Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ And now for something completely different...., Assisted Suicide / Mercy Killing

[Sheesh]

We have a dog that is dying. He has dropped 50% of his weight in just a few months. He's old, not yet in pain. My wife and I were talking about how if he were in pain whether or not we would have him killed by the local vet.

My wife and I have had many conversations in the past regarding assisted suicide / mercy killing. She told me that if she were hopelessly incurable, she wants me to help her die, either by assisting in her suicide or by doing the deed myself. She has a living will that talks about no recessitation.

Someday I will be faced with this choice, unless I go first (statistics say that I will, given I am 5 years older and a male to boot).

My view on assisted suicide / mercy killing is that the government should have no bearing on this subject. If my wife makes out her will and makes it plain under what circumstances she would like to have me assist in her death, the government should not have any say in the matter.

For those of you in the religious community, you should not have the government enforce your doctrine regarding life and death upon others - like my wife and me. To us, "God" has no bearing in this matter. While "God" may have a bearing in this matter to you, I believe you should keep it to you and yours. It is your choice that should not restrict OUR choice.

From a completely secular point of view, the Constitution grants us freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does it not stand to reason that one has an inalienable right to a death of their choosing as well? Do I not have an inalienable right to kill myself, or assist another if it is their wish? Isn't the right to our own death the most sacred thing that any human being has?

Thoughts?

[bufbillsstlcards]

For those of you in the religious community, you should not have the government enforce your doctrine regarding life and death upon others - like my wife and me.  To us, "God" has no bearing in this matter.  While "God" may have a bearing in this matter to you, I believe you should keep it to you and yours.  It is your choice that should not restrict OUR choice.

First lemme say you got me all excited with the Python Quote as your title.
Second I would like to say: Thank you!
That paragraph is exactly how I feel. Though I come at it at a different angle. While as a Catholic, I think Assited Suicide is wrong, I would never, ever force that belief on anyone else. Ever. And that goes for every religous belief I have. Just because I think it, why should someone else?
And to those Catholics/Christians: Just because you think it, why should everyone else be forced to obey it? Please answer it.

[chopinalex]

that post game me the creeps..im outta here!!!

[bufbillsstlcards]

And to those Catholics/Christians:  Just because you think it, why should everyone else be forced to obey it? 

And to further defend my point I will put down an argument you may have that I just thought of:

God gave ALL Humans the right to make thier own desicions. Our as Christians is to spread the word on what is right and wrong. Our duty is not to Force it on people. Otherwise, we are taking away thier right to live as they choose.

[bob_TCC]

From a completely secular point of view, the Constitution grants us freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Does it not stand to reason that one has an inalienable right to a death of their choosing as well?  Do I not have an inalienable right to kill myself, or assist another if it is their wish?  Isn't the right to our own death the most sacred thing that any human being has?

Taken literally, this would imply that someone should be able to ask someone else to kill them at any time (even if not dying from a disease, etc.). Are you suggesting that this "freedom" should go even that far? If someone is depressed and is thinking of suicide, that person could ask a loved one to kill them. If that person then did so, they should be free of any punishment because it was requested?

-Bob

[bufbillsstlcards]

\  If that person then did so, they should be free of any punishment because it was requested? 

-Bob

And then you have every murder suspect in America Saying: But he/she wanted me to, they told me they were suffering. etc etc.

[bob_TCC]

And then you have every murder suspect in America Saying: But he/she wanted me to, they told me they were suffering.  etc etc.

Exactly! I'm just trying to get a feel for how far this "freedom" to kill extends. Because, despite the attempt to make this be about "religious people" forcing values on others, there are many reasons why society as a whole has avoided this slippery slope.

-Bob

[bufbillsstlcards]

Exactly!  I'm just trying to get a feel for how far this "freedom" to kill extends.  Because, despite the attempt to make this be about "religious people" forcing values on others, there are many reasons why society as a whole has avoided this slippery slope.

-Bob

Yes, that was somthing else, it would be a slippery slope, who knows where it would or could go.

[Sheesh]

Taken literally, this would imply that someone should be able to ask someone else to kill them at any time (even if not dying from a disease, etc.).  Are you suggesting that this "freedom" should go even that far?  If someone is depressed and is thinking of suicide, that person could ask a loved one to kill them.  If that person then did so, they should be free of any punishment because it was requested? 

-Bob

Yes. If someone wants to die, they should be able to die for whatever the reason. Depression, long term health problems - just because they feel like it - an individual should not have their right to death infringed upon. It is their choice and the morality or right/wrongness of it in the eyes of others should have no bearing.

Oregon has an physician assisted suicide law that has been ruled constitutional. I would argue that physicians may not need to be a part of this process.

What could happen is some kind of government sanctioned process is created, whereby the person who wishes to die must declare that they want to die - and how it would be carried out. In this process, they could also declare WHO they wish to assist them. However, this process would NOT ask WHY the individual wants to die as that has no bearing on the matter. In this regard, this issue of murder becomes a non-issue.

