|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Why does being depressed mean that someone doesn't get to make decisions about their own life? Effectronica posted:So we shouldn't treat depression, because it's clearly not actually a disorder? What other "disorders" should we not treat? Anxiety? Bipolar disorder? Panic disorder? OCD? PTSD? Schizophrenia? Talk about putting words in someone's mouth. Where in Smudgie's post does he say we shouldn't treat depression or other disorders? Where does he say that trying to convince someone not to kill themselves is interfering with their decision making abilities? That is an incredibly large straw man you've built. You are the ideologue. Of course we should treat depression and other disorders. Of course we should try to convince those who are suicidal that their lives are worth living. And of course we should not FORCE them to be treated or follow our advice against their will. This is a matter of respecting an individuals right to make their own choices about their life and if someone chooses not to get treatment or take your advice they are just as entitled to that choice as they are to kill themselves because their life is theirs, it is not yours or anyone else's to control. Your reasoning is the reasoning of a totalitarian dictator. I'll ask you the same question I asked Ogmius, which he never even attempted to answer: What do you think gives you more right to another persons life than their own right to it and why?
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
Supporting euthanasia and the right of people to decide to end their life does not preclude supporting alternatives. I would prefer that people don't feel it necessary to end their life but I also respect their right to do so. Indeed the primary opposition to it would come on the basis that taking your own life can harm others, either in the fallout or the method, medically assisted suicide would go a long way to help the latter.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, I would say that killing you would not be ethically justifiable, so we are already accepting that some unnecessary suffering cannot be ethically removed, and it's only a matter of degree from that point on. lovely attitude. quote:You are quite simply a closeminded little prick of a man, and I am not going to engage in a farce of a discussion where you take an extreme case and pretend that everything in between is irrelevant. More lovely attitude, and a complete misrepresentation of what I've said, once more. You claim my position is "an extreme case" yet for some reason you can't bother to say what specifically about it is "extreme". Could it be that I'm referencing the laws of the states of Oregon and Washington State, which I've referred to several times already? Where these laws are only used on the rare occasion? Like I've said several times before? Maybe you should spend some time reading what I've posted rather than making poo poo up and responding to it. quote:Indeed, by emphasizing "sound mind", you are agreeing with the quote in the OP that we should focus first on treating people in severe pain from a terminal sickness for depression. Or else you are denying that depression is a disorder, like many of the contemptible worms in this thread. No poo poo we should treat people first. Where have I said otherwise? The laws of WA and OR call exactly for this, which I'm supporting. Quote me rather than making poo poo up. Come on, where did I make this claim? Put up or shut up. quote:But that's a side note to the basic problem that you're unwilling to treat the arguments put forth in the OP at all seriously. So if I were to point out that your argument is simply that an infinite amount of disabled people should suffer inadequate care and repeated humiliations lest one person die of a terminal disease without euthanasia, you would make accusations and refuse to engage with it. I'm unwilling to treat Stephanie Packer seriously because she is advocating that those who are terminally ill and in great pain need should be legally mandated to suffer through that pain because as she puts it, "it's God's plan".
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The entire definition of depression is that it warps people's perceptions. According to you, someone with major depression who falls into a suicidal despondency after bungling a presentation at work, -this person should absolutely be able to kill themselves and trying to convince them otherwise is interfering with their ability to make decisions about their own life. You're a monster of ideology. (Or we could not cook up reasons to rob people of their consent.)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:In order for the question to be relevant you have to explain how and when we'll know that someone in such a position is of sound mind. I'll give you another hint since you don't seem to understand the problem: look up the diagnostic criteria for depression and think about it in the context of terminally ill patients considering suicide. I'm certainly not advocating that if there are things that could be done you should instead throw people away. Here's is Washington's law, it should answer a lot of questions you bring up about informed consent and the like.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:36
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Your argument seems to imply that DNR orders are unacceptable. I think anyone with a terminal illness should be given counseling and therapy, but if you don't want to allow that someone in that situation can rationally want to end their life, then I don't know how you can allow a DNR made under the same circumstances. Also remember that passive euthanasia is an already common practice, and that's already legal and morally acceptable according to most. Sure, it seems to imply that. I don't consider DNR orders unacceptable, and I do think it's quite rational to want to end your life in certain circumstances, but I am arguing against an absolutist position, and there's really not much reason to throw pearls before swine by arguing in-depth. I don't need to, because it's right in the OP, and you can read the lengthy quotes in order to argue against them instead of rehashing this every page or two. I will summarize that the basic point is that as we agree to treat certain lives as not worth living and OK to end, we already have a large group of people who most people think don't live worthy lives, the disabled (or at least beyond the acceptable disabilities like mild asthma, vision impairments, etc.) Zaradis posted:Talk about putting words in someone's mouth. Where in Smudgie's post does he say we shouldn't treat depression or other disorders? Where does he say that trying to convince someone not to kill themselves is interfering with their decision making abilities? That is an incredibly large straw man you've built. You are the ideologue. He said that there is no reason to question whether depressed people are making rational decisions. This denies the very reason why we define depression as a disorder. But I