#1
I'm doing some research on political parties as elections here are coming up, and I stumbled across some Youtube comments (as you can tell, my research is very thorough) for a vid in which euthanasia was discussed. I started thinking some more about it and was kind of fascinated by some of the moral implications, and I was curious what some of you think.
(And I'm less curious what others of you think.)

Question 1: Euthanasia. General thoughts?

Question 2: There are people wanting to broaden the legality of voluntary euthanasia (as it's already legal here to some extent), in order to allow for more guidance options and to introduce more humane ways to opt out for those who feel so inclined. One Youtube commenter responded to this by saying the people waiting for euthanasia laws to be introduced "just don't want it enough. If I really wanted it, I'd have done it already."
Any further political implications of euthanasia laws aside, do you think there's any truth in this? Does really wanting to die imply that you want to do so right now, bugger whatever happens after?

Question 3: Another Youtube commenter (and I'm both translating and paraphasing here):
"We can never be truly certain of the extent of someone's internal suffering, therefore it would be immoral to assume that any issues cannot be solved and that death is the only option. We should focus on countering suicide, not enabling it."

I paraphrased a lot there.

But where does the "burden of proof" lie here (insofar as we can or should assign any)? Surely if the extent of suffering is not to be known, then it is also impossible to judge whether any amount of help would suffice? Do we give the sufferer the benefit of the doubt here, or is it more likely that the sufferer is also suffering from poor judgment?

You may now decide to respond to one or more of these questions, in the order and format of your choosing. Thank you for your time
#2
You're telling people who post in the Pit a thread is not worth their time.

Just let that sink in.
You are now using UG Black.
You are now using UG Classic.


Listening to: Coltrane


The apple always falls close to the tree, but the tree always falls on the power lines.
#4
Quote by Wolfinator-x
You're telling people who post in the Pit a thread is not worth their time.

Just let that sink in.

In my defence, I am known to do really stupid things at times.
#5
I've been reading a book on euthanasia...
It's so good I can't put it down.

Asked about his views on euthanasia
Clinton replied, "Youth in Asia are just like kids everywhere else."
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
There shall be a stop to this madness. The battle is not over. My tasty licks aren't going anywhere.

Quote by The_Blode
^ I've just realised if you say Simple Plan's 2011 effort "Get Your Heart On!" really fast in a Southern American accent, it sounds gross. . .like sexual gross!

Quote by Necroheadbanger
Hello.
I'm looking for professional bongo-ists and triangle-ists to make a Progressive Technical Brutal Death Metal band
(will be called AxOxJxLxAxIxVxXxUxWxZxQxUxRxWxGxJxSxAxLxKxMxNxHxUxGxAxAxWxVxCxBxZxVx)
(Don't even ask what it means)


https://soundcloud.com/95dank



#6
1. Up to the individual. There are or appear to be no moral boundaries or measures by which one might justify or condemn the act. However I regard voluntary euthanasia to be preferable to euthanasia chosen for a subject simply because it seems more conducive to individual preferences. Any laws or doctrines about euthanasia are assumptive by nature and hold no moral foundations.

2. Wanting to die does not necessarily imply immediate action and may be deferred for various reasons of varying legitimacy.

3. The word "assume" there is problematic as hell. We might argue that we can observe some kind of causal relationship and through knowledge and experience recognise when a patient is basically trapped in hell. If we speak of voluntary euthanasia (I keep saying this as sometimes what you're posting seems to include assisted suicide) then I see no reason for that being justifiable by anybody but the person who desires it, save perhaps for when they are in a position that they very well may recover from or when they arguably lack the capacity for justifiable preference (for example, extreme forms of bipolar disorder).

Just to entertain the third question, how do you think that Youtube commenter would respond to this situation?

"War has plunged Army soldier Joe Bonham (Timothy Bottoms) into an unending nightmare. Hit by an artillery shell in World War I, Joe has suffered injuries that have all but erased his humanity: he's lost all his limbs, sight, speech, hearing and sense of smell. But he still has the ability to think and remember, which, in the end, may be more a curse than a blessing. Trapped in his body, Joe realizes there's only one way out of his misery: death. Can he get a sympathetic nurse to help him?"


Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
Last edited by Banjocal at Mar 8, 2017,
#8
No worries.

Anyway we all know that life is suffering and suicide is the only way out and The Will To Life is what keeps us here I read like a single page of Schopenhauer once I am so intellectual the buddha is my spirit animal
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#9
Quote by ultimate-slash
Question 1: Euthanasia. General thoughts?


I'm not against it, although the subject does make me feel a bit uneasy. I don't believe we have any moral obligation to live out our lives for as long as possible. I think those who wish to end it due to horrible suffering should be allowed to do so. I take it we are talking about voluntary euthanasia here because the other options seem quite scary.

Quote by ultimate-slash
Question 2:


I think there should be clear rules in place and guidance to those who wish to pursue euthanasia. I feel euthanasia should only be used as a last resort after all other options to help the patient have been exhausted. I think it depends on the individual circumstance and the level of suffering the person is going through. There's wanting to die sometimes, and then there's wanting to die because the person has thought long and hard about their situation and has, with guidance, concluded that it may be better to end it rather than go on suffering and/or die an undignified death.

Quote by ultimate-slash
Question 3:

That statement can easily be countered using the very same logic. If we are unable to comprehend how someone is feeling then we cannot know if we can help them. It would be arrogant of us to assume they can be helped and impede them from the release of death.

On the last sentence, I think that there is a risk with euthanasia of enabling suicide, but I would argue that with clear rules and guidelines that issue could be overcome. There's also the issue of botched suicide attempts, which cause even more harm to the person, with euthanasia there wouldn't be any uncertain outcomes.
Last edited by kalypto at Mar 8, 2017,
#10
Quote by ultimate-slash
Question 1:

Nobody ever asked to be born.

Question 2:

A person who consents to euthanasia might not be physically able to end their own lives. A lot of cases of diseases that ended legally in euthanasia specifically because of the extreme physical disabilities of a person completely destroying their quality of life. Such as extreme cases of Parkinson's disease.
Question 3:

That makes the assumption that we are able to understand that we can help them. Which is not always true.
Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
I also have to do that. Cottaging this weekend
#11
 
Quote by Banjocal No worries.  Anyway we all know that life is suffering and suicide is the only way out and The Will To Life is what keeps us here I read like a single page of Schopenhauer once I am so intellectual the buddha is my spirit animal

My spirit animal is Vishnu. Probably the closest thing religion has to hot blue alien ladies. 
#12
Quote by ultimate-slash
 

My spirit animal is Vishnu. Probably the closest thing religion has to hot blue alien ladies. 


Asari on the brain?

(me too, 1 week till ME:A, hype hype hype)
o()o

Quote by JamSessionFreak
yes every night of my entire life i go to bed crying because i wasnt born american
#13
If the pain is physical and permanent, they're of sound mind, and there's no chance to improve their situation or quality of life, it's kinda more difficult. 

Other than that choosing which is more moral is hard, I wouldn't wanna be a part of anyone dying. 
#14
Question 1: generally for it.

Question 2: I think its very important to open up the laws to allow voluntary euthanasia to take place. I don't think the Youtuber there realises how difficult it could be for some of the people to physically take their own lives. You need to create a legal environment where people are allowed to assist you.

Question 3: After reading the first part of that first sentence I thought it was going to go in the complete opposite direction. If we can never be truly certain of the extent of someone's internal suffering it would be immoral to deny them the right to choose for themselves. Only they have the information. What's this person worried about anyway? That a suicidal person is going to try and use a sore throat as some kind of legal loophole to get an assisted suicide? I don't think its possible to imagine the depth of agony that an individual could be in, and I'm sure the vast majority of people if given the hope of a working treatment and rehabilitation would pick that in a heartbeat.

back to question 1 again, when I think about this I inevitably think about what would happen if I was in an accident some day and wake up as a vegetable. That's a situation I don't want to be in under any circumstance. I'd want the equivalent of a "do not resuscitate" tattoo that some old people get.
#16
Personally I'm a proponent of Retroactive Abortion,  Honey I think the kid may be an idiot,  I'm taking him out back, go get the shotgun. 
#17
There's passive and active euthanasia which I think makes huge difference in any given context. It's one thing to gulp down some rat poison (active), another thing to just stop taking meds or cut the life support (passive). Personally I'm not ok with active euthanasia, which I assume this thread is about?
#18
Quote by mind_meld
There's passive and active euthanasia which I think makes huge difference in any given context. It's one thing to gulp down some rat poison (active), another thing to just stop taking meds or cut the life support (passive). Personally I'm not ok with active euthanasia, which I assume this thread is about?
You're not okay with somebody you have nothing to do with exercising bodily autonomy?

