Life is suffering. Death is the end of Suffering.

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by ryobi, Feb 13, 2023.

  1. ryobi

    ryobi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2013
    Messages:
    3,178
    Likes Received:
    334
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Seneca argues, what matters is not how long we live, but how well. And often, living well consists in not living long. Better to die than to live badly, that is, against our nature as rational and social animals.

    If others can force you to live, you do not own yourself and belong to them

    Those who support the right to die argue that suicide is acceptable under certain circumstances, such as incurable disease and old age. The idea is that although life is, in general, good, people who face irreversible suffering should not be forced to continue suffering.
     
    JET3534 likes this.
  2. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    33,048
    Likes Received:
    10,565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One of the main arguments against the "right to die" is that there are certain vulnerable groups of people who need to be protected, and that an automatic no-questions-asked "right to die" would make it much easier for certain persons to make the wrong choice or be pressured into dying by others.
    Maybe instead of just either having an automatic "right to die" or not having a right to die, the specific situation should be taken into account, and perhaps evaluated by a bioethics council, or something like that. You know very well that I could rattle off a long list of situations where people should be able to choose to die, and I could also make a long list of other types of situations where society should not make it easy for that person to die. Like a teenage girl going through mood swings, who thinks that death is the easy way out. Maybe her boyfriend just dumped her.

    Old people can also be pressured into choosing death by hospital workers or family who have a vested financial interest in the old person dying.
    Then there is also the issue of falsifying the intentions of the medical patient. Once they are dead, who is going to know whether they really wanted to die or not?
    There have also been a rash of cases of older people choosing to die, due primarily to financial problems rather than their actual underlying medical issues, when choosing to die was made an easily available option to them.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2023
  3. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like the scene in the movie, "Soylent Green," where Sol enters the building and ls placed in a room with a nature video and music as he dies.
     
  4. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    33,048
    Likes Received:
    10,565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And knowing you, you probably do not see anything wrong with the situation in that scene.
    Even though the whole point of the film was to try to make it look disturbing and unsettling, another part of the "horrors" of this future dystopia.
     
  5. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    14,731
    Likes Received:
    6,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well if your thread is just about the right to end one's own life, & you even further narrow the issue, to those with supposedly confirmable pain issues, resulting from terminal illness, then of course I fully endorse that.

    I had, however, initially clicked on your thread to point out that, since no one can know what follows this life, we also cannot know that "death is the end of suffering (unless maybe you addend that with, 'on this plane of existence')."
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2023
    modernpaladin likes this.
  6. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,057
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If they didn't accept Jesus as their personal savior then the pain and suffer has just begun!
    Seriously, the right of suicide at the end of life is a breakdown in end of life care. Poor pain control, depression and not wanting to be a burden on family are all curable excuses.
     
  7. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    14,731
    Likes Received:
    6,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't, myself, believe that drugs can cure all problems. Their record on "curing" depression, is far from confidence-inspiring, IMO. And there is some physical pain that-- if one would even be permitted to have the required amount of narcotics, to keep it at bay-- would deprive those afflicted, because of the treatment, the use of any other, of their sensibilities. I can understand a person's not wanting to spend the end of their life, in a prolonged, drugged-up, semi-comatose state. Can't you?
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2023
  8. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,057
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hospice care has come a long way. Plenty of people live with pain. Depression doesn't have to be terminal. All that doesn't mean I'm against assisted suicide but much of the need for it is a breakdown in end of life care.
     
  9. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    26,070
    Likes Received:
    19,927
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not opposed to the freedom to choose ones own end. But its also not something that I imagine is difficult to accomplish, regardless of the law. I no more understand why people kill themselves than I understand why anyone wouldn't if they want to but its illegal. So what? I guess someone who's bed ridden and can't move prolly needs help. But outside of that, I see this as a nonissue. So, sure, lets make it legal for the disabled to hire help ending their own life. Maybe with a waiting period to give them time to reconsider.
     
