Assisted suicide, right or wrong?

[Peeze]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/03/europe/03germany.php
So a 79 year old german woman, who was not sick or dying but just wanted to end her life asked her doctor for help to kill herself. He gave her a lethal mix of the antimalaria drug chloroquine and the sedative diazepam. He also videotaped it and publicized it. Now (most of) germany is infuriated. It should be noted that suicide in germany(assisted or not) is legal.
So the question arises: should assisted suicides, in germany and elsewhere, be legal? Are they moral or not?

NOTE: for the sake of this debate we'll define "moral" as a standard of right and wrong agreed on by the people, to keep god(and ensuing debates over his existence) out of this debate.

 

[Amide]

If all debts are payed, then it's fine. Why should some one live through pain if they don't want to? It's their life, so they should make the decisions.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

I don't see how its any different whether the person requesting assisted suicide is 79 or 17: suicide is still murder.

 

[Amide]

I don't see how its any different whether the person requesting assisted suicide is 79 or 17: suicide is still murder.

But what if they were in terrible pain, and it would be less painful to die?

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Only if they're in pain, or have a fatal illness.

Should it be legal? As long as the assistance only comes from a doctor, then yes I think so. And is it morally right? Well, it's far more moral than a war.

 

[Stroupes]

I think, if the patient is suffering from intolerable pain from a disease, it should be okay, if administered by a doctor.
Being in pain is much worse than being peacefully "put to sleep."

 

[Modest_Egoist]

The doctor should not have assisted the woman if she had a clean bill of health. He was also wrong in video taping and publisicing it.

I believe if you are in a condition that will not improve - such as a burn victim, serious accident, or if a fatal disease could not be held off any longer - then assisted suicide should become a viable option to the individual.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

What are we, dogs? Are we animals that this is being considered 'put to sleep'? Only the government should have the right to end someone's life. If someone (maybe a doctor, maybe not) shoots a 79 year old in the head because they asked them to, it would be murder. The same would apply if the 79 year old shot themself in the head; they would be murdering themselves.

So in response to the actual situation posed in the first post, it should not have been allowed. The 79 year old 'was not sick or dying' and thus should not have been allowed to die.

For some reason, when its just an old person and a lethal injection, people find it OK.

 

[link6616]

I used to believe that is should be ok. But once legalized it is simply too hard to police, Holland has it legalized, but there are sad stories of it being used to empty hospital beds.
Legalizing it would also have to have a lot of paperwork, to ensure that people aren't just killing themselves on a whim.

I think that it's too hard to police enough that it should be legal... But I think people have the right to take their own life, and making the drugs for it illegal would probably make it just harrd enough that only the people who really wanted to die could do so.

 

[__Lewis__]

What are we, dogs? Are we animals that this is being considered 'put to sleep'? Only the government should have the right to end someone's life. If someone (maybe a doctor, maybe not) shoots a 79 year old in the head because they asked them to, it would be murder. The same would apply if the 79 year old shot themself in the head; they would be murdering themselves.

So in response to the actual situation posed in the first post, it should not have been allowed. The 79 year old 'was not sick or dying' and thus should not have been allowed to die.

For some reason, when its just an old person and a lethal injection, people find it OK.

Why does Peter Singer's thesis on relating Humans to Animals come to mind?
By my memory, Singer likened that animals rights are on a level so low that it is acceptable to "put down" a diseased dog, whilst it is inhumane to "put down" mentally incapable human beings.
Bearing in mind, it was a while since I'd read the piece, so feel free to correct me.

I tend to agree with JKLuigi to an extent though. "Suicide" like this isn't suicide, rather murder due to a person being privy to the circumstances and their involvement.
However if it were someone who ill beyond becoming better, then maybe the circumstances might change.

 

[PRINCESS PEACH777]

But what if they were in terrible pain, and it would be less painful to die?

Well it's horrible i still can't understand why a doctor helping her to die....and it is wrong to video tape her if she is in pain i'm sure their is a few things she can eat to make her feel better ......
everyone should live their life tp the fullest.

