The case for a right to State-assisted suicide

RepThatMerch22

This thread presents the case for a right to State-assisted suicide.

I know that for some of you, such a proposal seems bizarre, but I want to keep emotion outside of this thread and keep it purely focused on the merits. I want to keep this a purely hypothetical topic. I know it is an emotional one, but I think we should be free to discuss these ideas. I do not recommend that anyone commit suicide, and none of what I say is medical advice. I am not a medical professional and I have no medical training. To avoid confusion, I will set out my points individually so you can address them in your replies.

By "State-assisted suicide", I mean that the State should provide the means for an individual who is of sound mind to commit suicide through reasonably quick, painless, efficient and humane means. This could mean, for example, setting up facilities where trained medical professionals can administer drugs to people who choose to undertake the procedure.

By "sound mind", I mean that the person has the ability to think, and reason for oneself. I understand there may be pragmatic problems in ascertaining who is of sound mind, and ensuring that people who are NOT of sound mind mind do not undertake the procedure. However, as I mentioned earlier I want to keep this topic purely hypothetical and theoretical -- so assuming that we could identify who is and is not of sound mind, would you support the proposal?

Here is my case, succinctly put, in favour of a case for a right to State-assisted suicide as defined above.

1. People do not choose to be born.

2. Some people are born into favourable circumstances, whereas others are not.

3. For example, and for illustrative purposes only, someone might be born into a wealthy family, and find it easier to progress through education and enjoy a successful career (this is a hypothetical example only, and it is not to say that all wealthy people are like this).

4. For example, and for illustrative purposes only, another person might be born into a poor family, and might struggle in school and live a miserable life (this is a hypothetical example only, and it is not to say that all poor people are like this).

5. The vast majority of normal people have an instinct to survive, and the idea of suicide goes against that instinct.

6. If a person of sound mind wishes to commit suicide, they should have the means by which to do so given that they did not choose to be born, and the State should provide those means (as described above).

In addition to those 6 points, I note that there are many people who would support euthanasia for people with extreme or intolerable conditions. If people are of sound mind, I do not see the problem with allowing them to undergo the same process, regardless of whether they have extreme or intolerable conditions.

***WARNING: Nothing in this thread, and nothing I have ever said on this forum, is medical advice. I am not a medical professional. I have no medical training. I strongly discourage suicide, and if you have suicidal tendencies please consult a medical professional.***

_db

According to Philip Nitschke (not Nietzsche), supplying aging citizens with easy means for a painless suicide will actually increase life expectancy and "happiness". Part of the reasoning is that, since there will always be an easy way out, elderly folks will become accustomed to the idea of dying and will not fear it (as much).

As it should be. It honestly baffles me how assisted euthanasia hasn't been 1.) legalized broadly and 2.) socially acceptable. The age of dying-while-shitting-your-pants-and-moaning-in-constant-pain should have ended a long time ago. I want to die with dignity, and if the state won't provide the means then I'll take the manner into my own hands when I deem the time is right.

BC

the case for a right to State-assisted suicide — RepThatMerch22

I don't think this is an entirely serious proposal, but for a provocative post it's reasonably well thought out.

I have two objections right away:

First, the grounds on which you consider suicide permissible are extremely broad. The gate is "wide open." There are cases where suicide may be appropriate, but I would prefer to limit it to cases of painful and/or severely debilitating illness, coupled with some counseling, and requiring more than one physician's approval (and maybe an ethicist's approval too).

Is there a screening process at the door of the suicide facilities, or is it first come first served? If there is a screening process, on how many grounds can a potential suicide be rejected (or accepted)? Are staff going to be in a position to argue with, cajole, encourage, discourage... suicide cases on the grounds that they think the person should or should not keep living?

IF the grounds for suicide are too inclusive ("life is a drag, I think I'll kill myself), the screening is minimal or suicide affirmative, then "state assisted suicide" gets closer to "state encouraged suicide". State encouraged suicide is a step towards state-sponsored murder.