  10. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    14,731
    Likes Received:
    6,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would, of course, not argue that there is never a case in which better care, would not result in a person deciding that they actually did not want to kill themself, anymore (a quadruple-negative sentence-- near my record!). I don't know how anyone could credibly gauge such a statistic, though it sounds as if you might have some degree of expertise, in this area. Nonetheless, the point is, how would what you are contending, translate into law? It seems to me, that law would have to apply to all, equally. The onus would then fall upon those in the healing professions, to try to reach all of these, you claim would not wish to die, with proper treatment. If, however, you are advocating for some type of medical council, to decide on euthanasia requests, I am decidedly against that idea. If you want to have a debate over examples of medical incompetence, just let me know.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2023
  11. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,057
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are eleven states with legally assisted suicide/euthanasia laws on the books. If it were legal but without guardrails there would be Kevorkian clinic drive thrus popping up everywhere.
    I gave you the main reasons end of life people want to die that are under managed.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  12. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    14,731
    Likes Received:
    6,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So, you are saying that these 11 states, have "guard rails?" An explanation of what you mean by this term, would be most helpful (as I'm sure that others, beside myself, do not clearly comprehend what you have in your mind). I would guess, you mean that there are specific protocols, for the mode of dispatch? If this is correct: first of all, giving people a recipe book, would be seen by most, I would think, not so much as something "inhibitory," as it would be considered helpful (and it would beg the question, then, why so many prisons, are having such problems, with the formulae, for imposing death sentences?). Secondly, however, it isn't clear how an absence of "how-to" guidelines, would lead to "Kevorkian clinic drive throughs." So, perhaps you actually mean to refer to the adjudicating, suicide approval councils, I had expressed my opposition to, in my last post. Odd then, if you are in favor of these, that you did not call them by name, and argue their specific merits-- as opposed to the much more ambiguous term, "guard rails."


    The same dearth of specifics, is a possible problem, in your concluding statement-- "I gave you the main reasons end of life people want to die, that are under managed"-- if, by that, you'd meant to imply that this under-managenent, in patient care, is the "main reason," that people turn to suicide, when medical issues are foundational to their suicidal desire. Clearly, this is something which you could not expect anyone to accept, on your word, alone. And, personally, I have my doubts about how one would even prove, such a thesis (the idea of having a control group, receiving placebo treatments, would seem to pose an impossible ethical dilemma-- just a bit of dark humor).

    I had said, previously, it seemed as if you had a greater than average knowledge about this issue; I will now add, that you appear very reticent, to share that data, other than through those judgements, at which you personally had arrived, from your own consideration of the evidence which you have been, to this point, keeping to yourself.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2023
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    56,937
    Likes Received:
    15,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd suggest reading the right to die legislation of OR or other states that have such law.

    I would point out that if someone wishes to benefit from such law, they would have to successfully apply. Doctors (plural) would have to concur or decline such requests, based on the criteria specified in law. So, anyone interested would have to apply - no "searching" required.

    Also, if the individual is beyond giving their own personal consent, then this option isn't available. Power of attorney doesn't extend to any contribution to this decision.
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    56,937
    Likes Received:
    15,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, right to die laws do require waiting. They also require qualified medical investigation to assure that the justification being claimed is truthful, covered by law and that there are no remedies.

    You can't get a pass on killing someone just because they want to die. It doesn't work that way. If you are not a medical professional scrupulously following the right to die law of your state and you cause someone to die, you are a murderer.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    56,937
    Likes Received:
    15,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree that modern medicine has made progress in this regard. However, pain management is not great even today. And, with horrendous pain and a death that is near and certain, there are many who strongly question the ethics of forcing that individual to endure that pain to the bitter end.
     
  16. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    14,731
    Likes Received:
    6,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nominally accepting that you are accurate about this (though you included no references)-- my post, which you quote, makes clear that I have objections to such an abundance of red tape, especially as the justification for it, is that this suicide council, of doctors, would know better than the patient himself. It is hardly, therefore, any acknowledgement of the patient/citizen, having this choice, as their right.

