Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Terminal Illness Is a British Obsession"
Controversy over physician assisted suicides is alive and well in Great Britain. Earlier this week it was reported that one of the country's premier conductors flew with his terminally-ill wife to Switzerland where they partook in a "lethal cocktail of barbiturates" together.
Although friends who spoke to the British news media said Sir Edward was not known to have been terminally ill, they said he wanted to die with his ailing wife, who had been his partner for more than half a century.
The couple’s children said in an interview with The London Evening Standard that on Tuesday of last week they accompanied their father, 85, and their mother, Joan, 74, on the flight to Zurich, where the Swiss group Dignitas helped arrange the suicides. On Friday, the children said, they watched, weeping, as their parents drank “a small quantity of clear liquid” before lying down on adjacent beds, holding hands.
Sounds peaceful. What could be better than being able to control the time, place, and circumstances of your own death?
Ludwig Minelli, founder of the Swiss euthanasia clinic Dignitas, that serviced the couple, said in an interview earlier this year with the Telegraph that suicide is a question of basic, human rights:
It's a right, a human right, without condition except capacity of discernment. I have a totally different attitude to suicide. I say suicide is a marvellous possibility given to a human being. Suicide is a very good possibility to escape a situation which you can't alter. It is not a condition to have a terminal illness. Terminal illness is a British obsession
A Gallup poll conducted in 2006
shows that almost 7 out of 10 Americans support physician
assisted suicide. Perhaps we don't share the British
obsession?
Reason coverage on physician assisted suicide here and here.
Mad Max|7.16.09 @ 6:25PM|#
As health care gets less affordable, let's see how much the number of sick old people 'volunteering' for suicide goes up.
Mad Max|7.16.09 @ 6:32PM|#
If some sick old person has the 'right' of suicide, but
stubbornly refuses to exercise that right, we may anticipate the
pressure - why are you imposing all this expense on your relatives
and/or the taxpayers - when you could your own quietus make with a
lethal injection.
In the Netherlands, medical personnel have sometimes been known to
skip right over the whole 'consent to suicide' thing.
|7.16.09 @ 6:33PM|#
I'm a libertarian. If I ask somebody to help me off myself
for any reason whatsoevr they shouldn't be prosecuted fo
saying yes. It's my damned body.
I'll work out the details of the legislation over lunch tomorrow.
Helping kids commit suicide will remain illegal.
|7.16.09 @ 6:36PM|#
In the Netherlands, medical personnel have sometimes been known to skip right over the whole 'consent to suicide' thing.
Evidence?
|7.16.09 @ 6:38PM|#
If some sick old person has the 'right' of suicide, but stubbornly refuses to exercise that right,...
You, on the other hand, have absolutely no trouble denying them
that right if they do want to excercise it.
|7.16.09 @ 6:45PM|#
Actually, when it comes to me exercising that right, by the way,
I will take care of it myself.
I will try to make any such decision before I am physically unable
to do so. Barring a crippling injury, that is.
I would hate to impose the moral burden to have to make that
decision about my life on anyone else.
kilroy|7.16.09 @ 6:48PM|#
If you're done living you should be able to legally sign off. Maybe you could help someone with your organs on the way out. Your body is your property, do with your property whatever the hell you want.
Hugh Akston|7.16.09 @ 7:01PM|#
Helping kids commit suicide will remain illegal.
So they'd have to wait 'til they were 18?
|7.16.09 @ 7:02PM|#
If i were a climate scientist i would look at the upward tick in poeple against assisted suicide and conclude that by 2020 500% will be against assisted suicide.
Stormy Dragon|7.16.09 @ 7:08PM|#
I have no problem with assisted suicide in theory, but I don't trust our society or government with it in practice. It's too easy for "I don't think my life is worth living and I want to die" to become "We don't think your life is useful and want to kill you."
|7.16.09 @ 7:09PM|#
So they'd have to wait 'til they were 18?
Yep, but with me writing the laws they'll also have the option of
drowning their sorrow in the local pub where an older, but still
attractive barmaid will take pity on him, take him up to her flat
and teach him that life is indeed worth living.
As you can tell, I've thought through all of the ramifications.
|7.16.09 @ 7:18PM|#
Isaac Bartram, you can read about infant euthanasia in the
Netherlands here:
Groningen
Protocol
Mad Max|7.16.09 @ 7:33PM|#
Here's some material referring to severely handicapped babies euthanized in the Netherlands.
|7.16.09 @ 7:47PM|#
So what's the over/under on when someone will challenge the constitutionality of anti-suicide laws, citing Roe v. Wade as precedent?
