Dr. Assisted Suicide

Israel

Senior Member
The suffering of a thing is only rightly understood when measured against what a man has in ability to deliver himself from it. And this...with no consequence against himself.

What man holds the right to forbid death itself?
Only the man who could have...but didn't, to Himself.

You appear in a struggle to know how that man is, and shall be rightly shared.
Me, too.
 
In my opinion, in this instance, it's murder and premeditated.

As bogus as 90% of psychiatric diagnoses are, that's ONE slippery slope.

On the flip side I worked Critical Care for years and it was, and still is very common to place someone who is suffering, no hope of recovery, and literally dying a slow death on a morphine drip to both ease and speed the course along.

There is a TIME to die. We have just come so far with our technology that in many instances we can revive and sustain shells of persons who should by all rights HAVE died. In many instances the surviving family is not prepared for the often suddenness of whatever catastrophic event befalls the loved one, and it often takes a while for them to come to the conclusion that granny, for all practical purposes, died at home and it's just the drugs and ventilator that's substaining her. Some never do, and sadly some will keep them alive to keep the check coming in one more month. I've seen hundreds of people die; some with dignity, but most not.
Only one really stands out in my mind: an elderly man with failing lungs. He simply asked me to pull the curtain and let him spend his last minutes with his family at his bedside. I did. In my mind, he died with dignity.

Sorry for the rambling.
Heartfelt post SFD. If that was rambling, it was darn good rambling.
 

Israel

Senior Member
I'm split on this. One part of me says "They can." and the other part says that a "rational, competent" person by definition, wouldn't make that decision, but maybe they would.
It's not an easy thing to navigate, is it?
It may be impossible.
Oh, it can be seemingly resolved among men, even easily...opinion is an easy thing to have. But when it is mined...what is there?

Can the whole of the matter be reduced to:
How far is a man "allowed" to operate outside of what another man considers rational? Or even, competent.

We hold certain matters to ourselves, but if and/or when we ask about them, or are asked...then it is manifestly a seeking of "what society am I among?" And, if/when we answer...we give indication of it.

Both the society we see ourselves among, and identify with in our answer and, to the asker, what society he now finds himself, among.

I see the difficulty in your response. But the deeper question is...where is the line of non-interference? Is there a line? Is it all non-interference...? Some interference? And if so...where, and when?

Or is it, and must be by necessity, of ...all interference?

This question is no less important to the "believer" (and I would say...far more so) and far deeper than perhaps, some realize.

For if it is all non-interference...(the question seems so easily resolved there...but with a definite "hook"...I'm assured many do not see) then one may find themselves in an isolation of such depths that it will be made clear to them they have not known at all the significance of that taken stance.

Yet...if it is "some" interference, the man has no less entered an also weighty place. When, and how much? What is legitimate "interference? What...is not? Is there an unhealthy blowback...if this is not navigated rightly?

I see your issue in your above. It is common, and common to us in trying to discern "competency" that this definition is applied for light to it:

"Is the man a danger to himself...or others?"

"Danger" there is the word that needs analyzed.
Might he "harm" himself...or others?
(Again...harm needs analyzed)

I am inclined to believe there is the implication (though not always clearly stated) and assumption...suicide might be accepted as the greatest harm...and killing no less, of another, as the greatest harm...in the word "harm", used there.

"Is he in danger (by possibility) of harming himself, or others?"

If that is the assumption (regardless of right or wrong), and competency is based upon that, then the assumption of it follows surely "the man is not competent".

If suicide be considered the ultimate of "harm (ing) of himself", (and killing be likewise the ultimate of harming another) then that man could not be found competent...who wills to kill himself...or kill another. But men, we must admit, have a hard time seeing their own will, let alone, that of another.

(I am willing to discuss this "can of worms", knowing few, if any will) For what man...resides "outside" that (ever) possibility?

The third, but less accepted (for the most painfully of obvious reason) is that it is of "all-interference".

So yes...no wonder it is "hard" to discern.
And I no less see the struggle of another who has already stated in another thread, another place, "everything we do has effects stretching outward from us"...not verbatim.

A man may say "I have the right to suicide" and (so many other "things") and others may even indeed applaud it. But no man has any power in himself to negate consequence of action. And action starts in conception, and conception leads to "birthing" words, and words...lead inexorably to actions.