 

[blazedaces]

I don't see how its any different whether the person requesting assisted suicide is 79 or 17: suicide is still murder.

JKL, look up the word suicide in the dictionary. Then look up the word murder. None of the definitions are the same.

As link said, while the idea might be possible, as in a situation in which assisted suicide is acceptable, since it is too hard to police there's no way it should be legal. Almost no one would ever actually perform it under proper circumstances. There would be too many cases of assisted suicide when it was not necessary:

Schardt, 79, a retired X-ray technician from the Bavarian city of Würzburg, was neither sick nor dying. She simply did not want to move into a nursing home, and rather than face that prospect, she asked Kusch, a prominent German campaigner for assisted suicide, for a way out.

This is an example of just such a case. There was no good reason to assist this person in her suicide. She had a good chance of finding happiness in her life again someday (utilitarian ethics).

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

I'm not sure what Nursing Homes are like in Germany but in American if they're not non-profit, they're horrible for patience.

In any case she should have that right to ask for assisted suicide why should the government or anyone else decide? It's her life, no one else's you have no right to enforce your ideals on her. I could understand being opposed to this if they were young and healthy in which case they should seek psychiatric help.

But as far as making it illegal? That's an infringement on rights, as far as morals go it's right especially in the case of someone dying.

 

[blazedaces]

In any case she should have that right to ask for assisted suicide why should the government or anyone else decide? It's her life, no one else's you have no right to enforce your ideals on her. I could understand being opposed to this if they were young and healthy in which case they should seek psychiatric help.

But as far as making it illegal? That's an infringement on rights, as far as morals go it's right especially in the case of someone dying.

Show me anywhere, in any list, ever made, of all time, where it was agreed upon by a governmental body or by a widely accepted ethical standard that anyone ever has the right to assist another in suicide under all conditions.

Then we can talk. You're not a source for what rights people do and do not have.

We're not even talking about suicide, we're talking about assisted suicide. This wouldn't be as big a deal if it was only the old lady committing suicide. We can argue the ethical implications of committing suicide in another thread if you would like...

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

Show me anywhere, in any list, ever made, of all time, where it was agreed upon by a governmental body or by a widely accepted ethical standard that anyone ever has the right to assist another in suicide under all conditions.

Did I imply that? I don't think I did, It could be very possible she wanted the Doctor to help her to make it as painless as possible. why is assisting in suicide wrong? if a person does not wish to live anymore they should be given that right. Granted they should be talked to about it to make sure this is what they really want, but as far as wishing for someone to assist in your suicide is concerned it shouldn't be stopped if it's what you really desire.

We're not even talking about suicide, we're talking about assisted suicide. This wouldn't be as big a deal if it was only the old lady committing suicide. We can argue the ethical implications of committing suicide in another thread if you would like...

-blazed

Why does the fact that a doctor is helping her making less ethical? A Doctor can assist in ways where the act of suicide is as painless as possible.

 

[Mediocre]

What are we, dogs? Are we animals that this is being considered 'put to sleep'? Only the government should have the right to end someone's life. If someone (maybe a doctor, maybe not) shoots a 79 year old in the head because they asked them to, it would be murder. The same would apply if the 79 year old shot themself in the head; they would be murdering themselves.

I'm confused. You believe the government is the only entity with the right to end a person's life. You believe that killing yourself is equivalent to "murdering" yourself, and should not be allowed.

It really sounds like you're saying that the government owns people's lives.

I don't see why there's anything so special about the government. Sure, they're elected, but that doesn't give them any kind of rights to tell me what to do with my life. I'm still in charge of that. I still own my life.

And because I own my life, I have the right to end it, if I so choose. Why does the government have more right to my life than I do?

I think you need to seriously reconsider the kind of powers you'd like to give the government. I find your position on this issue rather scary, frankly.