Richard Hoste|7.16.09 @ 7:50PM|#
Britain is a sad
country.
As far as infant euthanasia, I don't see why that's so much worse
than late-term abortion. To prevent a lifetime of suffering seems
to me to be a better justification for something like this rather
than some whore's "choice."
|7.16.09 @ 8:13PM|#
The couple had a son they named Caractacus. I am guessing that
they were big Ian Fleming fans.
I know, it's irrelevant. But Dick Hoste showed up so I figured the
thread was heading off the rails anyway.
Mad Max|7.16.09 @ 8:18PM|#
Wesley Smith points out some embarrassing admissions in a
pro-euthanasia memoir by a Dutch doctor.
'As far as infant euthanasia, I don't see why that's so much worse
than late-term abortion.'
How true! So let's treat the two the same.
Use the treatment of just-born infants as the yardstick by which to
measure the rights of late-term babies in the womb.
The relevant standard for born infants is set down in federal and
state law. Federal policy, in the Born-Alive Infants Protection
Act, says that legal personhood status (for purposes of federal
law) attaches *no later* than emergence from the womb. Companion
laws on the state level have similar principles. President Obama
said he would have voted, on the Illinois level, for a law like the
federal born-alive law.
So there seems to be a consensus on behalf of the rights of
born-alive infants. If there's no relevant difference between the
just-born and the about-to-be-born, let us protect the latter as
well as the former.
|7.16.09 @ 8:19PM|#
Lazarus Long in Time Enough for Love used his guaranteed solemn
right to hit the 'suicide button' on several occasions only to be
tricked into living again.
freedom doesn't stop where death begins. if i really want to die,
who are you to say i can't do it comfortably and quickly with the
aid of some medical professional?
Dr. Kevorkian, while being one of the greatest butt-end of jokes,
also happens to be one of the greatest proponents of liberty.
asshat celebrities should've waved free kevorkian banners instead
of free tibet ones during the nineties. damn richard gere to
hell.
Richard Hoste|7.16.09 @ 8:28PM|#
So there seems to be a consensus on behalf of the rights of
born-alive infants. If there's no relevant difference between the
just-born and the about-to-be-born, let us protect the latter as
well as the former.
Do you go back to the moment of conception?
It seems like there's going to be a line drawn somewhere, and it's
going to be somewhat arbitrary. Leaving the womb seems as good a
place to draw the line as any.
But that's not my position. I think that babies who are going to
have a lifetime of suffering should be put under with the consent
of the parents.
Mad Max|7.16.09 @ 8:29PM|#
While on the subject of late-term abortions, there's new evidence about the existence of memory in late-stage babies in the womb.
Mad Max|7.16.09 @ 8:33PM|#
'Do you go back to the moment of conception?'
Indeed I do; how did you guess? :)
'Leaving the womb seems as good a place to draw the line as
any.'
But even before then, they have characteristics which many folks on
this form cite as sufficient to establish human rights - like a
brain and nervous system. Not to mention memories.
The only theory which makes the birth canal the dividing line
between the right to life and the reverse is the 'trespass' theory,
by which a mother has the right to evict even an admitted human
being from her womb. But if you use trespass principles, then
remember that when throwing someone off your land, you can't kill
them (I'm talking about a guest overstaying his welcome, not a
robber under a 'make my day' scenario). So why should you be able
to use deadly force to evict a 'guest' from your womb?
Mad Max|7.16.09 @ 8:39PM|#
'I think that babies who are going to have a lifetime of
suffering should be put under with the consent of the
parents.'
I'm sure there are actually parents who sincerely think like this -
in terms of 'sparing' the child by killing it. This is sincere,
albeit mistaken.
But let us not assume that *all* child-killings have such a motive.
If we kill a disabled person, it's possible that we're not trying
to put him out of *his* misery; we're trying to put him out of
*our* misery.
Richard Hoste|7.16.09 @ 8:51PM|#
I'm sure there are actually parents who sincerely think like
this - in terms of 'sparing' the child by killing it. This is
sincere, albeit mistaken.
Why is it mistaken? You can't imagine circumstances under which you
wouldn't want to live?
But let us not assume that *all* child-killings have such a
motive. If we kill a disabled person, it's possible that we're not
trying to put him out of *his* misery; we're trying to put him out
of *our* misery.
