But I don't see why you would trust the government to a manage an assisted suicide considering their track record of eugenics and the current problems with it. — Andrew4Handel

Because I trust self-righteous, interfering power freak even less. I have no current problem with eugenics.

There certainly is the issue as how far can we trust the government and how much power can we invest them with. — Andrew4Handel

And that's why I would rather have me than the government deciding when and how I'm allowed to die.

I have found some bible quotes.

Take into consideration the bible is contradictory and long and can be used to support many different positions.

"Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."
Colossians 4:1

“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death
Exodus 21:16

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28

“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.
Exodus 21:26-27

:up: Makes my point. Thanks!

In my estimate, assisted suicide is connected to the legalization of drugs. One big reason why drugs are so bad is that they must be consumed on the sly (get caught and its at least 5 years in the slammer) and that means no safety regulation, no medical care, you get the idea. Once drugs are legalized, junkies can get high safely (e.g. quality control, sterile disposable syringes, medication for complications, research-based protocols for drug use, etc.) and that saves us a whole lot of trouble. Same thing for assissted suicide (e.g. desperate folks can avail of quick & painless, safe & tested, modes of dying). That's a plus, not a minus.

:up: :up:

What lawmakers and many citizens so often fail - or refuse - to distinguish is the line between personal and civic behaviour. It is necessary for government to mediate interaction between persons and between the individual and the community. Thus gun laws, hate speech laws, traffic laws, property and contract laws. But it doesn't need to get involved in the citizens' private lives, and can't do it successfully when it tries.
A government can lock people up for their sex lives, substance use, faith and ideals, habits and games, but it can't make them stop being who they are, needing what they need, feeling how they feel.

It can, however, improve their circumstances so that they may not need self-medication and escape; may not feel helpless and hopeless. And it can make their environment less dangerous so their inevitable mistakes and poor judgment has a lower cost to society.

I am not withholding medicine from anyone I am opposing the legalizing of physician and government assisted suicide because of a wide range of concerns that I have outlined already. I am not advocating prosecuting anyone for assisting a suicide either except on a case by case basis which already occurs in countries with assisted suicide when the suicide is suspect. — Andrew4Handel

Medicine was used metaphorically. I know you are opposing it and I know your concerns and some of them are good. I just question the coherence of your position as both an anti-natalist and arguing against assisted suicide.

I am not advocating prosecuting anyone for assisting a suicide either except on a case by case basis which already occurs in countries with assisted suicide when the suicide is suspect. — Andrew4Handel

Prosecuting on a ' case by case basis' is suspect from a criminal law point of view as there is a danger that prosecution becomes arbitrary. This is against basic principles of criminal law and fair trial. So we need guidelines.

I personally think that once you have created a life you have created a responsibility to make that life flourish. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, but I am thrown into the world, without having been asked. The onus is maybe on my parents, but I might want to end it and there is no argument against that, especially since on your terms the world is such a bad place we should not put people in it.

Most antinatalist are strong supporters of assisted suicide so I am in a minority. I think the only way to avoid suffering is not to create more people, once you have created them suffering is inevitable and assisted suicide often happens because of suffering. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, but why should I suffer? If I want to go, than I go and you should at least understand that since the world is a rotten place on your account. Now, of course it would be great if I could do it myself, but some people can't and need assistance. You seem to hold the view that assisting them is wrong in and of itself, but that position does not seem to be very coherent. You wish to end suffering. Terminating the life of one that suffers may end it.

I an not an antinatalist nor am I uncritical on the issue of assisted suicide. I share some of your concerns. The most strong argument against it, is that ending life becomes an option just like all other options and that it becomes socially accepted to end the life of the sufferer instead of trying to improve it, when costs for doing so are considered excessive. In a day and age where we are fond of measuring, caluclation and efficiency, decriminalizing assisted suicide runs the risk of becoming standard practice because we simply do not want to pay the price for keeping someone alive. I am also critical of the individual autonomy argument. Choices are never made in a vacuum, people exist in networks with others and take those others into account. We should be very wary that people feel they are a burden to others and therefore want to end their lives, especially since the law treats it as ' just another option in the great marketplace'. Those are all concerns that deserve the utmost attention. However, that does not make it wrong in itself to do so, it just means it has to be regulated with utmost care. As Vera said, it has been done for ages, only in secret. Sometimes doctors will be in a conflict of duties, on the one hand to obey the criminal law and on the other to end the suffering of their patient. Such conflicts should not rest on the shoulders of individual doctors.

