluids- In other words, the worst case scenario, I can't say I wouldn't do it or let my family member do it.
I think the death penalty analogy does not hold water. With death penalty, the risk is often highly beneficial. Criminals do get caught. With euthanasia, there's no criminal being removed; nothing benefits the society. The risk of euthanasia is not positive, because you either end up with killing an innocent person because he felt too bad temporarily, or doctors use faulty data and kill the innocent person, and thereof profit from his death.

I think it is far more ethical to offer the most available and effective means of treatment for people who happen to be in a very bad situation.

Hmm. Interesting viewpoint. But I still disagree.
With state executions- the risk is that either
A.) you will rid the society of a terrible criminal or
B.) you will murder an innocent person
There is one choice here that is left out- you can imprison them for life and avoid the gamble altogether- leaving opportunity to save an innocent persons life in case more evidence surfaces. Also, society is still safe from that person in case they are a true criminal. This is not to say that I don't believe some people deserve to die for their crimes- I absolutely believe that some people deserve to die for their crimes- I just don't trust that we can make that decision accurately enough to justify the risk.
Another aspect left out of this, and I'm not sure what country you live in, but in America, racism often plays a factor in who gets the death penalty and who doesn't. So, I don't believe that people, who can oftentimes be racist, can be trusted to make this decision about a punishment.

With euthanasia- there is a risk that you will kill an innocent person. However, I think you underestimate the time at which euthanasia is deemed an option. We can measure when someone is technically dead, otherwise known as brain dead. We can tell if someone's body is done working by the fact that if we unplug them from a machine, their body would die. If they are both of those things- the risk that we will kill an innocent person is quite low. The risk is much lower than in the case of the death penalty.

As for the hospital/doctors profiting from the person's death, I believe that someone on indefinite life support would be much more profitable to a hospital than if they were euthanized. So I don't think that is a fair thing to say in this scenario.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2011 5:16:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
bump
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 4:48:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 7:53:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/5/2011 7:25:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/5/2011 6:57:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
I like my dad's answer (he is an actual doctor):

Someone can commit suicide if they want, just don't ask a doctor to do it for them.

Yes, this is exactly what I support. A physician has no obligation to help. I reject the notion that the caregiver is to minimize pain and suffering. The caregiver, rather, is to sustain life, cure, heal, deter, or ameliorate. Lessening pain USUALLY goes hand in hand within those obligations, but once we arrive at PAS it diverges.

Assuming that what you say is true about a doctor not being obligated, how does it logically follow that NO doctor should be allowed to do it?

Personally, I believe doctors should be allowed to assist in patient suicide. However, I don't believe that doctors should be obligated to follow the wishes of someone who is suicidal. Doctors are obligated to improve your health as best they can.