Since you're here I assume you're a libertarian. What about people
who need the support of the state to live and don't have relatives
willing or able to provide medical care. Ayn Rand, and some others
here, would probably say let'em die.
Mad Max|7.16.09 @ 8:57PM|#
'Since you're here I assume you're a libertarian.'
Chicago Tom is also here; is *he* a libertarian too?
What about MNG?
I actually believe in a certain modest degree of forcible
redistribution to help the truly desperate - emergency room
patients, etc. In other words, in H&R terms, I am a fascist
oppressor.
I'm still more libertarian than the American political mainstream,
but frankly that's a very low bar to clear.
Mad Max|7.16.09 @ 9:01PM|#
'Why is it mistaken? You can't imagine circumstances under which
you wouldn't want to live?'
We were discussing a situation in which parents decided, on the
child's behalf, that the child wouldn't want to 'live this way.' I
think it's a bit of a stretch to say what the child wants or not,
and anyway, even under a legalized-suicide regime, only adults
would be free to 'choose' suicide, not children.
We have parents writing 'goodbye, cruel world' notes, signing the
kid's name, and then killing the kid.
In an abortion discussion (admittedly on a university campus, so it
was understandably insane), one person seriously said that it was a
good thing for an anti-gay woman to abort her baby (who, by
hypothesis, had the 'gay gene') in order to spare the kid a
lifetime of homophobic oppression. Talk about a conflict of
interest!
alan|7.16.09 @ 9:04PM|#
Sounds peaceful. What could be better than being able to
control the time, place, and circumstances of your own
death?
That actually sounds like one of the more lame ways to croak.
Weepy relatives, and they are all English, too? Bleh. A Sid Barrett
inspired nightmare more like it.
Better ways?
John Entwistle got it about right.
Hell, blowing up in the middle of the kasbah would be more
preferable
than how this couple went.
As for me, however it happens, if I don't get a Darwin out of it,
every one who knows me will be sorely disappointed.
Mad Max|7.16.09 @ 9:11PM|#
If we want to respect the kid's 'right to die,' why not just
wait until his or her 18th birthday so he can make the 'decision'
himself?
Because this isn't about autonomy and individual rights. Whatever
may be the case on the Libertarian Happy Island, applying a concept
of legalized suicide in the real world would open up so many
avenues of 'abuse' that I expect the abuses would threaten to
become the norm.
Just to be clear, even a fully intelligent, non-pressured,
autonomous healthy adult who wants to off himself should not have a
recognized 'right' to do so in my view, although in practice such
persons will be able to find a way to shuffle off this mortal coil
with or without legal permission. The weaker members of society -
children, disabled people, Uncle Gus lying in his hospital bed
while relatives cluck their tongues at his selfish refusal to drink
the poison being offered by kindly Doctor Death.
MJ|7.16.09 @ 10:16PM|#
"It's a right, a human right, without condition except capacity
of discernment."
Whatever is not forbidden will be made mandatory.
zoltan|7.16.09 @ 10:40PM|#
a concept of legalized suicide drug
use in the real world would open up so many avenues of
'abuse' that I expect the abuses would threaten to become the
norm.
Yawn. Arguing from effect is boring.
|7.16.09 @ 11:22PM|#
Isaac Bartram, you wrote:
You, on the other hand, have absolutely no trouble denying them
that right if they do want to excercise it.
how so? How many people get prosecuted for committing suicide? How
many others get prosecuted for trying to commit suicide?
Hacha Cha|7.16.09 @ 11:27PM|#
suicide should be legal in all cases, assisted or not.
in the UK they do take care of some terminally ill patients with a
delicious beverage known as the Brompton Cocktail
(heroin/methadone/dilaudid+cocaine/meth/amphetmine+alcohol/gin).
Isaac Bartram|7.16.09 @ 11:52PM|#
kim luisi
Read Mad Max's comments and you will clearly see that he is unhappy
that "How many people get prosecuted for committing suicide? How
many others get prosecuted for trying to commit suicide?" are
questions that anyone would ask.
Some Guy|7.17.09 @ 12:17AM|#
We were discussing a situation in which parents decided, on
the child's behalf, that the child wouldn't want to 'live this
way.' I think it's a bit of a stretch to say what the child wants
or not, and anyway, even under a legalized-suicide regime, only
adults would be free to 'choose' suicide, not children.