As for the cases you cite, I think they make your argument weaker so I will not go into them. You do not know the facts of the case, you make unwarranted assumptions that people with a mental illness cannot suffer intolerably etc. In short you have no idea what you are talking about, neither do the others here, neither do I. Even if a mistake is made in an individual case, it says nothing about the underlying principle. Therefor it is best to argue in the abstract.

Therefor it is best to argue in the abstract. — Tobias

Laws are necessarily made in the abstract. But they're also made within a political and economic framework of what is possible. In a culture strongly influenced by religious factions, certain ideas cannot be considered for legislation - as had been the case with birth control and gay rights. In a debt/profit economy, the source of funding for any proposed legislation determines its viability.

In a day and age where we are fond of measuring, caluclation and efficiency, decriminalizing assisted suicide runs the risk of becoming standard practice because we simply do not want to pay the price for keeping someone alive. — Tobias

It's not so much that we don't want to pay the price of keeping people alive - we cannot afford to.
A number of factors to consider on the economic side: demographics - aging population, longer pensioned life, fewer young people to take their place, fewer employed people and funding: shrinking tax-base, mounting national and household debt, rising price of insurance, almost insurmountable price of a medical degree, technological advances that can artificially extend an unproductive life at $1,000/day/patient - that's without medical interventions; if there is surgery involved, the cost goes through the roof. And that, of course is assuming that facilities and staff are available at all.
Even the best health care systems are already under severe strain. One more round of the current pandemic will collapse even the most robust.

So, if governments make it illegal to help people die, they will be helped illegally - as before - or stored away somewhere until they die, in whatever conditions, whatever agony - as before.

So, if governments make it illegal to help people die, they will be helped illegally - as before - or stored away somewhere until they die, in whatever conditions, whatever agony - as before. — Vera Mont

My post was actually more directed at Andrew than you, because I feel we are mostly in agreement... I would not advocate criminalizing euthanasia. However, I do advocate regulating it very meticulously as it is an important topic worthy of social debate.

Laws are necessarily made in the abstract. But they're also made within a political and economic framework of what is possible. In a culture strongly influenced by religious factions, certain ideas cannot be considered for legislation - as had been the case with birth control and gay rights. In a debt/profit economy, the source of funding for any proposed legislation determines its viability. — Vera Mont

Well it is certainly true that law is made within a cultural and political setting. Law is a child of its times. I do not think that money is the only source that talks though. There are interesting puzzles in this regard. the lobby power of corporations is much larger than that of the environmental movement and still environmental legislation is strengthened. Not enough for many, but still. Law making is also a popularity contest, it is balancing interests, ideology, there is no one size firs all. I live in a country with liberal euthanasia laws by the way. Here, the subject is regulated by law.

Even the best health care systems are already under severe strain. One more round of the current pandemic will collapse even the most robust. — Vera Mont

Yes and sometimes hard choices need to be made. However, I do side with Andrew when he argues that euthanasia laws may also be a symptom of a careless society. The notion that we do not sacrifice people for the greater good, but we do our utmost to keep them on board is meaningful. I think it is a great good to have a society in which people feel that if they find themselves in great peril, others will come to their aid, including the government. It gives a sence of security and with that allows people to flourish and feel at home. I value that sort of thing.

Yes and sometimes hard choices need to be made. However, I do side with Andrew when he argues that euthanasia laws may also be a symptom of a careless society. The notion that we do not sacrifice people for the greater good, but we do our utmost to keep them on board is meaningful. — Tobias

That's the ideal, and many good people have been striving to do so. But privileged elites have always, everywhere, been indifferent to the condition of people who were surplus to the feeding of their own wealth and power.
I don't believe we are a careless society; by and large Canadians tend to be compassionate and civic-minded. Or used to be. As the waves of crisis - influenza, fire, flood, windstorms, blizzards, power outages, road accidents, emotional trauma: more emergencies - keep coming, the resources, notably medical staff and hospital beds, are never replenished, let alone expanded to meet the need; patient backlogs keep building up. The cost is not only financial: the last two years have taken a severe toll on production capability and even more in human resources.

