Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Owlbread]

It doesn't make you "negative duty", it makes you "negative duty agnostic", you are agnostic to the idea that we need to avoid assisting people in suicide which is a negative duty (duty not to do something).  You say it's entirely up to their conscience, absolving us of obligation while someone who is not negative duty agnostic would say that we as a society have an obligation to avoid killing them unless overruled by a greater obligation.

Well, is it agnostic to be against the idea that we need to avoid it? There is no element of ambivalence or uncertainty. I believe that we should assist people in suicide, though the decision to commit suicide with dignity should reside with the person in question.

I don't think we're necessarily "killing them" though. We may be the ones that provide the poison but ultimately it's the person's choice to die, and often they're the ones that drink the concoction themselves. Granted this is different when a physician would physically administer an injection or similar but again the original decision lay with the individual.

[Frumple]

But assisted suicide will always meet this sort of resistance no matter where it's proposed. Out of interest, can it be legalised on a state-level?

Physician assisted suicide is apparently legal in four states at the moment. So apparently yes.

[mainiac]

Well, is it agnostic to be against the idea that we need to avoid it? There is no element of ambivalence or uncertainty. I believe that we should assist people in suicide, though the decision to commit suicide with dignity should reside with the person in question.

Well if you were actively hostile towards this negative right then you would believe that we should forcibly euthanize those ambivalent towards their own life unless there was some special circumstance saying we should keep them alive.

[Owlbread]

I was referring to avoiding assisting people in suicide, not an avoidance of just killing people. Obviously as a society we must avoid killing anyone as best we can, but in the case that a person wishes to die we should be obliged to ensure that they have a dignified death. I see that as a human right. It comes under the right to self determination and the right to avoid suffering.

"Assisting people in suicide" is not "assisting people in dying, right now, whether they like it or not".

A relative of mine was euthanised illegally by a doctor. It was at the relative's request. If they could have seen what was coming at the beginning of their illness, I have a feeling they would have wanted it sooner than they got it.

[mainiac]

I was referring to avoiding assisting people in suicide, not an avoidance of just killing people. Obviously as a society we must avoid killing anyone as best we can, but in the case that a person wishes to die we should be obliged to ensure that they have a dignified death.

"Assisting people in suicide" is not "assisting people in dying, right now, whether they like it or not".

I feel like we are muddling things so I'm going to try to take a step back and explain the spectrum I'm seeing this as:

Non-eugenic negative rights believer: Assisting suicide is harming the person committing suicide.  Therefore it should be avoided.  If an exception is made it should be because the good from that exception outweighs the harm of us violating that negative right.

Non-eugenic negative rights agnostic: Assisting suicide is neither inherently good nor bad, it is not our place to avoid it nor seek it out.

Non-eugenic negative rights hostile: We are not obliged to avoid assisting suicide, the opposite is true, we are obliged to help them.  Therefore euthanizing someone is a moral duty and failing to euthanize them is violating their positive right to expect society to try to euthanize them.  We should only fail to euthanize someone when some greater need compels us not too (such as them wanting to live, which grants them a negative right of self determination.)  But if someone doesn't care if they live or die, we should kill them, all else being equal.

[Flying Dice]

Your second point on that would perhaps be a bit clearer if you stated it in terms of the desire of the individual; someone who wishes to die and needs assistance to do so should be granted said assistance; someone who wishes to live should be left alone; someone who is indifferent, preferring neither life nor death, should be left alone.

In other words, the only time when action should be taken is when an individual in the first state (life) wishes to transition to the second state (death).

[mainiac]

Your second point on that would perhaps be a bit clearer if you stated it in terms of the desire of the individual; someone who wishes to die and needs assistance to do so should be granted said assistance; someone who wishes to live should be left alone; someone who is indifferent, preferring neither life nor death, should be left alone.

In other words, the only time when action should be taken is when an individual in the first state (life) wishes to transition to the second state (death).

Well I guess if you were truly agnostic you technically wouldn't care if a completely indifferent person were assisted or not.

[Owlbread]

Non-eugenic negative rights hostile: We are not obliged to avoid assisting suicide, the opposite is true, we are obliged to help them.  Therefore euthanizing someone is a moral duty and failing to euthanize them is violating their positive right to expect society to try to euthanize them.

Rather - the positive right to expect society to euthanize them when they ask for it.

We should only fail to euthanize someone when some greater need compels us not too (such as them wanting to live, which grants them a negative right of self determination.)

