Don't we have the right to die with dignity at the time of our chosing?

[ThinkFreeDom]

This sad news report is about a man who wants to end the 'living nightmare' of his life. What justification do we have to deny him that right and legal protection for those who are brave enough to help people like him?

BBC News - Tony Nicklinson loses High Court right-to-die case

 

[Paradoxum]

Some people like following heartless cold rules rather than caring for people with compassion.

It is sickening.

It is also somewhat surprising how the oppression of the old and sick is socially acceptable and people don't see it. I guess it shows us how people were ok with slavery for so long even though we find it baffling.

 

[jacks]

Many states in the US have "right to die" options. However, the paperwork is very time consuming and onerous. Personally I can't imagine anyone who has witnessed someone truly suffering who wouldn't be in favor of the right to die.

 

[acropolis]

I support the right to die.

Frontline did an excellent documentary about a man choosing to end his life called 'The Suicide Tourist':

Video: The Suicide Tourist | Watch FRONTLINE Online | PBS Video

 

[LantanaAnna]

Since we are not able to see the "big Picture" that our Father in Heaven has in mind, we are not capable of deciding when someone should die. My opinion only.

 

[Desk trauma]

Since we are not able to see the "big Picture" that our Father in Heaven has in mind, we are not capable of deciding when someone should die. My opinion only.

A quite valid opinion, in regards to your own life, just as you have the option to follow your conviction to its conclusion and take whatever end befalls you would you not want others to be free to follow their convictions?

 

[Desk trauma]

Many states in the US have "right to die" options.

I would not call 3/50 many.

 

[jacks]

I would not call 3/50 many.

You're right, I just happened to live in two of them and didn't realize there was only three!

 

[Tomk80]

Since we are not able to see the "big Picture" that our Father in Heaven has in mind, we are not capable of deciding when someone should die. My opinion only.

Doesn't that extend to all your actions in life? Should we stop life-saving treatment? Or does the deciding when someone should die only hold for letting people die and not for keeping people alive?

 

[Verv]

I figure that they should construct situations that enable people to kill themselves.

Obviously, a person who kills themselves cannot be punished and one would think that others would simply look the other way if it was not being considered a legally respectable position...

But I guess that is the thing -- everyone wants to be interfering with other people's business. I guess that is what you do when you have a 1st world problem, so to speak.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

He should have the right to die..its sad that he has to suffer like this.

 

[Amber Bird]

I watched two dear family members suffer terminal illness. No hope for remission, no cure. Just waiting to die, as they lost their dignity and died in bed, in adult diapers, totally unaware of their surroundings.

It was a horrific loss in so many ways. For those of us who knew them in their prime to watch them deteriorate to an incurable disease until their body gave out and let them to find peace.
And it was tragic for those of us who were there in their last days, some keeping a vigil with hardly any sleep. Not wanting to miss a chance to say goodbye if they should happen to wake. Not wanting them to feel alone even if they didn't.
And we who suffered through two losses like that are the one's who live on with the memory.

Doctors are charged in their oath;and first do no harm.

One would think that would entail giving mercy to those who are hopeless. Rather than harming them with all those mechanical and chemical measures taken to keep them here when their body is so ready to go because it just cant take anymore.

Oregon let's people pass with a doctors assistance. My hope is one day that will be the case in the entire United States.

God Bless you Mr.Nicklinson to find peace sooner than later.

 

[ThinkFreeDom]

Since we are not able to see the "big Picture" that our Father in Heaven has in mind, we are not capable of deciding when someone should die. My opinion only.

Is it morally acceptable to allow someone to suffer on the off-chance that a god may have a plan for them?

To me refusing to do the right thing in case it upsets God is moral cowardice.

 

[ThinkFreeDom]

Doctors are charged in their oath;and first do no harm.

One would think that would entail giving mercy to those who are hopeless. Rather than harming them with all those mechanical and chemical measures taken to keep them here when their body is so ready to go because it just cant take anymore.

Oregon let's people pass with a doctors assistance. My hope is one day that will be the case in the entire United States.

My step-mother, who was dying of cancer, had food and water withdrawn by her doctor to allow her to die. This took over a week.

Religious superstition about death warps medical decision making. Surely it is more humane to give a high dose of morphine than to allow someone to die slowly in agony? We should make these decisions on moral grounds, not religious grounds.

