53 replies to this topic

[gordonr]

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

[edlee]

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

[greybeard]

Gordonr,

Are you McCann ?

[StillFingers]

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...

Edited by StillFingers, 09 August 2009 - 09:09 PM.

[wheeliebear75]

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.

[Trinity]

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

[greybeard]

trinity, on Aug 9 2009, 11:37 PM, said:

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

here here

[E-DOG]

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

[Hikkakaru]

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[gordonr]

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

[gordonr]

edlee, on Aug 9 2009, 08:01 PM, said:

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

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:

Quote

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.

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:

Quote

... 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.

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

Quote

I fully agree that there must be rigorous scrutiny of anyone assisting suicide

Dave Bishopstone, post 21

Quote

It is not really about whether we accept the right for a person to end their own life - that must be for them and them alone. The scenario you describe implies that at the terminal 'end' stage someone other than the patient may make such a decision on the patients behalf - that can never be acceptable. I also doubt the validity of the patient making the decision sometime in advance, then later being unable to confirm their wishes. It must for safety's sake be a 'here and now' decision in real time.

Greybeard, post 22, quoting the above bishopstone post

Quote

Exactly.

Jerry, post 24

Quote

I totally support right to die legislation but I feel in all cases it must be the right of the person who is doing the dying rather than the person ending it. I think there obviously has to be rules ant tests involved...

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.

Quote

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.

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

[gordonr]

StillFingers, on Aug 9 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

Gordon,

TBH here, I think you are wrong, so we will agree to disagree on this point.

Hi Jerry,

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

I totally support right to die legislation but I feel in all cases it must be the right of the person who is doing the dying rather than the person ending it. I think there obviously has to be rules ant tests involved

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

Quote

I am sure a lot of us when we were first injured either wished or indeed vocalised our choice in the matter. I am just glad now they didn't listen to me because although my life has and does indeed suck sometimes the good bits do make up for it overall.

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.

Quote

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

Thanks Buddy. I aim to please.

Best Regards,

Gordon

[gordonr]

And now for my favorite Dawg...

E-DOG, on Aug 9 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

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

Not nearly as much as I would like.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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

Just my point

Quote

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.

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

Quote

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.

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

[wheeliebear75]

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

[Yasko]

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

[gordonr]

wheeliebear75, on Aug 10 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

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

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

[StillFingers]

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

Edited by StillFingers, 10 August 2009 - 06:57 PM.

[edlee]

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

Edited by edlee, 10 August 2009 - 07:37 PM.

[gordonr]

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.apparelyz...h...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.

wheeliebear75, on Aug 9 2009, 10:17 PM, said:

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.

and from the Other Thread, post 6:

Quote

do I think someone who has been told they WILL die of Cancer in the next 18mo. has the right to say "no more.....please help me end it now with some dignity"?......yes it's their choice. Do I think we should just let anyone who has a condition that wont go away or who had a terrible accident "do it"?......the answer to that is NO.

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.

Quote

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.

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?

Edited by gordonr, 11 August 2009 - 06:26 PM.

[Lucydog]

Quote

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.

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?

Edited by Lucydog, 11 August 2009 - 07:17 PM.

[gordonr]

Lucydog, on Aug 11 2009, 07:17 PM, said:

Quote

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.

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.

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.

Quote

Someone was going to take the lead role werent they?

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.

[E-DOG]

Quote

P.S. The shallow, self-indulgent little prick of an actor Richard Dreyfus, Dreyfu*ck

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

[gordonr]

E-DOG, on Aug 11 2009, 08:45 PM, said:

Quote

P.S. The shallow, self-indulgent little prick of an actor Richard Dreyfus, Dreyfu*ck

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

[edlee]

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

[greybeard]

Yasko, on Aug 10 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

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

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.

Edited by greybeard, 11 August 2009 - 10:20 PM.

[wheeliebear75]

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)

[gordonr]

wheeliebear75, on Aug 11 2009, 11:28 PM, said:

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

[StillFingers]

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

[Jax]

StillFingers, on Aug 12 2009, 11:37 AM, said:

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.

Edited by Jax, 12 August 2009 - 08:06 PM.

[E-DOG]

Jax, on Aug 12 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

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