am an ideologue. I am ideologically convinced that we should not let some libertarian jackoff fantasy prevent us from treating someone who's just attempted suicide, whether they want it or not. I am ideologically convinced that mental disorders warp perceptions. I am ideologically convinced that someone with depression needs support and help, and that this help does not consist of allowing them to kill themselves. I am ideologically convinced that the right to die should not be at people's whims, that they should be required to go through a process that allows them to back out. I am an ideologue, unlike you. Your question makes no sense whatsoever, so I'll give it a deserving answer: because there's a "b" in both and an "n" in neither. Solkanar512 posted:lovely attitude. Nice line-by-line. They teach you that in the circus? If you want me to flirt and pretend like you aren't a weaselly gently caress, you need to spend money, babe. I'm high-loving-maintenance. If you want me to take you seriously, you need to act seriously instead of writing posts that look vaguely like a response, but aren't actually. You're also deliberately doing it, because you picked out one tiny little thing to respond to and pretended like it's the only relevant thing. Guavanaut posted:There's good evidence that people with moderate depression have more accurate perceptions than people who are classed as 'non-depressed', so-called depressive realism. The non-depressed often have an optimist bias and project an unrealistic sense of worth or value onto things. They psychologically anchor to things that are known to be merely social constructs. Should the non-depressed be drugged to rid them of these delusions? Should they be given diminished ability to consent because of their tendency to assume irrational things, like "eh, it'll probably work out alright" or "there must be a reason things happen" when confronted with major situations? If you like suicide so much, why don't you blow your brains out and spare us posts like these? Your entire post comes down to pretending that the word "major" didn't exist in the post you were responding to and ignoring the example I provided in order to make some dumbass point about how we should let people kill themselves over trifles. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
You are in your 80's and have money. Why not roll the dice with your life on the line? So you don't wear your seatbelt.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
The vibe I get from this thread is that it is okay to discriminate against mentally ill people and that its okay to deprive them of their right to choose. You guys are shameless, you know that?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:17
|
|
Job Truniht posted:The vibe I get from this thread is that it is okay to discriminate against mentally ill people and that its okay to deprive them of their right to choose. You guys are shameless, you know that? The vibe I get from your posts is that you fervently wish depressed people would kill themselves but it would be gauche to express that openly.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The vibe I get from your posts is that you fervently wish depressed people would kill themselves but it would be gauche to express that openly. Nobody in this thread actually expressed even milquetoast solutions such as free mental health care but still want them to go through a restrictive process similar to abortion policies espoused by social conservatives, which will definitely cause more mental or emotional turmoil for the sake of some fascist thought such as "live to struggle" vs "struggle to live". Either you or the other people in this thread are taking some emotional stance towards something you don't understand or are engaging in deliberate cognitive dissonance.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Nice line-by-line. They teach you that in the circus? If you want me to flirt and pretend like you aren't a weaselly gently caress, you need to spend money, babe. I'm high-loving-maintenance. If you want me to take you seriously, you need to act seriously instead of writing posts that look vaguely like a response, but aren't actually. You're also deliberately doing it, because you picked out one tiny little thing to respond to and pretended like it's the only relevant thing. I least I bothered to respond to something you actually wrote, instead of building a strawman and then getting pissed off when repeatedly being called out on it. What is it exactly about Washington's law do you have a problem with?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:So we shouldn't treat depression, because it's clearly not actually a disorder? What other "disorders" should we not treat? Anxiety? Bipolar disorder? Panic disorder? OCD? PTSD? Schizophrenia? I asked a question to probe where Ogmius thinks depression and mental incapacity coincide such that a suffer of the former ought to be prohibited from making decisions about the future of their life, and, hypothetically, their death. The rest is rubbish that you've made up. I said nothing whatsoever about the treatment of depression. I am a long-time sufferer of depression. I have never attempted to kill myself, but I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that anybody thinks they might have the right to stop me if I had. If I made that decision, my reasons would be my own. My death is none of your business. Your questions are insulting and idiotic. I am not suicidal, but I do not believe that my depression is necessarily an irrational or inappropriate response to reality. You're so certain you know what is rational and what is just. But I'm not, and I don't really trust the judgment of anybody who is. I certainly wouldn't want anybody like you making decisions on my behalf if the circumstances under which you believe I ought to be stripped of my autonomy ever actually arose. So, gently caress you. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 18:52 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:He said that there is no reason to question whether depressed people are making rational decisions. This denies the very reason why we define depression as a disorder. Rational or not, decisions that other people make in regard to their own lives are none of your loving business. Effectronica posted:But I am an ideologue. I am ideologically convinced that we should not let some libertarian jackoff fantasy prevent us from treating someone who's just attempted suicide, whether they want it or not. Again, your reasoning is the same as a totalitarian dictator. Whether they want it or not is the entire problem and you have still not explained what gives you the right and why you think you have the right to forcefully take away another persons autonomy when they have done nothing wrong; which, by the way, is the definition of what a totalitarian dictator does. Effectronica posted:I am ideologically convinced that mental disorders warp perceptions. Agreed. So what? So does alcohol. Are you a prohibitionist? So does caffeine. Do you advocate for