Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:Yup. It's a tragedy. That doesn't mean she has the right to kill herself.

I would be interested in knowing why someone doesn't have the "right" to kill themselves.

Are there laws against suicide, or failing that, a religious right that people cannot kill themselves?

EDIT: There was a law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_Act_1961

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:Yup. It's a tragedy. That doesn't mean she has the right to kill herself.

I would be interested in knowing why someone doesn't have the "right" to kill themselves.

Um...because they don't? The state has the right (and yes, this is fairly paternalistic) to prevent you from taking actions to kill yourself. If you go into a shop to buy a gun to kill yourself, the state can prohibit the sale. If you attempt to kill yourself, the state can have you involuntarily committed as a danger to yourself.

The rationale for this is that the state has a substantial interest in the continued existence of its citizens as productive contributors to society.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Here's another question: Your mother is walking on her way to an appointment with her suicide doctor. A hoodlum comes out of nowhere and shoots her in the brainpan. Should he go to prison?

While I am not going to answer on behalf of mattyrm, I would say yes. Intent comes into this in the same way as if someone randomly comes up to a pregnant woman on her way to get an abortion and punches her in the stomach, causing her to miscarriage.

How is intent different? In both the case of the father and the hoodlum there existed both the general intent to engage in the act and the specific intent to cause the result.

As with the case of the pregnant woman, the difference between the "hoodlum" and the abortion doctor is actually quite different. The hoodlum only has the general intent to commit the act (punching the woman) but not the specific intent to cause the death of the child. The doctor, on the other hand, possesses both the general intent to operate and the specific intent to cause the death of the child.

biccat wrote:Um...because they don't? The state has the right (and yes, this is fairly paternalistic) to prevent you from taking actions to kill yourself. If you go into a shop to buy a gun to kill yourself, the state can prohibit the sale. If you attempt to kill yourself, the state can have you involuntarily committed as a danger to yourself.

The rationale for this is that the state has a substantial interest in the continued existence of its citizens as productive contributors to society.

But you have the "right" to die by refusing treatment, food, water, etc (well, in some circumstances anyway - you can be force fed/treated against your will in some cases)? You have the "right" to live in insufferable conditions? To me this is base hypocrisy.

How is intent different? In both the case of the father and the hoodlum there existed both the general intent to engage in the act and the specific intent to cause the result.

Sorry, I may have misread earlier posts (or am not catching on to where you are referring to), but where did the father come from?

As with the case of the pregnant woman, the difference between the "hoodlum" and the abortion doctor is actually quite different. The hoodlum only has the general intent to commit the act (punching the woman) but not the specific intent to cause the death of the child. The doctor, on the other hand, possesses both the general intent to operate and the specific intent to cause the death of the child.

Can it be proven that the hood didn't target the woman specifically because she was pregnant in the attempt to cause her to lose her baby?

The point is that someone acting out at someone causing them harm, death, or the death of an unborn child "on the street" is illegal in the same way that back street clinics are illegal - because there is a very well defined and regulated area of medicine which deals with the exceptions to these laws, ie when it is legal to terminate a pregnancy, when it is legal to take someones life, etc, where the legally sanctioned and approved practitioner has followed through the legal and medical framework to ensure that the procedure is required, is necessary, and is done in the safest way possible within the framework, etc.

A euthanasia doctor could go out on the street and start shooting people and it would be illegal, even though it is his legally sanctioned "job" to kill people. Just as if some hood put on a lab coat and opened up a clinic and started injecting people would be illegal, even though such clinics do exist and they are legal, because the hood has not been certified as being able to carry out such procedures.

biccat wrote:

mattyrm wrote:No one should have to live like that?

Yup. It's a tragedy. That doesn't mean she has the right to kill herself.

mattyrm wrote:Should my 40 year old, no criminal record, never been on the dole, hard working family man with two kids father get sent to prison?

Yes.

And there we have it. It does society LOADS of good to imprison people like that.

An absolutely ridiculous notion. The notion you can only cling to so dogmatically if you are hardwired to believe it thanks to indoctrination.

You religious chaps can say anything you want, don't expect people that don't share your "faith" to think it sounds anything other than utterly ridiculous however.

SilverMK2 wrote:But you have the "right" to die by refusing treatment, food, water, etc (well, in some circumstances anyway - you can be force fed/treated against your will in some cases)? You have the "right" to live in insufferable conditions? To me this is base hypocrisy.

It's not the "right to die", it's the "right to refuse treatment". Different concepts, and not hypocritical at all. The right to refuse medical treatment does not necessarily lead to death (I can refuse treatment for my broken leg). The "right to die" does.

SilverMK2 wrote:

How is intent different? In both the case of the father and the hoodlum there existed both the general intent to engage in the act and the specific intent to cause the result.

