euthanasia

[spartan]

i dont know if this is the right place to post this but here i go anyway. in a perfect anarchist/communist utopia would there be euthanasia clinics for people who have terminal illnesses and want to die and also people who want to commit suicide? i would certainly support it for its a persons right to die so lets have them do it somewhere where they will be safe and clean etc and we can record it. in other words no mess trying to find someone who jumps in a river etc. i also support assissted death if it is the dying persons wish.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:56 pm
in a perfect anarchist/communist utopia would there be euthanasia clinics for people who have terminal illnesses and want to die and also people who want to commit suicide?
If people wanted to die and there were people willing to work in such a clinic then I don't see a problem.

[Sentinel]

In the communist society I envision people would excercise a total autonomy over their bodies, in accordance with the socialist tenet that all decisions are to be made by those primarily concerned. Thus, suicide would indeed be acceptable as a decision for consenting persons to make, and it only naturally follows that there would be clinics to help such people out.

I do assume that suicide rates would drop quite drastically in an abundant communist society, but there will always be people in too severe physical or psychological pain to endure. And it has to be their call to terminate their life if they wish to. It's a decision concerning their body -- just like abortion is a decision concerning a womans body, taking drugs and alcohol is one the person who wishes to do it should take etc.

No guardians of morality in my communism, please!

[Vargha Poralli]

No guardians of morality in my communism

What is "my copmmunism ?"

And when did love/concern become morality ?

**********

As for the OP I don't understand why there is a clinic seperately need for " Euthanasia ?" .People who commit suicide don't plan to do it in most cases. It is an split second decision whether overdosing with sleeping pills/drinking pesticides/jumping in to deep and dry well/ lieing down in the railway track when a train passes etc.

And yes I knew one exception - Sigmund Freud.

[Sentinel]

What is "my copmmunism ?"

The communism I'd prefer, obviously. It was an attempt to 'humour' though, the sentence was supposed to resemble an order at an restaurant. See it now?


And when did love/concern become morality ?

Love and concern is one thing, but we're talking about legislation in a future society now (because without laws agaisnt it euthansia will happen). Would you seriously want legislation based on abstract feelings in a socialist/communist society?

Legislating against people getting help to commit suicide (or doing something else to own their bodies) is someone else deciding what is 'best for' someone else. Moralistic, 'guardian', 'nanny' legislation -- as opposed to rational legislation based on the tenet of self-government and unviolable bodily autonomy, which I support.


As for the OP I don't understand why there is a clinic seperately need for " Euthanasia ?" .People who commit suicide don't plan to do it in most cases. It is an split second decision whether overdosing with sleeping pills/drinking pesticides/jumping in to deep and dry well/ lieing down in the railway track when a train passes etc.

The risk of failing, surviving and becoming mutilated comes to mind. I don't see why we shouldn't provide a certain and painless way to do it for those who have made that decision.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Sentinel+--> (Sentinel)Love and concern is one thing, but we're talking about legislation in a future society now (because without laws agaisnt it euthansia will happen). Would you seriously want legislation based on abstract feelings in a socialist/communist society?[/b]

Well IMO I don't think any legislation would be needed regarding this. As I have already said most of the Suicides today are not rationally taken decisions - most of them are committed in a hurry-nurry fashoin.

Even though one would hope this is may not be the case in a distant future post revolutionary society - in exceptional cases let us hypothesise somebody has a breakdown mentally and decides to commit a suicide. Let us assume that there is such facility exists- euthanising people certainly if that particular person demands him to be assisted in committing suicide - immediately submitting to that right is not a right thing to do IMO. Somebody needs to talk with that person out - try to reason with him, why do he need to commit suicide in the first place ? what other possible ways are there to cope up with his mental breakdown etc. Not immediately ceding to his demand to assist him sommiting sucide.

And certainly the post revolutionary society would certainly advance Medical care - in both technology and in affordabality so the chronic illness is also out of question.

There is no need for a person to commit suicide in a Post revolutionary society - socialism/communism/anarchy whatever it is except for petty mental breakdowns. If some reason existed indeed then that would certainly not be My Communism.


Sentinel

The risk of failing, surviving and becoming mutilated comes to mind. I don't see why we shouldn't provide a certain and painless way to do it for those who have made that decision.

Ceartainly before providing assistance somebody should talk them out of it. But if people persist possibly something could be done - like Sigmund Freud's clinically administered Morphine overdose death.

[Sentinel]

Somebody needs to talk with that person out - try to reason with him, why do he need to commit suicide in the first place ? what other possible ways are there to cope up with his mental breakdown etc. Not immediately ceding to his demand to assist him sommiting sucide.

I very much doubt any euthanasia clinic even currently in existance has a 'drop in' service. :lol: Most likely there is a waiting list, and a long list of tests and talks one has to go through, to see that they are rational about it, really mean it, and perhaps most importantly that haven't been pressured to it by someone else, etc, etc.