If you had a child and the doctor told you that child would have a
lifespan of 5 years, during which he would endure constant
agonizing pain, and you wouldn't even consider what could be done
to prevent that then I think that's pretty messed up on your
part.
Michael Ejercito|7.17.09 @ 12:20AM|#
Why is physician-assisted suicide even necessary?
Studies have proven that buying a handgun increases the risk of
suicide, so if those suffering people need to die, just sell them a
handgun for a penny.
freedom doesn't stop where death begins. if i really want to die, who are you to say i can't do it comfortably and quickly with the aid of some medical professional?
Why can't you buy a handgun instead of involving a doctor?
Mad Max|7.17.09 @ 2:27AM|#
A key difference between drug use and suicide is that the latter is inherently deadly, and intended to be so. The drug-user is generally not *trying* to end a human life (his own), whatever one might think of drug use. A puff on a joint or a shot of something heavier probably won't kill you, no matter what you might think of the advisability of that sort of behavior.
|7.17.09 @ 5:39AM|#
thanks for sharing...
___________________
Britney
The
best place for the best ENTERTAINMENT
Some Guy|7.17.09 @ 6:42AM|#
I fail to see how your Godwin has any bearing on the scenario I put forth. If you honestly can't see the difference between parents wanting to prevent a child from having a short life filled with nothing but pain and the government ordering the deaths of "undesirables", then you should seek help.
Mad Max|7.17.09 @ 7:09AM|#
'you should seek help.'
Your definition of 'help' seems to be mercy killing, so no thanks.
And please don't volunteer to 'help' me, either.
The 1920 book which inspired the National Socialist mercy-killing
program was filled with of compassionate rhetoric about hard cases.
Check this
out:
'The strategy used by [authors] Binding and Hoche is a clear
instance of the technique of "gradualism" as a way to accomplish
the perversion of the truth without allowing their distortion to be
so easily discovered. In this
respect the authors follow a path all too common today in
justifyingn mercy killing and assisted suicide. The first case
discussed is that of a young woman dying a horrible death from
throat cancer that would make anyone sympathetic to her cry for
mercy killing or assisted suicide (except someone familiar with
palliative care and pain control). This was
followed by less heartrending cancer cases, then by mentally
retarded children, mentally ill adults (all in institutions),
physically handicapped children, and finally bedwetters! All of
these were considered an economic burden on the State or unfit on
eugenic grounds. Apparently
this little book was widely read and quoted, even in medical
journals, and
was mentioned by some of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials
to
justify or explain their horrendous experiments on prisoners
and
sometimes their execution.'
Some Guy|7.17.09 @ 7:48AM|#
That's a very nice slippery slope argument to make as long as you don't distinguish between the parents and the state.
Fluffy|7.17.09 @ 8:43AM|#
I have no problem with assisted suicide in theory, but I
don't trust our society or government with it in practice. It's too
easy for "I don't think my life is worth living and I want to die"
to become "We don't think your life is useful and want to kill
you."
Why?
Somehow the right to drink alcohol has not created a situation
where the government straps people down and force feeds them
alcohol.
Somehow the right to have an abortion has not created a situation
where the government [our government] abducts women and
forcibly aborts their fetuses.
I am all for slippery-slope arguments, and often will anticipate
the way a precedent will be abused in the future, but this isn't
one of those cases, for the simple reason that the policy should be
built around consent. Slippery slopes come into play in
policies where consent is taken away, because in the
absence of consent the state's overarching bad faith will
eventually express itself; policies that rely on consent and give
power to the individual militate against the slippery
slope.
Mercy killings don't arise from a policy granting autonomy only to
those capable of consent. There are mercy killings
everywhere, and not merely in jurisdictions allowing
assisted suicide.
It's pretty hard for me to see how a policy allowing one to file a
legal document attesting to one's desire for suicide could be
abused to kill handicapped toddlers. How do you get a handicapped
toddler or someone in a coma to sign a legal document?
Abdul|7.17.09 @ 8:56AM|#
I don't see why libertarians view suicide as a "right." It's
irresponsible. When a person dies involuntarily, say through an old
fashined stroke, all sorts of impositions are made on other people.
Someone has to sort through their property, someone has to schlep
the corpse to the undertaker, etc. Sure, the people who do all this
usually get paid for it in the end, but even arranging those
payments can be a hassle. And when there's not enough funds in the
decedent's estate, someone is either going to get stiffed or have
to go to the government to get paid, which means we're all
subsidizing the process. The only reason those impostions aren't
illegal is because the act that caused them was involuntary.