And all the while, conservative factions are growing more radically right-wing and aggressive, striking down humanitarian legislation enacted by their progressive predecessors, defunding programs that relieve the burden on caregivers. The first impulse of the far right is to forbid and punish - which invariably exacerbates the problem. I honestly don't believe the center can hold. It almost doesn't matter what's legal now, or what new federal laws come into effect before the next election: they won't last.

I'm beginning to think the pro suicide people lack values and morals.
The only thing I am getting is the eagerness to allow someone to die. Nothing about the value, profundity and continuation of human life.

I think killing someone or allowing them to die is at odds with valuing human life and we are not just animals to be put down in a mercy killing or put out of our misery.

In a lot of debates I am getting a sense of a lack of profound values, a creeping meaninglessness. And I sense it is influenced by atheism/secularism and the refusal to comprehend any kind of supernatural spiritual element to life.

If you have nihilist, spiritless values I think people are entitled to impose value on you because by rejecting value you have no argument they should value your opinions.

Nothing about the value, profundity and continuation of human life. — Andrew4Handel

What about them?

I think killing someone or allowing them to die is at odds with valuing human life — Andrew4Handel

Almost everything in human history attests to a species not valuing human life. As I've mentioned before, live has value in proportion to its quality. If the live-valuing moral factions in the US were serious,
they'd stop allowing guns in every household, where

An estimated 20,966 firearm homicides and 26,320 firearm suicides occurred in the United States during 2021

Many of them impulsive youngsters, not sick old people.

I use empathy for morals. It's done me all right, so far.

If you have nihilist, spiritless values I think people are entitled to impose value on you because by rejecting value you have no argument they should value your opinions. — Andrew4Handel

You are entitled to oppress me, because you consider me unfit to live my own life, while you walk arm in arm the gods. Got it.

Nothing about the value, profundity and continuation of human life.
— Andrew4Handel

What about them? — Vera Mont

The reason we shouldn't kill people.

The reason we shouldn't kill people. — Andrew4Handel

And that is how one draws a perfect, self-containing circle.

Almost everything in human history attests to a species not valuing human life. — Vera Mont

People fought against the Nazis to end the Holocaust. The transatlantic slavery was ended. Apartheid ended. Women got equal rights and so on. We continue fighting not euthanising people because we no longer value life because we have given up on our species.

If someone intends to kill themselves they consider their life has no more value so society does not have responsibility to agree with that, like I said earlier it is not autonym to end your existence which would lead to a state of nonexistence and hence no autonomy.

It is absurd to protest against the state keeping you alive.

Political suicide is an expression of ones values is unethical in my opinion. And bringing in laws that endanger other people to me is unethical.

And it clearly is not about extreme cases of suffering but the push is for anyone to be able to end their life at any stage which I see no reason for society to grant which would lead to anarchy. Society needs to value life not be involved in hastening its demise.

As the waves of crisis - influenza, fire, flood, windstorms, blizzards, power outages, road accidents, emotional trauma: more emergencies - keep coming, the resources, notably medical staff and hospital beds, are never replenished, let alone expanded to meet the need; patient backlogs keep building up. — Vera Mont

Yes indeed and those are political choices. Assisted suicide or euthanasia laws may play into that hand, because if we do not have to keep people alive, and it becomes socially not to, we can cut more beds. That was what I was arguing against.

I'm beginning to think the pro suicide people lack values and morals. — Andrew4Handel

Ahhh you are beginning to think, always be wary when that happens. I'd suggest, think again, because you are probably wrong since a whole host of people advocate euthanasia laws and they do so with utmost integrity. That their opinion is different from yours is another matter, but to put them (or us) in the corner of the amoral is simply an insult.

