Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Keith Maitland on September 08, 2015, 11:54:55 PM
-
I just saw this passage:
"Humans are hedonic creatures, in addition to calculative creatures. That is not to say we are solely motivated by pleasure and pain, but the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, does explain a great deal of our behaviour. Thus, we (some more than others) have the ability to figure out whether our future likely has more pleasure and less pain in store for us, or more pain and less pleasure. If our future is found wanting (likely, to be wanting), and, being self-conscious and conscientious creatures, having an awareness of life and death and all that these processes likely entail (life = presence of experiences both positive and negative, death = absence of experiences both positive and negative), some of us, especially the more hedonic among us, may decide that no experience is better than to continue experiencing a life of consecutive and consistent disappointments, hardships, anguish and dread"
Question:
Does anyone here strongly disagree with this?
-
Jim Jones convinced over 900 people that drinking the poison punch and dying would be less painful than to continue living. He kept telling them to be quiet, stop crying, stop the children screaming and just drink it and die with dignity.
-
I for one am in full agreement with it, Keith, and would argue that when push comes to shove so are the majority of people. Consider assisted suicide, the right to which is supported by the vast majority of the population (and is being debated in Parliament on Friday, I learned this morning). This is the most direct example of people believing that death is preferable to a foreseen negative future of physical pain and emotional anguish. By far the greater bulk of people thus believe that there are, literally, fates worse than death. This bit:
If our future is found wanting (likely, to be wanting) [...] some of us, especially the more hedonic among us, may decide that no experience is better than to continue experiencing a life of consecutive and consistent disappointments, hardships, anguish and dread.
is quite right.
-
Shaker,
But do you believe those who have treatment-refractory depression and anxiety should have the right to choose to die?
-
The tendency to think of life as merely about balancing pleasure and pain, is obviously incorrect. That is why traditionally...all over the world...the focus has been not to indulge our needs but to discipline them.
The 'happiness' from pleasure seeking is often the source of much of our pain. Real happiness is from controlling our needs. One who has no needs is truly happy.....not the one seeking to indulge his needs.
-
A person should have the absolute right to terminate their life, with help if necessary, if they are terminally ill.
-
The tendency to think of life as merely about balancing pleasure and pain, is obviously incorrect. That is why traditionally...all over the world...the focus has been not to indulge our needs but to discipline them.
In what way is that 'obvious'? My life is an attempt to maximise my enjoyment of my life - sometimes I'm aware enough that there will be short-term sacrifices for long-term gain, but the goal is happiness, pleasure, enjoyment...
The 'happiness' from pleasure seeking is often the source of much of our pain. Real happiness is from controlling our needs. One who has no needs is truly happy.....not the one seeking to indulge his needs.
Your happiness might come from 'controlling your needs', I'm not sure mine does. I don't drink because I don't enjoy it, but I don't derive pleasure from not drinking. On the other hand, I do like a good pie - I limit how many pies I eat in the short term in order that I can enjoy more of them in the long term, but I don't derive my happiness from limiting my number of pies, I derive my happiness from the pies I do eat.
And tomorrow, with good fortune, I will continue to do so.
O.
-
I for one am in full agreement with it, Keith, and would argue that when push comes to shove so are the majority of people. Consider assisted suicide, the right to which is supported by the vast majority of the population (and is being debated in Parliament on Friday, I learned this morning). This is the most direct example of people believing that death is preferable to a foreseen negative future of physical pain and emotional anguish. By far the greater bulk of people thus believe that there are, literally, fates worse than death. This bit:
If our future is found wanting (likely, to be wanting) [...] some of us, especially the more hedonic among us, may decide that no experience is better than to continue experiencing a life of consecutive and consistent disappointments, hardships, anguish and dread.
is quite right.
Yes I thought you might be, and I for one object to your willingness to accept and apparently encourage others or at least support others choice that might be to do away with themselves when going through a particularly dark part of their life.
Some people suffer terrible depression where they no longer want to live, but they do come through the black tunnel.
Once they have pulled through it, life becomes worth living again.
I suspect you would give them the wrong sort of support.
I think you rate as " dangerous "
Your attitude definately does.
I wouldn't want to put you near any depressed person.
You might be compassionate in your attitude to animals but your attitude to people is awful.
It's a difficult area - on the one hand, the concept of an individual having the freedom to control their own destiny includes, by definition, the giving them some sort of control over when and how they die, if they choose.
Informed consent becomes problematic when conditions like depression come in - on the one hand, regardless of the source of their depression, if their long-term prospect is for an unhappy life, what right do we have to compel them to continue it? On the other hand, someone under the 'influence' of a medical condition could be considered not to have the capacity to make a rational judgment. Does depression so influence someone's faculties that they can't make a rational judgment?
As someone with a condition that warrants a medical diagnosis but who considers himself to be perfectly capable of self-determination, I'm well aware that our understanding of psychology is in its infancy, and it's therefore a minefield when it comes to using that information to determine policy that will apply to everyone.
O.
-
Yes, I know I can't think rationally when I experience extreme physical pain. If needing to be 'rational' is needed for assisted dying then I will be stuck suffering.