Now, some conductor can't man up to the fact that his wife is going
the way of all flesh, and he throws the responsibilites of his life
to other people. How is that a right?
Abdul|7.17.09 @ 8:56AM|#
What could be better than being able to control the time,
place, and circumstances of your own death?
Having some courage.
Fluffy|7.17.09 @ 9:03AM|#
According to Abdul, you are obliged to go on living, for the
good of the collective.
Hey, at least it's a new twist on things.
Guy_Smiley|7.17.09 @ 9:04AM|#
Thomas Szasz, anti-psychiatrist and all-around libertarian
bass-ass, had an interesting take on the "physician-assisted" part
of it.
He said that the suicide issue is just a consequence of our drug
laws. If morphine were legal, would we need a doctor to "assist" us
in dying?
So, he was pro-suicide, but found it ridiculous that doctors were
the ones given the power to grant it to people.
"We avoid confronting problems of living as moral problems and
choose instead to treat them as medical problems. It is not a good
choice." --Thomas Szasz
Fluffy|7.17.09 @ 9:07AM|#
Now, some conductor can't man up to the fact that his wife
is going the way of all flesh, and he throws the responsibilites of
his life to other people. How is that a right?
Hey, just don't assume those responsibilities. Problem
solved.
Trustees and lawyers get paid from estates, you know. Generally
death is quite a good thing for those "poor, poor souls" who have
to settle even a modest estate.
If I die with no estate, just treat me as road kill. It's no skin
off my ass, believe me. Since I don't see a lot of people
complaining right now about the intolerable burden on their lives
created by road kill, I conclude that your whining about the fact
that suicide leaves behind a dead body to get rid off is overblown.
Harvest the parts or something.
Abdul|7.17.09 @ 9:08AM|#
Fluffy,
You're obliged to a lot of things for the good of the collective.
You can't drive drunk, you can't litter, you can't neglect your
kids. And to all those things, I add you can't stick other people
with your bills and your checkbook and say: "figure out what I've
got to pay and pay it for me. If I'm short, too bad, I'm taking a
dirt nap."
Every day, someone somewhere is dealing with the problems of a
terminally ill spouse or child. Of course it's not easy. But having
the courage to face it is far superior to killing yourself.
Fluffy|7.17.09 @ 9:11AM|#
He said that the suicide issue is just a consequence of our
drug laws. If morphine were legal, would we need a doctor to
"assist" us in dying?
So, he was pro-suicide, but found it ridiculous that doctors were
the ones given the power to grant it to people.
This is a good point, but it might be your preference to
involve someone with some familiarity with what they were doing.
You might arrive at the moment in question with no experience with
morphine and need a hand from a professional. After all, I can buy
insecticide and apply it to my own house if I want to, but I
generally don't.
And if the drug laws didn't exist, some enterprising soul would
probably sell a suicide kit - but that person would need a
legal safe harbor to do even that, I imagine. So we can't just get
rid of the drug laws, we need the anti-suicide laws to go too.
Abdul|7.17.09 @ 9:11AM|#
Trustees and lawyers get paid from estates, you know.
Generally death is quite a good thing for those "poor, poor souls"
who have to settle even a modest estate.
I acknowledged as much. However, just becuase your compensated
after the fact doesn't mean you have a right to make the
imposition. I can't impose a service on you even if I compensate
you afterwards for twice the cost of the service.
Fluffy|7.17.09 @ 9:17AM|#
And to all those things, I add you can't stick other people
with your bills and your checkbook and say: "figure out what I've
got to pay and pay it for me. If I'm short, too bad, I'm taking a
dirt nap."
You know what makes this really, really stupid? I can do this
while remaining alive.
And you don't have to assume this responsibility if you don't want
it. Just walk away.
My creditors will employ their agents to fight over whatever scraps
are available, but that's part of being a creditor. No one who
lends money is under the impression that their counterparties will
live forever. They have to expend effort to collect from living
persons who don't or won't or can't pay, they can do the same for
the dead. Big deal. Seriously, is this all you've got? "It's
inconvenient for a crematoria to dun an estate"?
But having the courage to face it is far superior to killing
yourself.
What you feel is superior isn't important.
Fluffy|7.17.09 @ 9:18AM|#
However, just becuase your compensated after the fact
doesn't mean you have a right to make the imposition. I can't
impose a service on you even if I compensate you afterwards for
twice the cost of the service.