I don't get where you get that hurry thing from at all?


And certainly the post revolutionary society would certainly advance Medical care - in both technology and in affordabality so the chronic illness is also out of question.

Eventually yes. But currently such diseases exist and they won't go away at the second capitalism is overthrown. They'll exist for a long time still, too long for someone whose every waking hour is constant agony.


There is no need for a person to commit suicide in a Post revolutionary society - socialism/communism/anarchy whatever it is except for petty mental breakdowns. If some reason existed indeed then that would certainly not be My Communism.

There are personal reasons, and if those are to be considerd 'petty' or not, should always be up to the person in question, not you, me or someone else. I obviously agree with you, and said in my first post already, that people won't be as likely to commit suicide in a post-capitalist society.

But once again, this is about personal autonomy, and that's something I'd rather not compromise on.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by g.ram
People who commit suicide don't plan to do it in most cases. It is an split second decision whether overdosing with sleeping pills/drinking pesticides/jumping in to deep and dry well/ lieing down in the railway track when a train passes etc.

That's just completely inaccurate.

The vast majority (almost all) of individuals that commit suicide have planned to end their own lives for days, weeks, months or even years in advance. Only around half actually get it done on the first try.

The average in the USA is about 15 attempts per success.

The number of notes left behind varies by country and type. The highest percentages are teens (around 40%) and the elderly (nearly 60%).

As you can see suicide is rarely a "split second decision".

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Sentinel+--> (Sentinel)I don't get where you get that hurry thing from at all?[/b]

I confused your views with apathy maybe's. I think we have same views with some exception eg

Originally posted by [email protected]
There are personal reasons, and if those are to be considerd 'petty' or not, should always be up to the person in question, not you, me or someone else.



Sentinel
But once again, this is about personal autonomy, and that's something I'd rather not compromise on.

Well human beings are Social Animals and there is certain limit to personal autonomy. For example I would certainly would not care to administer Lethal injection or Poison(not to murder but to administer clinically administered suicide) to someone I don't know but obviously I would think not just twice if that person is in one way or another familiar to me. I would certainly inform those who know him about his decisions and even persuade to reconsider himself.

And commiting a suicide does have a social implication.It affects those who are related to the person who related to the person who committed suicide.

And suicide is yet another problem that arises mainly due to the alienating nature of capitalism - so confirming right to kill oneself is not a solution to the problem.

[LSD]

As far as I see it, this issue really shouldn't be controversial at all. That said, though, this thread does serve at least one useful purpose.

"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.

'Cause if you object to this man, or any other, helping someone die, then you do not support human rights.

That's not to say that there isn't a risk of abuse inherent to any euthenasia programme; whenever issues of permenanence are at hand, the highest care must of course be made. But just as how alchoholism is not a sufficient defence of prohibition, neither is the risk of masked murder a sufficient defence of government suppression in this matter.

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?


As I have already said most of the Suicides today are not rationally taken decisions

True enough, but then many people make "not reationally taken" decisions at many times. 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 commiting a suicide does have a social implication.It affects those who are related to the person who related to the person who committed suicide.

Completely true, but also completely irrelevent to the question of whether or not it should be illegal.

The prospect of secondary emotional distress does not outweight the primary right to individual autonomy. If I were to join the KKK tomorrow, I imagine that it would distress my family and friends a great deal.

But that doesn't give anyone the right to stop me from doing so!

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:56 pm
i dont know if this is the right place to post this but here i go anyway. in a perfect anarchist/communist utopia would there be euthanasia clinics for people who have terminal illnesses and want to die and also people who want to commit suicide? i would certainly support it for its a persons right to die so lets have them do it somewhere where they will be safe and clean etc and we can record it. in other words no mess trying to find someone who jumps in a river etc. i also support assissted death if it is the dying persons wish.
id like to think that under socialism the investment into medical science would be such that the causes of terminal illness and suffering would be greatly combated to the extent that euthanasia [or its demand] would not be the issue that it is under capitalism.

[Vargha Poralli]

@LSD

For one I really don't care some anonymous person commits a successful suicide or not. And also the discussion whether suicide or killing ones own life is a Basic Human right or not.

People who commit suicide in the country I live in for the major part commit to escape from harsh economic conditions that is forced upon them by Political and Economic super structure that dominates the life of every human being in the earth - capitalist system. One recent thread I have started (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69796) about an article which presents social analysis of that phenomenon.

Talikng about the abstract Human Rights to commit suicide is totally out of question in my view. We are not free in this world that we make decisions out of pure free will. Every decisions we make is determined by our existence in the political super structure.

So allowing a person to commit suicide based on abstract human right is really non sense. It is not going to solve anything for both the dead and the living nor opposing suicide makes me less revolutionary or something else.

[LSD]

For one I really don't care some anonymous person commits a successful suicide or not.

Fine, but that raises the question of why are you posting in this thread?

