Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    03 May '12 10:12
    Tradition, and the churches, say you shouldn't do it, but why is it considered a crime? There is no victim, nobody to be harmed except the perpetrator. Unless you say that the State contributed to for the person's upbringing and education, and therefore the State is being cheated out of its investment in that person.

    I don't believe it should be easy, nor regarded as the norm, but there are many situations where suicide may be "the right thing to do". Terminal illness, where palliative care simply does not palliate, is a case in point. My own mother, terminally ill, shortened her own life by refusing food and drink, but this just added to her pain and misery until she finally died.

    I believe she should have had the right to ask for, and be granted, the same relief that I give my pets at the end of their lives. What say you?
  2. Subscriber Rajk999
    Enjoying
    03 May '12 11:18
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    Tradition, and the churches, say you shouldn't do it, but why is it considered a crime? There is no victim, nobody to be harmed except the perpetrator. Unless you say that the State contributed to for the person's upbringing and education, and therefore the State is being cheated out of its investment in that person.

    I don't believe it should be easy, no ...[text shortened]... be granted, the same relief that I give my pets at the end of their lives. What say you?
    Finish off your games, make your will and go right ahead. Bon voyage.
  3. 03 May '12 11:23
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    Tradition, and the churches, say you shouldn't do it, but why is it considered a crime? There is no victim, nobody to be harmed except the perpetrator. Unless you say that the State contributed to for the person's upbringing and education, and therefore the State is being cheated out of its investment in that person.

    I don't believe it should be easy, no ...[text shortened]... be granted, the same relief that I give my pets at the end of their lives. What say you?
    Suicide should not be a crime for one simple reason, what does anyone gain from criminalizing it ? There are two reasons to criminalize something, to discourage it or as punishment for someone who did it. Punishing someone who is already dead is rather hard though, and someone who is in such a bad state of mind that he sees dead is his only option is not going to rethink that because it also happens to be illegal.

    If possible, people who wish to commit suicide should be supported and given counselling. There will be many cases where someone killed himself, while if given the proper treatment he could have lived a good live later on, this should be prevented if possible. If, after counselling, the person still decides that he wishes to end his life, provisions should be made that he can do so painlessly and with dignity. Forcing someone who is in continuous physical or psychical pain to live on is barbaric.
  4. 03 May '12 18:43
    By suicide you appear to mean euthanasia. Is this correct?
  5. 03 May '12 20:11
    Originally posted by Vartiovuori
    By suicide you appear to mean euthanasia. Is this correct?
    Well, going by the wikipedia definition; "Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering." This is (almost) always the case with suicide, so the two terms are clearly intertwined. It's no accident that "assisted suicide" is sometimes used as a synonym for euthanasia. Using this definition I am talking about euthanasia, as I personally don't see to much of difference who exactly ends the life (if the person who'll die consents of course).

    Of course, the term euthanasia can be defined to only mean killing a person that has no hope of getting better (physically or mentally), so to answer your question I'd need to know which definition you're using.
  6. Standard member avalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    03 May '12 20:42
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    Tradition, and the churches, say you shouldn't do it, but why is it considered a crime? There is no victim, nobody to be harmed except the perpetrator. Unless you say that the State contributed to for the person's upbringing and education, and therefore the State is being cheated out of its investment in that person.

    I don't believe it should be easy, no ...[text shortened]... be granted, the same relief that I give my pets at the end of their lives. What say you?
    I'm not so sure on this one. On the one hand I'm all for personal choice and freedoms and the like, but on the other, suicide - particularly when unexpected - can cause serious and lasting psychological damage to dependants. The suicide of a parent can wreak havoc on the life of his/her child.
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    03 May '12 22:08
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    Tradition, and the churches, say you shouldn't do it, but why is it considered a crime? There is no victim, nobody to be harmed except the perpetrator. Unless you say that the State contributed to for the person's upbringing and education, and therefore the State is being cheated out of its investment in that person.

    I don't believe it should be easy, no ...[text shortened]... be granted, the same relief that I give my pets at the end of their lives. What say you?
    Where is suicide a crime? Not anywhere in the US, certainly. Assisting a suicide is a crime, but that's homicide, not suicide.
  8. 03 May '12 22:13
    Originally posted by sh76
    Where is suicide a crime? Not anywhere in the US, certainly. Assisting a suicide is a crime, but that's homicide, not suicide.
    Historically, various states listed the act as a felony, but all were reluctant to enforce it.
    By 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime (North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma, which repealed its law in 1976).
    By the early 1990s only two U.S. states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification.
    In some U.S. states, suicide is still considered an unwritten "common law crime" as stated in Blackstone's Commentaries. (So held the Virginia Supreme Court in Wackwitz v. Roy in 1992.) As a common law crime, suicide can bar recovery for the family of the suicidal person in a lawsuit unless the suicidal person can be proven to have been "of unsound mind."