Then don't be a lawyer or trustee. Problem solved.
Hugh Akston|7.17.09 @ 9:19AM|#
But having the courage to face it is far superior to killing
yourself.
I could say that having the courage to end it all with dignity is
preferable to grinding on pointlessly. But it wouldn't offer any
more compelling an argument than yours, Abdul. Wanna try justifying
your statement a little?
Mad Max|7.17.09 @ 9:19AM|#
'Somehow the right to drink alcohol has not created a situation
where the government straps people down and force feeds them
alcohol.'
It might get to that point if we're ever in a situation where
'persuading' grandma to drink some malt liquor would save her
relatives, and the taxpayers, some money. We'd probably start
seeing a jump in the rate of 'voluntary' drinking among bedridden
geriatrics.
'Somehow the right to have an abortion has not created a situation
where the government [our government] abducts women and forcibly
aborts their fetuses. . . .
'Slippery slopes come into play in policies where consent is taken
away . . .'
In that case, the slippery slope has already arrived in the case of
abortion. Unborn children are being killed without their own
consent. That seems to me like the *bottom* of a slippery slope.
Yet it's possible to slide even lower, as indicated by those who
advocate the mercy-killing of newborns.
And if we're talking about compulsory abortions, American taxpayers
help fund a UN agency which works hand-in-glove with the Chinese
government's compulsory abortion policy:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09070709.html
'It's pretty hard for me to see how a policy allowing one to file a
legal document attesting to one's desire for suicide could be
abused to kill handicapped toddlers. How do you get a handicapped
toddler or someone in a coma to sign a legal document?'
Such a 'reform' could well lead to a political climate in which
suicide-by-proxy becomes more acceptable.
We've seen how just about any oppressive policy can be justified in
the name of The Children (TM).
High and oppressive taxes - it's For the Children!
Persecution of adults for private vices - it's For the
Children!
The mercy-killing advocates would add: Kill disabled children -
it's For the Children!
'[Szasz] was pro-suicide'
No, no no - he was pro-*choice!* :)
Fluffy|7.17.09 @ 9:19AM|#
However, just becuase your compensated after the fact
doesn't mean you have a right to make the imposition. I can't
impose a service on you even if I compensate you afterwards for
twice the cost of the service.
Seriously, you're aware that trust services is an industry where
people expend millions of dollars to acquire a customer base, and
fight with other providers of services for market share. Right?
That I can't just look your name up in the phone book and declare
you my trustee and force you to undertake the job?
Fluffy|7.17.09 @ 9:28AM|#
Such a 'reform' could well lead to a political climate in
which suicide-by-proxy becomes more acceptable.
Well, if your argument is: "If we acknowledge Fluffy's autonomy as
a human being, in a different political debate at some point in the
future some might advocate that the autonomy of completely
different people be reduced," then quite honestly my answer has to
be "Too bad."
Because basically that's arguing that we have to tangibly and
concretely restrict liberty now to avoid potential and abstract
future abuses. And I would say we'll fight today's abuses today and
tomorrow's abuses tomorrow.
Abdul|7.17.09 @ 9:38AM|#
Seriously, you're aware that trust services is an industry
where people expend millions of dollars to acquire a customer base,
and fight with other providers of services for market share.
Right?
I'm aware there are lots of industries that clean up messes left by
other people. That doesn't mean leaving a mess for other people to
clean up is okay.
Abdul|7.17.09 @ 9:45AM|#
What you feel is superior isn't important.
And Hugh said: I could say that having the courage to end it
all with dignity is preferable to grinding on pointlessly. But it
wouldn't offer any more compelling an argument than yours, Abdul.
Wanna try justifying your statement a little?
Both are fair points. But I think Hugh acknowledges the fundamental
problem with the "right" to suicide. This is far from a
self-evident right or moral good. Just because you feel
suicide is a nice option for some people doesn't seem like a
stronger argument than my feeling that it's not a good
option for anyone.
Now I'm back up that arugment by pointing out that suicide imposes
costs on other people. Fluffy wants to minimize those costs, but
you haven't found a way to deny the fact that those costs
exist.
Abdul|7.17.09 @ 9:53AM|#
You know what makes this really, really stupid? I can do
this while remaining alive.
And you don't have to assume this responsibility if you don't want
it. Just walk away.
The difference between you trying to lay off all your
responsiblities on someone else while you're alive, and doing it
through suicide, is that you can be punished for imposing costs on
someone while you're alive. Those punishments deter most people.