And again, no man is immune to bearing the consequence of action. (take away "forgive me"...and/or "I am sorry" and watch all marriage, friendship, any comfort of relationship...likewise vanish) Is that the society...one asks for?

Is it best if all be resolved to only "non-interference"?

Like Don Corleone told Michael: "The one who comes to you with this Barzini meeting, he's the traitor" So is the one who believes he can answer surely and definitively "yes". Man wants no interference with his will to any frustration...only because he does not know. He has no idea to what slaughter his own will would lead.

Nevertheless, Jesus has mercy...for the "not knowing".

But...man may ask for help...ask for interference. He may just find it is endless, "this help" he needs in being interfered with...when he sees how very very incompetent he is. And how thoughtless he truly is, even in his own brilliance.
 
Last edited:

WaltL1

Senior Member
I'm split on this. One part of me says "They can." and the other part says that a "rational, competent" person by definition, wouldn't make that decision, but maybe they would.
the other part says that a "rational, competent" person by definition, wouldn't make that decision,
That's probably true 90% of the time I'm guessing.
But I definitely think there is that small number who's mind is working great but physically they are shot, may have some debilitating disease, know what the future holds and what their quality of life is going to be and would just rather just go out on a high note instead of languishing in a hospital bed for who knows how long waiting on inevitable death.
 

Miguel Cervantes

GON Severe Weatherman
Yes. The Constitution doesn't guarantee your right to keep and eat pills.
The Constitution also guarantees you the Right to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness.

It does not guarantee you the right to Death, Depression and the Pursuit of Sadness.
 
The Constitution also guarantees you the Right to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness.

It does not guarantee you the right to Death, Depression and the Pursuit of Sadness.
Can you quote for me the exact passage in the constitution that makes those guarantees and denies the others? I've read my copy and don't find either in there.

I do find these lines that might hold some relevance on the matter.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
The Constitution also guarantees you the Right to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness.

It does not guarantee you the right to Death, Depression and the Pursuit of Sadness.
So just out of curiosity, how would you apply (if it all) this -
The Constitution also guarantees you the Right to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness.
To this -
that small number who's mind is working great but physically they are shot, may have some debilitating disease, know what the future holds and what their quality of life is going to be and would just rather just go out on a high note instead of languishing in a hospital bed for who knows how long waiting on inevitable death.
 

Israel

Senior Member
The whole of the question of suicide is crazily difficult.
I don't think we've yet defined terms well enough...but then I seem to always be arguing that in some measure. We (to me) talk about G&H, or Y&Z without really addressing A&B.

The fellow who jumps on a grenade? The U-2 pilot (who may or may not use the pill)...the guy who "draws fire" and discovers he drew a little more than he'd hoped, the guy who radios in an airstrike on his own position once "they're inside the wire"?

How bout this guy? The one who got the face transplant, now quite obviously "wanting to live" (at least a little more) whose failed shotgun blast left him needing one.

And we have not yet even begun to touch upon the most essential to any argument and particularly this discussion...what is a "right"?

Do "rights" exist? Is even the concept of rights...right?

How bout this guy?

Captain: "I want you guys to take that machine gun nest"

Private: "That's a suicide mission sir, count me out"

Captain: "That's insubordination and I will shoot you on the spot"

Private: "On what grounds sir?"

Captain "You swore...an oath"

Private: "Indeed I did sir. That I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed"

Captain: "See? I'm duly appointed and I am giving you an order!"

Private: "Sir, the Constitution I swore to protect and defend guarantees me the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' none of which I see if I run up that hill." And sir...I do see a prioritization even in the oath.

Captain: "well it also says you swore to obey"

Private: "well sir, that's only what the oath says, but the Constitution has no provision in it for me to swear to anything at all. Does the President's and his "officers appointed" authority come from the Constitution, or supersede it?
So, if you "got me" to swear that oath...(and that by trickeration and duress) that you now say is superior over me than the Constitution is...what am I defending? The oath...or the Constitution? Your right to give me an order? Are you saying that is superior to the Constitution? If so, you are saying your rights exceed the Constitution...and maybe I should shoot you on the spot for being a domestic enemy of it.
Where did you get this power, Captain, to exceed the Constitution?"