    So the debate becomes, why should doctors know better than those suffering with those conditions, which have been serious enough, to cause patients to no longer wish to live? As it seems it will be Edna & yourself, against me (at least to start), I will make my first argument to you, based on Edna's claim. She seems to be suggesting (albeit in a very indirect manner), that
    if these patients were receiving PROPER care, most would not wish to die. Therefore, you are advocating the public's entrustment with the extremely personal decision, as to whether a person should be able to end his or her life, to the same profession which had LED THEM, TO their desire to die, BY THEIR OWN FAILURE to provide the suicide applicant, with "the proper care."
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2023
  17. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    14,731
    Likes Received:
    6,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What you are basing your argument on, are only vague, platitudinous statements, and an unquestioning faith in the medical establishment. The problem is, they are not only far from perfect-- as are we all-- but they do not, in all cases, always know better than the patient. This is especially true, when it comes to the appraisal of pain, for which doctors are dependent upon patients, to rate its severity. Medical science has no objective way to ascertain this, with any degree of accuracy. So, what is the logic behind trusting the patient's word, for the severity of his suffering, but not for whether or not he would rather live on, with that suffering, or die?
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2023
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    56,937
    Likes Received:
    15,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I watched the creation of the OR right to die law be developed and passed into law. So, while I can't quote it, I am reasonably aware of its structure, and have watched news of its application. Plus, your post didn't appear to really need a blow by blow response, as there were overall misunderstandings.

    So:

    There doesn't need to be pain and suffering to justify death with dignity in OR. So, there is no issue with measuring pain.

    To qualify, the patient must be 18 or older and fully capable of making personal healthcare decisions. (Those with power of attorney do not count.) The patient must make two oral requests separated by at least 15 days. The patient must write and sign a request in the presence of two witnesses, at least one of whom is not a relative. The patient's doctor and a doctor consulting on the case must confirm the prognosis to be less than 6 months. If either doctor suspects there are reasons to suspect psychological disorder such as depression the patient must be referred for psychological examination. The patient must be fully informed of any possible healthcare alternatives as well as comfort care, hospice care, pain control, etc.

    The patient can rescind their decision at any time and in any manner.

    The means of death is a prescription that the patient must self administers. The patient can request a doctor to be present or not be present - it is up to the patient who is present or not present. But, a doctor may not administer the medication.

    You can find this information very easily.
     
  19. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    14,731
    Likes Received:
    6,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you for making clear what was the misunderstanding, here: namely, that you are talking about one specific law, passed in Oregon, while my own post, to which you had initially replied, was only about a "right to die," in general. From the way you describe the law, it does not sound too bad, except of course, that it limits the right to end one's life, to those with a terminal prognosis, and no more than a 6 month life expectancy. Naturally, others will still commit suicide, albeit illegally, choosing from whatever means are at their disposal: guns; car exhaust, in an enclosed space; ligature, around the neck; pills; tall buildings; et cetera. So, we are not really talking about the same thing.
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    56,937
    Likes Received:
    15,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OR was the first death with dignity law in the USA.

    It was challenged up to the USSC in 2006, which ruled in favor. Other states have used this as a pattern in creating physician assisted death law.

    Death with dignity law was not created to reduce suicide. And, your post didn't address suicide reduction.
     
  21. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    14,731
    Likes Received:
    6,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't know why you have so much difficulty, following a line of thought-- I never said anything about reducing suicide. Did you even read the OP?
    IOW, this thread seems to be against the government's "forcing you to live," if you don't want to. The OR law, only legalizes suicide, under the very limited circumstance, of a person already at death's doorstep (or at least on the front walk). Do you not understand, that there are people who suffer from irreversible/incurable conditions, for years? Few if any people who want to commit suicide, are swayed by the legality of the proposition. What could possibly lead you to believe that either this thread, or my post, had anything to do with reducing the suicide rate? It is as if you bring your own ideas into any thread, of what it should be about, and treat it as such, even when that is not the case.