 

[contango]

A quite valid opinion, in regards to your own life, just as you have the option to follow your conviction to its conclusion and take whatever end befalls you would you not want others to be free to follow their convictions?

This really is quite a thorny issue in so many ways.

As a Christian I believe that God holds us all in his hand and it is for God to decide when and how we die. That said I agree with your position that for those who are of other faiths (including no faith at all) my beliefs in the status of God may be irrelevant. I also do not believe it is for me to enforce my own moral standards upon another using the force of secular law.

That said for all I can see the desire of those who wish to end their suffering, as well as the irony that leaving a dog to suffer until its natural end is considered to be cruel but leaving a human to suffer similarly is legally required, it is hard to strike the balance between the wish of the afflicted to end their life and the protection of the afflicted who may not wish to end their life but are pressured into doing so by those who would inherit their estate.

How to protect the interests of the one who wants to die while also protecting the terminally sick but wealthy person from unscrupulous heirs who don't want their inheritance spent on end-of-life care is a tough balancing act.

 

[contango]

To me refusing to do the right thing in case it upsets God is moral cowardice.

Here you're using "the right thing" to mean what you consider to be the right thing. Other people may have differing views on what "the right thing" means. There's also a big difference between a vague "best be safe, wouldn't want to risk upsetting god" (small g intentional to indicate a generic reference to a deity or deities), and an active belief in what God (or any other deity) would want and an active desire to do what is right by one's chosen deity.

We should make these decisions on moral grounds, not religious grounds.

Religious grounds are largely the same as moral grounds - if one has a belief in a higher being (whether that be God in the Christian sense or some other deity or deities) that must by its very nature influence our moral positions.

 

[ThinkFreeDom]

Religious grounds are largely the same as moral grounds - if one has a belief in a higher being (whether that be God in the Christian sense or some other deity or deities) that must by its very nature influence our moral positions.

I totally disagree. Religion has adopted human morality and attempted to codify it, but it is not the same. Not allowing someone to die for fear of God is not moral in any way, it is self-serving and immoral.

 

[ThinkFreeDom]

I also do not believe it is for me to enforce my own moral standards upon another using the force of secular law.

You are not talking about a 'moral standard', you are talking about a religious belief that God alone has the right to give and take away life. That has nothing to do with morality.

 

[contango]

I totally disagree. Religion has adopted human morality and attempted to codify it, but it is not the same. Not allowing someone to die for fear of God is not moral in any way, it is self-serving and immoral.

We can disagree about the source of morals, but you're quoting me rather selectively here. The next part of my post, which you quoted in your later reply, makes it clear that I do not consider it my right to impose my beliefs upon another.

You are not talking about a 'moral standard', you are talking about a religious belief that God alone has the right to give and take away life. That has nothing to do with morality.

Of course it has to do with morality, my belief is that it is not for me to decide when and how I die. In other words I consider it immoral to seek to end my own life, as that is a privilege reserved for God.

Others may have a different moral perspective based, and I think I made it very clear that I don't see myself as having any right to require someone else to follow my moral code.

I notice you replied to my comments about morality and didn't reply to my previous post detailing my concerns about protection of those who wish to die as well as those who wish to continue living but may be pressured by heirs to die earlier than they would choose. I'd have thought discussing the practicalities of how to protect all parties would be far more productive than arguing semantics and how I might choose to act when my life draws to an end.

 

[ThinkFreeDom]

Of course it has to do with morality, my belief is that it is not for me to decide when and how I die. In other words I consider it immoral to seek to end my own life, as that is a privilege reserved for God.

You equate 'your belief' with morality. That is where you are going wrong. Morality pertains to the effect an action has on others. If your action hurts no-one, but transgresses some arbitrary religious law it is not immoral. If your action or inaction results in the suffering of another it is immoral, regardless of any religious law.

If God requires that a person dies in agony, and he has the power to achieve what he wants to achieve without that suffering, then God is immoral.

I notice you replied to my comments about morality and didn't reply to my previous post detailing my concerns about protection of those who wish to die as well as those who wish to continue living but may be pressured by heirs to die earlier than they would choose. I'd have thought discussing the practicalities of how to protect all parties would be far more productive than arguing semantics and how I might choose to act when my life draws to an end.

It would be fairly simple to put legal safeguards in place to protect people, but the debate is obscured by superstition about death.

As I said before this is a moral question, we should be doing all that we can to prevent suffering. Failure to do so is a moral failure.