Does A Human Have The Right To Die?

Should suicide be illegal?

What about medically assisted suicide?

Is this issue any different from abortion?

What say you?

Absolutely.

Your body, your choice.

The only reason the state should have any say, is to prevent your 'heirs' from hastening your demise.

If you have the right to live as some argue why don't you have the right to choose not to live. I think suicide is wrong, but it is not my right to judge that person. I think assisted suicide is wrong though. There is no way to prove without a doubt to everyone the person wanted to die. I think it is a little different from abortion because the person who dies makes the choice, s/he may not be able to think it through, but they make the choice...

Suicide costs the general public a lot of money for clean up, investigation, and you should see the mess if there's a jumper from the bridge of a major freeway.

Medically assisted suicide should be an option if the person has a legitimate reason for wanting to take their lives. It's their body, their choice. Plus it's humane. Remember when Jesus was baptizing people in the river? That started when he was actually drowning lepers. (just kidding)

Abortion isn't killing a human being. We don't gain brain function until at least 5 months after conception. Before that a fetus is no different than a tumor growing.

between suicide and abortion, but one of control.

If it's my body/life, then I should be able to do with it what I like, up to and including termination.

when someone makes an erroneous statement like yours, I have to respond. I'm a biologist and it is as mindblowing to me for someone to compare an embryo to a tumor as it is for someone to claim the earth is 6,000 years old.

Do you mean that a embryo is no more alive than a tumor?

An embryo has all the biological characteristics that define life; i.e. biologists have a set of criteria which we use to distinguish organisms from non-organisms.

A tumor is a non-organism, an abnormal growth of human cells within a human body.

Do you mean that an embryo is not a living human organism?

An embryo is genetically a complete human organism from conception.

Again, a tumor is not an organism, but a mass of human cells. Huge difference!


The biology probably won't change your opinion about abortion, though that's what did it for me, but please get your facts straight about what embryos are and what tumors are. Arguing that embryos aren't alive or aren't human just isn't correct from a scientific point of view.

An embryo IS NOT a complete human being from conception. It is a cell stamped with a genetic code.

"A tumor is a non-organism, an abnormal growth of human cells within a human body."

Growing in the same body the tumor and the embryo share a single set of DNA.

Until 5 months or so the embryo's sex and brain function are non-existent. If that embryo grows beside a dormant but fertilized egg that develops into a cyst with some traits of a human, if you remove the embryo and the cyst out at the same time prior to 5 months they will:

A) Have the same life span
B) have the same brain capacity
c) have the same volume of tissue
d) have the same genetic code

So what qualifies that embryo to be a human above the cyst in the scheme of things? The fact that, if untouched it has a potential to develop into a human being is not enough to qualify it as a human being at conception. Just like a tadpole is not qualified to be a frog until it's fully developed regardless of the fact that it grows outside of the parent's body.

As erroneous as you feel the statement is, it is very dangerous to categorize an undeveloped embryo as a human. The reason is because of law. If murdering a pregnant woman prior to 5 months is a double homicide then isn't a miscarriage 2nd degree manslaughter? Not the intention of the assailant, but resulting in death of the victim.

You tread on very lose ground, and by treading there you leave permanent footprints on a woman's right to choose.

thanks for the breakdown; I agree. :hi:

People should do whatever they want with their bodies that they wish. However, in the case of suicides, well, its complicated because of mostly mental and emotional issues. Technically, according to the law, it is illegal to commit suicide, however, it is practically impossible to enforce, simply because, in cases of failed attempts, they couldn't convict you anyways, unless you tried to take someone out with you. In the case of successful attempts, well that's obvious. Usually you go into therapy after an attempt. As far as Medical Assisted suicide, the only creavates, and this is the doctor's burden, not your own, is that they follow strict procedures, including being aware of your mental health, and also, that you have no hope for recovery from a fatal illness or injury. In the case of incapacitation and vegetative states, the doctors who know your medical condition best should make the decision. This only applies if you have no living will, if you have one, then the decision in that legal document is binding, plain and simple.

Aren't our choices concerning life and death and everything in between severely limited or taken completely out of our hands?