So in response to the actual situation posed in the first post, it should not have been allowed. The 79 year old 'was not sick or dying' and thus should not have been allowed to die.

For some reason, when its just an old person and a lethal injection, people find it OK.

I find it OK no matter who does it. No matter if it's an eighteen year old or a ninety year old. I believe the a person owns his or her life, and therefore has the right to end it, if they so choose.

What do you believe? That the government owns it? That God owns it? That nobody owns it?

All I know is that I've always felt like the life I'm living was mine. Not God's, and not the government's. So I don't know why they should have any control over when it ends. That control should also be mine, if I choose to exercise it.

Well it's horrible i still can't understand why a doctor helping her to die....and it is wrong to video tape her if she is in pain i'm sure their is a few things she can eat to make her feel better ......
everyone should live their life tp the fullest.

This woman knew what she wanted. She wasn't stupid. She intentionally reached out to this doctor. She allowed him to videotape her, and hoped that doing this would help to promote the cause of assisted suicide. The videotaping was not immoral, because she consented to it, and she was not crazy, senile or stupid, as far as I can tell.

And you're "sure their is a few things she can eat to make her feel better"?

Really, I don't think that her problems would have been solved by a nice juicy steak. Eating a nice steak wouldn't stop her from having to live in a nursing home. I think it's really incredible that your solution is just to have her eat something delicious, as if that would solve all the problems in the world.

 

[Firus]

Is it moral? I believe so. If someone wishes to end their life, it should be theirs to control. As long as they say that they want to end their life, an assisted suicide is moral. Being publicly displayed, whether it's jumping off of a building or being videotaped and broadcast, should not. If someone's committing suicide, it should be a private thing so as not to attract attention.
Should it be legal? No. As it was discussed in the suicide thread, it can get too out of control, affect the economy, etc. As it was pointed out here, it could be used to clean out hospitals, or in other situations. With an assisted suicide, someone could claim that someone wanted to end their life, but now they're dead and can't confirm or deconfirm this statement.

I think it's stupid to tell someone they're not allowed to end their life or get assistance in doing so. But making it legal would have too many problems, in my opinion.

Only the government should have the right to end someone's life.

That has to be the most disturbing statement I've ever heard.
Why the HELL does the government get to decide whether you live or die? I'm not their property.

 

[PRINCESS PEACH777]

This woman knew what she wanted. She wasn't stupid. She intentionally reached out to this doctor. She allowed him to videotape her, and hoped that doing this would help to promote the cause of assisted suicide. The videotaping was not immoral, because she consented to it, and she was not crazy, senile or stupid, as far as I can tell.

And you're "sure their is a few things she can eat to make her feel better"?

Really, I don't think that her problems would have been solved by a nice juicy steak. Eating a nice steak wouldn't stop her from having to live in a nursing home. I think it's really incredible that your solution is just to have her eat something delicious, as if that would solve all the problems in the world.

I know what you mean but it is something wrong to do specialy from a doctor i mean doctors help you when your in pain not watching you kill your self and video taping you if she wants to kill her self that badly she should use a knife or something.....-.-

and by that i ment medicine....or maybe she could go on a vacation or something
and i really didn't mean meat by that......

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

The reason I said that is because it applies to more areas than suicide; if you disagree with me, are you saying that lynchings are OK? Are you saying that people like Ted Bundy and Marcel Petiot and John Wayne Gacy, Jr. should be allowed to live?

 

[Pluvia's other account]

With an assisted suicide, someone could claim that someone wanted to end their life, but now they're dead and can't confirm or deconfirm this statement.

That's why only doctors would be able to do it.

And everyone who said that it shouldn't have been recorded, according to the article, wasn't it recorded to show that the doctor only assisted, and never did anything else?

The reason I said that is because it applies to more areas than suicide; if you disagree with me, are you saying that lynchings are OK?

Lynchings aren't suicide.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

^I'm talking about the government controlling the lives of citizens.

 

[pockyD]

Given that suicide is legal (which I assume isn't the topic at hand here), there should be nothing against "assisted" suicide, given that it was, in fact, just an "assist" (for example selling someone the gun instead of pulling the trigger, or, like in this example, giving them drugs instead of injecting it into them)

More "hands-on" assisted suicide is controversial because that becomes easily entangled with murder, especially since the victim has no voice as to his or her intentions.

If suicide is legal, then assisted suicide should be legal, albeit with some official set of procedures to follow to ensure that death is truly the intent of the person dying.

 

[MojoMan]

Suicide I believe should be legalized. Life is like your property, you can destroy it and d anything you want with it because it's yours.

 

[pockyD]

There are ramifications of suicide though, i.e. family you're leaving behind, debts unpaid, and pretty much all the things that led you to consider suicide to begin with. I've actually heard suicide described as the ultimate act of selfishness.

But once again, that's not the topic of this thread

 

[blazedaces]

Why does the fact that a doctor is helping her making less ethical? A Doctor can assist in ways where the act of suicide is as painless as possible.

Taken from the AMA (The American Medical Association, the largest ethical society for doctors in the whole world) code of ethics:

It is the policy of the AMA that: (1) [highlight]Physician assisted suicide is fundamentally inconsistent with the physician's professional role.[/highlight] (2) It is critical that the medical profession redouble its efforts to ensure that dying patients are provided optimal treatment for their pain and other discomfort. The use of more aggressive comfort care measures, including greater reliance on hospice care, can alleviate the physical and emotional suffering that dying patients experience. Evaluation and treatment by a health professional with expertise in the psychiatric aspects of terminal illness can often alleviate the suffering that leads a patient to desire assisted suicide. (3) Physicians must resist the natural tendency to withdraw physically and emotionally from their terminally ill patients. When the treatment goals for a patient in the end stages of a terminal illness shift from curative efforts to comfort care, the level of physician involvement in the patient's care should in no way decrease. (4) Requests for physician assisted suicide should be a signal to the physician that the patient's needs are unmet and further evaluation to identify the elements contributing to the patient's suffering is necessary. Multidisciplinary intervention, including specialty consultation, pastoral care, family counseling and other modalities, should be sought as clinically indicated. (5) Further efforts to educate physicians about advanced pain management techniques, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, are necessary to overcome any shortcomings in this area. Physicians should recognize that courts and regulatory bodies readily distinguish between use of narcotic drugs to relieve pain in dying patients and use in other situations. (CEJA Rep. 8, I-93; Reaffirmed by BOT Rep. 59, A-96; Reaffirm: Res. 237, A-99)

-LINK

I suggest that if you make any statements concerning the ethics of a doctor you must provide evidence in the form of ethical standards from a medical society such as this one.

-blazed

 

[MojoMan]

Wait, has anyone considered the fact that there's no point in legalizing it, because you can't stop them from doing it in the first place. There are so many ways to commit suicide these days, it can be done any time, any place.

 

[cman]

What are we, dogs? Are we animals that this is being considered 'put to sleep'? Only the government should have the right to end someone's life. If someone (maybe a doctor, maybe not) shoots a 79 year old in the head because they asked them to, it would be murder. The same would apply if the 79 year old shot themself in the head; they would be murdering themselves.

So in response to the actual situation posed in the first post, it should not have been allowed. The 79 year old 'was not sick or dying' and thus should not have been allowed to die.

For some reason, when its just an old person and a lethal injection, people find it OK.

Putting dogs to sleep, in my opinion, is generally necessitated, due to circumstances, murder, because they do not agree or choose to die. I find putting animals to sleep far more morally questionable than allowing a human of full mental capacity (i'm not entirely sure how to explain this, just something like a clearly thinking and fully developed brain) to end their own life.

A person of 79 years probably has a mature view and sound outlook, whereas a 17 year old is much more likely to have a not-yet-developed brain, and therefore more likely to kill themselves over something that will likely just pass with time.

As far as the government being the only ones with the right to kill, have you ever actually thought about this?? What gives a government of the people more power than the people? At least in situations where no others are harmed? Why does the government know more about myself and my situation that i do? What gives them the right to tell me what to do with my life?

 

[Amide]

Wait, has anyone considered the fact that there's no point in legalizing it, because you can't stop them from doing it in the first place. There are so many ways to commit suicide these days, it can be done any time, any place.

Well, some people actually unsuccessfully commit suicide, in that case if caught, you got to jail . (I know, how can you have trouble killing yourself?) But legalizing it would send a positive message of self rights, and you would feel a little less guilty, of course, only if you had a good reason should you really be allowed to commit suicide. That's why I'm against suicide, but for assisted suicide.

 

[Mediocre]

The reason I said that is because it applies to more areas than suicide; if you disagree with me, are you saying that lynchings are OK? Are you saying that people like Ted Bundy and Marcel Petiot and John Wayne Gacy, Jr. should be allowed to live?

Huh?

That does not relate at all.

Those people are a danger to others. They have to either be locked up, or killed. Lynchings are not okay, because the person being lynched does not want to die. It's a clear cut difference.

This 79 year old woman was not endangering anyone except herself. She has every right to endanger herself. You're comparing two very different things. Anybody has a right to stop people from killing others who don't want to die. Nobody has a right to stop somebody from dying when they want to die. Those two situations are not related at all.

-LINK

I suggest that if you make any statements concerning the ethics of a doctor you must provide evidence in the form of ethical standards from a medical society such as this one.

-blazed

I don't think this has anything to do with the philosophy of medicine.

I think it's a human issue, not a medical one.

 

[Peeze]

My problem with it is that thee are plenty of ways to kill yourself without the help of others. she could've hung herself, shot herself, drowned herself, dropped a toaster in her bathtub, OD'd on tylenol, cut her wrist, and any other creative ways possible. Why do you need help? And the whole concept sounds like it could be abused easily. I.e. i hate that guy so i poison him and tell the cops he wanted me to help him kill himself.

 

[arrowhead]

My problem with it is that thee are plenty of ways to kill yourself without the help of others. she could've hung herself, shot herself, drowned herself, dropped a toaster in her bathtub, OD'd on tylenol, cut her wrist, and any other creative ways possible. Why do you need help? And the whole concept sounds like it could be abused easily. I.e. i hate that guy so i poison him and tell the cops he wanted me to help him kill himself.

all of those result in a painful/uncomfortable death. a shot is quick, simple, and almost painless.

abusing it wouldn't be a problem if only doctors with signed papers could perform assisted suicides.

 

[Firus]

That's why only doctors would be able to do it.

Well, in that case, it couldn't be exploited. That would work.

The reason I said that is because it applies to more areas than suicide; if you disagree with me, are you saying that lynchings are OK? Are you saying that people like Ted Bundy and Marcel Petiot and John Wayne Gacy, Jr. should be allowed to live?

^I'm talking about the government controlling the lives of citizens.

Yeah, but this is a discussion of suicide, not of the death penalty. And to say that if we disagree with you, we must be for lynching is just outrageous.

I never said that the government shouldn't have control in some cases. Just that they should not be the end-all and be-all. It's MY life, and they shouldn't be able to stop me if I want to take it. Wanting to keep it when they want to end it is for another discussion. Don't go off-topic.

My problem with it is that thee are plenty of ways to kill yourself without the help of others. she could've hung herself, shot herself, drowned herself, dropped a toaster in her bathtub, OD'd on tylenol, cut her wrist, and any other creative ways possible. Why do you need help? And the whole concept sounds like it could be abused easily. I.e. i hate that guy so i poison him and tell the cops he wanted me to help him kill himself.

Oh yeah, good. Sometimes the point of suicide is that someone is in a lot of physical pain for whatever reason, so suggesting all of those violent and painful options is just insane. An injection would be quick and virtually painless.

 

[M.K]

She did WHAT? Well, she was nearing death at Age 79, probably suffering from some type of...something, and I condone that decision, as it was soley hers and the doctor was only just another instrument, just like a gun, a noose, a toaster/bathtub, or a bottle of pills.

I do not, however, know the rules of conduct and ethics for the personell in the medical field. The doctor could have easily violated some rules that bind him to his medical degree and legality to practice medicine.

 

[Peeze]

Oh yeah, good. Sometimes the point of suicide is that someone is in a lot of physical pain for whatever reason, so suggesting all of those violent and painful options is just insane. An injection would be quick and virtually painless.

Yeah because a gunshot to your head is painful? Or oding is painful? Shoot yourself through the temple and tell me how much pain you feel...oh wait you cant cuz you'll be dead. The point of suicide is to end your life. If your in so much pain as you said you want it over NOW not have to wait for a doc.

 

[Modest_Egoist]

She did WHAT? Well, she was nearing death at Age 79, probably suffering from some type of...something, and I condone that decision, as it was soley hers and the doctor was only just another instrument, just like a gun, a noose, a toaster/bathtub, or a bottle of pills.

She wasn't suffering from any illness, she was as healthy as a 79-year-old woman could be. I don't know how bad the nursing homes are in Germany, but I don't think it's enough reason to commit suicide.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Putting dogs to sleep, in my opinion, is generally necessitated, due to circumstances, murder, because they do not agree or choose to die. I find putting animals to sleep far more morally questionable than allowing a human of full mental capacity (i'm not entirely sure how to explain this, just something like a clearly thinking and fully developed brain) to end their own life.

A person of 79 years probably has a mature view and sound outlook, whereas a 17 year old is much more likely to have a not-yet-developed brain, and therefore more likely to kill themselves over something that will likely just pass with time.

As far as the government being the only ones with the right to kill, have you ever actually thought about this?? What gives a government of the people more power than the people? At least in situations where no others are harmed? Why does the government know more about myself and my situation that i do? What gives them the right to tell me what to do with my life?

All right, so does this mean that government should allow people under 18 to use tobacco products? Should the government allow people to consume alcoholic products under the legal age? Or do those not have to do with allowing people to live their lives? And I can see the retort "Those things can affect other people; suicide doesn't", but one would figure that suicide would have a very emotional impact on the people around the person who committed suicide. How does someone explain to their daughter that Grandma died "because she didn't want to live anymore"?

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

Did you ever think that Grandma was is extreme pain? If you were on fire with no way to put it out, would you let yourself burn to death slowly over time or would you want someone to kill you quickly with a gunshot or something similar? If theres no other way to end the pain, isn't it fair that we do what we can?

 

[arrowhead]

All right, so does this mean that government should allow people under 18 to use tobacco products? Should the government allow people to consume alcoholic products under the legal age? Or do those not have to do with allowing people to live their lives? And I can see the retort "Those things can affect other people; suicide doesn't", but one would figure that suicide would have a very emotional impact on the people around the person who committed suicide. How does someone explain to their daughter that Grandma died "because she didn't want to live anymore"?

so the government allows you to smoke, which kills you and the people around you over time, but they can't let you kill yourself instantly?

how does someone explain it to their daughter when she gets lung cancer because she lives in an environment where people smoke often?

 

[blazedaces]

so the government allows you to smoke, which kills you and the people around you over time, but they can't let you kill yourself instantly?

how does someone explain it to their daughter when she gets lung cancer because she lives in an environment where people smoke often?

God did it and he has a plan... you're just not going to be part of it anymore...

Seriously, it's perfectly okay for religious activists to say this, but god forbid someone try to actually explain the truth to children. I mean... what if they actually understood what was going on? They would be sad! We can't let them grow up and start feeling emotions!

-blazed

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

How would they 'understand' suicide in that nature though? I mean, as in the case of this perfectly well 79 year old. Would a child honestly think that would be OK? There's a difference between starting to experience new emotions as a child and being emotionally damaged, which in this nature of suicide, would do.