I've known a handful of people with depression who have never known anything else. That they are still around for me to have met is a triumph of bravery and compassion (usually for their loved ones) on their part. For them there is no tunnel to come out of because they never went into one. But something keeps them going. Very often it is the small things that matter and we only need one day, then the next, and sunshine, or birdsong, or pies are just too good to leave behind.
-
Shaker,
But do you believe those who have treatment-refractory depression and anxiety should have the right to choose to die?
Yes. No question.
-
Presumably Keith suffers from
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777190
Treatment refractory depression.
If you encourage him to end it all I am going to start objecting to the mods because I don't think it is appropriate.
Everyone can see Keith has a problem by his posts.
Nobody is "encouraging" Keith or indeed anyone else to do anything, you histrionic poltroon. We - well, some of us are at any rate - engaging in a discussion.
-
It's a difficult area - on the one hand, the concept of an individual having the freedom to control their own destiny includes, by definition, the giving them some sort of control over when and how they die, if they choose.
Informed consent becomes problematic when conditions like depression come in - on the one hand, regardless of the source of their depression, if their long-term prospect is for an unhappy life, what right do we have to compel them to continue it?
None. In the words of Horace (paraphrased, but only slightly), compelling somebody to stay alive who wants to die is equally bad as killing somebody who wants to live. Murder is regarded universally as the most serious of crimes - why not the converse?
On the other hand, someone under the 'influence' of a medical condition could be considered not to have the capacity to make a rational judgment. Does depression so influence someone's faculties that they can't make a rational judgment?
Except in those rare cases of psychotic depression, no. Depression is a disorder of affect, not reality-testing (in the way that schizophrenia is). And then there's the well-attested phenomenon of depressive realism, where people with mild to moderate depression actually seem to have a more realistic appraisal of outcomes than more sunny-natured people.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201206/depressive-realism
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2006/nov/25/healthandwellbeing.features1
-
Presumably Keith suffers from
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777190
Treatment refractory depression.
If you encourage him to end it all I am going to start objecting to the mods because I don't think it is appropriate.
Everyone can see Keith has a problem by his posts.
Well I can't see it - and, moreover, I think it is seriously silly for an unqualified person to attempt to diagnose mental health issues by reading forum posts.
Furthermore, since Keith's OP just asks for comments on the quote he posted I can't see any justification for raising anything personal regarding Keith.
-
I'm mostly with the Buddhists and Jains on this.
Life arises out of desire.
If you are free of desire it's of no consequence
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-33998688
"Death was not the opposite of life," he wrote. "It was already here, within my being, it had always been here, and no struggle would permit me to forget that."
No pies though.
Sometimes i prefer the Eagles:
"You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_California
-
Well I can't see it - and, moreover, I think it is seriously silly for an unqualified person to attempt to diagnose mental health issues by reading forum posts.
Furthermore, since Keith's OP just asks for comments on the quote he posted I can't see any justification for raising anything personal regarding Keith.
Quite.
-
Life arises out of desire.
I'm pretty sure, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, that my life arose out of my parents' boinky-boinky - presumably that's based on their desire for each other, but that's not what I interpret the intent of your phrase to be. I had not intent to live, as before my life I was incapable of intent - indeed, before my life, the concept of me was nonsensical.
O.
-
I'm pretty sure, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, that my life arose out of my parents' boinky-boinky
Oh, for goodness' sake, we're all adults here, let's dispense with the euphemisms please and let's at least use the proper term - bom chicka wah wah.
-
I'm pretty sure, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, that my life arose out of my parents' boinky-boinky
Oh, for goodness' sake, we're all adults here, let's dispense with the euphemisms please and let's at least use the proper term - bom chicka wah wah.
Early 70's, Shaker, whilst I'm sure 'bom chicka wah wah' was possible, it certainly wasn't widespread by then, that was only popularised in the late 70's American cop shows :)
O.
-
Presumably Keith suffers from
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777190
Treatment refractory depression.
If you encourage him to end it all I am going to start objecting to the mods because I don't think it is appropriate.
Everyone can see Keith has a problem by his posts.
What a silly post, no one is encouraging Keith to end it all! ::)
-
Presumably Keith suffers from
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777190
Treatment refractory depression.
If you encourage him to end it all I am going to start objecting to the mods because I don't think it is appropriate.
Everyone can see Keith has a problem by his posts.
What a silly post, no one is encouraging Keith to end it all! ::)
Quite. I pointed this out as did Gordon. But Rose needs to fulfil her role as self-appointed nanny of the forum every once in a while.
-
Life arises out of desire.
I'm pretty sure, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, that my life arose out of my parents' boinky-boinky - presumably that's based on their desire for each other, but that's not what I interpret the intent of your phrase to be. I had not intent to live, as before my life I was incapable of intent - indeed, before my life, the concept of me was nonsensical.
O.
That is true - you are a recombination and expression of their DNA, a result of their desire and infused with the same. When it's eventually sated, there is nothing left except a small increase in entropy.
Of-course it is not possible to exist before you exist or after you cease existing.
In the meantime ... "we are all prisoners here, of our own device".