    http://www.suicidefindinghope.com/content/is_suicide_a_crime
  9. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    04 May '12 02:00
    It's no longer an official crime in most countries, but being an accessory is still a crime. A weird situation in my book. If I ask a doctor for a prescription for Nembutal, a narcotic drug which used to be legally prescribed for insomniacs, I will be refused. Not for medical reasons, but because Nembutal is a prohibited import. If I take a trip to Mexico or Thailand and buy the drug legally, my home will be searched by Federal Police and I will be charged with an offence. There have been a number of cases here, where the criminals are good respectable people in their 80s with terminal diseases.
  10. 05 May '12 08:36
    You shouldn't legalize euthanasia. If you do, you get rampant "involuntary euthanasia". Just ask Rick Santorum.
  11. Standard member yo its me
    watch the acid...
    07 May '12 23:08
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    Tradition, and the churches, say you shouldn't do it, but why is it considered a crime? There is no victim, nobody to be harmed except the perpetrator. Unless you say that the State contributed to for the person's upbringing and education, and therefore the State is being cheated out of its investment in that person.

    I don't believe it should be easy, no ...[text shortened]... be granted, the same relief that I give my pets at the end of their lives. What say you?
    That's like saying the only victim of a murder is the person who actually dies. There is a victim for both the suicides I know of, they were both fathers. Their children were very much harmed. It's not illegal here (UK) but there was a time when it was and even when a persons possessions were treated differently if their life ended that way- which is an interesting idea but really if someone is that determined then it probably has no efect on them what their possessions do after they're gone.

    I used to work with a volunteer chaplin, he'd walk accross Beachy Head (popular jumping spot) and talk to the solitary walkers with other chaplins. He said he could tell those who were serious becasue they'd loose their ID in a bush and act as normal as they could, one even asked him for a light for his cigerette and jumped holding the lighter. Which makes me think that maybe for some, the emotional pain they're in, is as relentless as physical pain caused by an incurable or even degenerating condition such as one recognised as a justifiable reason for assisted suicide (for which you'd have to travel out of the UK for).

    I do agree with you that a person suffering should be given the option, after all we'd not let our pets suffer that way and that's just rediculas. There's two different things here though- can people get over emotional destress and is there a way for ill people to get well? Who can make the correct decision here? I don't think anyone can but the person suffering, are they strong enough to try some do even after all the doctors have given up and some can't fatham a world without whatever it is they are wondering arround on Beachy Head missing.

    - To conclude all my waffeling: I think it shouldn't be illegal and there should be a way for someone who needs assistance to get it with dignity.
  12. Standard member leestatic
    Hristos voskrese
    09 May '12 00:18
    Every person should have ultimate control of their destiny, if there ill with depression or cancer why should it be up to some bureaucratic prick if they can tap out or not.
  13. 09 Jun '12 06:01
    What I don't get is why there is such a big legal difference between "pulling the plug" on someone allowing them to die and assisting someone who is terminally ill to commit suicide.

    I think there are extreme cases where people are forced to spend their last days in pure agony with no hope of recovery, where it makes more sense to assist their suicide than even unplugging someone who has no hope of recovering.

    Of course it should be very strict, but I'm still a bit confused as how one thing is okay, but in other cases where it makes even more sense its not.
  14. 09 Jun '12 11:48
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    Tradition, and the churches, say you shouldn't do it, but why is it considered a crime? There is no victim, nobody to be harmed except the perpetrator. Unless you say that the State contributed to for the person's upbringing and education, and therefore the State is being cheated out of its investment in that person.

    I don't believe it should be easy, no ...[text shortened]... be granted, the same relief that I give my pets at the end of their lives. What say you?
    If there is one thing which John Stuart Mill said which I agree, and I believe especially applies to the case of suicide, is that "over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign". There is no logically watertight case for depriving an individual of the right to voluntarily terminate his life, which is not to say that this is socially acceptable behavior, but in the end the decision rests with the individual concerned.

    I believe some distinction ought to be made between people of sound mind who choose to end their lives, say in case of terminal illness which is most common, and those who by virtue of mental affliction such as severe depression feel compelled to take their lives. If we're talking about the latter I think it is in the interests of society, and of the individual, to assist these people and help them make better choices.
  15. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    10 Jun '12 03:47
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    I believe some distinction ought to be made between people of sound mind who choose to end their lives, say in case of terminal illness which is most common, and those who by virtue of mental affliction such as severe depression feel compelled to take their lives. If we're talking about the latter I think it is in the interests of society, and of the individual, to assist these people and help them make better choices.
    A person who is afflicted with severe depression throughout their lives, and in many cases (not just a few) cannot have their lives improved by treatment, should then be condemned to living many many totally miserable years? How is living a "better choice" for them?