Freedom to snuff it.

[Robert_S]

Looking at the discussion over here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 36#p987036 , I wonder:

Under what circumstances should society give its approval of an individual's right to decide when it is time to go?

[Gallstones]

Thing is, when we consider those who are determined/committed to checking out under their own terms, there is nothing society or the law can do. Whatever they do do will be after the fact.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Thing is, when we consider those who are determined/committed to checking out under their own terms, there is nothing society or the law can do. Whatever they do do will be after the fact.

Except when the person determined/committed to die is physically incapable of doing the act themselves. Then, anyone that assists them in their heartfelt wish is subject to the full majesty of the law. What price freewill and ultimate control over ones destiny then?

[mistermack]

Snuff it, time to go, checking out ? ? ?

You aren't talking about people KILLING THEMSELVES, by any chance?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Snuff it, time to go, checking out ? ? ?

You aren't talking about people KILLING THEMSELVES, by any chance?

Course not! We're talking about on about cocaine, aren't we?

[Seth]

Looking at the discussion over here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 36#p987036 , I wonder:

Under what circumstances should society give its approval of an individual's right to decide when it is time to go?

Under any circumstances, so long as they are adults. Children, since they do not enjoy the full panoply of adult civil rights, must be protected from themselves until they are mature enough to make their own decisions, which includes the decision to end their own life.

It's absolutely none of society's business if or when any adult decides to check out. Quite the opposite, in any rational, ethical, compassionate society, the painless, safe and clean means of ending one's life should be freely available to anyone who asks for it. Indeed, we should have centers where people can go to die peacefully, as in "Logan's Run." If possible, the death drugs should be combined with euphorics that give a rush of intense pleasure right before one becomes unconscious, so that one can go out with a song on one's lips.

That's what rational, compassionate people do.

Barbaric, oppressive societies make it difficult, dirty, unsafe and dangerous to commit suicide. One of the latest versions is the "deadly gas" suicide where people brew up a mix of chemicals to create deadly gasses like hydrogen sulfide to kill themselves with. Problem is, they don't tend to take very good care not to let the gasses escape and poison other people. Several neighbors in next-door apartments have died from chemical poisoning from such suicides.

People resort to such desperate measures because it's very difficult to find a way to commit relatively painless suicide in Japan, because they ban guns and control drugs that might do the job.

How barbaric. How unevolved. How irrational and evil.

[Robert_S]

Snuff it, time to go, checking out ? ? ?

You aren't talking about people KILLING THEMSELVES, by any chance?

I'm talking about the voluntary cessation of biological activity.

[Gallstones]

Thing is, when we consider those who are determined/committed to checking out under their own terms, there is nothing society or the law can do. Whatever they do do will be after the fact.

Except when the person determined/committed to die is physically incapable of doing the act themselves. Then, anyone that assists them in their heartfelt wish is subject to the full majesty of the law. What price freewill and ultimate control over ones destiny then?

Well.....one might know that the day is coming and might do the necessary deed before one is incapacitated such that s/he can't affect the desired result on one's own.

It would always be my choice to affect the desired results under my own volition and under my own power; thus exclude implicating others.

In answer to your question, one's destiny need be affected sooner rather than later--once one sees the writing on the wall.

[mistermack]

Snuff it, time to go, checking out ? ? ?

You aren't talking about people KILLING THEMSELVES, by any chance?

I'm talking about the voluntary cessation of biological activity.

DUUUUH , is that a yes or a no?

[Gallstones]

Snuff it, time to go, checking out ? ? ?

You aren't talking about people KILLING THEMSELVES, by any chance?

I'm talking about the voluntary cessation of biological activity.

DUUUUH , is that a yes or a no?

Yes we are talking about killing oneself.......and?

[amok]

Thing is, when we consider those who are determined/committed to checking out under their own terms, there is nothing society or the law can do. Whatever they do do will be after the fact.

Except when the person determined/committed to die is physically incapable of doing the act themselves. Then, anyone that assists them in their heartfelt wish is subject to the full majesty of the law. What price freewill and ultimate control over ones destiny then?

Well.....one might know that the day is coming and might do the necessary deed before one is incapacitated such that s/he can't affect the desired result on one's own.

It would always be my choice to affect the desired results under my own volition and under my own power; thus exclude implicating others.

In answer to your question, one's destiny need be affected sooner rather than later--once one sees the writing on the wall.

It might not be, though. In cases of catastrophic injuries, for example.

[amok]

I intend to take care of business myself under certain circumstances. But it would get complicated if I was suddenly paralyzed and not only had to rely on someone else, but also put them at risk of being prosecuted if they agreed.

My thoughts about this have been finding some high-grade heroin and purposely over-dosing, at the point where living isn't palatable anymore. But, again, that would only work if I was mobile.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

<snip>..... Indeed, we should have centers where people can go to die peacefully, as in "Logan's Run.".... <snip>

A tad undignified for my tastes; being levitated in some weird carousel thing and vaporised with a laser beam in front of a cheering crowd.
Are you sure you're not confusing Logan's Run with Soylent Green?

As for the op - I wouldn't want a person who is terminally ill and suffering to be kept alive against their will. On the other hand, I feel that mentally ill people who may well be suffering from a transient condition can be helped in other ways until they recover. How far it would be reasonable to impose this 'help', I couldn't say.

[Seth]

<snip>..... Indeed, we should have centers where people can go to die peacefully, as in "Logan's Run.".... <snip>

A tad undignified for my tastes; being levitated in some weird carousel thing and vaporised with a laser beam in front of a cheering crowd.
Are you sure you're not confusing Logan's Run with Soylent Green?

No, wasn't Soylent Green I think. I'm pretty sure it was Logan's Run, but it might have been another movie. I recall that one of the protagonist's family members goes to a euthanasia facility where he is in a room with a domed ceiling on which his favorite images are projected as he's put to sleep. Now I'm confused.

As for the op - I wouldn't want a person who is terminally ill and suffering to be kept alive against their will. On the other hand, I feel that mentally ill people who may well be suffering from a transient condition can be helped in other ways until they recover. How far it would be reasonable to impose this 'help', I couldn't say.[/quote]

Why should they be treated if they don't want to be treated? Certainly if you DO want treatment you should get it, but nobody should be involuntarily committed for treatment merely for being suicidal.

[Animavore]

Yeah. It was Soylent Green. I've never seen Logan's Run.