    My point-- which was patently obvious-- was that there are more people, besides those defined in the OR law, who will commit suicide (or attempt to), regardless. If this law were not so narrow, those suffering people would not need resort to methods which are far more hit-or-miss, than the drugs prescribed, in OR.


    Further, if these people believed they could receive a state sanction, and an efficient tool, for the intended job of ending their life, why would many not apply? But,
    in applying, how would the medical community, also, not get the chance to diagnose many people who, otherwise, would have attempted suicide without having sought medical attention? So, even though it had not been the point I had been making, nevertheless, if you had given any thought to what I'd written, you should have realized that this would, actually, lower the suicide rate.

     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2023
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    56,937
    Likes Received:
    15,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is YOU who brought up suicide and how the OR law doesn't address that.

    And, that is what I stated in my post on this.

    Then, you go on and on about suicide outside of the OR law as if I should have addressed that!!

    I don't see the death with dignity act of OR being an approach to reducing suicide. The numbers who use this avenue are way too low and it doesn't address the majority of causes of suicide.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2023
  23. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    14,731
    Likes Received:
    6,896
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What the hell are you talking about? It wasn't me, who had "brought up suicide." Do you know why? BECAUSE SUICIDE IS THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD! I even quoted back the OP, to give you a second shot at it.

    But the angle on the suicide theme, is not prevention or reduction: it is on whether or not people have the right to kill themselves, if they so choose. Yet, in your prior reply, you'd stressed:

    WillReadmore said: ↑

    OR was the first death with dignity law in the USA.

    It was challenged up to the USSC in 2006, which ruled in favor. Other states have used this as a pattern in creating physician assisted death law.


    Death with dignity law was not created to reduce suicide. And, your post didn't address suicide reduction.
    <End quote>

    So let's do the math on that.
    1) YOU say, that the Oregon law, which you had brought up, had nothing to do with suicide prevention.
    2) YOU add, as if it were a fault, that my post, did not address, lowering the suicide rate (though my reply explained how this would be a beneficial side effect).
    3) And do you recognize, that the OP, says nothing about suicide reduction?

    So if I had not said anything at all, about preventing suicide, nor has the OP, why would you assume this was my goal? In fact, since you state that not even the law, which you personally carried into the discussion, had anything whatsoever to do with suicide prevention, I ask again:
    what reason do you have, to even be talking about, much less, to expect me to address, that topic?

    Please, if you are going to carry on, as if it is you who is being needlessly harried over something, and that it is me who is being incomprehensibly inconsistent, who is making not the least bit of sense, then just answer that question, as to why you brought up suicide prevention. Or show where this came into the conversation, before you mentioned it.


    I limited myself to your last post, in the interest of-- after reading your nonsense opening to this one-- not continuing further & potentially being provoked to the point of exasperation, at which the way I address your...argument, causes you to feel I am using, and to accuse me of making, "ad hominem attacks." So note, I am specifically asking about what you'd written. More exactly: why you'd written it. You seem to be having a conversation in your head, bearing no resemblance, to the actual posts, in this thread. But I invite you to show that I am mistaken, about that.



     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2023
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    56,937
    Likes Received:
    15,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the OP is about whether suicide is a legitimate solution under certain circumstances, and it specifically noted that there is a death with dignity issue.

    I brought up the OR Death with Dignity act as it is an example of a state (one of more than 10) where the majority believe that there ARE circumstances where ending life is legitimate. And, that it is legitimate for our medical system to help people do that in those circumstances.

    This OR bill does not address all the circumstances that lead people to end their lives and it doesn't address any issue that might lead to a reduction in suicide. After all, it identifies a process that leads to suicide.

    As you and others point out, there is a lot more work and thought to be given to suicide in general. For example, the suicide rate of young school age girls is horrendous.
     
  25. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you agree with this statement?

    Sirach 40:28 (CEB) = "My child, don’t live the life of a beggar; it’s better to die than to beg."
     

Share This Page