Sorry, I may have misread earlier posts (or am not catching on to where you are referring to), but where did the father come from?

Father was from matty's hypothetical. Probably more appropriate because it's not done in a "well defined and regulated area of medicine."

SilverMK2 wrote:Can it be proven that the hood didn't target the woman specifically because she was pregnant in the attempt to cause her to lose her baby?

I said he didn't in the hypothetical, so he didn't. Assume that it is a fact that has been conclusively proven.

SilverMK2 wrote:The point is that someone acting out at someone causing them harm, death, or the death of an unborn child "on the street" is illegal in the same way that back street clinics are illegal - because there is a very well defined and regulated area of medicine which deals with the exceptions to these laws, ie when it is legal to terminate a pregnancy, when it is legal to take someones life, etc, where the legally sanctioned and approved practitioner has followed through the legal and medical framework to ensure that the procedure is required, is necessary, and is done in the safest way possible within the framework, etc.

So you're not talking about a "right to die," you're talking about a newly defined medical procedure that has the purpose and effect of terminating life. I'm not sure how well this sits with the hipocratic oath, or the general idea that doctors are supposed to 'treat' people. Is life a condition requiring treatment?

mattyrm wrote:And there we have it. It does society LOADS of good to imprison people like that.

An absolutely ridiculous notion. The notion you can only cling to so dogmatically if you are hardwired to believe it thanks to indoctrination.

You religious chaps can say anything you want, don't expect people that don't share your "faith" to think it sounds anything other than utterly ridiculous however.

Your bias against religious people is clouding your judgment. Your dogmatic belief that religious people are "indoctrinated" is leading you to dismiss arguments against your position simply because of the person making the comments.

I'd ask you to address the comments I made rather than my religious beliefs, but I honestly don't think you're capable of seeing beyond your own bias against religion.

biccat wrote: Your dogmatic belief that religious people are "indoctrinated" is leading you to dismiss arguments against your position simply because of the person making the comments.

I'd ask you to address the comments I made rather than my religious beliefs, but I honestly don't think you're capable of seeing beyond your own bias against religion.

Not so. You must address the comments by commenting on your religious beliefs.

You believe what you believe BECAUSE of your religion. As I said at the start of the thread, I could see by your stance (dogmatically opposed in every sense) you were Religious, and I was right.

Its extremely easy to ping.

Secular people will be for and against this issue for a variety of different reasons. Some agree with my stance, some don't. But only those that follow a religious dogma never bend and are utterly 100% opposed to something every time always no matter the circumstances.

Your Religion is the reason that you feel the way that you do. So its clearly pertinent to this discussion.

I have never ever met a person who would happily say "Yes, send him to prison he deserves it" for our discussions who wasn't commanded so by his religion of choice.

You know it is true.. surely common sense can tell you that? Find me a non believer (of any political slant at all) who thinks that slinging a man in prison for assisting his agonized wife get some illegal morphine is a great idea.

You wont, cos its only you guys.

And dont even start me on abortion... rape victim or not!

biccat wrote:It's not the "right to die", it's the "right to refuse treatment". Different concepts, and not hypocritical at all. The right to refuse medical treatment does not necessarily lead to death (I can refuse treatment for my broken leg). The "right to die" does.

However, we have not been discussing the right to refuse treatment, we have been discussing the "right to die" and the "right to have someone assist in your death" (which can be one and the same, but may only extend as far as the "right to refuse treatment").

biccat wrote:So you're not talking about a "right to die," you're talking about a newly defined medical procedure that has the purpose and effect of terminating life. I'm not sure how well this sits with the hipocratic oath, or the general idea that doctors are supposed to 'treat' people. Is life a condition requiring treatment?

I'm pretty sure that this entire thread is about patients electing to end their lives through medical intervention... Have you not been reading?

I'd also advise you to check out countries/states which already allow the practice, such as Switzerland and the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington and Montana.

mattyrm wrote:Not so. You must address the comments by commenting on your religious beliefs.

I have no need to defend or justify my religious beliefs. I have never used religious tenets in support of my argument (e.g., "the bible says so"), but rather on the secular problems.

mattyrm wrote:You believe what you believe BECAUSE of your religion.

That's offensive. You're suggesting that religious people are incapable of rational thought and anything other than dogmatic adherence to a religion based position. Believe it or not, religious people are not brain dead idiots.

mattyrm wrote:As I said at the start of the thread, I could see by your stance (dogmatically opposed in every sense) you were Religious, and I was right.

Its extremely easy to ping.

Again, you mischaracterize what I have been saying. And my thoughts on this issue are separate from my religious belief. Believe it or not, religious people, as rational thinking creatures, are capable of separating their political and religious beliefs.

mattyrm wrote:Secular people will be for and against this issue for a variety of different reasons. Some agree with my stance, some don't. But only those that follow a religious dogma never bend and are utterly 100% opposed to something every time always no matter the circumstances.