I disagree with this premise. We should only euthanise someone when they want to die, regardless of the reason.

But if someone doesn't care if they live or die, we should kill them, all else being equal.

If someone doesn't care if they live or die, they probably won't want to commit suicide. If they wanted to commit suicide they would automatically want to die. If they don't want to commit suicide there is no obligation to help them.

[Helgoland]

Owlbread, I've been there. No shit. And I can tell you that if you help a depressed person commit suicide, you are essentially committing murder. A mental illness that leads to suicide is almost always* one that will make the affected person act unlike they would if they were thinking clearly**. You wouldn't want to start killing offed depressed teens, would you? Assisted suicide should only be availible to those of sound mind.



*A possible exeption: Chronic treatment-resistant depression. Although in that case, the wish for suicide is only indirectly caused by the illness, so that might be a good way of distinguishing between acceptable and inacceptable medical reasons.
**The German word is unzurechnungsfähig, meaning roughly "could not be held accountable for their own actions". In English, it's less clear, of course.

[mainiac]

Rather - the positive right to expect society to euthanize them when they ask for it.

That's not an exact opposite though, you are adding a condition "when they ask for it."  So you aren't being hostile towards Eugenic protection negative rights, you are believing in positive rights of self determination.

If I am offered between eating pizza or pasta and I don't care, I'm being neutral towards that.  If you say you will give me a dollar if I chose pizza and I chose pizza that isn't me changing my pizza-pasta valuation, it's me valuing that dollar.  I'm food agnostic but pro-money.

The negative right is protection from eugenics.  The opposite of that is insurance of eugenics.  Self determination is a closely related but subtly different matter.

[Owlbread]

Owlbread, I've been there. No shit. And I can tell you that if you help a depressed person commit suicide, you are essentially committing murder. A mental illness that leads to suicide is almost always* one that will make the affected person act unlike they would if they were thinking clearly**. You wouldn't want to start killing offed depressed teens, would you? Assisted suicide should only be availible to those of sound mind.



*A possible exeption: Chronic treatment-resistant depression. Although in that case, the wish for suicide is only indirectly caused by the illness, so that might be a good way of distinguishing between acceptable and inacceptable medical reasons.
**The German word is unzurechnungsfähig, meaning roughly "could not be held accountable for their own actions". In English, it's less clear, of course.

You're right. Assisted suicide should be given to anyone of sound mind. People with depression or very advanced Alzheimer's or similar should not choose because they are no longer of sound mind.

[Helgoland]

Owlbread, I've been there. No shit. And I can tell you that if you help a depressed person commit suicide, you are essentially committing murder. A mental illness that leads to suicide is almost always* one that will make the affected person act unlike they would if they were thinking clearly**. You wouldn't want to start killing offed depressed teens, would you? Assisted suicide should only be availible to those of sound mind.



*A possible exeption: Chronic treatment-resistant depression. Although in that case, the wish for suicide is only indirectly caused by the illness, so that might be a good way of distinguishing between acceptable and inacceptable medical reasons.
**The German word is unzurechnungsfähig, meaning roughly "could not be held accountable for their own actions". In English, it's less clear, of course.

You're right. Assisted suicide should be given to anyone of sound mind. People with depression or very advanced Alzheimer's or similar should not choose because they are no longer of sound mind.

Aaaaand we have a restriction that you previously haven't mentioned! This I can agree with, but before you were pretty much saying "They ask, I'll shoot them."

[Max White]

You're right. Assisted suicide should be given to anyone of sound mind. People with depression or very advanced Alzheimer's or similar should not choose because they are no longer of sound mind.

But now we are back where we started, how do you cleave one from the other?

[Frumple]

You wouldn't want to start killing offed depressed teens, would you?

Pretty sure that wouldn't be an issue in the states. We don't really consider non-adults particularly human in regard to many legal rights (more along the lines of their guardian's property, really), so even if assisted suicide was legal people under the age of majority wouldn't be able to avail themselves to such. Legal guardians might be able to sign off on it, though!

Assisted suicide should only be availible to those of sound mind.

And how do you stop the normal catch 22 of "desiring suicide == not of sound mind"? There's plenty (usually people that haven't actually experienced much, if anything, that would lead them to want to off themselves ) that hold that more or less as a psychological axiom.

[Owlbread]

But now we are back where we started, how do you cleave one from the other?

That's part of a wider debate, specifically a medical one. Who in the world right now is of sound mind? Who is not?