posted
And that if he has a lower net worth his decision makes more sense.
I realize that you aren't advocating killing people without their consent, Paul, but there is an inherent bias in your stance, particularly in the example above, which shows that that persons life wasn't as important as the financial status of his heirs.
That way there be dragons.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no inherent bias to the stance, only to the example. The question is whether or not a person can make a rational decision to kill himself. The above example has several different indicators in it, in order to make clear the position I am advocating to several different sorts of counter-arguments. There's the "dying with dignity" component, the "dying free from pain" component, and the "economics is uber-important" component. SO there are a few different biases to the example, all of which are for illustrative purposes only.
A person chould choose to want to end his life for a variety of reasons, and many of those reasons are rational. OUr job as a society would be to make sure the person is "of sound mind." Capably discussing and managing one's economic situation is part of a demonstration of being of sound mind... no matter HOW much money someone has stashed away. As I said above, rationality is not about conclusions, its about methodology. Does your methodology for determining that you want to end your life make sense? Yes? Are you demonstrating that you are of sound mind in a variety of ways? Yes? Are there indicators you are not of sound mind? No? Then fine, you can end your life.
"which shows that that persons life wasn't as important as the financial status of his heirs."
This is a determination that only an individual can make for himself... we have no business telling someone it is or is not. And any judgement on rationality should avoid being results oriented.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point has been made, but I'd like to make some distinctions that are (in my view) very important.
Suicide should only be considered "assisted" when a person is physically incapable of doing it themselves, so someone else physically ends their life.
Dag's point about someone being physically capable of doing it, but requiring the "assistance" of a pharmacist in order to do it painlessly is a different issue. The pharmacist isn't supplying assistance, he's supplying drugs, regardless of their purpose. The person committing suicide does the job on his own. Of course it's illegal even to provide the means to commit suicide, I suspect bringing a gun to a terminal cancer patient who can't get out of bed would fall under similar laws, even if the cancer patient pulls the trigger.
Then there's always the person who has the ability to slice their own throat, or throw themselves in front of a train. No doubt the activation energy is a lot higher to finish the job (and the rate of success would be lower) but the suicide would need no accomplice, so the legality of "assisting" vs. "providing the means" is irrelevent.
So I divide the categories thus: Suicide (solo), supplying the means for suicide (partner of some kind) and assisted suicide (actually performed by partner)
Of these three, assisted suicide is hardest to distinguish from murder. And you can't make assisted suicide legal unless you make suicide legal to start with. That's where the issue of whether there is a set of circumstances where a peson can make a rational decision to commit suicide should begin. Kevorkian started at the wrong end.
Also:
quote:there is little evidence that "sick" people become suicidal for reasons any different than the reasons that non-sick or disabled people become suicidal.
First I take issue with the way you group these. Sick people should be grouped with disabled, as compared to non-sick and non-disabled. There is considerable evidence that sick and disabled people choose to commit suicide at a much higher rate than those who are not sick or disabled.
As to whether this is a rational decision, It's a lot easier to understand why a permanent disability or terminal illness with accompanying pain is hard to live with, hence the decision to end one's life.
That's a lot more rational than choosing to commit suicide because of creeping teenage angst NOS.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
