Right to die?

Yes. I'll even volunteer to push the button in some cases.

Restrictions? That's the tough part, since I've never really mulled over that part before.

Yes.

Few, mostly in situations when the person's mental ability is impaired.

No, unless the individual is dealing with extreme physical pain and they give consent.

Huh? Terminal Illness impacting quality of life would seem to be clearly cut and dry. I personally watched a close family friend wither away from bone cancer. Just to watch in one year a vibrant, healthy man basically rot away is an image and experience that has stayed with me many years later.

It really wouldn't be that easy to argue. Prolonged, painful illness (cancer, et al) would be just as prevalent a reason as "suicidal tendencies."

I do remember one particular episode of The Jeffersons where Florence had stocked up on sleeping pills because she was going to intentionally overdose so she could be home with Jesus. She wasn't depressed or sick - she just really wanted to be in heaven. I think that would probably be the hardest to quantify, personally. But, yeah - I completely support it and even though I think restrictions SHOULD be put in place, they should be more of a safeguard as opposed to a hinderance.

Yeah, but this isn't abortion - these aren't innocent little baby-souls having no say in the matter.

These are adults with the ability to make decisions on their own. And I think each adult should be able to say "enough, I'm done" in the situation where they're battling a fatal disease.

I think there is a legitimate case for debate on abortion; I think any person opposing "right-to-die" laws is just a fucking douchebag.

FYI - life insurance pays out if you commit suicide more than 2 years after putting the policy in place.

All it takes is a situation that's a) unbearable, and b) never going to improve, for a reasonable, sane mind to conclude that death might be better.

Of course if they give consent, otherwise it's a right to get murdered, and no one is talking about that.

But why add "extreme physical pain"? What about paralysis, or mental pain, or anything else that would lead someone to give consent to die? It seems as though the consent itself would be proof enough, and it's not our business, or the government's, to ask why.

I don't want my government getting in the business of allowing individuals to commit suicide. I can understand why people with terminal illnesses would wish to die, but giving that privilege to others with less than terminal illness leads down a slippery slope.

Sorry, but suicide is not a viable option when it comes to the vast majority of problems an individual goes through. I'm not suggesting that the individual does not have a right to commit suicide, but rather I don't think our government should condone it.

Now that I think about it, if I had a family member who truly wanted to die, and needed my help, I would just go ahead and do it and not let the law stop me.

edit: I honestly don't see what slippery slope you're talking about, though. Healthy, happy people would be able to commit suicide? They already are; doesn't mean they do it very often.

Are you sure about that?

I lost my cousin to suicide 6 months ago and dealing with it has been the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my life. Harder than my own depression and attempted suicide several years ago. I can understand your thoughts if your family member was terminally ill and there was no alternative to the pain they were dealing with, but psychological pain can be treated in many different ways. The last thing anyone dealing with depression or suicidal thoughts needs is a family member supporting their decision to kill themselves.

An argument often used by those who want to continue to deprive people of choice or some basic freedom.

Not everything is a slippery slope. We're not talking about somebody walking into a Howard Johnson and offing themselves via ethical suicide because they lost the big account.

Western Liberterian thought only goes so far with some it seems.

Sorry I draw the line with suicide.

Our government condones owning a house, having kids, and saving for retirement.

Making something "not-illegal" does not mean it is condoned; it simply means it is not illegal.

Funny, I was thinking life-or-death is probably the ultimate personal choice.

For the vast majority of individuals who commit suicide, that choice is done not with a clear mind. It's done through mental illnesses such as depression.

Making the decision to commit suicide is not the same as making a decision of what you want to eat for dinner or what church you wish to attend on Sunday.

That's not quite true. Yes, Florence wanted to go to heaven but it was because she was immensely depressed. She wasn't able to find a good man to bed down with and she was unhappy in her job. Luckily the Jeffersons and that interracial couple that lived next door talked her out of it. Florence flushed the sleeping pills down the toilet and kept providing everyone around her with the gift of sass.

I'm pretty sure that having a doctor involved (since these bills are usually to allow physician-assisted suicide) minimizes that risk.

I don't dispute physician assisted suicide. I dispute allowing the idea of assisted suicide because of mental or psychological pain as mentioned by James Kimbell.

I don't necessarily see him jumping on the bandwagon for that.

Which opens the actual can of worms in my eyes.

Personally I am absolutely convinced that suicide is part of the self determination of people´s lives. Besides the practical surreality of legally forbidding suicide by law I think it is really the ultimate personal choice. But it is hard and somewhat chilling to talk about such an issue in such abstract terms.

Anyway the real problem arises with the participation of a third party like medical personal or private persons actively helping people with suicidal tendencies. Here the lines start to get very blurry for me. And for the legislators in my country as well. This ethical question has been on the table for decades now but there has not and maybe never will be a satisfactionary answer to this dilemma.

