Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Rambi who wrote (4370)	2/13/2003 1:20:35 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7720

"But isn't that precisely the point? That HE gets to decide when he wants to exit-- Not others with different opinions, different beliefs, different values?" Actually the Doctor, or more specifically the agency gets to decide. This is part of the controversy. Psychologists (pro-assisted suicide) in Sweden were interviewed and took exception to the decision making process (a one hour interview). There was no review process and one man in the agency had ultimate decision making authority. The complaint by the Psychologist was that all of us go through periods of self doubt or even despondency that may be of a transitory nature. "This doesn't mean that we don't question and examine and discuss and try to sway, but ultimately, these decisions should be left to individuals as much as possible (imo)." This poses a dilemma (not for the spiritually squeemish). For the sake of argument pretend you believe in the existence of an eternal soul (if you don't that is a separate argument). If there is an eternal soul, did that soul make a decision to enter a fleshly human body some time during the fetal period? We don't know for sure but all the spiritual literature indicates that we did not choose to enter the flesh. There are no accounts that I am aware of to discount this. If we accept the responsible condition of humanity as one of caring for the preservation of innocent creatures, then we have to extend that to the fleshly creature that houses our soul. If we especially find fault with killing a human creature then we have to ask what right we have in killing any, even the one that houses our self? Ultimately we can opt to stand as an individual apart from the body of humanity and take matters into our own hands. In spite of the controlling authority we can act according to our own conscience in affairs where the obligations of other creatures carry no weight. Committing suicide involves such judgement. However, assisting a suicide is the judgement of a third party to be complicit in another innocent human beings decision to kill. If we had one exceptional case to discuss it might be easier to determine the individuality of the issue. When hundreds now in Sweden have passed in this way we must consider the issue in general. If I am having a bad day and scream, "Just shoot me!" will my wife be doing the world a favor? Some might say yes, but what of the laws of society?

To: Rambi who wrote (4370)	2/13/2003 1:33:38 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Assisted suicide is mainly sympathetic when one contemplates a terminal case in the throes of unbearable pain, or so severely incapacitated that he suffers extreme indignities. Of course, it makes some sense to act upon one's option in anticipation of the dire alternatives. However, many people would not look so favorably on assisted suicide if it were merely an opportunity to rush the process of dying. Why involves others in your decision to kill yourself, even to acquiesce and support it, when you will be dead in due course? Accepting death is one thing, cheering it on another. Even incapacitation does not quite seem enough, although admittedly it is more sympathetic. I have a brother with cerebral palsy,confined to a wheelchair, who is severely restricted in what he can do for himself. He requires help merely to go to the bathroom. I would be loathe to suggest that being incapacitated was a good reason to sink into contempt of life, and wish to be rid of it. Yes, each makes his choice for himself, but each choice is a commentary, as well. There is good reason to be reluctant to alter legal arrangements surrounding such matters. In our laws, we demonstrate what we are as a society, or hope to be, what values we want to promote. A rights based theory of the law is much too shallow. Through the law we underscore what is important to us, and how much so. One issue raised by assisted suicide, especially if it takes place before there is any real suffering, is whether we want to further promote the infantilization of American culture. Killing yourself because you are going to die is a mere tantrum; killing yourself because you may become incapacitated suggests a lack of fortitude, the kind shown by many disabled every day; even killing yourself because you fear pain, even though most people get adequate coverage from the various palliatives available, seems to lack the endurance we associate with maturity and character. I find the reservations about the man who went prematurely very interesting, and demonstrative of the sense of impropriety that many people feel when contemplating the issue.......

To: Rambi who wrote (4370)	2/13/2003 9:15:11 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

I have no idea what it "right" and "wrong" in this case, but it is exactly that kind of second guessing and willingness to impose one's own judgment on another regarding such personal issues that disturbs me. Exactly right. It is a denial of the core essence of personhood -- the right to decide what one wants to do with one's body and one's life. Some people see death as the enemy, the foe to be held at bay and defeated as long as humanly possible. But not all people feel that way. Why should the death as enemy believers be allowed to impose their moral values on the death as welcome believers?