-
Presumably Keith suffers from
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777190
Treatment refractory depression.
If you encourage him to end it all I am going to start objecting to the mods because I don't think it is appropriate.
Everyone can see Keith has a problem by his posts.
What a silly post, no one is encouraging Keith to end it all! ::)
Quite. I pointed this out as did Gordon. But Rose needs to fulfil her role as self-appointed nanny of the forum every once in a while.
;D
-
Shaker is very pro death industry.
I have a problem with the pro suicide nutters considering the number of people who have attempted suicide and having received medical aid in time. Later were thankful their attempts failed. I thank God for those that save these broken people on a daily basis.
-
Shaker is very pro death industry.
The only death industry of which I'm aware is the animal-slaughtering industry, and I'm very much against that.
-
Rose,
Keith
We don't know much about you, but suspect you have family that love you and are worried about you.
I appreciate your concern, but honestly, I am fine... :)
-
Shaker and others,
And then there's the well-attested phenomenon of depressive realism, where people with mild to moderate depression actually seem to have a more realistic appraisal of outcomes than more sunny-natured people.
Oh absolutely... this needs to be highlighted more often.
One more question:
Would you also endorse the following views or is too radical?
I feel it is a basic human right to die with dignity at a time of one’s choosing, REGARDLESS of circumstances, situation or medical condition. To this end I believe that Dignitas style clinics should be made available for all those who need them in as many locations as necessary.
At present this right is denied to so many thousands of suffering individuals purely to satisfy the whims of a religious and natalist driven orthodoxy. If we do not have rights over our own bodies, then we do not have any rights at all. In my view it is unforgivable keeping someone alive against their will and who no longer wants to be here. Society condemns so many to die alone in agony, to die from very violent deaths or continue living in pain from botched suicide attempts. It is a simple enough request to have drugs like Nembutal (Pentobarbital) readily made available, to aid a peaceful and dignified exit from this world. And not to have Big Brother dictating to us what is in our best interests. We are all adults and capable of making life (and death) choices for ourselves.
So I now suggest there is an immediate change in the law to allow not only assisted suicide for those who desire it, but also drugs like Nembutal to be made available on prescription for the purposes of ending life. Suicide is not illegal and should be made much easier to carry out, without incurring discrimination, blame, stigma or criminality of any kind. It is indeed the human rights issue of the 21st Century.
The pieces of sh*t running our societies are generally smart enough to know that keeping a maximum number of people breathing isn't a goddamn moral issue, as they pretend it is when pandering to the majority, but a matter of maximizing the product (soldiers, farmers, tax payers) of the state.
Even a kid dying of cancer represents a sweet profit.
Profit and power. It's the reason why even the most liberal governments will never fully decriminalize suicide.
-
One more question:
Would you also endorse the following views or is too radical?
Yes, I fully agree with the substance of the quote - the first two paragraphs express my sentiments in a nutshell, as does the title of this thread which I recognise as a quotation from Schopenhauer - although not wholly with its conclusion as to why. I don't think it has anything to do with profit per se (after all, living people cost money and sick living people cost a great deal of money). The anti-choicers are driven by power, however; the power they can exert over other people and what they do. The paternalism of the anti-choicers is everywhere, seeking to regulate what foods people eat and how much, how much they drink, their sexual behaviour, what risks they're allowed to take with their own lives (joining the armed forces and skydiving are OK; choosing to drive alone in a car without a seatbelt is not OK. How does that work again?) and a million other things great and small. This sort of paternalism draws its energy from treating competent consenting adults as rather dim and irresponsible children who have to be told what to do and how to live - and die - because the paternalists know better how to live somebody else's life for them better than the somebody elses ever could. In Kant's terms it's treating people as means and not as ends in themselves, by denying them the freedom to exercise their choices; to use a timely analogy today, as subjects of a monarch and not citizens of a republic.
I am dubious to say the very least about the existence of free will - while I don't outright deny it since I have no conclusive grounds for doing so, neuroscience is increasingly coming to suggest that it's an illusion. Nevertheless, as I believe torridon (apologies if wrong) wrote fairly recently, until and unless we reach the point where free will is definitively shown to be illusory, we (sometimes) act as though we possess free will. While that remains the case I think it's important to respect people's choices, not only if we disagree with them but especially and particularly when we disagree with them. It's fundamental to my idea of and treatment of human beings that competent consenting adults must be treated as such. People own themselves.
I read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty at a tender age and never recovered; it was the one text that made me a die-hard libertarian. (In the strict philosophical sense, more usually associated with British English rather than current American English where it means something vastly different, which makes it a problematic term to use nowadays). Mill wrote:
... the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people, if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct [...] the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection [...] the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right [...] The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
It's a stance from which I've never been given any reason to waver and many reasons to cling to all the more securely.
-
Would you also endorse the following views or is too radical?
I feel it is a basic human right to die with dignity at a time of one’s choosing, REGARDLESS of circumstances, situation or medical condition. To this end I believe that Dignitas style clinics should be made available for all those who need them in as many locations as necessary.