And for everybody who is interested look into the regulations in Switzerland. It is actually given the rank of a human right there. Organisations like Dignitas or Exit actively help people to commit this final act and follow them on their last steps in their life. Though there are certainly restrictions it is a fascinating approach that is something to think about for ages.

I don't think I'm explaining it well, then. All I'm trying to say is there should be as few restrictions as possible. I agree that mental and psychological pain is by far the worst area to loosen restrictions, since the questions of "is the person of sound mind?" and "can the situation improve?" are so very very strong. Usually - and maybe always - strong enough to override everything else.

However, in principle, I simply cannot agree to the idea of government saying categorically what we cannot do with such an important aspect of life. It may be possible that someone could have an unbearable, unimproveable condition, based on anguish that's completely or partly mental, and if a family is in that situation, they will know it better than you and I will. But that specific, hypothetical situation is not the point; it's just a thing I made up while questioning one of your restrictions.

Muharulz, I too have had a suicide in my own family, and the last thing I want to do is appear glib or superficial on the subject.

I do not know what we are arguing here. People can kill themselves regardless of what the government will do.

The point that I am trying to make is that the choice to commit suicide is completely different than the choice of which god you wish to worship or which political party you wish to join. Suicidal thoughts are not rational thoughts when we boil them down to a result of psychological or mental pain.

According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, 90% of all individuals who commit suicide had some form of diagnosable mental illness prior to their deaths. The act of suicide in many respects is not a rational act.

These people need help through counseling, not assistance in how to kill themselves.

That sounds like an objective group.

The figures come from the National Center for Health Statistics in 2005, the last year the numbers were done. Numbers for suicides are usually done every 2-3 years.

Here's some education for you Devin... http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseac...135C3A70DE1FDA

I honestly don't know what you're arguing about here, since no doctor would assist in the suicide of someone who was just bummed out super bad.

The hilarious thing to me is this insistence that the Government "condoning" suicide will somehow lead people who wouldn't normally off themselves to go "The Government says it's okay? Fuck, I'm going to shoot myself today!"

This is an issue aimed at the people with terminal illness and quality of life issues who want to end their suffering. Being "valiant until the end" is a bunch of horseshit when you're either in such pain that you can't even blink without it hurting or so dosed up on morphine you might as well be in a medically induced coma.

This is has little to nothing to do with mental illness because no doctor is going to allow a person to commit suicide while not being in control of their faculties. That's not going to stop said person from jumping from a bridge or OD'ing on medication with or without the lawful consent of government.

What would qualify as a "rational act", in terms of suicide though? And, if we are playing that card, how many reasons to stay alive or to tell others to stay alive are actually "rational", as in, based on logic and not some feeling (fear of death, don't want loved one to be gone) or some religious leftover/moral clusterfuck?

What could possibly be considered rational then? If X guy is in intense pain, you could very well say that his action is not rational (since it comes out of a shitload of pain) even though it's perfectly understandable.

Can you honestly say that most decisions in your life have been 100% rational and there have been no emotions or morals involved? And if not, why shouldn't you decide to end your life like you've chosen other things?

Also, the whole mental illness excuse. Either mental illness is a legitimate illness or it's not. If it is, then killing yourself because of it should be as acceptable as killing yourself because you have cancer or any other thing. Otherwise, mental illness is not really being considered as an "illness" of any consequence, and then, it shouldn't matter if any person that committed suicide was mentally ill or not. That is not to say that an appropriate course of action for having a cold is suicide, but it seems to me like you are heavily underestimated the "pain" of a mental illness and the problems that come with it. And while there is treatment, there are also reasons why people stop taking meds, like how sometimes being depressed is better than being numb to the point of wondering whether plants have more fun in life.

And do you really think which God you choose to worship or which political party you are affiliated are, for the most part, "rational" decisions?

Many people that suffer from depression/bi polar disorder take their own lives after they get better.

It's a tricky subject; moreover, it's daunting to gauge what the exact definition of "imparied" and "mentally ill" is. There's certainly a difference between clinically diagosed depression, a dilapidating psych disorder like schizophrenia or a disease like alzheimers.

I think suicide is a personal choice and a human right, but it's something that will remain taboo. People don't understand suicide and as a culture we condemn death -- unless it becomes a personal convenience.

I agree with what you're saying, but you don't mention the trickier notion of assisted suicide - that's when "the mental illness excuse" comes in. We are trying to look at the action of the doctor/family who does the assisting; they would seem to have an extra burden in their decision-making when dealing with mental illness than with physical.

Here's the thing, if someone is "mentally ill", but otherwise healthy, they can off themselves just fine. I don't think we should put doctors in the role of assisting depressed people end their lives. However, for those who are incapacitated and/or terminally ill and wish to end their suffering it is not only morally acceptable but I believe something of a moral obligation to offer these people a "safe", comfortable, clean death. The only people who think it's unacceptable are either religious, or hold on to poor counterarguments, likely some brand of the slippery slope fallacy.