Humans are fucking dumb I stg
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#19
Banjocal if you want to do it, I'm not going to stop you, I just can't see the principle of the thing as being ok, that's all

by all means help yourself
#20
mind_meld
So you're saying it's neutral, then? How could it not be "okay" when it's the decision of somebody else's?

Kinda deflective to say "oh it's wrong" or "I'm not ok with other people doing thing" and then going "oh hey suit yourself innir".
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
Last edited by Banjocal at Mar 9, 2017,
#21
well i don't have to agree with it but I'm not gonna stop anyone either

edit: I wouldn't help someone else do it either
#22
hm

I find the idea of disagreeing with (in this context thinking it is wrong) somebody doing something has nothing to do with you, has little external effect, and is ultimately not bound to any inherent wrongness odd and irrational, but okay. Seems kind of bizarre to make value judgments like that
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#23
Quote by Banjocal
hm

I find the idea of disagreeing with (in this context thinking it is wrong) somebody doing something has nothing to do with you, has little external effect, and is ultimately not bound to any inherent wrongness odd and irrational, but okay. Seems kind of bizarre to make value judgments like that

I think it's kind of interesting that because it's quite a heavy subject, a lot of people tend to avoid commitment to a particular viewpoint (and this is not directed at you, mind_meld, just a general observation).
Not that they are required to have an outspoken opinion, of course, but in some ways this can muddy the overall discussion/willingness to act upon changing laws etc.

What kind of sparked this thread is the fact that a Dutch party leader was on a talk show, where he was confronted with a guy who wanted to die. The political party of the politician (who replied very honestly/respectfully imo - I might vote for the guy on account of him not being completely ridiculous) was pushing to have voluntary euthanasia legalised for people over the age of 75. Currently it's really only legal if the person requesting it has experienced prolonged (mostly) physical suffering.

The guy on the talk show was asking why people over 75, but not him (he was probably 50 something). To which the politician replied that he really hoped we could discuss that possibility, but society as a whole doesn't seem quite ready for that discussion yet, as the over 75 thing is barely gaining any traction as is.
#24
Quote by ultimate-slash
I'm doing some research on political parties as elections here are coming up, and I stumbled across some Youtube comments (as you can tell, my research is very thorough) for a vid in which euthanasia was discussed. I started thinking some more about it and was kind of fascinated by some of the moral implications, and I was curious what some of you think.
(And I'm less curious what others of you think.)

Question 1: Euthanasia. General thoughts?


Euthanasia is good. It should be legal and have the correct amount checks both ethical and legal present, but with an ageing population and increasingly economic uncertainty, it should be a necessary pillar of society.

Question 2: There are people wanting to broaden the legality of voluntary euthanasia (as it's already legal here to some extent), in order to allow for more guidance options and to introduce more humane ways to opt out for those who feel so inclined. One Youtube commenter responded to this by saying the people waiting for euthanasia laws to be introduced "just don't want it enough. If I really wanted it, I'd have done it already."
Any further political implications of euthanasia laws aside, do you think there's any truth in this? Does really wanting to die imply that you want to do so right now, bugger whatever happens after?

Question 3: Another Youtube commenter (and I'm both translating and paraphasing here):
"We can never be truly certain of the extent of someone's internal suffering, therefore it would be immoral to assume that any issues cannot be solved and that death is the only option. We should focus on countering suicide, not enabling it."

If someone wants to die they should be allowed to die depending on the possible quality of life. Of course there's always an element of risk in every decision you make. I could buy a car for £6k today but then tomorrow a better car comes on the market for £3k but I've missed it. Every decision has an element of risk but if someone is at the stage that they are genuinely considering ending their own life, they should be listened to.