At present this right is denied to so many thousands of suffering individuals purely to satisfy the whims of a religious and natalist driven orthodoxy. If we do not have rights over our own bodies, then we do not have any rights at all. In my view it is unforgivable keeping someone alive against their will and who no longer wants to be here. Society condemns so many to die alone in agony, to die from very violent deaths or continue living in pain from botched suicide attempts. It is a simple enough request to have drugs like Nembutal (Pentobarbital) readily made available, to aid a peaceful and dignified exit from this world. And not to have Big Brother dictating to us what is in our best interests. We are all adults and capable of making life (and death) choices for ourselves.
So I now suggest there is an immediate change in the law to allow not only assisted suicide for those who desire it, but also drugs like Nembutal to be made available on prescription for the purposes of ending life. Suicide is not illegal and should be made much easier to carry out, without incurring discrimination, blame, stigma or criminality of any kind. It is indeed the human rights issue of the 21st Century.
The pieces of sh*t running our societies are generally smart enough to know that keeping a maximum number of people breathing isn't a goddamn moral issue, as they pretend it is when pandering to the majority, but a matter of maximizing the product (soldiers, farmers, tax payers) of the state.
Even a kid dying of cancer represents a sweet profit.
Profit and power. It's the reason why even the most liberal governments will never fully decriminalize suicide.
I'd agree with a wider provision of the clinics, certainly, and with the underlying principle that people have the right to decide for themselves when they wish to go, but I'd disagree that people's motivation for not wanting the clinics is either religious oppression or profit. Yes, some people are religiously motivated in part to stand up against the idea of suicide, but the ultimate motivation for them is that they think life is more precious than happiness - I don't agree, but I understand.
O.
-
I'd agree with a wider provision of the clinics, certainly, and with the underlying principle that people have the right to decide for themselves when they wish to go, but I'd disagree that people's motivation for not wanting the clinics is either religious oppression or profit. Yes, some people are religiously motivated in part to stand up against the idea of suicide, but the ultimate motivation for them is that they think life is more precious than happiness
A couple of things present themselves:
One is that we're dealing not with happy people but unhappy ones and, far too often, some truly, desperately, grimly, agonisingly unhappy ones - people with, say, terminal cancer are not noted for doing cartwheels of joy about their state.
The second is, to me, the most obnoxious thing of all: it's always about what certain people think is right for other people, i.e. not themselves but other people with different ideas and opinions on life and death. A.C Grayling is far from the only person to point out that the standard slogan of every paternalist, every censor, there has ever been is: "I don't like it therefore you shouldn't be able to do/see/read it."
-
I believe you do support all sorts of death industries Shaker.
So what about the people who are thankful that help arrived in time and they survived their suicide attempts, what about the ones that didn't get that chance.
-
I believe you do support all sorts of death industries Shaker.
-
isn't that a bit emotive, JC? I'm just back from visiting a very dear friend in hellish agony - she really, really wants to die.
I wish I had the guts to help her.
All the platitudes and counselling sessions are over - she knows there is no remission from her hellish state of living - none whatsoever. Every hour is a torment for her, and the morphine is not working, The medics say she has a few months left of this bedridden nightmare.
And she's Christian.
When the prayers don't work, and her throat's dry with screaming, what am I supposed to do....smile and say 'Hod loves you'. when I really want to help her end her misery?
-
So what about the people who are thankful that help arrived in time and they survived their suicide attempts, what about the ones that didn't get that chance.
-
Good for them.
That doesn't help those who are totally sane but cannot stand the living nightmare they are in, does it?
-
I believe you do support all sorts of death industries Shaker.
What you believe and what is actually the case are usually at odds, as here.
So what about the people who are thankful that help arrived in time and they survived their suicide attempts
If we're playing the whatabout game, what about the ones who survived and are not glad to have done so? For the record I have no idea as to the relative proportions of each - maybe there's a survey or a study on this somewhere - but we can take it as read that both groups exist.
what about the ones that didn't get that chance.
They're dead, I assume.
-
That two people agree on a subjective statement is a sub part is the ad populum, the argumentum ad duum.
-
If you think he is some death industry supporter, u suggest you should be able to explain the term and cite something of his in support
-
One could just as easily argue that JC then is in the inflicting pain industry. Though we're one to do so, it would simply be as fatuous as the death industry bit on Shaker. I have seen nothing in Shaker's posts that indicate not having a duty of care, it is simply informed by his belief in individual rights.
This is not a subject with a simple solution as people are aiming for the best outcome without it being indicative that because they disagree with you that they are some mad murderer or someone who gers their jollies from people in pain.
-
Shaker,
But do you believe those who have treatment-refractory depression and anxiety should have the right to choose to die?
Yes. No question.
NS
Here is a good example as is post 2
I modified my post above yours, to specify exactly why he comes across that way.
He doesn't seem to acknowledge that a person can be vunerable and mental health experts have a duty of care.
Nope, it is his opinion that that is the duty of care.. To take your approach and JC's, your attitude could be characterised as supporting people being kept in suffering. As already stated this would be fatuous.
-
Yes, the line is hard to define. However, you are merely caricaturing, or rather joining in the caricaturing with JC, of Shaker's views. He sees the individual's right as paramount. You do not. Argue against the position, rather than this indulgent death industry nonsense.