It's not the case that if euthanasia is legalized that euthanizing terminally ill volunteers will lead us down the path to killing the mentally disabled or the elderly (that's just dumb), or that family members will all of a sudden try to off their older relatives in order to reap their inheritance (we would put necessary safeguards in place), or that old people who feel themselves a burden on others will now sign up for a one way ticket (again, safeguards), nor is it the case that medical research will cease putting as much effort as it does toward curing diseases and lessening suffering (that's just a straw man).

To even discuss whether mental illness should or should not be allowed as an excuse for assisted suicide is a purely "philosophical" discussion as it would never be allowed, nor should it.

Physical distress is another issue though and I completely support assisted suicide to people who suffers immensely, but are mentally OK and thus capable of making such an extreme decision and understanding the consequences.

Again, we're not talking about some depressed 16 year old overdosing on mom's sleeping pills. We're talking about medically assisted termination of patients with incurable and fatal illness. I which case I'm unequivocally in favor of.

Of course my view is probably influenced by personal experience. My father's oldest brother died of stomach cancer. Watching a man of both strong character and strong body wasting away and dying a husk of his former self, unable of a single coherent thought because of the amount of drugs in his system made feel shame. People deserve a good death.

The problem with the mentally ill yet incapacitated man in need of assisted suicide is that besides being one hell of a strawman, it's an argument used as if it somehow invalidates all other possible situations when speaking of suicide or assisted suicide. It gets tricky and complex with all variations of mental illness and whatever, but that is why there should be some discretion and some case by case in those scenarios. It's not like suddenly all doctors will go "oh, he seems to be hypochondriac and all, that must suck and I guess it'll be less work for me with some morphine". And then, there's the decision of the person, but if the decision of the person is invalidated because it comes from "mental illness", then that is doing quite a disservice to the mentally ill, as it keeps the notion that they really are just ok, and while I would agree that in many cases they can just better, just like people have beat seemingly unbeatable cancers, that's not the point at hand.

What would be a real solution/compromise though? When in a somewhat "normal" state, having a sort of contract that says under what conditions the doctor can decide? The thing is that the argument is quite tricky, which is why is the one used as if it can complicate away all other variants of suicide and I personally think that, used as a blanket non-specific argument, it's actually quite wrong for both "physically" and "mentally" ill.

Good to know.

Perhaps I'm missing the point, I am at work and can only scan quickly every now and again. But if you really want to end your life, for whatever reason, you're going to do so regardless of whether or not anyone helps you. And who is going to be around to punish you? No one on the physical side of our world.

I don't think it was stated well enough in the beginning, but I believe the real focus from the perspective of those that are "for" the "right to die" is in regards to terminally ill or chronically-in-pain people.

I'm kinda undecided on the subject. I don't know if assisting in the death of another should be condoned or legalized. If a person really wishes to end their life, I don't think we're capable of stopping them. But, I don't know if taking an active role in providing assistance for them is ethical.

I totally support the instances of withdrawing life support or the option to have a DNR.

It's a very murky area. And, doctors can be a little "pushy" with their opinions/beliefs on the matter (from experience).

I think we may be on the same page.
I personally feel that life, all life, is precious, except when a nasty creature such as a spider is involved. I'm against abortion for myself, but not others. I think too many people paint that as a black and white issue. There's a lot of gray in this arena as well. Doctors are taught early on to save everyone's life, at any cost. Some more recently have started to look at the big picture and are getting past the "God complex", at least from what I've seen, but I work in long term care. Others still treat their elderly patients like lab rats. I think hospice care exists to help everyone involved. There is a transition for the family as well, as they absorb the imminent loss of their loved one. By assisting someone "over the edge", aren't we taking away from them as well as their loved ones the process of grieving and acceptance?

I think that for somebody that is in horrible, agonizing pain, a pain that cannot be reduced through medicinal means, should be able to end their life with dignity and via the mode of their own choosing.

I think it would be a beautiful thing say, if I had a relative that was hopelessly ill calling their family together in the final moments before they pass from this world by their own will.

It's selfishness on our part to cling to those we are close to.

And denying people this right because of archaic belief systems is just stupid.

Watching some die of cancer, and some other illnesses is the most horrible thing there is. It can take any and all fun out of horror movies. If you would do it for your dog shouldn't you do it for friends and family? I think the big problem is a fear of, lack of a better word, Hell, it not even a religious thing as much as psychological thing.

What's funny about that is if ANY doctor starts "pushing" his opinions/beliefs in my direction, he's going to get told something that rhymes with "duck shoe."

I don't cotton well to the bully pulpit. But I may be an exception.

Baby boomers should be givne government incentives to off themselves when they reach 75. FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.