There is a slippery slope. I don't think a tightly controlled program greases the skids to mass murder, but a very liberal approach might.

In your example, you seem to be giving and edge in favor of poor people committing suicide. Maybe if something were done about their poverty, they would feel less like killing themselves.

True enough, nobody asked to be born, and the circumstances into which one was born may be unwholesome and unpleasant in myriad ways. I am against antinatalism, nihilism, and (to add another one) a generously defined right to state assisted suicide.

I am not against abortion, I am not against the earliest possible abortion of a child with severe biologica/mental defects, I am not altogether in favor of heroic efforts to save very premature babies, and I am not against assisted suicide -- though I prefer the state be NOT involved. Indeed, I don't know that there need to be facilities and lots of staff. It seems to me that there are sedatives, poisons, paralytics, and so forth that can be taken by the individual at home (or somewhere else) and bring about their death. On the other hand, of course some people would need help.

BC

↪darthbarracuda

If you stop feeding people, they stop shitting in their pants.

Just joking.

BTW, it has been found in states where assisted suicide is legal, that terminal patients who are approved for suicide assistance experience an easier unassisted death. That is, the relief knowing that they could end their suffering at any time makes the suffering much more bearable. That doesn't mean that no one goes forward with the assisted death, of course.

deletedmemberwy

↪RepThatMerch22

Point 1) People do not chose to be born.
The desire to live and choosing to be born does not have a definite connection. It is a mindset which one has been trained to believe in many cases. One has "reasoned" that it would be better to have not been born, but should the premises of that reasoning prove false, then the entire theory collapses.

Point 2) Some have favorable circumstances and others don't.
Again, it is only a mindset that determines if one's circumstances are miserable or not. There will always be people worse off than another in some sense. If one bases "reasoning" on this, it ceases to be reasoning and becomes a decision based on emotions.

Point 6) If a person of sound mind wishes to commit suicide, they should have the means by which to do so given that they did not choose to be born, and the State should provide those means (as described above).

You have to define a "sound mind" better than merely being capable of "reasoning". Depression is like a sickness, so by even considering suicide, that proves one is not in a very sound mind nor is the reasoning actually reasoning. There are always reasons to live if one looks for them.

Therefore, the State should not offer assistance in committing suicide.

_db

That is, the relief knowing that they could end their suffering at any time makes the suffering much more bearable. — Bitter Crank

I live only because it is in my power to die when I choose to: without the idea of suicide, I'd have killed myself right away.

Emil Cioran, All Gall is Divided

BC

without the idea of suicide, I'd have killed myself right away — darthbarracuda

A nice paradox.

fishfry

Right to suicide, yes. Requirement that the State must assist? No. Based on the State I'm most familiar with, they'd be all too eager to help. They might not wait for you to ask. Can't you all keep the bloody State out of every little thing?

Ripped from today's headlines. A couple of gamers got into a dispute. One of them "swatted" the other, meaning called up the cops and caused the cops to dispatch a SWAT team. Only the gamer gave a fake address ... the address of some perfectly innocent and totally uninvolved guy. When the cops showed up at the guy's house, he simply answered the door, unarmed. The cops blew him away. Father of two. Ages 2 and 7.

What is it with you Statists? Don't you read the papers? Why the hell do you place so much trust in the homicidal and amoral State? Why do you place ANY trust in the State? The State is not your friend. The State may well be a necessary evil. But definitely evil. It doesn't take much encouragement for the State to show up at your house and kill you. Don't give them any more excuses than they already have. "Oh sorry, it was the guy next door who wanted to suicide. Honest mistake. Our officers followed departmental procedures."

http://www.newsweek.com/call-duty-swatting-prank-police-kill-man-gamers-say-765329

https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/newspaper-man-killed-in-call-of-duty-swatting-incident-w514820

RepThatMerch22

I don't think this is an entirely serious proposal, but for a provocative post it's reasonably well thought out. — Bitter Crank

Could you please assume it is a serious proposal. I can assure you in all sincerity that I am serious about the proposal, or at least wish to test its merits.

