Euthenasia and Disability Rights

[MarxSchmarx]

Just curious - some people claim that permitting assisted suicide only for the terminally ill is discrimination based on health status.

So. Assuming there's "informed consent" to carry out the euthanasia and taking away complications like living wills, do you buy the argument that approving euthanasia (ethically, that is) only for the terminally ill is inherently discriminatory?

[Luís Henrique]

Uh, huh...

And I feel discriminated because my physician doesn't want to prescribe me Viagra under the bigotted argument that five erections a day is more than enough...

Seriously, discrimination is not some kind of ore, that we should be digging all around in order to discover!

Luís Henrique

[ely]

I don't know about discrimination, but I think each person should have the right to decide whether they live or die. I agree with euthanasia for the terminally ill. I would also agree with this for someone who believes their quality of life is not how they want it to be - whether that is because of severe physical disabilities or chronic ongoing depression, whatever they define for themselves.

If a person has the cognitive ability to be able to give informed consent, it is their life to end or to live in my view. If the person is not able to decide for themselves however, that is a whole other argument.

[Dimentio]

I think one should have the right to have an assisted suicide, even if they are not terminally ill. One could call it a loneliness insurance for high age.

[Boriznov]

So everyone who is sad and want to kill himself would be able to do it ? even tho they would get happy again after a while, depressed people do weird things regarding this subject. they would quickly kill themselves if it would be a peaceful death

[Dimentio]

We should have a five year period interval with two signatures in between for a final decision. After all, depressed people tend to kill themselves anyway, and we should give them all the support we can so that they do not make that decision. But if they want to do it, they should be given the opportunity to die with a minimum of pain.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Problem with that is that it becomes more accessable and people would thus perhaps move towards suicide more quickly. If you look at Western Europe of the United States it seems that everybody seems to be bi polar and manically depressed nowadays...you give them the option of quick, easy, assisted suicide and they would go for it...

Hmm, emo commiting mass suicide might not be such a bad idea, but still. :P

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:19 pm
Problem with that is that it becomes more accessable and people would thus perhaps move towards suicide more quickly. If you look at Western Europe of the United States it seems that everybody seems to be bi polar and manically depressed nowadays...you give them the option of quick, easy, assisted suicide and they would go for it...

Hmm, emo commiting mass suicide might not be such a bad idea, but still. :P
I don't see any overwhelming evidence that this would be the case, it seems to be based on the same specious logic as the claim that legalising abortions will cause a noticeable drop in population.

[ely]

If you are talking safeguards with, say 5 years in between, someone with depression will either have cycled through a few times and therfore changed their mind when they are feeling better, or they will still be chronically depressed and want to die. That would seem to me to be their choice. Chronic depression ain't just a bad cold, it significantly diminishes an individual's quality of life - the effect on quality of life is similar to a terminal illness, chronic disability etc. The point is an individual's quality of life. And their definition of it, not mine.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think the talk about chronic depression raises a very good point - how will we, as a society, distinguish a "cry for help" from a genuine desire to end one's life? Aren't people who are physically ill also prone to mental illness? If so, how do we come to grips with someone NOT being mentally ill. What if the person isn't cured from the depression, and still "cries out for help" after a waiting period of a given length?

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:30 am
Just curious - some people claim that permitting assisted suicide only for the terminally ill is discrimination based on health status.
Of course its discrimination.

Its a very narrow type of discrimination; being terminally ill confers no additional rights except the right to ask for help in killing yourself, its not like they're getting an extra vote in elections.

But that doesn't make it right.


And whats really messed up, is that if you want to kill yourself when you're extremely ill, (and probably full of heavy pain medication, clearly not in a normal state of mind) society thinks its acceptable to ask for help killing yourself...(by society i mean the majority, not necessarily the law).

But if you're physically healthy (or, not but not as sick) but have extreme emotional trauma and you want to kill yourself, many or most states will actually imprison you, normally without trial and with a far lower burden of proof than required in criminal proceedings. In fact its easier to lock someone up for saying they're thinking about killing themselves than saying they want to kill someone else.

Thats the real issue around discrimination in this topic.

[LSD]

As far as I see it, the whole issue of a "right to die" really shouldn't be controversial at all.

"Assisted suicide" isn't a particularly major issue, that is it affects only a very few number of people (those who wish to die but are unable to actualize that desire themselves), but it is a rather useful academic excersize insofar as measuring one's position with regards to human rights.