Your Religion is the reason that you feel the way that you do. So its clearly pertinent to this discussion.

You're imputing motives onto me that aren't present in my arguments. If you're unable or unwilling to address the substance of my argument, then feel free to leave the thread. To attack my arguments based on my status as having religious beliefs is fallacious.

mattyrm wrote:I have never ever met a person who would happily say "Yes, send him to prison he deserves it" for our discussions who wasn't commanded so by his religion of choice.

I'm pretty sure my religion doesn't "command me" to say "send him to prison." In fact, I'm 99% sure you don't know what my religion is.

mattyrm wrote:You know it is true.. surely common sense can tell you that? Find me a non believer (of any political slant at all) who thinks that slinging a man in prison for assisting his agonized wife get some illegal morphine is a great idea.

You wont, cos its only you guys.

SilverMK2, whether he's religious or not, appears to believe that. He has said that the procedure should be allowed as a medical "treatment," and the father in your case would be guilty of medical malpractice.

mattyrm wrote:And dont even start me on abortion... rape victim or not!

"Getting started" on a topic is a conscious choice that you make. If you have the inability to make a conscious choice in the matter, it's not my problem.

SilverMK2 wrote:I'm pretty sure that this entire thread is about patients electing to end their lives through medical intervention... Have you not been reading?

Matty proposed a scenario above that did not involve medical intervention. Let me forward that hypothetical to you: If a woman is bedridden and suffering and begs her husband to procure poison and kill her, is he guilty of murder?

Rather than prattle on and get the thread locked I will simply say this.

biccat wrote:
Again, you mischaracterize what I have been saying. And my thoughts on this issue are separate from my religious belief. Believe it or not, religious people, as rational thinking creatures, are capable of separating their political and religious beliefs.

If thats true. Why don't they?

I disagree entirely with your statement. Sure they CAN seperate their beliefs, but they hardly ever do!

You know, pretty much ever? I can ping someone's general "beliefs" within 5 minutes of meeting them, they read off like a score card. If I meet a guy who supported President Bush for example, 99 times out of a 100 he is also very pro gun ownership, or thinks that climate change is a myth. Things just go together.

Find me a creationist who isn't against gay marriage and against abortion.

Actually were way OT, so just.. find me one and get him to PM me.

mattyrm wrote:

biccat wrote:
Again, you mischaracterize what I have been saying. And my thoughts on this issue are separate from my religious belief. Believe it or not, religious people, as rational thinking creatures, are capable of separating their political and religious beliefs.

If thats true. Why don't they?

You have a serious problem here. I'm not being flippant or argumentative, but you are denying the basic humanity of religious people and denegrating their thought processes. This is a problem.

Roughly 10% of Americans are atheists (somewhere around there, it could be less, who knows). But there are a wide variety of political views in the U.S. Even with an individual church or denomination views can differ greatly. Consider Hasidic Jews versus Modern Orthodox Jews, or look at the split within the Episcopal Church over the issue of gay marriage.

mattyrm wrote:You know, pretty much ever? I can ping someone's general "beliefs" within 5 minutes of meeting them, they read off like a score card. If I meet a guy who supported President Bush for example, 99 times out of a 100 he is also very pro gun ownership, or thinks that climate change is a myth. Things just go together.

Yes, you're right. Things go together. But you're only giving one side of the story. I'll bet most people who supported Al Gore were pro-censorship of public media, pro-gun control and pro-abortion. Heck, they probably even thought that a power point presentation was deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize!

mattyrm wrote:Find me a creationist who isn't against gay marriage and against abortion.

Belief in creationism is way more indicative of personal beliefs than simply being religous. Find me a gay marriage supporter and I'll bet he's pro-abortion and believes in climate change.

Sorry, but I'm religious and I tend to think someone with extreme pain/terminal illness has a right to choose their own end. I just don't understand how, if death is unavoidable, checking out little early to avoid some agony is a bad thing.

@biccat-Your entire argument here seems to be "If someone's suffering masively, has little chance of surviving and wants to die, then theycan if they want. Except they shouldn't have the right to because they shouldn't kill themeselves." Am I missing something here? Is it because the law says so, and the law is neeeeeever wrong? [sarcasm off]

Personally, I think if someone wants to kill themself, it's a basic human right to do so. If they can't pull the trigger themselves, they have the right to get someone to do it for them. It prevents suffering and, not to sound cruel here, but saves resources that were being used to keep them alive.