the banning of coffee, tea, and soda? Effectronica posted:I am ideologically convinced that someone with depression needs support and help, and that this help does not consist of allowing them to kill themselves. They certainly do need support and help. And I agree that they shouldn't kill themselves, however, whether or not they do is their decision to make alone because the individual is the only person who has any right to their own life. Effectronica posted:I am ideologically convinced that the right to die should not be at people's whims, that they should be required to go through a process that allows them to back out. I am an ideologue, unlike you. What the gently caress do you think treatment programs and attempts by friends and family to convince them that life is worth living are for? They are there to provide them with the option of backing out. If they don't want to back out, and if they choose not to get treatment or listen to others because of that, they are absolutely entitled to that choice. Effectronica posted:Your question makes no sense whatsoever, so I'll give it a deserving answer: because there's a "b" in both and an "n" in neither. My question is essential for you to answer if you want anyone with even a minuscule intellect to take you seriously. I have provided reasons for my claims. My premises lead to my conclusion. You have merely provided your conclusion over and over. If all I said was that, "people should be allowed to kill themselves" then our arguments would be on equal footing. At the moment I neither agree with nor respect your opinion. If you can provide reasons which logically lead to the conclusion that you have more right to someone else's life than they themselves do I may still disagree, but at least your argument will be respectable. If the question actually made no sense to you and you are that dense I can reword it: Why should you or anyone else be allowed to treat another individual as if the right to their life belongs more to you than it does to them? What reasons make it okay for an individual to be treated as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves when that individual has not previously treated another individual that way?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
As before, there are reasons to oppose suicide, a good one is that many methods of suicide are quite anti-social, and can cause serious physical and mental harm to bystanders. However, trying to ban suicide is obviously self defeating if you object to that, because prohibition doesn't work. You can't stop people killing themselves, but you can provide better managed methods of doing it which minimise harm to others. The other reason to object to it, which is that suicide can harm people close to the person who does it, is more difficult to address, but I would venture that if you figure out a way to reliably stop people making selfish decisions, please let us know because we could use that in a lot of places.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:53
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Nobody in this thread actually expressed even milquetoast solutions such as free mental health care but still want them to go through a restrictive process similar to abortion policies espoused by social conservatives, which will definitely cause more mental or emotional turmoil for the sake of some fascist thought such as "live to struggle" vs "struggle to live". Either you or the other people in this thread are taking some emotional stance towards something you don't understand or are engaging in deliberate cognitive dissonance. The vibe I'm getting from this post is that your dick is the size of a crayon and about as waxy. Solkanar512 posted:I least I bothered to respond to something you actually wrote, instead of building a strawman and then getting pissed off when repeatedly being called out on it. I am not going to treat you seriously until you stop misbehaving. A good start would be to stop engaging in babyish rhetorical tricks. Smudgie Buggler posted:I asked a question to probe where Ogmius thinks depression and mental incapacity coincide such that a suffer of the former ought to be prohibited from making decisions about the future of their life, and, hypothetically, their death. Sadly, without an external test for depression, your ideal world can't come about, and EMTs will continue to try to save the lives of people who slit their wrists regardless of their diagnosis.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:If I made that decision, my reasons would be my own. My death is none of your business. Mah nigga. This seems to be the fundamental problem. There are those of us who want to mind our own business and leave others who are not bothering us to their business, and there are others in this thread who want to forcefully put themselves into the business of others to which they have no right. The latter are like old ladies who get together to gossip about the other old ladies they know. If one of your beginning premises is that you have a right to and do not have to respect the private lives of other people then you deserve neither privacy nor respect.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
When are people rational actors again?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Sadly, without an external test for depression, your ideal world can't come about, and EMTs will continue to try to save the lives of people who slit their wrists regardless of their diagnosis. That's fine? Who the hell said anything about EMTs not attending suicide attempts? An EMT's job has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons why their patient is their patient. Why are you such a wretched little bigot that you can't handle the idea of someone killing themselves for reasons that would never be your own such that you're leaping so desperately from one disingenuous straw man to another to try to show that my hypothetical death should be in any way concerned with what you think?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As before, there are reasons to oppose suicide, a good one is that many methods of suicide are quite anti-social, and can cause serious physical and mental harm to bystanders. Dorothy Parker posted:Razors pain you; Hardly the ideal place to live. And yet when a woman jumped off of a tall building near where I live last year, people were calling for bars to be put up. When it later came out that she was heavily in debt and (iirc) had her unemployment benefit sanctioned, the same people weren't calling for debt relief or welfare reform. Reactive 'solutions' would have just led to a miserable person with crushing debt living another day. Solutions should be focused on making living easier, not making dying harder.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:08
|
|
Zaradis posted:Rational or not, decisions that other people make in regard to their own lives are none of your loving business. This is a lot of words to rephrase the immortal lyrics of Phil Collins: "Well if I saw you were drowning/I would not lend a hand".