-
A couple of things present themselves:
One is that we're dealing not with happy people but unhappy ones and, far too often, some truly, desperately, grimly, agonisingly unhappy ones - people with, say, terminal cancer are not noted for doing cartwheels of joy about their state.
The second is, to me, the most obnoxious thing of all: it's always about what certain people think is right for other people, i.e. not themselves but other people with different ideas and opinions on life and death. A.C Grayling is far from the only person to point out that the standard slogan of every paternalist, every censor, there has ever been is: "I don't like it therefore you shouldn't be able to do/see/read it."
Agreed. That doesn't mean, though, that:
a) everyone who opposes assisted suicide measures is religious,
b) all the religious people who oppose assisted suicide do so solely because of a religious tenet.
Yes, they are presuming that someone else's opinion should match their own that life is the most important concern, above all others. In some - perhaps many - instances that can be because of religious belief, but it's also possible to maintain a 'whilst there's life there's hope' mentality without belief.
I'd agree that imposing their presumption to deny people free choice is wrong, but I can also appreciate that they can be genuinely concerned about the pressures they feel people would be put under (which I think are grossly over-stated).
O.
-
Actually everyone has the right to die. What we don't have is the right to ask for assistance in that, either through purchasing the necessary means or through direct help from a third party. This means suicide is hit and miss and often agonising. And of course the greatest injustice is that those unable to care for themselves - those under the care of the medical profession, in nursing homes, the bedridden - can't even use that way out.
I think one of the characteristics of religious belief is that there is always hope. Hope for remission, cure, a brighter tomorrow, peace on earth and goodwill to all men. That's not necessarily a bad thing - Horsethorn and I once had a discussion on how that was the message of LOTR - but we only have the present moment and in this present moment there is much suffering. And joy, happiness, meaning and ordinariness, for people who are dying, rape victims, the less able, anyone. It isn't all crap. But for some it has gone too far in this moment and they do not want to trust to unrealistic hope for things that won't come. And it is shameful that we do not have the framework to help them.
My only reservation is that we must not allow the authorities to make assumptions over quality of life and assisted dying - plenty of people live full and rewarding lives in the very situations most of us think would be intolerable. There has to be a robust opt-in system that is regularly reviewed and open to change at any time. But I can see no reason why that opt-in shouldn't be open to people whose depression cannot be treated. Frankly severe depression scares the shit out of me and I thank my lucky stars I've never experienced it.
Shaker doesn't support the 'death industry' (whatever that is) and he isn't encouraging anything other than debate. But there are disturbed people out there who will encourage self harm and suicide and you can find them at the click of a button. It'd be a lot better if we had trained people available who can point people in the direction of where to go to find that hope and meaning, to stay alive, but also where to go when things are over.
-
Actually everyone has the right to die. What we don't have is the right to ask for assistance in that, either through purchasing the necessary means or through direct help from a third party. This means suicide is hit and miss and often agonising. And of course the greatest injustice is that those unable to care for themselves - those under the care of the medical profession, in nursing homes, the bedridden - can't even use that way out.
I think one of the characteristics of religious belief is that there is always hope. Hope for remission, cure, a brighter tomorrow, peace on earth and goodwill to all men. That's not necessarily a bad thing - Horsethorn and I once had a discussion on how that was the message of LOTR - but we only have the present moment and in this present moment there is much suffering. And joy, happiness, meaning and ordinariness, for people who are dying, rape victims, the less able, anyone. It isn't all crap. But for some it has gone too far in this moment and they do not want to trust to unrealistic hope for things that won't come. And it is shameful that we do not have the framework to help them.
My only reservation is that we must not allow the authorities to make assumptions over quality of life and assisted dying - plenty of people live full and rewarding lives in the very situations most of us think would be intolerable. There has to be a robust opt-in system that is regularly reviewed and open to change at any time. But I can see no reason why that opt-in shouldn't be open to people whose depression cannot be treated. Frankly severe depression scares the shit out of me and I thank my lucky stars I've never experienced it.
Shaker doesn't support the 'death industry' (whatever that is) and he isn't encouraging anything other than debate. But there are disturbed people out there who will encourage self harm and suicide and you can find them at the click of a button. It'd be a lot better if we had trained people available who can point people in the direction of where to go to find that hope and meaning, to stay alive, but also where to go when things are over.
I fully agree. What puzzles me is why dissenters can't see the blindingly obvious. Surely religion and culture can't overcome empathy and love for others to such an extent? Is there some other hidden reason for it?
-
Having been on that side of the fence, Len, I think it is a mix of hope, fear and utter belief that only God gets to choose our comings and goings from this world.
-
Having been on that side of the fence, Len, I think it is a mix of hope, fear and utter belief that only God gets to choose our comings and goings from this world.
I can understand that, but we seem to be surrounded by people who are not in that position and yet still oppose the right to end life.
-
Agreed. That doesn't mean, though, that:
a) everyone who opposes assisted suicide measures is religious
No, of course not - clearly false, and not something I would ever state.
b) all the religious people who oppose assisted suicide do so solely because of a religious tenet.