Every person, regardless of "status" has the right to do to themselves whatever they will. No body, no matter how self-preposessing has the right to interfere in that individual sovereigny.

I'm speaking only for myself here of course, but as I see it, the above reasoning is a fundamental possession of anyone legitimately calling themselves a "leftist".

Because if you don't respect that most basic human freedom, how can you possibly profess to support revolutionary insurrection?

***

Insofar as to whether it's discriminatory to restrict this particular "right" to the "terminally ill" (however one chooses to define that term), I hardly see how it can be denied.

There are certainly arguments to be made for why this form of discrimination is justified, but that it is a form of discrimination is patently irrefutable.


So everyone who is sad and want to kill himself would be able to do it ? even tho they would get happy again after a while, depressed people do weird things regarding this subject.

True enough, but then many people are not in the "right frame of mind" and or are driven to do "wierd things". That doesn't mean we strip them of their basic human right to personal autonomy.

Tell me, what are your thoughts on a patients right to refuse treatment? After all, he's probably not "in the right frame of mind", he may well not be "making a rational judgement".

Are you therefore in favour of strapping him to a bed and forcing an IV into his arm?

And what about drug addicts, should they be forcible "detoxed" whether they like or not? Again, they're almost certainly not being "rational" in their choices...

Where does this end? At what point do you draw the line and say whatever "frame of mind" someone may or may not be in, they're an adult human being with a working brain and have the right to choose for themselves.

Well I'll tell you where I draw it, right at the beginning.

Because whatever someone's "frame of mind" might be, the mere fact of being diagnosed with a terminal illness does not somehow magically deprive them of their individual sovereignty.

And while you or I may well disagree with the choices they make, it still remains their choice to make. And neither you nor your friends in blue have any right to tell them otherwise.


And I feel discriminated because my physician doesn't want to prescribe me Viagra under the bigotted argument that five erections a day is more than enough...

I assume you are being jocular here, but you're not wrong in that the above scenario constitutes discrimination.

Again, it is discrimination that many justify as being nescessary for "public safety" or "medical integrity" or even "national security". But the fact that, for example, a man has the right to get his hands on viagra whereas a woman does not is discriminatory.

It's certainly not the most critical example of discrimination in the world today, but it's yet another example of the stiffling rigidity and arrogant moral conservatism of bourgeois society.

No one, not a "pharmacist" and not a "physician" has the legitimate authority to limit what you can or cannot consume, whether that's five, six, or sixteen viagras a day.

[MarxSchmarx]

I largely agree with what you say, LSD.

However, I disagree that it's an academic exercise. First, the question will certainly come up "after the revolution."

Second, many of us think about some variant of "would you want them to pull the plug if you became comatose?" question sometime in our lives. If somebody doesn't have a living will, who decides and why? If our default position in this situation is to say "pull the plug," just because someone is comatose, there are terrifying implications. If our position in the absence of a living will is "don't pull the plug", again, why should the comatose be denied the right to end their lives?

[LSD]

However, I disagree that it's an academic exercise. First, the question will certainly come up "after the revolution."

The question will come up on an individual basis, sure. That is, people will have to think about what they want and will, probably, discuss it with those they care about.

But as a political question, as a matter of governmental social policy, I really don't see it coming up in post-revoltutionary society.

I mean, really, how could a society which just fought a bloody revolution for the right to be free even consider locking someone up for helping a friend who wants to die?

To be honest, I think even the presence of such a debate would indicate a deep danger to the success of postrevolutionary society. And I think it goes without saying that any postrevolutionary body wh


If somebody doesn't have a living will, who decides and why? If our default position in this situation is to say "pull the plug," just because someone is comatose, there are terrifying implications. If our position in the absence of a living will is "don't pull the plug", again, why should the comatose be denied the right to end their lives?

In the absence of any indication otherwise, we have to assume that they want to live or at the very least, don't want to die.

In many cases, of course, they don't "want" anything as they're not able to think in such terms due to their condition. Even when they can, however, if they're incapacitated we can't know what they're feeling or what they want for themselves. And since killing them would permanently end their existance, we must err on the side of impermanence and possibility.

After all, there always is the chance that they'd recover or that a cure could be developed.

That might mean keeping them in misery, but it also may mean keeping them in a relatively peaceful state of mind. We just can't know. And so absense any indication of what they themselves would want, we have no choice but to keep them alive.