This thread is explicitly about the "right to die" and how that would manifest in a postrevolutionary society. If that topic doesn't interest you, there's certainly nothing wrong with that, but it's somewhat bizarre that would complain that the rest of us are actually addressing the issue at hand.


Talikng about the abstract Human Rights to commit suicide is totally out of question in my view. We are not free in this world that we make decisions out of pure free will. Every decisions we make is determined by our existence in the political super structure.

And? So? Therefore?

No one is denying that "free will" is largely an illusion, nor that material circumstances shape thought and behaviour. We just recgonize that, regardless of how "free" we might ultimately be from a philosophical sense, politically, it is essential that individuals be granted as much autonomy as possible.

Decriminalizing suicide or euthenasia is not going to do a thing to overthrow capitalism, but then no one is suggesting that it would. As I said, this is ultimately a rather minor issue in the grand scheme.

But that doesn't mean that people don't have the right to die if that's what they want. The fact that we exist in a "political super structure" doesn't deprive us of our right to personal autonomy.

You want to tackle the causes of suicide, and you're absolutely right to do so. Obviously suicide usually stems out of misery and unhappiness, misery and unhappiness which is, for the most part, eminently correctable.

But, again, that's not what this thread is about.

This thread is about what to do with those people who do want to die, because regardless of any improvements in economy, politics, or medical science, those people will always exist.

It may be, as you say, a somewhat "abstract" discussion, but that's the discussion. If you don't like it, feel free to post somewhere else.


So allowing a person to commit suicide based...

Who the hell are you to "allow" someone to kill themselves or not? This is precisely the moralistic crap I'm talking about; social conservativsm masquerading as "socialism".

For the same reason that the working class should not have to suffer the oppression and exploitation of the bourgeoisie, it should not have to suffer the stiffling moralism of the likes of you.

People wonder why communist revolutions keep failing, a big part of the answer's right there in your post: self-righeous "comrades" who just can't resist the opportunity to get into everyone else's shit.

I know, I know, it's just the "political super-structrure". But don't imagine for a second that it's a conincidence that the greatest mass-murders in history have all been ultimately altruistic at their core. The scarriest figures in history were those who saught to "solve". People don't have the right to personal freedom because it will "solve" capitalism or anything else, they have that right because they are individuals in society, full stop.

The fact that you seem to have so much trouble accepting that fact is deeply troubling; it makes me incredibly glad that you have zero chance of ever rising to a position of real power.

[spartan]

g.ram i see you are indian are you a hindu? and is this why you dont want people commiting suicide because hindus hold all life sacred? if it is then i respect your choice but what about if the person wanting to die does not hold their own life sacred anymore? what if everyday is so painful they cannot go on existing? why should something or someone who has nothing to do with that person stop that person? the fact is why should ANOTHER PERSONS moral view have anything to do with another person killing themselves. it is the person who is killing themselves life not societys. i totally agree with everything you said LSD.

[Janus]

in a perfect anarchist/communist utopia would there be euthanasia clinics for people who have terminal illnesses and want to die and also people who want to commit suicide?
Ignoring the fact that we wouldn't have these kinds of problems in a "perfect utopia", yes there would.

suicide pills (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=17894&hl=euthanasia)
euthanasia rights (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67711&hl=euthanasia)
assisted suicide (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66889&hl=euthanasia)

[RedAnarchist]

If you feel ill, you take some medicine or something. If that illness is terminal, then often people choose the medicine known as death, and why not? No human should have to suffer unnecessarily, and therefore people should have as many options open to them as possible. If you were terminally ill, would you prefer to spend months or even years (and in some cases, decades) in indescribable pain, or would you rather go to a place where they can assist you in killing yourself?

[Vargha Poralli]

g.ram i see you are indian are you a hindu?

Does it matter in this discussion ?



and is this why you dont want people commiting suicide because hindus hold all life sacred?

1) Hinduism does not hold all life scared.

2) I don't consider all life sacred.



if it is then i respect your choice but what about if the person wanting to die does not hold their own life sacred anymore?

Point is useless as it is a non issue.


If you were terminally ill, would you prefer to spend months or even years (and in some cases, decades) in indescribable pain, or would you rather go to a place where they can assist you in killing yourself?

No I am not faced with such dilemma so I cannot answer that stupid question.

But in the society I have live in Suicide is used as a political tool. A recent event. (http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IET20070831130318) and ahistorical event. (http://www.dmk.in/blaze.html)

Another one.A thread here itself. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69796)


Originally posted by LSD
This thread is explicitly about the "right to die" and how that would manifest in a postrevolutionary society. If that topic doesn't interest you, there's certainly nothing wrong with that, but it's somewhat bizarre that would complain that the rest of us are actually addressing the issue at hand.

Well I am not concerned about hypothetical post revolutionary society.

I posted in this thread just to question how opposing suicide is "Moralist" as I interpreted Sentinel's post.