My grandad died when he was 91. He was a happy healthy guy up until about age 88. Those last three years of his life were not good for him or us. He wasn't happy, his wife and all his family members had passed on, he couldn't enjoy being the happy grandfather to his grandchildren that he used to be, he was bed-bound, in and out of homes and hospitals, and was a burden. I was sad when he died but it was also a huge relief for everyone involved. Euthanasia could have cut his suffering short early and prevented the physical pain of the strokes he eventually ended up dying from.

He might not have taken that option but he should have least been offered it. For people with no quality of life there should at least be a legislated way of doing it, even if the process is long.

Also euthanasia is not suicide. Euthanasia is assisted dying. Suicide is something far less benevolent.

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#25
Quote by ultimate-slash
I think it's kind of interesting that because it's quite a heavy subject, a lot of people tend to avoid commitment to a particular viewpoint (and this is not directed at you, mind_meld, just a general observation).
Not that they are required to have an outspoken opinion, of course, but in some ways this can muddy the overall discussion/willingness to act upon changing laws etc.

What kind of sparked this thread is the fact that a Dutch party leader was on a talk show, where he was confronted with a guy who wanted to die. The political party of the politician (who replied very honestly/respectfully imo - I might vote for the guy on account of him not being completely ridiculous) was pushing to have voluntary euthanasia legalised for people over the age of 75. Currently it's really only legal if the person requesting it has experienced prolonged (mostly) physical suffering.

The guy on the talk show was asking why people over 75, but not him (he was probably 50 something). To which the politician replied that he really hoped we could discuss that possibility, but society as a whole doesn't seem quite ready for that discussion yet, as the over 75 thing is barely gaining any traction as is.

For me the problem is that it is a subject-dependent issue. It's kind of like opposing abortion based on (unfounded, unjustified) moral grounds* because you wouldn't choose to have an abortion yourself. Sit the fuck down and stop pretending that what you believe for your self is or in any way should or can have any moral consequence towards others, u dig me?

And I think the commitment you speak of is the problem. As that politician said, society "isn't ready for that discussion". The problem I have is that it doesn't matter to society - these people have nothing to do with assisted suicide being legalised up until the point that they themselves actively desire it. At which point the problem is not with the person who desires to commit voluntary euthanasia, but a sense of imaginary responsibility carried by those who oppose it based on their own private inclinations (which, as discussed, do not have anything to do with others). So saying you're opposed to assisted suicide based on the preference that you yourself would not do it holds almost no ground whatsoever. The only exception is really with doctors, but all you need to do is create a specialist position and hire people who are up for the job, u dig? The problem is entirely in people not minding their own business and thinking that they can control someone else's autonomy and desires. If you're paying for the care, why should you be effectively forced into burning your money (which could be used for inheritance) on maintaining an existence you have no desire to maintain or towards which you hold an active hostility due to your particular circumstances? It's kind of an ethical inversion of that "what if you were dying of thirst in a desert and someone offered you a bottle of water for your freedom?" catchall that people use against libertarians.

What's more confusing is that people are okay with a DNR, but not with cutting out the middle man; do they not realise that the DNR is just passive assisted suicide, but as a contingency rather than a full stop? If you have locked-in syndrome or terminal cancer, surely there is only a point in carrying on if you yourself consider there to be one?

*as opposed to perhaps a social argument - it would be conducive to survival to ban abortion in a dying or rapidly depopulating society, for example, and ethics does not need to come into that because it is a purely social ruling.
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
Last edited by Banjocal at Mar 9, 2017,
#26
If we're not prepared to have the discussion now, then when?

Nobody seems to be able to give an answer to that.
Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
I also have to do that. Cottaging this weekend
#27
Banjocal 
I was expecting you to give one of the first (and few) in-depth responses, and I'm not disappointed.
I basically agree with everything you've said there.

 
#28
Quote by ultimate-slash
Question 1: Euthanasia. General thoughts? 

For it, but not carte blanche. See answer to question 3.
Question 2: Any further political implications of euthanasia laws aside, do you think there's any truth in this?