True, not all. Some people go down the path of bankruptcy
voluntarily or so recklessly that it might as well be voluntary.
But when their property is seized, they usually see the wisdom of
acting more responsibly.
|7.17.09 @ 9:56AM|#
Abdul,
A terminally ill patient imposes the same or higher costs on their
loved ones. A person who wants to die and isn't allowed to imposes
costs on their loved ones.
My right to use my body as I see fit is not subject to your
evaluation of what is cheaper.
The right to choose to die is the same right as the right to choose
not to die. To deny one is to deny both.
Fluffy|7.17.09 @ 10:31AM|#
Now I'm back up that arugment by pointing out that suicide
imposes costs on other people. Fluffy wants to minimize those
costs, but you haven't found a way to deny the fact that those
costs exist.
Sure I have. I have pointed out over and over that you don't have
to assume those costs if you don't want to.
Some relative of yours dies and you don't want to bury them or
clean up their estate? Then say, "Fuck it, I'm not doing this." No
one can make you. I fail to see how you can argue for "imposed
costs" when no one can impose costs on you if you don't volunteer
to assume them.
And don't even come back to me with an argument about "social
costs" because that's just the same old collectivist crap I reject
in every other area, so I'll reject it here too.
Abdul|7.17.09 @ 10:40AM|#
Some relative of yours dies and you don't want to bury them
or clean up their estate? Then say, "Fuck it, I'm not doing this."
No one can make you.
Let me get this straight: if your spouse or child commits suicide
right now, no one can force you to report it? No one can force you
to have the body disposed of? You won't be billed for the costs of
the disposal? I think we know that you can't just walk away.
Now, there are people who commit suicide or die without any close
relatives, but then the local government absorbs the costs. As I've
said before, we're forced to subsidize those costs. In the case of
a natural death, the imposition wasn't voluntary. PResumably, the
decedent would have lived forever if possible. But in the case of a
suicide, the imposition of costs on others is voluntary.
I'll grant you that this particular conductor went about committing
suicide more responsibly than most, but it still imposed costs on
others.
|7.17.09 @ 10:45AM|#
This is the only treatment option available under the NHS for many medical conditions. But seriously, I wish more people would commit suicide.
Abdul|7.17.09 @ 10:48AM|#
A terminally ill patient imposes the same or higher costs on
their loved ones. A person who wants to die and isn't allowed to
imposes costs on their loved ones.
Sugarfree, the difference between a suicide and a terminally ill
person is voluntariness. The terminally ill person is not choosing
to impose costs on loved ones. If they could choose, they wouldn't
be terminally ill at all. The suicide is choosing to put problems
off on others.
You're correct that a person who wants to commit suicide, but
can't, might impose costs on loved ones. However, that living
person is choosing to make others miserable, and that choice can be
deterred.
Hugh Akston|7.17.09 @ 10:51AM|#
Now I'll back up that arugment by pointing out that suicide
imposes costs on other people.
Abdul, everything we do imposes costs on other people in terms of
time and effort and lost opportunity. But we still act, with the
calculated belief that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Suicide is not qualitatively different. Leaving a body and a bunch
of stuff and perhaps a mountain of debt is an imposition to be
sure, but engaging in economic activity is a risky proposition,
suicide or no.
Lenders charge interest on debts because there is an inherent risk
to lending money, even if the borrower doesn't skip town by cutting
his wrists. As for the other impositions, institutions will arise
to mitigate them. The only reason we don't have them now is the
stigma surrounding suicide.
If we treat suicide honestly as the valid human choice that it is,
we can develop methods to deal with it rather than treating it like
the elephant in the room.
Michael Ejercito|7.17.09 @ 11:10AM|#
A terminally ill patient imposes the same or higher costs on their loved ones. A person who wants to die and isn't allowed to imposes costs on their loved ones.
Why involve a doctor?
You have heard of handguns, right ?
It has been proven that buying a handgun increases the risk of
suicide.
|7.17.09 @ 11:18AM|#
Why involve a doctor?
I said nothing about a doctor. The physician-assisted part is
easily solved by getting rid of the stupid drug laws.
Although nothing I believe would preclude doctors being able to
help patients die. Don't force them; don't force them not to.
|7.17.09 @ 11:23AM|#
Abdul,
Everyone I know might be happier if I lived in abject slavery to
them. Utilitarianism gets you nowhere with me or most anyone else
on this board.