To the extent possible, should we take whatever is left of our "free will", our power to choose, and advance the lives we see and know even if it includes respecting those whose torment is unbearable to exercise their own power to end that torment?

These are not easy questions.

However, they are based upon "freedom",...the "freedom" to choose.

My best friend died in the hospital of AIDS' complications. He did not commit suicide. But the most light-hearted, care-free day I ever spent with him was the day his doctor told him that he would have enough medication on hand to do "whatever was necessary."

He was losing control of his body. When the doctor gave him back control of his life, it was like weights had been lifted. I saw his real smile again.

Having the option to commit suicide made a huge difference. The ordeal he was facing became something he could control, opt out of whenever it got too bad.

It felt like freedom. Having the choice.

Thank you for sharing that story. You were/are a special friend.

but my father had placed a lethal dose of medication within my mother's reach. She chose not to use it, and finally died last year. I didn't notice the bottle of pills among all her other medications on her bedside table; I did notice that she stopped begging me to help her die.

Just having the means close by was a great comfort to her.

And yes, I did thank my dad when he fessed up.

:cry:

There are those who can vehemently justify "casualties" of our own WMDs which STOLE THE RIGHT TO LIFE from so many human beings. Yet, those same control-freak idiots fight like hell to keep plugging in the tubes to maintain a human being who has NO POWER LEFT TO EXPRESS her wishes that they would all, "LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!".

The epitome of complete selfishness and self-centeredness.

My Grandmother was dying of pancreatic cancer. My uncle & his oldest son took shifts in caring for her. She was in so much pain, that while she was in an unconscious state, regardless of the narcotics given to her, she lie in bed wreathing in pain. The Doctors told my uncle with a wink and a nod that he could not prescribe a higher dosage of narcotics to her as a higher dosage may induce her death.
Mercifully, she died soon after that consultation. My uncle loved my Grandmother enough.

My husband and I have spoken at length about our wishes. He knows that I do not want to be left up to the whims of any outsider. I do not want to wait for a feeding tube to be removed, as my brother did to my mother--my heart is still breaking for the way in which that unfeeling bastard dealt with the end of that wonderful womans life, far better for a grand overdose of narcotics to end it painlessly & mercifully.

I have worked for many years with the elderly, as well as with the physically disabled. I have learned more about life than I can ever begin to translate to you all, as well as the art of dying.

All I can say is that a merciful society would not criminalize a compassionate death.

Okay repugs are suppose to be for less government get government off your back.So why on right to die, abortion,gay marriage are they on the side of the issue with more government?I think people should have the right to die.

They want to have smaller government so they create the largest governement orgazation in the history of the U.S. The office of homeland security. But that wasn't enough. Now that the CIA has gotten its balls sliced off, Rummy starts his own agency, the SSB.

Foolish republicans.

the only way to answer the original question is to tie the value system that declares life is good with one that does not.

life itself can not be the weighted quality that acts as the fulcrum. there must be a recognizable innnate property residing in life that brings a qualification of value to the state of living.

For any number of reasons, some valid, some invalid, some ridiculous, some compelling.

As a counselor I dealt with a number of potential suicides. Most didn't, a few did. Ultimately, it was their choice, and if they were really determined, they succeeded. For most, life had become too tricky, too painful, too difficult and they saw no way out. The trick was (as a counselor) to give them a way out, even if it was only the difficult choice of sheer endurance. Most people, at some point in their life, seriously consider suicide as an alternative to living through a difficult period in their lives.

As for medically assisted suicide, I voted for it when I lived in Oregon.

Isn't that what you found?

I blame our corporate culture for the ridiculous rate of attempted/suicides in this country. How can anyone really feel instrinsically valuable,...ever,...even if they are as close to perfection as anyone can get? Everything of value is built upon a destination that no one can ever achieve.

There is so little appreciation for the process of living or life,...so little recognition of the possibility of change,...as if mistakes are permanent. Our society increasingly has no room for error.

Our country is becoming increasingly punitive, judgmental and persecutory. Not a good thing.

that could be deemed "trivial". 2 were for broken marriages. 1 was due to a false accusation of sexual harassment. 1 was due to a failure to stay off coke.