Sure, but this can be applied to any attempt to change public policy. If you want to change public policy, waiting for people to be ready sort of defeats the purpose.
Question 3: But where does the "burden of proof" lie here (insofar as we can or should assign any)? Surely if the extent of suffering is not to be known, then it is also impossible to judge whether any amount of help would suffice? Do we give the sufferer the benefit of the doubt here, or is it more likely that the sufferer is also suffering from poor judgment?

I would only be okay with euthanasia in cases wherein these factors exist: (1) diagnosis of a terminal illness, and (2) the opinion of a mental health professional that this person is not suffering from thoughts of suicide brought on by distortion of judgement as a result of a terminal illness
Free Ali
#29
Quote by chrismendiola
For it, but not carte blanche. See answer to question 3.

Sure, but this can be applied to any attempt to change public policy. If you want to change public policy, waiting for people to be ready sort of defeats the purpose.

I would only be okay with euthanasia in cases wherein these factors exist: (1) diagnosis of a terminal illness, and (2) the opinion of a mental health professional that this person is not suffering from thoughts of suicide brought on by distortion of judgement as a result of a terminal illness


and, or either?

also fyi alzheimers is not terminal until the final stage

the sixth stage of alzheimers is as below:

Patients with the sixth stage of Alzheimer’s disease need constant supervision and frequently require professional care. Symptoms include:
Confusion or unawareness of environment and surroundings
Major personality changes and potential behavior problems
The need for assistance with activities of daily living such as toileting and bathing
Inability to recognize faces except closest friends and relatives
Inability to remember most details of personal history
Loss of bowel and bladder control
Wandering

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#30
Quote by EndTheRapture51
and, or either?

Quote by chrismendiola
(1) diagnosis of a terminal illness, and (2)

Quote by EndTheRapture51
also fyi alzheimers is not terminal until the final stage

the sixth stage of alzheimers is as below:

Not sure why you're bringing this up.
Free Ali
#31
Quote by chrismendiola
Not sure why you're bringing this up.

He's saying that, by your criteria, somebody with Alzheimer's cannot ethically/correctly/wordhere-ly enter into a preventive voluntary euthanasia. Before they are terminal, they do not qualify. But once they are terminal, they cannot be ascertained to be judged to be sufficiently lucid to give consent. Therefore according to your system, somebody with Alzheimers is doomed to fall into the terminal stage and can never be free of it (legally) by their own choice.

Sounds a bit broken to me m8 sounds like you get off on watching people lose themselves
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
Last edited by Banjocal at Mar 9, 2017,
#32
Quote by Banjocal
He's saying that, by your criteria, somebody with Alzheimer's cannot ethically/correctly/wordhere-ly enter into a preventive voluntary euthanasia. Before they are terminal, they do not qualify. But once they are terminal, they cannot be ascertained to be judged to be sufficiently lucid to give consent. Therefore according to your system, somebody with Alzheimers is doomed to fall into the terminal stage and can never be free of it (legally) by their own choice.

Sounds a bit broken to me m8 sounds like you get off on watching people lose themselves

I said diagnosis of terminal illness, i.e. not necessarily in the terminal stages.
Free Ali
#33
ah fair play my error
Quote by EndTheRapture51
who pays five hundred fucking dollars for a burger
#34
This is where the 'living will' thing would come in, I imagine. Once the diagnosis of a terminal illness is in, you would have it independently confirmed, and then - with the relevant specialist and some individual providing a legal/ethical oversight - agree a set of conditions that would have to be satisfied regarding your physical and mental health that would require to be met, and how they would be assessed, before any moves towards euthanasia were taken.
#35
Quote by ultimate-slash


My spirit animal is Vishnu. Probably the closest thing religion has to hot blue alien ladies. 

Mass Effect?
Gear:
1987 Charvel Model II
2010 Carvin ST300C
1990 Charvette 100
1991 Ibanez RG560M
2006 Fender Mexi Strat
Jackson/Charvel Star W/ Custom Graphics.
Ovation CP 247 Acoustic
Line 6 POD HD Pro X
Pro Tools 9

Tutorial: Studio Quality Programmed Drum Sounds