RepThatMerch22

The individual himself never chooses to be born. He is simply born, and he has no say over what his upbringing is, what his environment is and what to make of his life. He is a consciousness that has entered into existence, through no action of his own. Why should he not be entitled to put that life to an end if he is of sound mind? The individual has an instinct for survival, and finds the thought of suicide repulsive. He cannot think of any means by which to commit suicide efficiently, painlessly, quickly and humanely.

Why, then, should there not be at least a right to suicide? I would go further and argue for State-assisted suicide. Many people who advocate euthanasia need only open their minds a little to realise that there are some people without terminal illnesses, who are perfectly healthy, who perhaps do not wish to live.

BC

Why, then, should there not be at least a right to suicide? — RepThatMerch22

Who needs the right when anyone can bring about their own death?

The individual himself never chooses to be born. He is simply born, and he has no say over what his upbringing is, what his environment is and what to make of his life. He is a consciousness that has entered into existence, through no action of his own.

Why should he not be entitled to put that life to an end if he is of sound mind?

The individual has an instinct for survival, and finds the thought of suicide repulsive. He cannot think of any means by which to commit suicide efficiently, painlessly, quickly and humanely. — RepThatMerch22

I'm not sure that someone who wants to kill themselves because they didn't ask to be born, or weren't consulted about life first really is of sound mind, but...

What's stopping this person from killing themselves? You say "he cannot think of any means by which to commit suicide efficiently, painlessly, quickly, and """humanely""" whatever that means.

I would guess he just isn't trying very hard.

Men generally shoot themselves. It's efficient, quick, painless when done properly, and as humane as any other method, whatever that means. If you can't get ahold of a gun, there are other possibilities. Women often use less effective methods. Sometimes "less effective" is much worse than nothing at all. One might wake up quite damaged, on top of everything else. Are there no bridges to jump off of? Are there no bridge abutments to drive into? Has all the rope been confiscated? Are there no poisons left? Are there no opiates to OD on? Come on -- there are a variety of unsafe and effective methods of ending a life. You would think people who are so dissatisfied with life would be better at coming up with methods for getting the hell out.

You can only help people so far.

Banno

Behind this sort of liberal excess is the vague idea of the rational, whole, individual Homo Economicus.

They are far and few.

andrewk

↪Bitter Crank

There is a slippery slope. I don't think a tightly controlled program greases the skids to mass murder, but a very liberal approach might.

Actually that's an argument that there is not a 'slippery slope', as that term is used in arguments.

The slippery slope argument - beloved of religious zealots that don't want to admit that their true reason for opposing right to die laws is that they think it would annoy God - is that even a tightly controlled program will inevitably lead to mass murder - no matter how tight the controls.

Personally, I don't think God minds. If She's there, She just wants us to be happy.

Banno

Consider the perspective of those with disabilities.

This gem is by Stella Young, who was a disability rights activist and journalist. She sparkled.

Disability - a fate worse than death

ArguingWAristotleTiff

↪Banno

Compelling article Banno.

ChrisH

Compelling article Banno. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Strange. I had completely the opposite reaction to the Stella Young article.

charleton

There can be no case for state assisted suicide..
Suicide is not a decision or act that any state can be trusted to assist.
The best we can hope for is that the state refuses to intervene should an individual wish to make that decision for his or herself

andrewk

↪Banno

I couldn't see anything in that article that resembled a coherent argument against allowing the terminally ill to obtain assistance to end their life.

Stella said she would not mind living incapacitated and dependent. I wonder what her basis is for that claim since, based on what I know of her disability, and what she wrote in the article, she was neither of those things. If that's correct then she's just guessing how she would feel. Guessing how one would feel in a situation one has not experienced, and then assuming that everybody else would or should feel the same is not a good basis on which to make public policy.

Banno

I couldn't see anything in that article that resembled a coherent argument against allowing the terminally ill to obtain assistance to end their life. — andrewk

That's quite an extraordinary statement.

But here's the guts of it:

Before we can talk about death with dignity, we need to ensure that all people, regardless of age or disability, can live with dignity.