But, as the Zen saying goes, "My stubbed toe hurts me more than your broken leg."

But, your points are well taken. I spent a whole night talking a guy out of blowing his brains out because he hadn't got an expected promotion. Another, fundamentalist type, because he couldn't give up masturbation. "Failure" is not acceptable in our competitve society. As if having a good job, owning enough things, having a perfect marriage, being "good", etc, are the only things that make one deserving of life.

I am a bit confused by your "trivial" comment. But, whatever.

Back to "failure",...who defines that?

What about "success",...who defines that?

What bugs me most about this whole discussion is the faux valley between those who are vehement about controlling their (and others') destinies and those who have given up control over their lives altogether. They end up in the same desperate space (of no control).

The "control" they seek (and cannot find) is a place where they are VALUABLE. But, they live in a culture where only the "material", the "perfect", the "corporate-fed-dreams-R-US" are constantly fed 24/7.

Human beings and their process of living have NO VALUE in such an extremist corporate-culture presentation of life.

.

We are not property of the government or religion and we should not need their permission.

A determined person will check out, usually with great pain and leaving a big mess for the nearest and dearest to find.

As for assisted suicide, I'd like to see some very important guidelines followed, specifically that depression, untreated pain, and family pressure have all been addressed. If the first two are treated and the family is persuaded to back off and the person still wants to go, I say it's up to us to make it humane.

As for abortion, even fundies draw the line at arguing that a fetus is aware and sentient during the first trimester. Shoot, if that were the case we'd be born completely insane from confinement and sensory deprivation. A fetus represents a potential, and the woman who finds herself with an unwanted one is an actual human being. Abortion can best be understood as self defense. Men are permitted to kill intruders into their living rooms; women should be permitted to kill intruders into their bodies.

People can and do turn down life prolonging medical treatment every day. That is their right. Since we don't force them to accept arduous medical intervention, yes, we allow them to die.

Here in Oregon, our citizens have twice voted for the Death With Dignity law.

You can read the guidelines/safegaurds here:

http://www.deathwithdignity.org/law/safeguards.asp

I believe very much in the right to suicide. There are times when the physical pain one must endure equals no quality of life.

You said: "Abortion can best be understood as self defense. Men are permitted to kill intruders into their living rooms; women should be permitted to kill intruders into their bodies."

While I support a woman's right to chose, I still have to state that your argument for it is flawed.

I have the right to shoot an invader. But if I have invited someone in and opened the door, I lose that right, unless I can prove that the guest changed his status to invader and became a threat. Almost all abortions begin with a voluntary act similar to allowing someone to enter your home. For the self-defense analogy to hold, the fetus would have to become a danger to the life of the mother.

However, you have the right to ask your guest to leave, and so does a woman.

But yes, a person has the right to end their life. I'd prefer they sought help first and tried therapy or something. If they have a painful illness and can't afford medical bills, then I'd be saddened to see them go,

We should be able to decide if suicide is correct for oneself.

Medical assisted suicide would be a kindness to the individual.

Suicide and abortion are not the same issues at all.

First, I apologize for the multi-part questions.

Second, I'm interested in hearing your reasoning behind your final statement.

I believe they are the same, or very similar, as both bring up the issue as to who controls our body. Do we have ultimate control, or does the government have a right to interdcede?

It is also my belief that - Each individual should be allowed the choice to make decisions with regard to their own body.

Seems to be a better phrasing to me.

Each of us has the innate right to choose "when" we will die, regardless of what laws are passed. It's unforunate that those the most incompacitated and therefore dependent on others are denied their choice of when. We do have the legal right to make a living will which can include language of being able to reject care and/or lifesaving measures, extraordinary measures, etc. We have a right to choose to die at home or in a hospice, rather than connected to machines at a hospital.

I think that we need to expand on our rights to a "living will" and set one up -- including language for the "when" with witnesses other than family members.

shows it's a right that everyone exercises. ;-)

But you mean "do we have the right to take our own life?"