I don't live for the pleasure and comfort of others. If I kill
myself, it will be hard on my loved ones (maybe), but the hardship
of others is not my problem to solve.
JB|7.17.09 @ 11:26AM|#
Because it's so difficult to find a car and a garage. Suicide is easy if you aren't a total retard.
Stormy Dragon|7.17.09 @ 11:35AM|#
Somehow the right to drink alcohol has not created a
situation where the government straps people down and force feeds
them alcohol.
Because I'm generally capable of resisting any such attempt. In the
case of euthanasia, I have to trust the State to not take advantage
of my helplessness.
And I don't trust them.
|7.17.09 @ 11:54AM|#
A Gallup poll conducted in 2006 shows that almost 7 out of 10 Americans support physician assisted suicide. Perhaps we don't share the British obsession?
I'm not really sure that your last sentence is correct, since the
poll question specifically refers to "a person has a disease that
cannot be cured and is living in severe pain" in its most
permissive form.
I doubt that support is nearly that high for people who are
depressed because their health is failing. And, yes, I went through
just that with a family member who started having heart attacks
after over eighty years of near perfect health.
Fluffy|7.17.09 @ 11:54AM|#
As I've said before, we're forced to subsidize those costs.
In the case of a natural death, the imposition wasn't voluntary.
PResumably, the decedent would have lived forever if possible. But
in the case of a suicide, the imposition of costs on others is
voluntary.
Since everyone dies a grand total of one time, everyone imposes
identical costs. [I still don't agree that these costs are imposed,
but let's set that aside for one moment.]
If everyone imposes identical costs, it's absurd to argue to me
that suicide should be prevented because of the costs it
imposes.
In addition, by definition anti-suicide laws can only be enforced
against suicides who FAIL. The ones who succeed are beyond
punishment. But the suicides who fail haven't actually imposed any
costs. So you want to punish them for costs they didn't
impose.
I'll grant you that this particular conductor went about
committing suicide more responsibly than most, but it still imposed
costs on others.
No, it didn't. It is fucking moronic to say that something I pay
for "imposes costs" on someone. If I hire a lawyer and a trustee
and arrange for the settlement of my estate, I have imposed costs
on NO ONE. The lawyer and the trustee MAKE MONEY BY GETTING WORK.
Claiming that I have imposed costs on them is like claiming that I
impose costs on farmers when I buy food. It's absolutely
idiotic.
Zeb|7.17.09 @ 12:08PM|#
"It has been proven that buying a handgun increases the risk of
suicide."
No it hasn't. A correlation has been demonstrated between ahving a
handgun and successful suicide. I would guess that is because a
handgun is a convenient and effective way to off yourself. The act
of buying a gun does not make an otherwise happy and sane person
more likely to kill himself.
Abdul, your argument is not very good. Someone who is terminally
ill and wants to commit suicide is probably going to die soon in
any case. These burdens on others you bring up exist in any case.
If it is a planned, assisted suicide, then there is also the
opportunity to make sure the estate is in reasonable shape and
affairs are settled before it happens. In many cases it could be a
far better situation for the survivors than if the person just dies
of the disease. What you are saying might be more true in the case
of a more conventional suicide caused by mental problems, but no
law is going to change how that plays out.
By the same logic, you should say that it should be against the law
to poorly plan your estate, or not make a will or not to have
enough retirement savings.
If there is any natural, fundamental right that people have, it is
to kill oneself.
|7.17.09 @ 1:12PM|#
Physician assisted suicide in Great Britain would involve the socialized National Health Service. So anyone wanting to commit suicide with the help of a doctor is likely to die of natural causes before there's a doctor available to help kill him.
|7.17.09 @ 7:56PM|#
I believe the feds should allow states to allow assisted suicide but the feds should not be involved in the individuals decison making process.
Hacha Cha|7.17.09 @ 8:18PM|#
libertarians view suicide as a right because we should have a right to our life (and death), a right to our own bodies. if we don't own ourselves then we are property of someone else. that could be the government or a church or whatever means of control that try to enslave mankind. the rights are inalienable and are self evident and fits in with the concept of individual rights and private property rights.
Robert|7.20.09 @ 2:54PM|#
Why do these comment threads usually go in directions that bore me instead of discussing what I find interesting in the blog entry: What caused those polls to change over that period, and stay stable since then? Instead it's as if commenters here were the ones being polled on the issue. Whoopee, you can get those opinions anywhwere.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245