Of course, another option is an individual could go to a place where they can be euthanized in a humane way. This would not be much unlike what you saw in Soylent Green (if you read the book / saw the movie - BUT we won't eat them ). Instead of wasting away slowly in a hospital (my mom lived off of life support with no intervention for 5 days before she died from cancer), people could go to these places. Perhaps this could be established while not letting a loved one do the deed? This, too, would get around the issue of murder.

[bob_TCC]

However, this process would NOT ask WHY the individual wants to die as that has no bearing on the matter.

Amazing.

-Bob

[Sheesh]

Tell me, Bob. What is more personal than a person's death? If a person wants to die, why should anyone else have a say as to whether or not the REASON is justified?

[bob_TCC]

What is more personal than a person's death?

The second that someone else becomes involved, it's no longer "personal".

-Bob

[Go18]

This is just plain wrong Sheesh, you and your topics are getting out of hand!!!

[skatalite]

And to those Catholics/Christians:  Just because you think it, why should everyone else be forced to obey it?  Please answer it.

I think there's a severe misperception about what being a Christian is and how a Christian should act, especially with his or her government.

First, people must remember there are different denominations that have different beliefs. In order to wade through all that, people must first realize that, to Christians, the Bible is the Word of God. It is perfect in every way, shape and form. To non-Christians, it may serve as a book or morals or even mythology, but whatever the case people must realize everyone takes in the Bible differently.

With that being said, I will give you the best answer I can based on my beliefs.

First, I'm a Calvinist. This is important to know because I do not believe God has given us free will. I believe everything is done by God's will. To me, this is pointed out clearly in the Bible, mainly in Romans 9. However, back to the topic.

One of the things many Christians get wrong is they think Christianity should be involved with every facet of life. This is true on the personal level, but it's not a Christian's job to change everything and every one around them.

In the Bible, Christians are instructed to pray for and respect their leaders, even if we disagree with them. There's nothing wrong with that. However, the Bible doesn't instruct Christians to become activists and change their governments in the way people have been doing in the last 50 or so years. But that's just how it's going to be — you're going to have people missing the point and warranting negative feedback.

The thing is we have a man in office who has misinterpreted that part of the Bible, or simply chose to ignore it. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last time. This may seem trite but, if you don't like what our government is doing, make your voice heard in some way. Write your congressman, vote, become a political activist. There are many things people can do.

While lengthy, there's the explanation.

[Sheesh]

The second that someone else becomes involved, it's no longer "personal".  

-Bob

First, to Go18. If you don't like the topics, don't read or post. It's really very simple....

Bob, does this include my wife / significant other / family member? Taken to the extreme, that means your sex life, or anything else in your life, is also not personal. Right?

Let's use the case of my mother - she didn't want medical intervention. Her husband pulled the plug, so to speak, and she lived for 5 agonizing days afterward. What is the difference between this and euthenizing her at the moment she was pulled off of life support? Did he "murder" her? It seems to me (and my family and my mom's husband) that euthenizing her would have been much more humane.

[Go18]

First, to Go18.  If you don't like the topics, don't read or post.  It's really very simple....

From now on I will not. it is also very simple to post a topic that isnt so disturbing.

[Sheesh]

Go18: Disturbing to you. Others (like myself) are/may be interested in discussing meaningful topics.

[bob_TCC]

However, the Bible doesn't instruct Christians to become activists and change their governments in the way people have been doing in the last 50 or so years. But that's just how it's going to be — you're going to have people missing the point and warranting negative feedback.

Actually, I completely disagree with the general conclusion that this leads to.

In recent history, liberals and others have been very successful at creating this idea that Christians (and religious beliefs in general) should be excluded from determining policy, direction, etc. in this country. Separation of church and state does not mean, in any way, that religious people cannot be involved in the political process and even base their decisions on their beliefs. Instead, it simply means that the government (as an entity) cannot impose any single religion on the citizens. There is a huge difference!

To the contrary, we live in a republic where citizens elect representatives that best match their beliefs about how the country should be run. Those beliefs could be based on religion, socialism, communism, atheism - whatever. Why do Sheesh's atheistic and socialistic beliefs carry more weight than my religious ones? They don't!

In the end, the direction is determined by what the voting majority decides. That's the beauty of this wonderful country.

-Bob

[skatalite]

Actually, I completely disagree with the general conclusion that this leads to. 

...
-Bob

I agree with this wholeheartedly. What I meant by religious political activist are those who bombard abortion clinics and gay rights walks with hurtful chants, banners and protests.

For instance: Christians who vote against abortion are completely different from Christians who yell at women walking into abortion clinics. The means by which people attempt to achieve their goals can be positive and negative.

You even said so yourself: the voting majority decides on things. It's not our fault if a majority of people happen to be Christians and happen to vote against abortion laws (as an example) And this isn't in disagreement with you. I should have made myself clearer.

[bob_TCC]

Taken to the extreme, that means your sex life, or anything else in your life, is also not personal.  Right?

Actually, I think it's very clear that there is numerous case law to point out that there are limits on what individuals can do in their "personal" life. Those limits include things related to killing, drugs and even sex. Point is that closing the door to your home does not automatically give you the right to do various things - especially things that go against the rights of others.

-Bob