I don't believe we do because of the terrible pain it causes to those left behind. One of my brothers killed himself so I know this from personal experience. It was seven years before a day went by when I did not have multiple flashbacks to his death. It was such a violent suicide that I actually had post-traumatic stress disorder, as did my remaining brother. I hate to think of how it would have affected our parents if they'd still been living.

As someone else mentioned, suicides impact society in many ways. A suicidal person may kill others or traumatize others, not to mention the mess they leave behind. There are people whose grisly job it is to clean up a scene after a suicide or homicide. There are the police and medical personnel who have to be involved. Not to sound Republican and heartless, but suicides are a public expense, even if they die neatly by an overdose. The police still have to come, EMTS and an ambulance have to come, an autopsy has to be done, etc. (In a natural death, a doctor or nurse has to come and certify the death and then a hearse, paid for by the family, takes the body away.)

I understand that people kill themselves because they are in terrible pain, either physical or psychological. Doctors must do better at pain management, and they are improving, you don't hear as often of doctors not wanting to give opiates because of the addiction danger. WE have to demand proper pain treatment. People in pain shouldn't have to suffer. Psychological pain can be difficult to treat but the real shame is when people don't seek help. My brother tried to deal with depression and alcoholism on his own, having always felt that he had to be strong for everyone. I wish he had sought help. I wish all people in trouble would seek help.

there are expenses. Therefore, your talk of police, EMTs, ambulance, autopsies, etc regarding suicide is meaningless.

As to pain management, have you any idea how many people in this country have NO heath insurance and no access to a doctor?

I threw in the part about the costs as one small part of my post.

As far as health care, I have a damn good idea "how many people in this country have no health insurance and no access to a doctor" and "yelling" at me by using bold face type isn't going to help that situation, is it? On DU, everyone knows about this problem so I didn't think I needed to mention it.

In fact, if you're poor and you're seriously ill or dying, you get Medicaid so you do have health care. Getting psych care on Medicaid is probably more difficult, but there are some resources.


Please also read this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1619340&mesg_id=1619987&page=

if you're poor and you're seriously ill or dying, you do not always get Medicaid so you do not always have health care.

W/an income of less than 10K/year, I consider myself poor. I do not qualify for Medicaid, yet can not afford health insurance.

It is called "falling through the crack". There are most likely millions of us.

Btw, typing in bold = emphasis

typing in caps = yelling

You say that we do not have the right to end our own suffering because it could cause suffering to others.

In others words, we are forced to put the needs of others before our own. As a moral principle, I think we should consider others first.

But as a rule of law?

Somehow, I just don't like the implication.

In fact, suicide is illegal in many states but of course you can't be prosecuted if you succeed in killing yourself. But I don't care if it's legal or not; I don't think we have a right to do it.

I thought I was rather clear about the effect of my brother's suicide on me and our other brother. I spared you the gory details about what it did to my brother's wife and child. It's the effects on your survivors (and those who have to be involved in the clean up of your brains, blood, guts, urine, feces) that's awful.

We all have a responsibility to those who love us. My brother should have sought treatment. If that didn't help, he could have taken a drug overdose to end his life instead of choosing such a violent means. If he'd mixed pills and booze, it might have looked like an accident and been less stressful on his survivors. The same applies to Hunter S. Thompson, by the way. An article today revealed that he had been doing some of the tidying up of loose ends often done by those planning to kill themselves. My brother was also planning, he hadn't had a gun for years, why do you think he bought one a short time before his death? Why not go for pills and booze and make things less bloody and less definitively suicide, the ultimate "Fuck you" to your family. Both my brother and Hunter blew their brains out with their kids in the house. There are better ways to do it.

That was my original question.

He being the angel of the lord and all.

And I don't care how "messy" it is.

My mother in law was diagnosed with ovarian cancer at age 78. She had six weeks to live. At the end, when she was in so much pain, she begged the doctor to let her go.

Not long after that conversation, the nurse at the hospice came in with a final morphine injection. The nurse's comment was, "This one should do it, Gladys." Within 10 minutes, she was gone. Free from pain.

