SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (4108)1/23/2003 12:43:15 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 7720
 
"In the old days, when people reached a certain point in life, they just wandered out into the desert and never came back. Seems to me they had the right idea. The problem nowadays is that, when you reach that point, you're usually hooked up to several machines in a hospital nowhere near a desert. What I'd like is for people to have the option of desert delivery service."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought we could declare a no artificial life support order for ourselves and recieve assistance from there on out from Hospice. If I am wrong I would agree that we should be able to order that for ourselves, and that the laws should be changed to accommodate that kind of choice.

If I am correct then we do have the option you are requesting. The problem comes when (probably for most people) this declaration has not been established and we find ourselves on life support with no ability do ask for it to be stopped. Maybe we can require people to check a box on their driver's licence. Under age people are required to have immunizations records to enter school, we could require this to be entered as well.

Does this get us any closer to agreement? It is still not suicide, it is being allowed to die with dignity.



To: Lane3 who wrote (4108)1/23/2003 4:23:33 PM
From: one_less  Respond to of 7720
 
"You don't get it. What I'm talking about is choice for oneself. It's the exact opposite of government programs either to kill you or to keep you alive. There's no slippery slope. It's the simple freedom to decide that one has had enough and have society respect one's wishes."

I get it. I have enough fore sight to see that government programs, agencies, social movements, legal systems, cultural forms, and agendas will ride on the back of such a decision. The same things you are saying now about suicide have been said about the "choice" related to abortions.

However, it should be obvious that once something becomes a matter for society to decide for or against it is no longer the grey area of "simple freedom to decide," especially in life vs death issues. It becomes a defining characteristic of our culture. And that is the situation now. You want society to decide whether or not to legalize suicide, not the individual. The individual has the freedom to make the simple choice. They can make the choice whether it is legal or not.

If a woman living in a sod house on the 1800s prairie, decided on her own to use a knitting needle to abort a pregnancy, it did not rend the fabric of society, it probably was not even known by anyone but her and an immediate care giver, if there was any.

That kind of decision is now a very public issue for humanity. The same with suicide under the terms you have presented...and that is not going to change as long as modern society persists.



To: Lane3 who wrote (4108)1/24/2003 10:50:43 AM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 7720
 
"You don't get it. What I'm talking about is choice for oneself."

You are talking about a choice for oneself. The choice is suicide. The question is should the status for this choice be changed by the government from illegal to legal. If you are arguing for a general change, then you must take responsibility for all of the impacts that that change would have on humanity and argue accordingly. If you are talking about something more specific you should be clear that you are not for a general change in the status for suicide.