Right to die?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Beer w/Straw, Apr 20, 2017.

  1. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    In the media lately that football guy serving a life sentence killed himself in his cell http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/us/aaron-hernandez-suicide/ That one teen bought an elephant tranquilizer on the dark web 1000 x more potent than morphine http://metro.co.uk/2017/03/25/teen-...ilisers-bought-illegally-on-dark-web-6532741/

    If I was serving life in prison, I'd rather be dead. If had an incurable, painful condition that was going to kill me anyway and life was just lingering on I'd rather kill myself. However, I would have ended my life already at eleven years old had I been sophisticated enough.

    A blatant guess would be that 13 000 U.S. people would have taken up assisted suicide already if it were legal for a year or two. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/medically-assisted-dying-canadians-rob-rollins-1.4056700

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Is death too good for criminals with life sentences?
    Should an age limit for assisted suicide be in place?

    These questions are presumptuous but I didn't feel like typing an essay.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. birch Valued Senior Member

    i think people have a right to assisted suicide if they are in extreme pain that is chronic/can't be managed or have terminal disease.

    criminals with life sentences should not get assisted suicide but i think they should be able to choose life sentence or death penalty.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    That's an odd question to ask in the USA, where death sentences are commuted to the lesser life sentence.
    Of course they should have an option right from the start. People guilty of horrible crimes opting to die are saving everyone else a lot of worry (lest they get free and do it again;
    lest they hurt prison guards and other inmates) and resources (in decades of maximum security guardianship and health care.)
    I'm not interested in retribution; only in removing a threat to society.
    On the other hand, it's important to keep it freely optional, as so many people are incarcerated for major/capital offences, who are actually innocent,
    so that they can hope for appeals and vindication.

    Besides the age of majority already placed on voting, military service, marriage, drinking and driving?
    Yes, with a proviso that the designated guardian can still explore that option for children in unbearable suffering, and no hope of recovery.
    My rule of thumb: be no crueller to a child than to a dog.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

  8. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    May work for you but for many who are cruel I doubt it.
  9. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Good pont... neither deserves cruelty.!!!
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    I point out the obvious as one of the posters has in his avatar

    Life is fatal

    Should we have the right to take our own life?

    We already do

    Ah I see what you mean there are legal obstacles insurance etc

    And the messyness of it

    So who is going to set up a suicide clinic?

    Believe me please I am not trivialising the situation

    As someone who has spent some time in Accident and Emergency saving those who have tried I appreciate how complicated it can be

    A suicide clinic can operate as a saviour preventer by addressing the issues

    As well as assistance to the person if the ultimate option is the solution

    And YES those with life sentences should be given the ultimate OPTION on request

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    In most of the cases being currently reviewed and addressed in Canada, it's not a problem of legal obstacles or mess, but of
    physical ability. Very sick people have diminishing access to the means, and decreasing strength to carry out
    the act, as their illness progresses. Most are bedridden and feeble - ever more so as their pain increases, as they are
    restrained by life-support equipment and drugs, humiliated by dependence on others for the most intimate needs,
    emotionally wracked by the pity, disgust and sorrow of the people who care for them, as their desire to escape grows.

    If assistance to die is categorically denied at that time, I'm forced to exist while I can do it myself - sooner than I'd prefer.

    No need.
    Doctors and nurses have been helping patients to end their suffering all along; and so have next of kin -
    but since it was illegal due to religious megalomaniacs who take it upon themselves to read the mind of some god,
    these compassionate helpers, like abortionists, were taking a huge risk of reprisal. Thus, most of the professional helpers
    refused to do the kind thing, while some did it surreptitiously and very late, daughters or fathers who took pity
    on a suffering mother or son went to jail, and healthy spouses killed themselves along with their beloved.
    Once you remove the religio/legal shackles, any doctor or nurse-practitioner can carry out the clearly expressed
    and reasonable request of a patient for release from terminal suffering.
    Nothing's changed, except that we can stop lying about it.

Share This Page