Sometimes, physical and/or emotional pain is too much for a person to bear. I only hope I have such a caring physican when it's my time.

should visit a cancer ward or dialysis facility and talk to the patients there. I have done both. My mother endured kidney dialysis for the last 3 years of her life. Three times a week she spent 4+ hours either tethered to the machine, or waiting her turn to be put on or taken off one. She was miserable. It would take her a day and a half to get her strength back, only to have to go through it again and again. She prayed to die, as she watched others that she had gotten to know go before her.

Many of her fellow patients had squirreled away a lethal dose of various medications they were on. There wasn't a lot of talk about it, but those who would discuss it, said that it would be their choice when to call it quits, and not a doctor's. Dialysis patients have the option of signing themselves off treatment after they have been seen by several doctors to determine their mental and emotional state. But sometimes it takes several days to die, and many fear that their wishes will not be followed.

My mother eventually had a stroke that cut off the blood supply to her bowel. Dialysis is very hard on the arteries. One of the last things she understood me to say was that there would be no more dialysis for her. It was the last time I saw her smile.

what a poignant story

my connection is sooo slow tonight

Suicide will always be legal for lack of a way to enforce a ban on it.

That said, I don't really understand the need for a medical person to assist. Why is that needed? Suicide is NOT a complicated medical procedure. I am uncomfortable with the idea of any person assisting in a suicide.

Suicide is pretty easy to do. The most common drug used for successful suicide in America is - common aspirin. NO, I don't have a link. I learned that fact back in the Navy when I was a personnel officer, and laughed at an attempt to commit suicide by aspirin OD. Our medical officer immediately corrected me and showed me in his drug book that the mean lethal dose was only 50 tablets.

And of course firearms are a very efficient, but messy, way to commit suicide. So, if it is that easy to do, and the means to do it a so easily available, why do you need a medical person involved?

Sometimes, suicide IS the best choice.

Sooner or later.

It seems to me that the ability to choose the place and time, at least in theory, just might be one of the most important "human rights" we have.

OTOH, it seems to me there is a world of difference between a terminally ill person in a lot of pain, whose loved ones already know the person is going to die, deciding when and how to end their suffering with dignity, and someone taking themselves out with no warning leaving a physical and emotional mess for their families to deal with, (often cases of people suffering from depression who could probably have survived if only they had gotten treatment instead of killing themselves).

It's hard for me to judge anyone who's in so much pain (physical or mental) that they see ending it as the best or only way out. It's a personal, moral, ethical, and sometimes medical issue. But yes, I definitely think it's important to human autonomy and dignity to be able to make that choice. So I suppose that's where its only relationship to abortion comes in: the first and most primordial "human right" is that of sovereignty over one's own body.

Who can dictate to a person what they do with their life?

plain and simple

I think so. We do it for suffering animals, why don't we do it for our loved ones (who ask for it)? I can't say it would be an easy decision for me if someone in my family wanted to do it, but it's their life, and their right.

Just my opinion.

But the time and place are not normally left up to the individual.

Thats the point. Since death is inevitable, shouldn't we have the right to meet death on OUR terms?

Ultimately, it comes down to a question of who has the final say on this body in which I live.

Do I determine when and where I die?

Do women determine when and where they carry a child?

Lets take it a step further -

Where this body sleeps at night, what body lies next to it, what foods I eat, what medications or chemicals I ingest, what information I absorb, and what direction I travel is my business alone, as long as I do not interfere with, or cause harm to another body.

Any law that says differently is an example of a big, bloated, nosy government messing around with sovereignty of the individual.

We should reframe the abortion, gay and lesbian rights, censorship, assisted suicide, and medical marijuanna issues as evidence that Republicans are the party of big government.

Only when in full control of their faculties so that they are making a rational decision.

But in such a state of rationality, few but the very phsycially ill and old and dying would exercise that choice.

In the death scene of Phaedrus, Crito asks Socrates to wait to drink the poison hemlock a bit and eat and drink and enjoy some intimacy with his loved ones. Socrates replies: "It is natural for (others) to do so (in the same situation), for they think they derive some benefit from doing this, but it is not fitting for me. I do not expect any benefit from drinking the poison a little later, except to become ridiculous in my own eyes for clinging to life, and be sparing of it when there is none left."

Phaedrus, 116e-117a