I think killing someone or allowing them to die is at odds with valuing human life and we are not just animals to be put down in a mercy killing or put out of our misery. — Andrew4Handel

Neither should we be irrationally delivered to the power of God who decides when to live or die without us having a say in the matter. Isn't it actually an indication that we hold autonomy in high (perhaps too high) esteem in that we are allowing a choice?

If you have nihilist, spiritless values I think people are entitled to impose value on you because by rejecting value you have no argument they should value your opinions. — Andrew4Handel

Que? I think you have no business calling my values anything. And by no means are you entitled to impose values on me or anyone else. You like to play God that is the problem. No one here says life has no value. Some of us are saying we should have a choice whether to love or die especially in great misery. That is not nihilist, that is putting your faith in individual rationality.

People fought against the Nazis to end the Holocaust. The transatlantic slavery was ended. Apartheid ended. Women got equal rights and so on. We continue fighting not euthanising people because we no longer value life because we have given up on our species. — Andrew4Handel

Of course not. The sentence seems to be incorrect by the way. But no, euthanasia is no indication we have given up on our species, but is an indication that we have moved from a discourse around fate, death and God choosing the time to go, to death being a state which lays in the realm of choice. Now there are good reasons to be wary of such a move and I outlined them, but it is a gross oversimplification to see it as merely giving up on our species.

If someone intends to kill themselves they consider their life has no more value so society does not have responsibility to agree with that, like I said earlier it is not autonym to end your existence which would lead to a state of nonexistence and hence no autonomy. — Andrew4Handel

Autonomy ends with death, but the decision to die is made autonomously. I think that full autonomy discourse is bogus but I also think your logic is flawed. And no, society does not have a duty to facilitate every person's deathwish. That is why the matter needs to be meticulously regulated, not oversimplified like you appear to be doing all the time.

It is absurd to protest against the state keeping you alive. — Andrew4Handel

Why? If the state forces me to be alive contrary to my wishes it is not and in a state of intolerable suffering it is not. That is what criminal law does. The state criminalizes acts of individuals. In this case acts by doctors. Doctors are asked by patients, deeply suffering patient usually to end their lives. They cannot comply because they would face prosecution. As a terminally suffering patient, why would it be absurd to protest against that state of affairs? The doctor by the way has also reason to protest because he or she is forced in a conflict of duties.

Political suicide is an expression of ones values is unethical in my opinion. And bringing in laws that endanger other people to me is unethical. — Andrew4Handel

We are not bringing in laws, we are taking them out. Assisted suicide is criminalized as it is. Intolerable suffering may to some be more dangerous than death.

Yes indeed and those are political choices. — Tobias

Hardly. Which politician orders up a flood or a snowstorm or a pandemic? Those are realities with which real, live, present-on-the-scene health care, rescue and emergency workers have to deal with. There are too many of those and too few of them. No politician is able to pull a few thousand doctors out of his hat. People with chronic debilitating illness don't have ten or twelve years - it would actually longer - for a new crop of graduates, even if higher were offered without tuition fees immediately.

because if we do not have to keep people alive, and it becomes socially not to, we can cut more beds. That was what I was arguing against. — Tobias

The 'because' doesn't fit. They were already doing it when they themselves legislated against assisted suicide and abortion, against gay rights and birth control, against science education and school lunches, against environmental protection and worker's safety - but for guns, prisons, executions, militarized police and even more tax-cuts.
Not because of erosion of humane values, but because the things they were for required lots of gullible votes and they presented their platform of 'againsts' as the moral choice.

And by no means are you entitled to impose values on me or anyone else — Tobias

That is what happens when you live in a society and in a democracy.

You are being protected against those who would do you harm by a police and army and laws exist to create a framework for civilisation.

It is a fallacy to infer that people who are against assisted suicide support the death penalty.

And it is poisoning the well or guilt by association. There is no logical connection between the positions.

The Nazis had the death penalty, genocide, involuntary euthanasia and assisted dying.

It is like polluting other peoples characters based a complete other persons collection of ideals. That sets the the bar of the debate low and inflammatory.