Yes, they are presuming that someone else's opinion should match their own that life is the most important concern, above all others. In some - perhaps many - instances that can be because of religious belief, but it's also possible to maintain a 'whilst there's life there's hope' mentality without belief.
I'd agree that imposing their presumption to deny people free choice is wrong, but I can also appreciate that they can be genuinely concerned about the pressures they feel people would be put under (which I think are grossly over-stated).
For the record I don't doubt for a second that the concerns most have about AS - pressure, slippery slopes and what have you - are entirely genuine amongst the vast majority. No question. But a couple of things spring to mind in this regard.
The first is that we're not dealing with unknown matters here. We don't have to guess about what the implications and ramifications might be. While, alas, not numerous, there are several territories around the world where AS has been in place for some years now, and the evidence that comes from those places is that the safeguards in place to ensure that the process does what it's intended to do not only work but work well.
The second point is worse - it's that the undoubtedly genuine concern exhibited by those who oppose AS is directly responsible for causing untold amounts of quite atrocious suffering. Palliative care for the terminally ill at its best is great but far from perfect; and that's at its best, which all too often it isn't. Like you, I think the standard tropes of those who oppose AS are grotesquely exaggerated to the extent that people are being compelled to endure what can only be called living nightmares. They are also, sometimes, bordering on the frankly delusional, especially the "Where there's life there's hope" one - I'm afraid sometimes there isn't, and all that can be done is to ensure that people die as easily as possible when they wouldn't otherwise.
-
Having been on that side of the fence, Len, I think it is a mix of hope, fear and utter belief that only God gets to choose our comings and goings from this world.
I can understand that, but we seem to be surrounded by people who are not in that position and yet still oppose the right to end life.
-
Haud the bus, Len.
As I've already demonstrated on this thread, not all 'religious' people are opposed to people who. beimng deemed competant to do ao, having the right to end their own lives, when those lives are intolerable.
-
Yes, the line is hard to define. However, you are merely caricaturing, or rather joining in the caricaturing with JC, of Shaker's views. He sees the individual's right as paramount. You do not. Argue against the position, rather than this indulgent death industry nonsense.
I think it is interesting that you think that Shaker sees the individual's right as paramount. A while back I argued with Shaker that an individual has a right to genetically alter their sexuality, if the option was ever developed and it actually worked, on the basis that the individual's right to choose their sexuality was paramount, and also that the individual was not losing anything - they still got to have the opportunity to have sexually and emotionally-fulfilling relationships. In fact if a gay person decided to become straight they would potentially have more opportunities since a much larger percentage of the population is straight. Shaker was vehemently opposed to this right, on the grounds that the individual might feel pressured by society to take the option, or might be suffering from depression.
On that basis of pressure from outside or depression, not sure how Shaker justifies the position that ending your life is ok but changing your sexuality isn't.
I support assisted dying with appropriate safeguards - I think often the reason why we remain alive is due to medical advances rather than our body's ability to naturally stay alive. I certainly don't want someone caring for me for large parts of the day. I have told my family just let me die and that if they feel they will miss me, they will just have to get over it.
-
I've posted on here before about an acquaintance who has a condition that could cause him to die suddenly, painlessly and without warning. It's operable but the chances of it going wrong are huge and if it does he'll be left paralysed. As he can't face a life of dependency he's opted to live with the condition.
And for this his family have told him he is being selfish.
-
Having been on that side of the fence, Len, I think it is a mix of hope, fear and utter belief that only God gets to choose our comings and goings from this world.
I can understand that, but we seem to be surrounded by people who are not in that position and yet still oppose the right to end life.
-
Haud the bus, Len.
As I've already demonstrated on this thread, not all 'religious' people are opposed to people who. beimng deemed competant to do ao, having the right to end their own lives, when those lives are intolerable.
Quite, but I didn't say ALL religious people ... although of those that do, most objections seem to be for religious reasons.
-
I remember that the Liverpool Pathway business scared some people, as people were put on it, without being told, without their relatives being told, and various other cock-ups. It didn't inspire confidence about how these things would be handled, but I'm not against being helped to die in principle. I think there were controversies about people being deprived of water and food deliberately, and so on, hastening death, without being informed.
-
I've posted on here before about an acquaintance who has a condition that could cause him to die suddenly, painlessly and without warning. It's operable but the chances of it going wrong are huge and if it does he'll be left paralysed. As he can't face a life of dependency he's opted to live with the condition.
And for this his family have told him he is being selfish.
I'm with him - I'd do the same thing.
In my case, which I know isn't the same for everyone - I'm really lucky to have had a great life, I'm really happy. If I died tomorrow, it would be fine. I feel a bit bad thinking about the people who would miss me, but I remember my grandmother dying suddenly when I was a kid - 9 yrs old - she lived with us and brought me up from when I was a baby as both my parents worked and in fact my parents left the country when I was 6 months old and I was left in my grandmother's care and didn't see them again for about a year. I remember the pain of losing her - it actually felt like something tore in my heart as I sat on her bed the next morning and wept.
