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: one_less who wrote (4371)	2/13/2003 1:27:08 PM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 7720

I really want to respond with some thought to this, if I can, but am on my way to my in-laws this afternoon. Your dream "Shoot Me" to your wife made me smile. But you know, it also made me think of how often we say in half-jest when we see someone incapacitated by Alzheimer's or cancer, "Don't let me live like that. Just shoot me."

To: one_less who wrote (4371)	2/13/2003 6:39:54 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

So it wasn't the assisted suicide concept so much as the method employed (single evaluator?) in the determination that bothered people in this particular case? I completely agree that the decision should be discussed and considered and reviewed. It is no small thing to take a life, even one's own. So a committee? Multiple counseling sessions? Would these make the concept more acceptable? (well, not to you and Neo, I don't think) But still, the request came FROM the individual, it was HIS choice, not the psychologist who merely said ok, which is what is important to me- that we be allowed the choice. 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. Absolutely true. But when an elderly, terminally ill person requests AS, a certain respect and gravitas should be given to his wishes. There is a huge difference between depression and self doubt, and a rational decision to determine the manner of one's own inevitable death. (I would hope the person would NOT be depressed actually. I think it is the lack of control that leads to depression) I worked with the elderly and I know they DO suffer frequently from depression. I would think any good counselor could determine if this were a treatable, perhaps temporary condition or a valid, thoughtful decision. I wonder if there was a waiting period for the elderly man, as there is in Oregon? I think more than one evaluation would be a good idea. But still, it came down to the individual's request. No one else's. But the details are not really what concerns you, I think, since you are opposed to the whole idea-- and for reasons I greatly respect. I'm not sure what believing in a soul can accomplish other than from a personal POV. If I do believe, if I believe in Hell, if I believe in Mortal Sin, then I probably would not be able to even consider suicide unless I were seriously, and irrationally, despondent, and I would be unable to approve it for anyone else. But many people have no religious trappings binding their decision. And I would hesitate to bring religion into it with regards to their decision. The second party also has his own choice about assisting, his own beliefs will govern his actions. No one will force it on him. If he has religious scruples, then he won;t be involved. But some might see it as a service and believe that the choice of a death with dignity and control is better than the alternative, or at least should be an available choice. People should be able to take responsibility for their own lives, and their own deaths, not be forced to live, or die, by Neo's standard of required character suffering to stop the deterioration of civilization, or Jewel's reluctance to harm the house of a soul, but by their own standards as much as possible. We may mourn the decision, we may decry it, but ultimately it should be theirs as much as possible. IM very humble O.

To: one_less who wrote (4371)	2/13/2003 9:28:14 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

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? I have yet to find any society, not matter what their religious belief system, that didn't believe in the acceptability of killing other people in some form or another. In war, in execution, in stoning to death, or whatever. What logical basis is there therefore to say that it's okay for a king, or a judge, or a general, or some other outside person to decide the house of a soul should be killed, but it's wrong for the house itself to make that decision?