Banno

↪ChrisH

Are folk with disabilities to "other" for you to consider their opinions?

I'm left to make such inferences, since you said so little.

ChrisH

↪Banno

I did give consideration to the opinions presented in the article, I just found those opinions utterly unpersuasive.

Stella Young summed up with:

Before we can talk about death with dignity, we need to ensure that all people, regardless of age or disability, can live with dignity.

This is a complete non sequitur.

ArguingWAristotleTiff

Strange. I had completely the opposite reaction to the Stella Young article. — ChrisH

What was your "opposite reaction" to my being compelled by reading the article?
Were you bored? Was it a perspective not worth considering?
Who would know better about living with a disability, what the mind and body go through when someone like you, says something like that, than Stella?
She didn't just write about some abstract idea that has never been encountered by loved ones before her. Stella wrote from her perspective and it was likely something that had often been whispered behind her back and others who might not look like you or ,I or anyone that has been blessed with good health and genes. It is hard to phantom a 'thinker', who by simple omission of another persons 'free will' to live, has the audacity to look down upon or patronize someone who has overcome more than most of us will in our lifetime.

Banno

This is a complete non sequitur. — ChrisH

As with @andrewk's reply, I find that extraordinary.

One thread through the article is that loss of autonomy and independence - loss of dignity - is one motivation for seeking death. It's in her response to Jack, her discussion of her own situation and of Barbara Harling and Liz Carr's interviews.

Hence,

Before we can talk about death with dignity, we need to ensure that all people, regardless of age or disability, can live with dignity.

So, what do you mean by "non sequitur"?

Banno

The myth of the Rational, Independent Man runs deep. The replies here might lead one to suppose that the thoughts of a woman with a disability were not worth reading with due care.

But that must be wrong - in a thread that seriously advocates solving problems of inequity by helping the poor to suicide.

ChrisH

↪ArguingWAristotleTiff

What was your "opposite reaction" to my being compelled by reading the article? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I assume by "compelled" you meant that you found the arguments presented persuasive. I didn't.

Who would know better about living with a disability, what the mind and body go through when someone like you, says something like that, than Stella? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

She is undoubtedly the foremost expert on what it means to live with adversity for Stella Young. This gives her absolutely no authority to speak for others.

Banno

She is undoubtedly the foremost expert on what it means to live with adversity for Stella Young. This gives her absolutely no authority to speak for others. — ChrisH

I gather you never met her. She took her role as a disability advocate very seriously, and is very highly regarded in disability circles. So yes, she could and did speak for others.

Isn't it a bit perverse to deny her a voice in a discussion of public policy?

What were you thinking? Will you speak for the disabled?

ChrisH

↪Banno

So, what do you mean by "non sequitur"? — Banno

I mean

Before we can talk about death with dignity

Does not follow from

we need to ensure that all people, regardless of age or disability, can live with dignity.

.

The greatest indignity most of us will ever encounter in our lives is found in those days/months/years approaching our death.

ArguingWAristotleTiff

She is undoubtedly the foremost expert on what it means to live with adversity for Stella Young. This gives her absolutely no authority to speak for others. — ChrisH

Give me one name that has more authority to speak for others with disabilities

ArguingWAristotleTiff

The greatest indignity most of us will ever encounter in our lives is found in those days/months/years approaching our death. — ChrisH

Yes but some people believe that their lives, regardless of your sense of dignity, are worth living regardless of your standards that you defined. Not all people are fortunate enough to only deal with the topic of living with dignity, in the 11th hour of their lives, for some it is something they live with their entire lives.

ChrisH

↪ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yes but some people believe that theirlives, regardless of your sense of dignity, are worth living regardless of your standards that you defined. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Who here has argued that those people's beliefs/wishes should ever be ignored?

Banno

↪ChrisH

I am also an advocate of euthanasia. And if you read the article with care, you will see that Stella herself does not rule euthanasia out: "Before we can talk about death with dignity..."

The case for a right to State-assisted suicide

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions