Dear Friends,

Euthanasia and Right-to-Die are hot button items for me, and I cannot see such a discussion without chiming in.

To begin with, I was unconditionally Pro-Life, and that is still my bias, however my position has changed as I have increasingly come to grips with the notion that Ethics and Morality are no longer collectively defined, but personally. That is, Ethics and Morality are no longer standards imposed by society, but chosen by individuals.

This notion deserves a little more attention than has usually been given it. For instance, it is sometimes assumed that even though the Pope (or Mulah, or whatever religious authority) is no longer laying down the (moral) law on the infallible grounds of divine revelation, that we still are collectively defining moral truth--the distinction between Right and Wrong—through the action of our Secular Law. But this is an illusion.

Historically it is true, that people designed the Law to publicly enforce the general view of what is Right and what is Wrong, and this was particularly true when lawmakers shared religious assumptions. The divergeance between religious morality and secular morlity was to begin with very slight. But the rift between them, however slight to begin with, has grown until we must recognize that Law, and Morality, are not at all the same animals. In our pluralistic society, Law has been forced, not to define morality, but to arbitrate between competing moral systems. And in the interests of social harmony, this has obviously been done with a view of reaching the largest possible ground of compromise. For a while it was still possible to believe that the Law was itself a collective moral system, simply larger, fairer and more inclusive, than it’s sectarian predecessors. But as I have already stated, with a little reflection, this reassuring notion is quickly seen to be groundless.

Here is the test: Do you personally believe that all that is permitted by the Law is Good? And similarly, do you personally believe that all that is forbidden by the Law is, in all cases, Bad? I know of very few people who would answer either of these questions in the affirmative. There are some of course, who simply repeat that public morality is defined by law, and thus refuse the distinction between them. But in the real world, of real people, it is usual to meet with a belief that the law often permits things which are Wrong, and just as often denies us the legitimate enjoyment of what we consider to be Right.

And yet we do not agree on what these things are. And this is precisely why the Law cannot satisfy us as a general, collective, one-size-fits-all system of Ethical Truth. In the end, we must accept that we, and we alone are responsible for deciding on our own standards of Right and Wrong. Individually. One by one. And Law can be seen only as a set of rules designed to facilitate our living side by side. Moreover, this set of legal rules will be based upon whatever philosophical fashion is presently in favor with with the chattering classes, and will change significantly over time. The latest fashion, appears to be the « minimization of harm ». One excellent example would concern the status of recreational drugs. If we could establish that legalizing drugs would create a situation of Less Harm then drugs would (and in the current philosophical climate very likely will) be legalized. And this perfectly illustrates our distinction between Legal and Right, because many reasonable people would agree that legalizing drugs might produce less harm, but those same people would never admit that legally providing future generations of innocent victims with free and legal access to the crippling dangers of drugs like cocaine and heroin and crystal meth, could ever be considered Good.

Therefore, we have two different things :

1. the Laws that we agree to live with, which may include the acceptance of drug addiction as a Lawful condition, including the unstoppable junkie tendency to initiate new addicts.
2. The moral standards which we personally live by which, hopefully, do not include smoking meth or teaching our friends to do so.

And the point here, is to understand that when we talk about Euthanasia and Right-to-Die, the conversation has two very different, though both equally legitimate dimensions. When we begin to passionately talk about what we consider to be Right and Wrong, we are not addressing the question of a practical set of rules to govern individual behaviors in our society. And when we talk about those rules, that is the Law concerning End-of Life, we are similarly NOT talking about what is Right or Wrong.

The Law will be a compromise, perhaps a compromise that satisfies no one. This is normal with Law. However, the Law should satisfy as many people as possible, to the fullest extent possible. And it is that, which we must move on to discussing. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.

So far, the most popular position, is one based upon the personal right of the individual to decide for himself. And this is a difficult proposition to invalidate. Therefore, proceeding from the assumption that this position will prevail, what next?

We have been through this all before with abortion. First people travel to foreign jurisdictions to get the service. Then access is provided at home with exceptions (remember when abortion had to be justified by the health of the mother?), then those exceptions are expanded way beyond what anybody would have believed possible when they voted for the thing in the first place (the mothers health was deemed by judges to include psychological wellbeing, and this was in turn largely interpreted to include any situation at all where the mother said she was uncomfortable with her pregnancy) and finally, we woke up to understand that Free Abortion on Demand meant exactly what it advertised : unlimited access to abortion (a million a year in the USA alone and even higher propotional figures in other civilized nations) paid for (in the social medicine countries absolutely, and in most cases in the States as well) out of the public purse. We can therefore logically assume that before this is over, within our own lifetimes (abortion took thirty years), suicide, including assisted suicide, will be legally available without restriciton to desirous individuals, and that, at public expense.

I assure you, it is not my intention to stand in front of an avalanche with my hands out, in an attempt to stop the inevitable. However, if we agree that the future is moving Law in the direction I have indicated, then we have the duty, a duty to our own moral compass of Right and Wrong, to look closely at the details of exactly how such a thing will be implemented.

For example, some questions I am currently struggling with are those conerning WHO will be doing the killing? And WHERE will that killing be done?

Perhaps some of those most enthusiastic about the RIGHT to die will be ready to help me with their thoughts on where and how that dying should be (legally) tolerated within our society.

*All Ears*

Best Regards,

Gordon
[/size][size="3"]

Tolerated in our society???? If a thing is legal,, why should I care if you feel it's something YOU have to TOLERATE?

The extreme length of your posts are something all here are forced to tolerate,,, is that something you are prepared to give up?? I doubt it,, since this is something that has been mentioned to you in the past,,, but still,,,,

You talk of THE LAW,, as if it is something writ by the hand of GOD. If there is no god,, which many believe,, it's not much of a law,,, more of an opinion.

What we have, in an ordered society, is an agreement. If most agree that a certain action or set of actions is detrimental to the society,, they call it a law. But a law is only an opinion until there is a way to enforce it,, whether by public opinion( not much use, usually) or by the threat and use of force. The second is more reliable.

The question, then, is how is one to apply this force. In prehistoric times, one must assume the LAW was whatever the strongest person decided it was. In some families it's still that way. Now it falls to the strongest group to make up LAWS. Doesn't make'em right,, only enforcable.

Shoot, Gordie,, we could try to make a law regarding the length of posts,,, but it wouldn't be a LAW unless Simon said it was.
ed

Gordonr,

Are you McCann ?

Gordon,

TBH here, I think you are wrong, so we will agree to disagree on this point. The details are the issue, once you put rules to abide by, it just gets messy, like most legislation does; not in my state, not with my ambulances, not within 50ft of a preschool, not while I'm asleep, not while I'm awake, while I'm in church, while I'm eating...not while I'm

Why does it matter where or who, dead is dead, bury, burn or donate...grind the corpse up, fertilize the garden with it, serve it to your pets, fly the bodies to Alaska, the polar bears are starving...why all the fuss

Jerry

PS. BTW, I like your long posts...

Well this topic has been brought up (the topic of "right to die".......you brought in a few other topics/issues in your argument as well.) before on/in the forums.

I don't hold it against someone to not want to live 6 more painful months just to die anyway of Cancer......that person would be terminal. We are not! Yes things such as SCI & TBI are permanent conditions/injuries they do not necessarily mean that we will die from our injuries or even complications from our injuries. I'll use the case of that rugby player from the UK who went to Switzerland or Sweden (I forget which country) with his parents & committed suicide. He felt that life in a chair was unbearable.......so much so that in his mind "being dead is better than being alive but in a wheelchair". Now I'm quite certain that there are a number of members here who contemplated it, especially in those 1st weeks, months, & years.

My Mother works for a company, their clients are all people with CP and a few other disorders........basically this company has PCA's OT's & a couple nurses. Her boss commended my Mother for the way in which she treats her clients as equals as much as possible. When my Mother explained to him that she treats all of her clients as if they were me (her daughter), she then explained to him my injuries. His response; "[i]Are[/i] you glad she lived?", as if in hindsight she would have hoped that I would have just succumb to my injuries & died that night. My Mother of course was quite offended at this; she told him that on that night she prayed that I would survive......she told God that so long as I was able to find enjoyment she didn't care in what shape I was in......just that she got to keep me. (I had MAJOR head trauma & had started having grand-mal seizures due to the swelling & pressure on my brain).

The reason I bring up that story is to illustrate just how little worth others see in our lives. THIS was a person of whom one would think would be much more accepting. So if this guy who is my Mother's boss & works for/with disabled people all the time.......what makes anyone so sure that those who have "the power" (politicians) don't see us in the same way?

Christopher Reeve stated that in those 1st weeks; he would have taken his own life but as a quadriplegic he couldn't! Luckily for us he was not able to take his own life.......if he had, we wouldn't have their foundation which has helped many people in the SCI community.

I have a brain injury, a spinal cord injury, & I am legally blind; some may think that my life would not be worth having.......I say that my life is worth living & I am worth loving despite my disabilities. Yes this life is much harder.......the uphill battles much steeper; but the victories are even sweeter. I am grateful that I did not "check out" early.........I've got 4 beautiful children & I would like to be around to see my grandchildren.

This topic has been discussed to 'death' on the forum before, do we really need to discuss it again?

here here

Ah Gordie,
You got a lot o' time on your hands don't ya.

Marijuana, after all these years is still illegal in most states. But if you're 18 or 21 you can get a bottle of cheap generic vodka most anywhere. A glass eye in a duck's ass could plainly see which of the two is more detrimental to society. Which could be considered pernicious to the human body, mind, spirit. Have you ever heard of anyone, anyone at all who had smoked a joint and then got behind the wheel of an automobile and recklessly driven home at 90 miles an hour, hitting and running innocent children, beating their wife, ending up in prison or on skid row in desperate need of a rehab program?

The laws prohibiting the use and sale of marijuana were written by, and are doggedly kept in place by Bible totin', church goin', closed minded old fools who probably have 4 martini lunches and all kinds of hidden agendas. Even they must see the folly of their ways. They would have to be brain dead not to. Which is to say, there's quite possibly more going on here than what the public is allowed to see.

A really good reason to question authority at any and all junctures, I believe.
Also a really good reason to predicate my moral absolutes on what is in my heart as opposed to what's in the Bible. Or what's carved on some stone tablets by who knows who, written who knows when. Hell, those bone heads may have been drunk as skunks themselves, trying to tell me they were divinely inspired by some invisible, all knowing, creative force no one has seen, or can explain, or prove exists.

As such, yes. The decision to commit suicide should be that of the person in question and them alone. Right wrong good bad. If they have the mental capacity to chose life or death for themselves they should have the freedom to do so.
But if they need some assistance in the application of said endeavor, it should be freely given. Nothing worse than a botched suicide attempt, I always say.

Alrighty then. Now we come to the logistics side of things.

Where: We're going to need to set up clinics. Lots of 'em. Because once ya make offing yourself legal ya gotta make it cheap and easy to do. Remember this is a health care issue and should be treated as such. Rich or poor, doing the Dutch will need to be accessible to one and all. I suggest new buildings on the outskirts of town. Something with a bucolic view, great food and a pleasant atmosphere with attractive, knowledgeable staff to assist in whatever last minute details may come about.

How: Let's give people a choice. Ya want a manly death? Dive into a running wheat combine. Turn 'em on full speed and have a platform for folks to jump off from. Let them compete. Maybe give them points for the most mess made, redeemable by their loved ones at a later date, for when they feel the itch to throw the switch.

Various pills and potions for the sissies out there who are afraid of the "pain" thing.

Base jumping with a twist. Give 'em five parachutes to choose from. Two of the five are defective. Which two? The possibilities for betting are endless.

Get two quads who feel they've had enough. Weld a bunch of knives and pointy things on their chairs, put 'em in a small closed room and again, wager on the outcome. Maybe get them drunk first. Record the event for the family to watch again and again.Sell the DVD's on ebay.

VEGAS BABY! VEGAS! Think of the money that could be generated from a casino like atmosphere that was managed properly. All so you could go out in style, like the high roller you always wanted to be. But couldn't. Because of a poor up bringing, squandered opportunities, laziness or a lack of intellect. Which is what caused you to become so despondent to begin with.

Toss in some attractive hookers, a free buffet and valet parking and I think we've got a winner here.

Gimmie a call Gordie, let's get this show on the road.
On the road to E-dog's financial freedom that is.

E

I personally believe that morality originally stemmed from evolutionary ques to further our species, and then as society grew more and more, and we developed an imagination, religion spawned and added damnation and good/evil to the mix. Murder, incest, thievery.. all originally bad things in a society where you'd either reduce the amount of genetic participants in reproduction (incest) thus reducing offspring's survival chances, or be destroyed yourself as a murderer. It's strange how moral belief also seems to line up with the animal kingdom's actions. It's obvious that most pack animals have no religion or society to speak of, however they actively try to find mates that are of a different family, and most do not participate in cannibalism.




The real test should be finding a system other than our own to completely emulate societies views on morality whilst keeping itself 100 percent fair. You won't pass it. The original ideas behind law did closely follow morality, however it was soon found out that morality is subjective from person to person. That is why our laws in this current society are usually extremely vague and generalized, because they must be for widespread compliance and fairness. I don't believe that law formed morality, much more the other way around, however I also do not believe that there will ever be a system, in the long term, that everyone is happy with. People are far too varied.



What about the greater problem? "What I do with my body is my own business, and if you don't like it don't do it to yourself." It's all in the wording. People will never agree with providing future generations with crippling drugs, however ask the same group of people "Do you believe in the personal right for individual freedom of action?" and they will all wholeheartedly agree. Personally I think that rather than outlaw every drug, the people should just be more informed, from a non-partisan standpoint and be allowed to make the decision, personally, on how to treat their own bodies. I'm not a dreamer, and I know it won't work, but if we are going to bench-race our law/morality philosophy, that's where i'd want to start.



The "slippy-slope" argument is getting really out of hand now-a-days. If a depression leads to the seeking of suicide, then it is considered a terminal or life-threatening illness. The rugby player who decided to end his life had tried before to kill himself after his injury, repeatedly and unsuccessfully. If we changed the wording to "Only those whom are terminally ill, or those of which a quality of life is too low to necessitate the will to live..." would it work better for you?

The real question stops exactly where you said it's irrefutable. And that's it.

Who exactly do you, being society, think you are to tell me if I am capable of continuing to live? The argument ends at "My personal right to end my life." We aren't given much when we start in life, but we should retain the right to our life, that's why in some instances it's, in my opinion, an imperative to facilitate the needs of the unable.




Another clever wording. I guess you couldn't figure out how to slip murder into it?


I hate to sound stubborn, but the moral and lawful issue, in my mind, ends with personal right. The consequences of NOT stopping it should not be considered, as the consequences of society being in charge of personal life are far greater regardless.

-Sam

Ok Folks,

That is a lot of spirited replies. I will start out with the easiest, if I may, and take a little time to think about the others.

So:

Greybeard asks: Gordonr, Are you McCann ?

**No, Old Boy, I am verifieably not McCann. Hah. Hah. I am not selling pixie dust, or anything else for that matter. Please enjoy. And BTW I will be using your posts in the recent thread of similar name to make a few points. Thanks for the material.

Now Trinity : This topic has been discussed to 'death' on the forum before, do we really need to discuss it again ?

**I hardly think that this forum has produced a definitive answer to the questions raised by these issues. Bible thumpers would like us to accept that all sorts of topics have been settled once and for all in their historical forums, but some of us still insist on revisiting them. Current philosophical fashions are not subject to different rules. People will ALWAYS be having another go at things.

Of course you can skip this topic of you like.


The replies of ED, Jerry, Wheelie, E-Dog and Hikky have a lot more meat on them. I am not a troll. I will attempt to respond to all of your ideas as best I can. Perhaps once again tonight. Perhaps not.

Best,

Gordon

Hi Ed,

I'm sorry you take such a strong dislike to my choice of the word tolerate. Driving is "tolerated" only within certain parameters. Driving is not "tolerated" on the sidewalk. Just substitute the word "legal" for "tolerated" and you will see that the meaning is the same.

At the end of my post I said this:



This is not a strawhorse , or a scarecrow. I am not trying the slippery slope argument. This is what I believe to be a statement of fact. And this result is exactly what the individual freedom enthusiasts desire. Therefore I am situating myself firmly in that territory. However, after we agree on that (and there is always an afterwards), I think it is undeniable that we will have regulations to establish, just as we do in my driving example.

This is how I began to put it:




If you remember that I am not trying to argue that suicide, assisted or otherwise be straight up illegal, it should not be too much for you to accept that some sort of reglementation will be required.

Let me give one example.

In that other thread, we have these comments:

Greybeard, post 20

Dave Bishopstone, post 21

Greybeard, post 22, quoting the above bishopstone post



Jerry, post 24

All of this is pretty clear. There has to be some kind of legal framework to prevent people from just murdering family members at home and then reporting the event as an assisted suicide. As I began by saying, we have a responsibility to define exactly what is tolerable, meaning legal, and exactly how we intend to regulate these events in such a way that we are satisfied that we can prevent the most obvious abuses.




In my post, I went to great lengths ( ha ha ) to make just such a point. Law is an accident of social history. And morality, in the modern world, is a personal choice. Therefore, Morality and Law cannot be expected to coincide, and we must make our peace with that. In other words, I cannot expect Law to exactly mirror my morality. Neither can you or anybody else. You can say that the strongest group has its morality as Law, but that is not true, because people come down in different groups on different issues. Thus we are ALL in favor of some laws, and opposed to others. And what is true of laws, is also true of the regulations which govern their detailed implementation. Some people who want legal assisted suicide will also want scrutiny of the people performing those acts. Some will not.

I think it is reasonable, and even mandatory, that as we approach the legalization of assisted suicide, that we also have the courage to discuss these issues.

Best Regards,

Gordon

Hi Jerry,

I'm not sure that we really disagree on that much here.



In all of the above, you are showcasing an assumption that regulations are just used to obstruct the honest implementation of measures that have already been agreed to. And of course this is often the case. But it is not always such.

In the other thread, you say

So I see that you are also able to see the positive potential of regulations, and that is just the kind of thing I am trying to explore.

You also make the following very significant observation from personal experience

Thus it would seem you might also be open to regulations aimed at separating a settled and firm desire to die, from a passing moment of weakness. Perhaps the imposition of a waiting period. Something which would give the average new quad or para a chance to get his feet on the ground before going out to compost. Or at least something that would stop a random teenage girl from getting official help in killing herself just because her boyfriend cheats on her and she is menstruating at the same time. A little eensy weensy bit of regulation to stop tragic mistakes of hastiness.




Thanks Buddy. I aim to please.

Best Regards,

Gordon

And now for my favorite Dawg...



Not nearly as much as I would like.





Jeezus! Another paranoid drug-addict/survivalist-conspiracy-theorist ripe for recruitment to the militias!

But Dawg, I was not talking about grass. I was talking about the ultimate legalization of much worse substances. Hint: Alcohol, which you quite rightly rate as more destructive than weed, was illegal once, and they had to repeal the law. However, there IS a moral problem here. Somewhere along the line, even you will revolt. At the legalization of meth perhaps, or at the very least at the sale of meth in vending machines in school cafeterias. I mean at some point you will agree to SOME regulation.

Unless of course your brain is more addled than it appears to be.



Just my point



I believe you are leaving the door open to some kind of objective test that the person in question does fit this description




Dawg, Dawg, we have to work out the details with Jerry. He has a revolutionary Pet food scheme that we have got to tie in somehow.

Best Regards,

Gordon

I feel so left out. Just when I was all set to see what you had to say over mine and......and......and......nuttin'!

Look at what I was building while you were BS-ing

Dear Wheelie,

I guess I ws saving the best for the last.

Your posts are an inspiration to me. You show an uncommon strength that I would like to imitate myself.

I have more to say, but real life is getting in the way right now. So it will have to be later today or tomorrow.

Best Regards,

Gordon

Gordon, indeed I don't think we are to far apart on this one, I was being overly sarcastic for illustrative purposes. It is just such a shame that most legislation nowadays gets so heavily laden with every little nitpicking necessity of every little group. My hope is that we will clear the way for the non-prosecution of those that do assist those in need and that any guidelines be implemented in a minimalistic fashion. As you said, we can't have family members randomly offing each other and calling it assisted suicide; although this might help with our planet's over population issues...muhahah.

With regards to some of the bits of thought you noted, are you sure those are mine, as I do not recognize them as such; they are good thoughts, as are yours, in any case. I'm not sure what thread you took them from, can't find it anywhere, perhaps you might help an aging old coot by providing a link. My mind some days is barely working it seems, one or two brain cells firing at best.

I do kinda agree with a lot of folks, that we are beating a dead...here. Perhaps as we evolve as a society we can agree to less complex laws, the gray areas, loop holes, so many seem to be burdened with, just muddy things up.

And, please do continue your, as some call them, long posts. I do so love a good debate and in my opinion, both short and long prose have their benefits. In this world of everything instant, it's good to read well thought out, researched, and yes, formatted, prognostications. A good read is a good read, keep that quill of yours fully inked up, excellent work my friend.

Be well,

Jerry

Well, Gman,, I stand corrected,, apparantly you and McCann have a great following for the size of your posts,,, and by the way,, the comparison with McCann's posts had nothing to do with content,,, only format and length. I find both your and his thoughts mind provoking,, I simply find them easier for me to digest in smaller bites.

As to why we should continue a topic that has been discussed before,, I can only answer,, why not??? If there is interest,, which there apparantly is,, it's as good a topic as any. That's what forums,,,, and thread headings,,,, are for.

It still seems to me that you,,Gordan,, have some basic need for regulation,,,, Oh I don't mean for yourself,,, it's the rest of us you feel need to be regulated, unless I miss my guess. That may well be true,, if what you want is a society that caters to those with your own mindset.

But can't we all feel that way? Don't we, to some extent? Everyone would like it if the world progressed in the ways they would want it to,,, until they changed their mind,,, but then the world would change , too,,,,, existential, isn't it???

It is obvious that an ordered society must have guidelines in order to prevent the aberrant behavior of a FEW,, unbalanced individuals. The problem occurs when the FEW are meant to include all of those apposed to the majoritie's desires.

The fewer the laws that restrict individual freedom, the better,,,, in my opinion, anyway. If I had my way ( see, I want it my way, too) prohibitive laws,,, those against something,,, could only be passed with a 90% approval from what ever body had that responsability. If fewer than that can't agree it's needed,,, then it isn't. Not only that,, but any law already passed should be abolished any time more than 10% of the population disapproved,,, for the same reason.

Individual freedom and individual responsability should be the two main governing principals,, or is that principles?? Perhaps the principles of a principality...??

Some might ask,, " Then who will protect us from THEM?",,,, I would answer " Who will protect them from US???"
ed

Note to All: Wheelie Bear is somebody that natuarally attracts our respect and affection. She is unconfortable with right-to-die because of the implications for herself and others with disabilities. In this thread I began by stipulating that I believe right-to-die WILL go forward. And following on that assumption, it behooves us to seriously address the concerns of people like Wheelie (and all of us, actually). It would obviously be nice to minimize unintended negative consequences for ourselves to the exent that we can.

Special note to Jerry: The Other Thread I mentionned is here:

http://www.apparelyzed.com/forums/index.ph...t=0&start=0

Dear Wheelie Bear,

I agree fundamentally with your ideas, and I have a lot of the same concerns as yourself. However, I have come to disagree with the way you would like to frame the issues in Law.



and from the Other Thread, post 6:

I think the worst thing we can do, is to admit that some particular condition, however horrible, reasonably qualifies for suicide or mercy killing.

There are people in Palliative Care, living out their last moments of life, often quite difficult moments, without any intention or desire to put an end to it all. On the contrary, they are determined to taste the cup of life to the last drop, as long as consciousness can hold the rags of existence together. Therefore, just as you can say that YOUR life is worth living, those people can rightfully claim the same about their own.

When you say that it would be ok for these people to kill themselves (seeing how awful their life is), this is exactly the same as someone else saying that YOU could reasonably kill yourself, because "life is not worth living trapped in a wheelchair" (or some similar drivil).

It is not for ANYBODY to tell ANYBODY that such-and-such a life is NOT worth living. As soon as we start that we create standards, which affect everybody`s thoughts not only about what is legal, but about what is `normal`. Especially with the kind of "counselling" which is embedded in Obama-Care (and already practiced around mudh of the civilized world), we wll see individuals, and their friends and families, looking at the legal categories to see whether they or their loved ones are in the "Life is Worth Living" category, or in the "Better to End it With Dignity" category. We all agree that satisfaction in life is a personal standard, but it is obvious that stated expert opinions enshrined in law would influence a LOT of personal thinking. And the only way to protect EVERYBODY from that kind of pressure and prejudice, is to refuse ALL categories.

Suicide (assisted or otherwise) has to be legal for all, or illegal for all.

Remember, we are not saying that suicide is RIGHT. We are just saying that it may be best to make suicide LEGAL. But that if we do, it must be legal with no categories of people. The same rights and regulations must apply for all.

In this scheme, there would be no need for justification of suicide. A jilted lover. A desperate stock broker. A narcissist with a wart on his nose. An MS patient at the time of diagnosis. A complete basket-case. All would be legally allowed to kill themselves. And all would, hopefully, be encouraged not to. But all would have full control over the completely subjective evaluation of the value of their own lives.

This I think is our best defense. Public perception is at the heart of culture. We must create the perception, in any discussion of right-to-die, that suicide is only about suicide. Suicide is not about quality of life.



There should not EVER be the slightest question about the value of your life. And NOBODY should be in a position of being forced to argue with lawmakers that their particular situation should be exempt from a perception that it is NORMAL to kill yourself.


No Categories. No Blame. No Pressure.

*How's that formulation Ed?*

Best Regards,

Gordon

P.S. The shallow, self-indulgent little prick of an actor Richard Dreyfus, made a right-to-die movie featuring a quad. The idea is standard thin-edge-of-the-wedge propaganda.

The real right-to-die debate of the nineties was fuelled by aids patients who wanted to go out in style. And movies have been made about that too. But to begin with,the propagandist has to create a public recognition that SOME extreme cases MUST be allowed. And for that obvious example of a life that would be better off finished, Dreyfu*ck chose to portray a brilliant articulate educated and sensitive QUAD.

So, let's wake up. In any system of categories, we are bound to come down on the wrong side of the line. Our lives might be worth living now, but imagine how it would be if everybody we met was wondering WHY we were not exercising our Legal Right to get out of our Unbearable Condition. After all, we fit the category don't we? So what is wrong with us? Why do we Cling to life? Maybe a little counselling would straighten us out. Right?

Not sure what Richard Dreyfuss did to upset you but the original is a play by Brian Clark adapted from his 1972 television play of the same title. The play premiered at the Mermaid Theatre in London's West End in 1978 starring Tom Conti as Ken.
Someone was going to take the lead role werent they?

The sub-text of the play is an affront to the whole sci community.

Everybody involved with it from writer to producer to smiling critic should be ashamed of themselves.



Yeah Right..."Nothing personal. It's just business. If I don't do it, somebody else will".

Actor takes stupid offensive role. People are responsible for their choices.

I was at Pink's Famous Chilidogs, West Hollywood about 4-5 years ago.
In comes Mr. Dryf**k and his two little daughters.
As they sat down to eat I walked over to their table, bitch slapped him AND both his irritating lil' mealy mouthed offspring, grabbed a couple of their dogs and sauntered on out the door letting him know in no uncertain terms that his shallow, self-indulgence was the cause of most of the word's problems.

There WILL repercussions.

E

I choose to believe this is a true story.

heh,heh


Gordon

Gotta tell ya, Gordie,,, I like Dickie's work,, always did. As for choices,,,, you chose to watch it, right,,, or are you telling us something you have no first hand knowledge of???

If you watched it,, and were moved in any way,, good or bad,, by the story or the acting,,, then those responsible did their jobs,,, just as you do your's when you say something in a way that's unpopular with someone else.

By the way,,, good post,,, the one before the Dreyfus BS, I mean. I liked both the sentiments expressed and the brevity with which you expressed them,,,,,, well done.
ed

I know we're jacking the thread (sorry folks), but Wow!! That looks a whole lot more interesting than this topic.

Is it a kit, or have you designed it yourself? I wish I had paid more attention to the metalwork classes at school. I can bodge like a good'n but for anything requiring precision, or joining two metal bits together, I'm crap.

Start a new thread and tell us all about it.

Well just so I clear up one portion........

No I do NOT think that euthenasia should be forced on ANYBODY EVER!!! (well aside from the ones on death row.......they made the choice by doing what they did)

Wheelie,

I think that is very clear in your earlier posts. And I think that is one thing that we all agree on.

And moving on from there, if I understand you correctly you think people should not end their lives. I think the same thing.

But that is why I started out talking about the difference between Ethics, Morality and Law. From a legal standpoint, we don`t neccesarily care whether people SHOULD kill themselves, but only whether it is in society's interest to criminalize suicide. The point is that any one of us in his own moral system has the perfect right to believe that it is wrong to kill yourself, and we also have free speech and free assembly to promote that view. However, that promotion of the pro-life view becomes a cultural dialogue rather than a legal wrangle.

Culture is a powerful tool. At present, people on the individual freedom front dig in their heels at any sign of coercion. And to be truthful I have that reflex myself. Therefore, if we say, "OK, you are allowed to do it", then that barrier to dialogue is removed.

Let's personalize the issue: Imagine a guy who wants to kill himself. If you say, "you just can't do it, it is against the law", then if he is a stubborn SOB like most of the people here, he might do it just to spite the authority that would try to constrain him. But if, he understands that he CAN, the path opens up to discuss with him why, and what other possibilities he has.

In sum, I have come to believe that we must legally accept this beast one way or another, and starting from there, to figure out the positives. And there are always positives. Lemonade from Lemons.


Ed often shows he is afraid of a tendancy he sees in me to wish to control the behavior of others. That is partly fair, because there are some things which I believe should be illegal. But the attempt to persuade is not the same as the attempt to constrain. And in the end, persuation is the more powerful. Persuaded people don't need to be constrained. Unpersuaded people can not (when it really counts) be constrained.

It is not obvious that there will be more suicide if suicide is legal. It all depends on the persuasive cultural force that pro-lifers are able to develope. How can the issue be understood in a new and effective way? At this point, the promoters of suicide can benefit from the perception that they are the champions of freedom. That is a powerful. And by the simple legalization of suicide, that powerful prop is removed. People like ED and Dog and the others here are not neccesarily pro-death. They are pro-freedom. Legalizing suicide disconnects pro-death from pro-freedom and radically changes the context of discussion.


Best Regards,

Gordon

Excellent Gordon, I could not agree more. Well said, remove as many laws as we possibly can. Restore the freedoms our constitution originally put forth, the basic rights of all human beings and some how find our ethical/moral compasses again. Also understanding as we mature as a society, our ethical/moral compasses change/shift and that our rigid personal dogmas must be re-examined, debated, possibly adjusted or even re-written.

Jerry

AGREED!

What happened to the Constitution anyway? Didn't we used to have some things called personal choices? When did we start relying on the government to make our decisions for us? When did we stop taking responsibility for ourselves and our own choices? I'm on the side that's usually talking crap about the govt, but at the same time, I know that the govt wouldn't have so much control over our personal decisions if we had not given it to them (whether it be through laziness, indifference, ignorance, or just wanting to have somebody to push the blame onto).

The only thing I question in your post SF is that you say "as we mature as a society..." I'm not so sure we are really maturing as a society. Maybe we are, but there has been a long period of letting go of personal responsibility in favor of being able to blame somebody else for our problems. (EX-"If the black man can't get the job, the white man took it. If the Mexican can't get the job, the white man took it. If a woman can't get the job, men, with their evil penises of death took it. If a white man can't get a job, then 'affirmative action' gave it to the black man, the Mexican, or the woman."--Carlos Mencia)

Notice, even now, there is the blame game being played by plenty of govt officials and citizens alike. When will we as a society mature enough to start taking blame for giving our govt so much power that was not given them in the Constitution?

When will we as a society mature enough to stop giving a shit if someone offs him/herself? As long as the person doesn't kill anyone else but him/herself, I say go for it. The person thinks his/her death will be better than living any longer, the person might be right. Maybe the person's life isn't just draining that 1 person, and maybe the person's death will do us all a favor and help to keep the people around him/her from having to suffer along with him/her. Plus, counseling is a whole hell of a lot more expensive than a razorblade, or even a rope, etc. If you're really wanting to kill yourself, you don't need some doctor to do it unless you are absolutely physically incapable of doing it yourself. Make the "age of consent" apply to assisted suicide. After all, starting a life and stopping one are both big responsibilities. There's all the regulation necessary--Age of consent and physical inability to do it on one's own. If you are physically able to do it yourself, quit talking about it and do it you sissy. Otherwise, just shut up; I don't care whether or not you do it, I just don't want to hear you whine about wanting to do it. If you aren't physically able, endorse this release in front of the lawyers, and after 12 hrs, the doc will put you down like a puppy. Hell, we could even give veterinarians the release forms and let them do it. They do it to animals all the time, so it shouldn't be much different to do it to humans (after all, we are mammals). There's your 'who' answer and possibly your 'where' and 'when' answers.

In all honesty, I'm with E-Dog--let's make a freaking sport out of suicide. While we're at it, we could add in the inmates on death row to the mix (Might help solve the overcrowding in jails too. Kill 2 problems in 1 shot.)

"Today, competing for the Death Row Inmates, we have the Steakhouse Killer from Austin, TX!! And on this side, competing for the Suicide Jockeys, we have Whiny William!!" We could put one each into catapults, launch them into a solid concrete wall, and see who makes the biggest splat. Or maybe we drop them from a helicopter onto a snow covered mountain top and see who leaves the biggest crater. Strap the two to those rams used to crash test cars and run the two people head on into each other, or run them into a wall covered with spikes to see who hits the most spikes. To hell with the X-Games, Olympics, and NFL. The next big sport could be the 'Deathgames!' We could even get sponsors like Prozac and Glock in on the deal.

I do believe I like the cut of your jib there, young Jaxteroo!

E

What about truck/tractor pullin...who needs a rope when u got a live screaming body

There was a movie quite a while back,, Swartzeneger pre Governor. I liked the concept the minute I saw it. (PSST,, Arnie gets away at the end)

And Gordon,,, I have no fear of your trying to control me,,,, my wife's been at that for 35 years and still only scores occasionally.


My fear is more in the slobbering masses that hear something and take it to be true, without finding out for themselves. It's amazing how many of them vote. Proof of that is in one of the two preceding elections,,, lot of differing views on which one it was that proved it.

I mentioned in another post, but I'd like to repeat it here, if I may. My thought on laws,, the ones that tell us what we CAN"T do,,, is that it should take a 90% vote to pass them,, and a 10% vote to repeal them. If you can't get 90% of the congress to agree it's wrong,,, how wrong can it be,, conversely,, if 10% think it's a bad law,,, it probably is.

Save on paper, too.
ed

Dear Sam,

Of all the responses, yours showed the most attention to the distinction I was trying to make.

Gordon Said:



Sam replied:


Your observation--that the history of moral speculation has been full of references to our biological and social evolution--is right on the money. Unfortunately, the train track stops there. A lot of very smart people have tried to show that human ethics could be rigorously derived from our evolutionary nature, but that has proved impossible.


Gordon said:


I obviously didn't make myself clear at this point, because your reply doesn't follow:




I wasn't promising to present a legal framework superior to the present one. We (that is, all the participants to this conversation) may one day, but for now we are just doing some preliminary spade work. All I was saying is that the current system does not appear moral in all its details to anybody. And I do not believe that any other system ever would either.





That is exactly right. People made the attempt to build law on morality, but found they could not agree on what was moral. They avoided the problem with divine authority, but competing authorities were similarly incompatible.



That's it. And to be a little difficult, even the idea of what constitutes "fairness" is just as hotly contested as the notion of what is moral.



chicken and egg. a feedback loop of some kind


,

Ok. this is exactly my point

Gordon said:
quote]....we do not agree on what these things are. And this is precisely why the Law cannot satisfy us as a general, collective, one-size-fits-all system of Ethical Truth. In the end, we must accept that we, and we alone are responsible for deciding on our own standards of Right and Wrong. Individually. One by one. And Law can be seen only as a set of rules designed to facilitate our living side by side.[/quote

If I am not deluding myself, this is exactly your point in different words.

Gordon said:
quote]Moreover, this set of legal rules will be based upon whatever philosophical fashion is presently in favor with with the chattering classes, and will change significantly over time. The latest fashion, appears to be the « minimization of harm ». One excellent example would concern the status of recreational drugs. If we could establish that legalizing drugs would create a situation of Less Harm then drugs would (and in the current philosophical climate very likely will) be legalized. And this perfectly illustrates our distinction between Legal and Right, because many reasonable people would agree that legalizing drugs might produce less harm, but those same people would never admit that legally providing future generations of innocent victims with free and legal access to the crippling dangers of drugs like cocaine and heroin and crystal meth, could ever be considered Good[/quote

Sam replied:
quote]What about the greater problem? "What I do with my body is my own business, and if you don't like it don't do it to yourself." It's all in the wording. People will never agree with providing future generations with crippling drugs, however ask the same group of people "Do you believe in the personal right for individual freedom of action?" and they will all wholeheartedly agree. Personally I think that rather than outlaw every drug, the people should just be more informed, from a non-partisan standpoint and be allowed to make the decision, personally, on how to treat their own bodies. I'm not a dreamer, and I know it won't work, but if we are going to bench-race our law/morality philosophy, that's where i'd want to start.[/quote

This is a very interesting statement. Because you are choosing a fixed point, that is personal freedom, to begin your proccess of deriving morality and law. And that is what has to happen if you want to have a coherent system. The problem, though, as you have already pointed out, is that there are plenty of starting points. "Fairness" "The greater good" "natural order" "personal realization" "virtue as an end in itself" "Beauty" "utility" All of these have been used, and are used and all of them lead in different directions. Not to mention that different people disagree on their meanings. It's like hundreds of engineers trying to set up a road system, just by starting out each from his own one point. Obviously the result will be a patchwork of accidental meetings.

And that is what the Law is. Just such a patchwork.

Gordon said:
quote]Therefore, we have two different things :

1. the Laws that we agree to live with, which may include the acceptance of drug addiction as a Lawful condition, including the unstoppable junkie tendency to initiate new addicts.
2. The moral standards which we personally live by which, hopefully, do not include smoking meth or teaching our friends to do so.[/quote

I wonder now what you think of personal morality? I believe we all have ideas about what is right or wrong. My point is that these ideas are our own, and there is no reason why they should neccesarily line up with what is "legal" and "illegal"

Gordon:
quote]And the point here, is to understand that when we talk about Euthanasia and Right-to-Die, the conversation has two very different, though both equally legitimate dimensions. When we begin to passionately talk about what we consider to be Right and Wrong, we are not addressing the question of a practical set of rules to govern individual behaviors in our society. And when we talk about those rules, that is the Law concerning End-of Life, we are similarly NOT talking about what is Right or Wrong.

We have been through this all before with abortion. First people travel to foreign jurisdictions to get the service. Then access is provided at home with exceptions (remember when abortion had to be justified by the health of the mother?), then those exceptions are expanded way beyond what anybody would have believed possible when they voted for the thing in the first place (the mothers health was deemed by judges to include psychological wellbeing, and this was in turn largely interpreted to include any situation at all where the mother said she was uncomfortable with her pregnancy) and finally, we woke up to understand that Free Abortion on Demand meant exactly what it advertised : unlimited access to abortion (a million a year in the USA alone and even higher propotional figures in other civilized nations) paid for (in the social medicine countries absolutely, and in most cases in the States as well) out of the public purse. We can therefore logically assume that before this is over, within our own lifetimes (abortion took thirty years), suicide, including assisted suicide, will be legally available without restriciton to desirous individuals, and that, at public expense.

I assure you, it is not my intention to stand in front of an avalanche with my hands out, in an attempt to stop the inevitable. However, if we agree that the future is moving Law in the direction I have indicated, then we have the duty, a duty to our own moral compass of Right and Wrong, to look closely at the details of exactly how such a thing will be implemented[/quote

Sam:
quote]The "slippy-slope" argument is getting really out of hand now-a-days. If a depression leads to the seeking of suicide, then it is considered a terminal or life-threatening illness. The rugby player who decided to end his life had tried before to kill himself after his injury, repeatedly and unsuccessfully. If we changed the wording to "Only those whom are terminally ill, or those of which a quality of life is too low to necessitate the will to live..." would it work better for you?[/quote

No. As my further posts show I am against any kind of a test concerning what lives are worth living. That puts too much of a coercive burden on those who, while in the defined group, still wish to have their lives and their desire to live respected. It would be far better to have unlimited legal access to legal suicide for no reason at all, just as we (now) have no justification to make for divorce or abortion.

Sam:
quote]The real question stops exactly where you said it's irrefutable. And that's it.

Who exactly do you, being society, think you are to tell me if I am capable of continuing to live? The argument ends at "My personal right to end my life." We aren't given much when we start in life, but we should retain the right to our life, that's why in some instances it's, in my opinion, an imperative to facilitate the needs of the unable.[/quote

My current position is that Society has no right to tell you what to do. On the other hand, I, and every other man jack on the planet, has the right to tell anybody who will listen what he personally believes to be right (in general). And as Jerry tells us, it is through the exchange of these ideas that our own personal ethics and worldview evolve. Ant the same applies to our collective culture. It is ultimately a reflection of all of that. Moreover, whereas a hundred years ago only a handful of people were involved in the conversation, today that number, thanks to the internet, is in the millions.

Gordon:
quote]For example, some questions I am currently struggling with are those conerning WHO will be doing the killing? And WHERE will that killing be done?

Perhaps some of those most enthusiastic about the RIGHT to die will be ready to help me with their thoughts on where and how that dying should be (legally) tolerated within our society[/quote

Sam:
quote]Another clever wording. I guess you couldn't figure out how to slip murder into it?[/quote

Murder is unavoidable. Named or unnamed. Obviously we must try to limit it. But this is not just a "clever wording". These are serious questions. Who. Where. How. These things can be defined as we wish. They can be used to make us more or less human, and our humanity better or worse. Every legal comma will be debated, or should be. Don't worry. We have time to go to the bathroom and buy popcorn. This debate will go on for hundreds of years.

Sam:
quote]I hate to sound stubborn, but the moral and lawful issue, in my mind, ends with personal right. The consequences of NOT stopping it should not be considered, as the consequences of society being in charge of personal life are far greater regardless.[/quote

I have come to accept this premiss. However, a legal framework will evolve regardless. "Personal Freedom" will inevitably encounter narratives beginning with "utility" the greater good" etc. etc. It is therefore important to look at the details, because we must live with them whether we pay attention or not. I might, as you say, be ready to risk everything, but that does not mean I am ready to just throw everything away.

Best Regards,

Gordon

Maybe we could take the suicide jockeys and the serial killers and put them all on an island together... Or maybe use the suicide jockeys as suicide bombers of our own in the "war on terror." Plant bombs inside them and let them get captured. Then detonate the bombs via satellite. Hmmm....

Gordan,,, WTF,,, another three screen post,,, and mos of it was quotes from previous posts.

If someone were to get interested in this debate,,, your total disregard for one of the key principles of debate,,, brevity,,, would surely put them off.

If you need to quote that many times to remember what you wanted to talk about,,, how on earth do you suppose others will be able to keep up? Or is that your plan? If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you can baffle them with,,,, well ,, you know.

Is the idea to get people to tune out? Are you sure you don't work in government information services??? It seems they follow you path as much as they can.

I ,, truly,, do not wish to seem insulting,,, you seem like an intelligent, thoughtful person. Is there some reason you can't write short,, concise,, posts? One can make a point and be remembered for it, with only a few well chosen words,, while at the same time noone remembers the merits of long winded speech,, no matter how apt and truthful it was.

Case in point,,, Gettysburg,,,, two men spoke,,, only one speech is remembered. There are other reasons it is remember, besides it's content,, but I still think it illuminates a useful tenet.

ed

Ed,
I apologize, I usually don't do interlineal. But that is the format that Sam answered my original post, so I responded in kind.

I'll try to do something better now.

Best Regards,

Gordon

Dog,

I didn't realize he had kids. I think you should have asked hime what he meant to do about that. I mean, there is a possibility that they have some sort of defective genes which could interfere with their quality of life. I'm not saying that they do, but it is at least possible.

The safe thing to do would have been to have them aborted to begin with, and then we wouldn't have these issues to grapple with now. But as things stand, I hope he is making plans to have them put down, or at the very least spayed, to prevent heaven knows what problems that might show up down the line.

Better safe than sorry, I always say.

Waste 'em all.

Let God sort 'em out!

Best Regards,

Gordon

Reminds me of a funny story.

Back a few years ago a buddy of mine was renting one of the bedrooms in his house to some guy. Can't remember the guy's name, Bob or Bill, some shit like that.......
Well anyway, this guy was an unbelievable flake. Degenerate gambler. Crack addict. Always late with the rent and it used to piss me off.

Hell, get high an' play tiddly winks all day long if that's yer thing. But pay yer friggin' rent first. My pal had obligations too ya know.
(We were using the money generated by the occupied room to get out own selves loaded.)

So I go up to the dude and tell him right off, "Yo pecker breath, my friend needs his money. As in right the f**k now! So how 'bout you start shitting hundred dollar bills or I'm gonna douse your greasy ass in gasoline and LIGHT YOU ON FIRE!"

Well needless to say, bills a plenty didn't start popping out of his asshole. But then again, I didn't think they would.

"illuminates a useful tenet" I like that. Just sorta rolls right off the tongue.

E-dog

Ok, Ed, I will lay of Mr. Drefass. After all he is only an Actor (at once the most influencial and air-headed class of society). In fact I must admit that he had a couple of very good comic successes, such as Stakeout, before he inexplicably decided to expose himself to ridicule by tackling Serious Subjects.

But I still have a few things to say about the play/film itself.

First:

Any story which portrays suicide as the elevated work of a Noble Mind is fundamentally mischevious and cannot fail, to work its mischief, in direct proportion to the skill of the author.


The archetypical case is the Goethe classic “The Sorrows of Young Werner” from the 1770’s. Werner, naturally kills himself at the end. On the first level it is a story about unrequited love, but there is much more about alienation from a rigid society into which the passionate artistic, hyper-sensitive Werner could not possibly fit, with or without the operation of love. The story is largely auto-biographical, Goethe too was at odds with his epoch, too sensitive, too passionate. Goethe also loved a married woman. But Goethe did not kill himself. On the other hand, his book, is credited with setting off an epidemic of bourgeois and aristocratic suicide among young men who began by taking the style of Werner’s dress (described in the novel) and finished by reproducing his suicide. We are perhaps lucky that the punk and goth styles never had a literary standard bearer as eloquent as Goethe. And it is a fact that as he got older Goeth became very embarassed about this work, which through his whole career remained the most widely read and praised.

Brian Clark probably does not rise to this standard. However, if he did, a work like Whose Life is it, Anyways..? could pile up a lot of copycat corpses.

But let us shrug our shoulders and look past the workings of dark literature upon frankly unstable minds. Authors write about what matters to them. This play is ultimately about freedom. Right-to-die is a pretext. Clark, faithful to his generation, has likely told a lot of people to f*ck off in his time. The play is carefully built to provide a case where there is no reasonable answer to that affirmation of personal freedom. The audience gets a vicarious kick out of that. Without being disabled, or suicidal, they get a chance to vibrate with the affirmation of personal power over their own ultimate destiny. Any aging teenager from the sixties, in particular anybody who has ever been nagged by another about his or her drinking and whoring will find a special vindication in works like these. As Billy holiday so famously says, “Its nobody’s business if I do!”.

So why should I take offense at this innocent pleasure among the non-suicidal, able-bodied patrons of “Whose Life”? Simply because the arguments Clark uses to convince his audience that there are cases where a perfectly lucid and unsufferring individual is, at least from a perspective of romantic idealism, better off dead, are drawn from my own personal reality and the conclusions of the play strike a certainly unintended, but nonetheless heavy blow against the positive perception which all of us would like to foster among those with no personal knowledge of the case.

You see, I would have preferred that Clark’s fantasies should be played out in a sphere he knows something about. A suicidal playwright for instance would have fit the bill. But that has already been done. Young Werner has come and gone. Alienated artistic sensibility is now discounted as brattish self-absorbtion. So Clark goes beyond, to the New Frontier, to that for which he really has no personal credential to justify the undertaking.

In fact, the work is grossly offensive in its discriminatory stereotyping.

It is usual for non-discriminatory mission-statements to begin with the equal consideration of all persons “regardless of race, religion, gender, abilities, and sexual orientation”.

Let us take the central proposition of “Whose Life?”:

People with extreme disability such as SCI have a quality of life so diminished that it is reasonable, and even noble in such an individual to refuse to live any further.

And then let us substitute the words, females, or jews, or lesbians for the the phrase “People with extreme disability” and let us see what sort of reception a play like that would have.

There is probably even a case for labelling this, in the new fashion, Hate Speech. It is unintended of course. But the grossness of the ignorance of the author does not atone for the grossness of the mistake. The play provides an enabling logic for direct ideological attack upon the physical security of real people. That is not trivial.

Here is a link to a portrait of the artist. Looks like typical pre-hippie wino.


http://www.tomphillips.co.uk/portrait/bcla/index.html

Best Regards,

Gordon

P.S. I know. Still multi screen.

FFS i cant read this much....

No shit! And people say my posts are long. I know they are, but this is beyond me.

I feel less intelligent by hitting page down... but yeah. This is too much guys, you've gotta keep it short and sweet! This is the internet - our attention spans have slipped somewhat since its inception!

And ,, here I was,, about to thank you for the "short post",,, it's all about persception, then,, isn't it.

Condemning an artist, an actor, an author,,, or anyone with an idea that they produce or display,, because you disagree,,, doesn't strike me as proper in an otherwise free society. Saying you disagree with it, then telling why, on the other hand, is what discussion is all about.

While I agree, the belief that diminished abilities should not condemn anyone to death,,,, that doesn't mean that a great many of the AB population doesn't actually believe the opposite.

My thought,, using the same storyline,,, is that being disabled shouldn't deprive us of the same right to self elimination that the AB world has. It's an ADA thing,,, a ramp of sorts.

I think I've solved the riddle of your long posts,,, The hint was in you knowledgable description of Goethe's work. You've an 18th century sensability trapped in a 20th century world. To you,, words are like music,, and the flow from you like a melody. Once,, before electricity,, many became enrapt with the flow and rhythm of the lines in the books they read. Now most rely on music for that feeling.

In a way,, I envy you that,,, but mostly,, I don't. I would rather listen to a news broadcast than a musical one. I like my facts like I like my bacon,, fresh and crisp. A concept that can stand most anywhere, has but three legs,,, less it's certainly faulty,,, more are irelevant.

I guess what it boils down to is this,,, sing it to others,, say it to me.

Hey, look,, I think I filled a screen.
ed

Dear Friends,

This is a fairly long thread to date, and I thought it would be useful to provide a condensed version of what has been said so far.

First, the most vigorous block of opinion favors free personal choice.

Poking around this and other threads for posts by the same people, I think there is a broad profile for free-choicers, which some of these may care to correct or comment upon :

These are not people who are suicidal themselves, they rather show a strong attachment to life.

These are not people who show a lot of sympathy for the suicidal, more often than not describing these as whiners and a general drag on the entourage.

The sympathy of free-choicers goes out more to the family and loved ones of the suicide.

Free-choicers have litle patience for discussion of the details of assisted suicide.

The drive wheel of the free-choice psyche, is an unwillingness to give up any possible freedom in their own lives. They are more willing to accept tragic, stupid, perhaps ridiculous behavior in others, than to envisage any volontary giving up of their own freedoms.

*N.B. I would like to stipulate that, by nature, I largely share this profile myself. *

Next, there is a second block of opinion which is less colorful, less Badass if you will, but even though the opinion is usually less vocal it has the weight of established legal tradition and probably a solid majority of passive consent.

This opinion attaches much more importance to the suicidal individual. That individual should, in this view, be protected from himself.

In this group we hear much about how a rewarding life can be found in circumstances which appear impossible, at least at first.

Preventing suicide is seen as preventing impulsive and tragic mistakes, by strangers, yes, but also perhaps by loved ones, and even by ourselves.

Preventing suicide prevents to some extent the abuse of the vulnerable by those who would be done with them.

*N.B. I must equally stipulate that I am sensile to these arguments, particularly as they would affect me personally *

Finally, in the area of compromise, we seem to agree that there is a huge difference between what we think of the terminally ill, and what we think of those who have only to adapt to new but mostly stable circumstances. This is the difference between cancer and sci. Many of the pro-life crowd are willing to accept the logic of putting an end to a terminal and desperate situation.

The problem is, that people differ on what they think to be a terminal and desperate situation. It is a sure bet that an AB court will eventually decide that SCI fits the bill. In fact, this is not theory, some civilized nations have already done so. And that, my friends reflects very badly on all of us, and the perception that others will have of us.


And this is the one other point that I think everybody does agree with :

It is a good thing to protect people, particularly disabled people , from bullying and coercion towards taking a quick exit.

Unfortunately, then, there seems to be a conflict between the idea of permitting suicide, and the long term protection of all other people with difficult lives.

The suggestion has been made, in this thread, and heavily seconded by those favoring free choice, that the best way to protect the vulnerable is to completely separate the (postulated) right to commit suicide from any notion we may have about the quality of people’s lives. That is, there is no category of people (sci for example) for whom suicide is to be considered appropriate or normal. The sci contemplating suicide should be in the same case as any plump, rich and healthy AB with vague existential dissatisfactions in life. Both would have the (proposed) RIGHT to die. But their REASONS are ignored as totally personal and irrelevent to anybody else’s case. Above all, with regards to protection of the vulnerable, neither is admitted to have any objective reason for suicide that can be logically transferred to another.

This suggestion would do a lot to protect the vulnerable from negative perceptions. But to get it past the courts (and the natural pool of passive resistance to radical change among the larger population), it will absolutely be neccesary to address the idea of temporary and punctual protection of people from their own hasty impulses.

In other words, we see the danger that a bit by bit approach (where the category of permitted suicide is slowly expanded), would soon throw most chronic disabilities right under the bus of public perception. But if we want to avoid this situation, by opting for a generalized right-to-die, no strings attached, we would have to come up with some regulations which would prevent the new quad or para from exercising his right-to-die before he learns, through personal experience whether he can or can not love his new life in his new body sufficiently to choose survival.

Does that sound like a fair summary?

Best Regards,

Gordon

P.S. Yes. I know. There are a few screens here. But it is the reduction of over forty posts.

Gordie, you've done a beautiful job here.

Have a cookie!

That may be a fair summary of what has been posted but by focussing on the rights and wrongs of suicide it has probably not paid enough attention to the way society is dealing with it. What it's coming to is state sanctioned/or not suicides which I think is obscene.

There's no problem with people who are capable of carrying out their own suicide independently. If they want it enough it will happen when no else is involved.

It's involving others that is the problem.

In the past medical people the world over have been willing to assist people to die. No one says anything about it and that casual arrangement has worked very well - maybe there have been some mistakes but we didn't hear about them. Now regulations, accountabilities, responsibilities, etc are being more carefully watched and monitored. Doctors no longer have the freedoms of past years.

All that was needed was a helping hand for someone who couldn't use their hands. But now it's become a state intervention and the simple request which started as "Pass me the cyanide, please" has first to go to a committee and maybe a national debate with raging tv and newspaper coverage not to mention the exclusive magazine article before coming down with a refusal or the message: Yes, you can now die in dignity and privacy.

We are stuck with an obsene process cos we can't turn the clock back and rely on the causual arrangement that worked for so long.

Bravo, Gordan,,, Probably your most concise posts, to date. You started to sing, there at the end,, but not out of key.

Nomis,, that attitude is okay for those who are about to kick off on their own, soon,,,, but what about the rest of us? That is really what the debate is about. Everyone knows that a little extra morphine,, that is already prescribed for pain,, will do the trick very peacefully,,, if you are at that point. The discussion is about those of us who CHOOSE to die,,, now.

By the way Nomis,,, where ya been?? Haven't seen many posts by you, lately,,, been a bit worried.
ed

This is all too much for me, I've just slashed my wrists!!!

Was just at the "afraid to die" thread,, talking about heaven,,, a thought came to mind.

If you kill yourself,, do you still get to go to heaven? Is it a sin? Little sin,, big sin?? Even for the ones already dying?
ed

Noooo!

Maybe another thread might be in order for religious answers.

Simon