Captain: "You ignoramus...it's in the Constitution...the right to raise an army"

Private: (Running away)..."Sorry sir, I recant! I recant! I won't shoot you, but I will pity you...for believing a document that can establish by its claimed supremacy of law certain guarantees...yet in your mind now propounds to exceed those lawful guarantees, and reserves to itself...the right to, by finding exemption and creating space where promised rights...may be suspended. By which recognition of those rights it claims as its authority.
Sir, that ain't freedom...that's tyranny."

"Sir, you been played!"

Captain: (shooting wildly, lousily, ineptly, clumsily, foolishly, somehow manages to blow the brains out of a man far wiser than he)




This is not embedded due to some language.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHIdqThwNzI
 
Last edited:
Having had family members suffer for years, with no hope of recovery, I feel very strongly that while we as individuals are of good health and sound mind, should be able to decide to end our life if faced with disease from which we will never recover. We humanely end the suffering of our pets when it’s time so why should human lives linger on until the body finally dies? If I have terminal cancer (as a friend currently has) I’d like the opportunity to spend time with my family and then have the doctor come in and end my suffering. I don’t think that just because I’m have trouble coping with life I should be able to have a doctor end it all. I do think if I’m suffering from a terminal disease I should be able to decide when I’m tired of hurting and ask for relief.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
Why does suicide HAVE to be associated with depression?
Why cant one make a rational, competent decision that its time to go?
Depression is the leading cause. Must be a connection.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
It’s saying a lot about some members of society that will defend a persons “right to die” but will not defend a babies right to live.
 

Miguel Cervantes

GON Severe Weatherman
It’s saying a lot about some members of society that will defend a persons “right to die” but will not defend a babies right to live.
That is the level to which our society has degraded. Life has no value unless it is a white teenager in a high school. ;)
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
Why would you have to order the pill? Shouldn't you be able to just go get one like a gun?

Think of it this way. In the PF I argued against the notion of people being allowed to have deadly substances like anthrax or C4 without some sort of permit. If we should be able to have those things without restriction then why not death pills?
If a person wants to kill them self by pills, O.D. happens daily. Don’t need the govt or a “right” to water it down to make it look like it’s ok.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
That is the level to which our society has degraded. Life has no value unless it is a white teenager in a high school. ;)
Yup.........and just think about this for a second, how does one accuse Christianity as “immoral” and justify murder????? Suicide by assistance is nothing but murder.
 
Last edited:

Israel

Senior Member
If a person wants to kill them self by pills, O.D. happens daily. Don’t need the govt or a “right” to water it down to make it look like it’s ok.
Yes!

That's it, isn't it? Once a thing is endorsed as a right does it not bear the imprimatur "this is more than OK?" It is so good...it MUST be secured by law.
 
I think suffering gets a bad rap most of the time, unnecessarily.
Much of our suffering is very good for us. Paradoxical

Corinthians 4:17

17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
Yes!

That's it, isn't it? Once a thing is endorsed as a right does it not bear the imprimatur "this is more than OK?" It is so good...it MUST be secured by law.
Other than a Christian belief that suicide is wrong, exactly what is wrong with it as far as the govt or anyone else endorsing it?? I mean once you’re dead it’s not like they’re going to sentence you to anything for killing yourself.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
I think suffering gets a bad rap most of the time, unnecessarily.
Much of our suffering is very good for us. Paradoxical

Corinthians 4:17

17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
I think that is a "feel good" statement with about 0 thought behind it.
Tell that to the kid in a hospital bed with cancer who's affliction is not light, is not but for a moment and who's suffering will not be very good for them.
Sometimes you guys let your catch phrases over ride your ability to recognize what you are saying.
 
I think that is a "feel good" statement with about 0 thought behind it.
Tell that to the kid in a hospital bed with cancer who's affliction is not light, is not but for a moment and who's suffering will not be very good for them.
Sometimes you guys let your catch phrases over ride your ability to recognize what you are saying.
If that kid is in Christ, I wouldn't have to tell them, he/she already knows.
It's those who are not in Christ who have trouble understanding it. They can't see "afar off".
 
If that kid is in Christ, I wouldn't have to tell them, he/she already knows.
It's those who are not in Christ who have trouble understanding it. They can't see "afar off".
Easy to say when you are in good health.
 
Top