I value "human life"; even more, however, I value human integrity and dignity: namely, doing everything we can collectively to support uncoerced individual choices to live as one wishes and to die when one no longer can endure life. It violates human dignity both to legally coerce a female to give birth to an unwanted baby and to legally prohibt an uncoerced patient medically safe euthanasia.

It is like polluting other peoples characters based a complete other persons collection of ideals. — Andrew4Handel

Like this?

I'm beginning to think the pro suicide people lack values and morals. — Andrew4Handel

According to the 2021 Data Summary, as of January 22, 2022, prescriptions have been written for 3,280 people, and 2,159 patients have died from ingesting the drugs.

vs

An estimated 20,966 firearm homicides and 26,320 firearm suicides occurred in the United States during 2021

Texas and Florida have the most guns and the highest suicide rates. Both forbid assisted dying. Texas is second in executions; Florida is 15th. Texas banned most textbooks; Florida was third.

That is what happens when you live in a society and in a democracy. — Andrew4Handel

One palliative care option is that people can be put into a coma until they die.

I value "human life" — 180 Proof

In what sense?

One palliative care option is that people can be put into a coma until they die. — Andrew4Handel

The value being....?
Oh, yes: We can tell God we didn't really kill them, we just put them in cold storage for You. Sure, He'll buy that.

Like this?
I'm beginning to think the pro suicide people lack values and morals.
— Andrew4Handel — Vera Mont

I am basing that on this thread and people contributions, you are linking people who don't want assisted suicide to people who support the death penalty and want lax gun laws.

I am in the UK we don't have lax gun laws or the death penalty and I oppose the death penalty, corporal punishment, indoctrinating children in religion and I strongly oppose the death penalty and support abortion. Your position seems to depend on hyperbole and slurring the opposition. I have personal relevant experience that I have referenced.

People on your side appear to assume they are right and have the good on their side ( for no reason) maybe without the slurring the opposition, hyperbole, bad faith arguments and a heavy dose of personal ideologies your position would be much weaker.

The value being....? — Vera Mont

Not causing someone's death and devaluing life. Not causing suffering but not ending life. Not making the value of life dependent on one subjective individuals evaluation.

Texas and Florida have the most guns and the highest suicide rates. Both forbid assisted dying. Texas is second in executions; Florida is 15th. Texas banned most textbooks; Florida was third. — Vera Mont

I do not live in the US of A.

Assisted suicide is illegal in the UK. It doesn't follow logically or causally that the forbidding of assisted suicide leads to high suicide levels and lax gun laws.

Are you claiming that follows logically or are you just trying to claim some kind of logical inevitability.

Read the rest of the sentence like you want to comprehend it.

People on your side appear to assume they are right and have the good on their side ( for no reason) — Andrew4Handel

"The good" is not a concept I consult for my decisions. In fact, I doubt such a thing exists or can be defined. I see an injustice, I object to it. Just that simple. I don't accept your moral superiority or your entitlement to other people's lives and deaths.

without the slurring the opposition, hyperbole, bad faith arguments and a heavy dose of personal ideologies your position would be much weaker. — Andrew4Handel

I'm in Canada, where we already won. In the US, things are much worse, and since there are person there whose well-being is of concern to me, I keep abreast of the situation. Which is dire.

Not causing someone's death and devaluing life. Not causing suffering but not ending life. Not making the value of life dependent on one subjective individuals evaluation. — Andrew4Handel

Keeping the not-quite corpse on ice until God sees fit to collect them. (BTW, we're charging the family $1200 per day and taking up a bed in which 28 viable patients might have recovered in these seven months if You had not seen fit to collect them, but, hey God, we didn't snuff this one, so we did good, yeah?)

Assisted suicide is illegal in the UK. It doesn't follow logically or causally that the forbidding of assisted suicide leads to high suicide levels and lax gun laws. — Andrew4Handel

No. I made the comparison between the kind of suicide they try to prevent and the kind they don't try to prevent. I'll settle for 1:10. And the accompanying usual group of political choices.

In the democratic process you cited, it represents the winners. Those are their choices.