But the pain lessens and you move on and the person remains in your memories - and I have told my kids that death and pain are part of life and losing someone you love is a lot less painful than other things they might potentially go through, and they will have to find ways to cope and manage and be happy if they were ever in that situation of losing me, because I definitely don't want to be alive and physically dependent on someone else.
-
I've posted on here before about an acquaintance who has a condition that could cause him to die suddenly, painlessly and without warning. It's operable but the chances of it going wrong are huge and if it does he'll be left paralysed. As he can't face a life of dependency he's opted to live with the condition.
And for this his family have told him he is being selfish.
On the basis of what is written I strongly suspect I know what condition you're referring to.
How do the family get away with calling him selfish? Selfish for not having the operation, you mean?
-
I've posted on here before about an acquaintance who has a condition that could cause him to die suddenly, painlessly and without warning. It's operable but the chances of it going wrong are huge and if it does he'll be left paralysed. As he can't face a life of dependency he's opted to live with the condition.
And for this his family have told him he is being selfish.
On the basis of what is written I strongly suspect I know what condition you're referring to.
How do the family get away with calling him selfish? Selfish for not having the operation, you mean?
Yes. They'd rather have him alive and living a life he believes he would find intolerable than have to face grieving for him.
I could just about understand if this were a young man with dependent children but he is a similar age to my dad.
-
I remember that the Liverpool Pathway business scared some people, as people were put on it, without being told, without their relatives being told, and various other cock-ups. It didn't inspire confidence about how these things would be handled, but I'm not against being helped to die in principle. I think there were controversies about people being deprived of water and food deliberately, and so on, hastening death, without being informed.
I agree completely with this. There was what some perceived as an arrogance on the part of the medical profession around the LP in deciding what was a 'worthwhile' life. With a different set of values and the decision resting with the individual and not the doctors assisted dying should be very different.
-
I've posted on here before about an acquaintance who has a condition that could cause him to die suddenly, painlessly and without warning. It's operable but the chances of it going wrong are huge and if it does he'll be left paralysed. As he can't face a life of dependency he's opted to live with the condition.
And for this his family have told him he is being selfish.
I'm with him - I'd do the same thing.
In my case, which I know isn't the same for everyone - I'm really lucky to have had a great life, I'm really happy. If I died tomorrow, it would be fine. I feel a bit bad thinking about the people who would miss me, but I remember my grandmother dying suddenly when I was a kid - 9 yrs old - she lived with us and brought me up from when I was a baby as both my parents worked and in fact my parents left the country when I was 6 months old and I was left in my grandmother's care and didn't see them again for about a year. I remember the pain of losing her - it actually felt like something tore in my heart as I sat on her bed the next morning and wept.
But the pain lessens and you move on and the person remains in your memories - and I have told my kids that death and pain are part of life and losing someone you love is a lot less painful than other things they might potentially go through, and they will have to find ways to cope and manage and be happy if they were ever in that situation of losing me, because I definitely don't want to be alive and physically dependent on someone else.
I would too.
Like you I was looked after by my nan whilst my parents worked, although they did come home each evening. Losing her was awful but it is a part of life. I bumped into an old friend yesterday who lost a child some years ago and although it isn't something she will ever get over it is something she has found a way of living with.
I've been stuck in my life in some ways and there is do much I want to do - I would rage if I had to leave the party just now because I feel like I've only just put my coat on the bed. But if I were terminally ill and in pain - no question what I would want.
-
My understanding of Keith's proposition was that that there should be no "safeguards", counselling, checks and so on. That we should have an absolute right to assistance for suicide, ie with no need to provide reasons.
I don't think society is ready to support that. Even the bill for assisted dying, with appropriate checks is unlikely to pass.
-
Even the bill for assisted dying, with appropriate checks is unlikely to pass.
Like equal marriage (for example), its eventual acceptance is a matter of time. It's inevitable. It may be delayed, causing more suffering in the meantime - I hope not -, but it's inevitable.
-
A discussion in the Opinion Pages of today's New York Times:
DOCTOR IRA BYOIK: Should a person who is not terminally ill be allowed to commit suicide? If so, should physicians be permitted to assist in causing the person’s death? Should non-physicians? These are critical issues. Many people’s lives are miserable with no end to their suffering in sight. We are living through unprecedented circumstances in which society is strained by widespread poverty, chronic illness and disabilities, mental illness and drug abuse. Ours is also an era in which previously outlawed or socially deplored behaviors are increasingly accepted, whether or not they are legal: same-sex marriage, marijuana use and physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill people.
MARK KLEIMAN: Doctor Byock and I are definitely on different sides of the looking-glass. He finds it chilling that a person might choose to die when he would prefer that person to live. I find it chilling that anyone would presume to make that choice for another competent adult.
This isn't euthanasia, killing someone you think would be better off dead. This is helping people who think they’d be better off dead.
He sees the question as “whether society should sanction hastening death.” I see the question as whether there’s an entity called “society” that can rightfully claim more power over my life than I have. Dr. Byock asks “What level of suffering qualifies for hastened death?” I answer, "Whatever level of suffering the person actually doing the suffering finds intolerable.”