Anyway, it's impossible to seperate political and religious beliefs and there isn't any point trying, simply because it's the midset of a person that determines all their beliefs. For example, if someone thinks homosexuality is disgusting, he'll be against gay marriage. The Bible agrees with him, so he'll be more likely to become devoted to the Bible and it's teachings, such as Jesus and God. Basically, all your beliefs are dependant on each other. But when your own personal beliefs cause you to deny basic human rights from people with completely different views, then you've gone too far. If that person decides the gay couple across the street have no right to be together, and somehow bans gay marriage, then he's interferring with what doesn't concern him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Graveyman wrote:Sorry, but I'm religious and I tend to think someone with extreme pain/terminal illness has a right to choose their own end. I just don't understand how, if death is unavoidable, checking out little early to avoid some agony is a bad thing.

QFT. Exactly.

TrollPie wrote:@biccat-Your entire argument here seems to be "If someone's suffering masively, has little chance of surviving and wants to die, then theycan if they want. Except they shouldn't have the right to because they shouldn't kill themeselves." Am I missing something here? Is it because the law says so, and the law is neeeeeever wrong? [sarcasm off]

No, it's a matter of practicality. More specifically, it's difficult to punish someone when they're dead.

If you kill yourself, there shouldn't be any adverse consequences for your surviving family.

If you attempt to kill yourself and fail, you should get psychiatric help, because it is not normal, healthy behavior.

But if someone helps kill you, they are guilty of murder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TrollPie wrote:

Graveyman wrote:Sorry, but I'm religious and I tend to think someone with extreme pain/terminal illness has a right to choose their own end. I just don't understand how, if death is unavoidable, checking out little early to avoid some agony is a bad thing.

QFT. Exactly.

I like the part where you attack people who are religious, but "quote for truth" a religious person who agrees with you.

That's some good debatin' right there.

I only commented to show that not all religious people believe exactly the same thing, to exactly the same degree. Biccat, I understand you're reasoning and in most of your posts I've seen I completely agree with you, but on this one I'm torn.

biccat wrote:

TrollPie wrote:@biccat-Your entire argument here seems to be "If someone's suffering masively, has little chance of surviving and wants to die, then theycan if they want. Except they shouldn't have the right to because they shouldn't kill themeselves." Am I missing something here? Is it because the law says so, and the law is neeeeeever wrong? [sarcasm off]

No, it's a matter of practicality. More specifically, it's difficult to punish someone when they're dead.

If you kill yourself, there shouldn't be any adverse consequences for your surviving family.

If you attempt to kill yourself and fail, you should get psychiatric help, because it is not normal, healthy behavior.

Except if you are going to die anyway and suicide would prevent a massive amount of suffering, it would be selfish for your family to keep you suffering just to feel the misery of watching you slowly die. Trying to kill yourself under these circumstances is expectable and practical.

But if someone helps kill you, they are guilty of murder.

Unless you want to die, in which case it's euthanasia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TrollPie wrote:

Graveyman wrote:Sorry, but I'm religious and I tend to think someone with extreme pain/terminal illness has a right to choose their own end. I just don't understand how, if death is unavoidable, checking out little early to avoid some agony is a bad thing.

QFT. Exactly.

I like the part where you attack people who are religious, but "quote for truth" a religious person who agrees with you.

That's some good debatin' right there.

I like the part where you skim over my post, say I did things which I didn't and use these made up things to attack me.

That's some good debatin' right there.

TrollPie wrote:

But if someone helps kill you, they are guilty of murder.

Unless you want to die, in which case it's euthanasia.

Um...nope. Look at my example above w/r/t the hoodlum. Is murder on the street acceptable if the victim was on her way to the suicide booth?

TrollPie wrote:I like the part where you skim over my post, say I did things which I didn't and use these made up things to attack me.

That's some good debatin' right there.

I know, right? Like when you say:

But when your own personal beliefs cause you to deny basic human rights from people with completely different views, then you've gone too far.

Because religion is all about denying basic human rights.

biccat wrote:

TrollPie wrote:

But if someone helps kill you, they are guilty of murder.

Unless you want to die, in which case it's euthanasia.

Um...nope. Look at my example above w/r/t the hoodlum. Is murder on the street acceptable if the victim was on her way to the suicide booth?

No, because the hoodlum intends to harm the woman, while the suicide booth kills her because it's what she wants, as has been said already. The hoodlum is therefore a danger to society and should go to prison for murder. The suicide booth isn't.

TrollPie wrote:I like the part where you skim over my post, say I did things which I didn't and use these made up things to attack me.

That's some good debatin' right there.

I know, right? Like when you say:

But when your own personal beliefs cause you to deny basic human rights from people with completely different views, then you've gone too far.

Because religion is all about denying basic human rights.

Except I said personal beliefs. Not religion. Now you're obviously going to say they're the same thing. They're not. Religion is a small part of your beliefs that is usually chosen because of existing beliefs, rather than choosing your beliefs for you.

This has gone well off topic and much of it is inappropriately rude as well.