Should a congenitally deaf man who is now losing his sight be required by law to live on in dark, silent isolation? I think not. It’s not a question of whether “we” approve, whoever “we” may be. It’s a question of whether to force someone to suffer who would prefer to stop suffering.
Assisted dying is not euthanasia. Euthanasia is killing someone because you think he would be better off dead. Assisted dying is helping someone die because he thinks he’d be better off dead. It’s precisely the difference between rape and consensual sex. Allowing people to have sex doesn’t put us on the “slippery slope” to legalizing rape.
RTWT here:
http://tinyurl.com/pdk8syz
-
some of us, especially the more hedonic among us, may decide that no experience is better than to continue experiencing a life of consecutive and consistent disappointments, hardships, anguish and dread
...... and some, especially the more adventurous and pioneering, may decide that 'experiencing a life of consecutive and consistent disappointments, hardships, anguish and dread' is better than 'no experience' as it challenges them to realise or awaken a potential they hitherto did not know they had and they may even act as an inspiration to others, especially those who are bored with just living a life in their heads, of safe entertainment.
-
A discussion in the Opinion Pages of today's New York Times ...
Good post - thanks for the link Keith, that was an interesting dialogue.
I'll perhaps come back to it when I have more time to digest it all more thoroughly, but one thing leaps out at me, a comment from the anti-choice party:
Depression is surely the cause of most rational suicides.
By sheer coincidence I've just finished reading a book which states that in actual fact, contrary to popular belief, this may very well not be the case; depression is apparently a very weak/poor indicator of potential suicide risk (and even then, only in men) compared to conditions such as bipolar disorder, anorexia and borderline personality disorder. I was very surprised by that.
This, from the same person:
Suicide has existed from antiquity, and has always been discouraged.
is blatantly wrong. I assume he's never heard of Japan ::)
-
How many suicides occur because "life has become intolerable" as opposed to "I'm really embarrassed for having done something stupid" or "This is my way at getting back at you for having an affair" etc.?
I tend to agree that if life is "pointless" there is little point trying to stop people killing themselves. However most people don't see it as pointless, and as any death has repercussions on other people, it won't be allowed unless there is pressing need. Even if the principle is accepted there are a lot of practical considerations, eg. if poisons were easily available, they could be used for murder.
Rights don't spring up out of the ether, they are essentially conventions people agree to respect.
-
I've been stuck in my life in some ways and there is do much I want to do - I would rage if I had to leave the party just now because I feel like I've only just put my coat on the bed. But if I were terminally ill and in pain - no question what I would want.
Since the world is continuously changing I think there will always be much I want to do even if I live to be 90. So long as I have my health I can do it - as you say.
My dad is a retired civil engineer, but at the age of 73 he is still flying to Sri Lanka on a voluntary basis and travelling around rural areas managing engineering projects started by him in partnership with locals at grass roots level. In 2012 he was lobbying at the UN Human Rights Council to get a resolution passed requiring the Sri Lankan government to account for the massive civilian casualties due to shelling by the army at the end of the civil war.
But if I end up being physically dependent on someone else for my daily needs I am certain that spending time with my family and friends, watching my children grow up, get married etc, giving them some measure of happiness by having me still present in their lives would not sufficiently compensate me for my loss of independence. I just meant that I feel I have been privileged to have lived the life I have - good and bad - compared to the experiences others have to endure - the refugees spring to mind. So if it had to end tomorrow I think I've had more than my fair share of the happiness on offer in life.
If any member of my family decided they loved or would miss me too much to allow me to die, I would just conclude they didn't really love me in the first place to wish that kind of dependent life on me. That would be even more torturous - being forced to be dependent on people who don't really love me in the first place.
-
Presumably Keith suffers from
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777190
Treatment refractory depression.
If you encourage him to end it all I am going to start objecting to the mods because I don't think it is appropriate.
Everyone can see Keith has a problem by his posts.
What a silly post, no one is encouraging Keith to end it all! ::)
Quite. I pointed this out as did Gordon. But Rose needs to fulfil her role as self-appointed nanny of the forum every once in a while.
;D
Spot on, nail square on the head, well deserved, like it ;D
ippy
-
So do a majority of people who identify as religious in this country.
-
How do you know?
Evidence.
Have you asked the majority of people?
No. But reputable polling organisations who know their stuff have conducted the surveys and come up with the evidence which supports what I say.
-
All polls are open to interpretation and open to criticism
Yes, they are, but that doesn't mean that we should automatically dismiss them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3230108/Poll-backing-assisted-dying-skewed-ambiguous-Warning-MPs-debate-right-die-bill.html
I'd not accept the word of a politician on matters of the statistical significance of a poll over that of the reputable polling agency, especially not after that commentary had been 'filtered' by the Daily Fail.
Doctors and those who being asked to do it are divided
Yes, they are, but in approximately the same balance as the general populace, which is to say that a majority are in favour.
It's a difficult question which is probably easier for those of us who don't have to do anything or feel responsible.
Harder for those medics involved.
And still harder for those whom are now condemned to a choiceless, pain-filled remainder of their lives by this ruling. Offering people choice forces nothing - if the potential for incitement is so invidious, how much worse is the compulsion of law?
O.