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Solutions should be focused on making living easier, not making dying harder. Preach.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The vibe I'm getting from this post is that your dick is the size of a crayon and about as waxy. Effectronica posted:This is a lot of words to rephrase the immortal lyrics of Phil Collins: "Well if I saw you were drowning/I would not lend a hand". When you come up with this pathetic poo poo in your head, do you actually think it's funny or will alter anyone's position?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Did you seriously just reply to someone with this:Effectronica posted:I am not going to treat you seriously until you stop misbehaving. A good start would be to stop engaging in babyish rhetorical tricks. Immediately after you replied to someone else with this: Effectronica posted:The vibe I'm getting from this post is that your dick is the size of a crayon and about as waxy. You seem to want things from others that you are not willing to provide them in return. I do not understand how an adult of sound mind can so blatantly contradict and undermine themselves and not realize it. Your "advocacy" for the lives of those with mental disorders is starting to make more sense, as it seems you have a vested interest in the matter. And your irrational love of rationality makes sense when you can be so obviously irrational with your own contradictory words. Effectronica posted:This is a lot of words to rephrase the immortal lyrics of Phil Collins: "Well if I saw you were drowning/I would not lend a hand". Yet another brilliant argument. If you aren't a troll then you're honestly one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered. I will no longer be replying to your posts in this thread because my words are obviously wasted on you, the same way they would be wasted on a chimpanzee.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:15
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:That's fine? Who the hell said anything about EMTs not attending suicide attempts? An EMT's job has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons why their patient is their patient. You're saying that no one should stop people from killing themselves. This would, uh, mean that EMTs wouldn't attempt to save people who attempted suicide. It's really clear you haven't thought this through at all.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're saying that no one should stop people from killing themselves. This would, uh, mean that EMTs wouldn't attempt to save people who attempted suicide. It's really clear you haven't thought this through at all. Nobody but you thinks that's what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:That's fine? Who the hell said anything about EMTs not attending suicide attempts? An EMT's job has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons why their patient is their patient. Effectronica posted:You're saying that no one should stop people from killing themselves. This would, uh, mean that EMTs wouldn't attempt to save people who attempted suicide. It's really clear you haven't thought this through at all. My god. It's like Effectronica understands a form of English that has alternate definitions for all its words than the English everyone else uses.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:19
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:When you come up with this pathetic poo poo in your head, do you actually think it's funny or will alter anyone's position? I am responding to people who write lengthy diatribes that amount to saying that if you administer the Heimlich maneuver to someone who's choking without them asking, you're a totalitarian tyrant. I am responding to people who see nothing other than a binary choice between suicide booths and dystopia. I am giving you braying jackasses as much respect, effort, and consideration as you deserve. Zaradis posted:Did you seriously just reply to someone with this: Settle down, Beavis.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The vibe I'm getting from this post is that your dick is the size of a crayon and about as waxy. Has anyone told you that you're a lovely person before? You are, and you're a fascist too. And don't pretend to be humane and/or genuine. You told at least one person in this thread to blow their brains out. Effectronica posted:Sadly, without an external test for depression, your ideal world can't come about, and EMTs will continue to try to save the lives of people who slit their wrists regardless of their diagnosis. And give someone life crippling debt due to medical bills. I think chronic depression ultimately kills anyone who it touches. There's plenty of documentation how it can be correlated to shorter to life expectancies and increased probability of suicide. If you have it, it will kill you someday. And I'm definitely not an exception to that. Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 19:35 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Solutions should be focused on making living easier, not making dying harder. This also.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I am responding to people who write lengthy diatribes that amount to saying that if you administer the Heimlich maneuver to someone who's choking without them asking, you're a totalitarian tyrant. I am responding to people who see nothing other than a binary choice between suicide booths and dystopia. Those people don't actually exist in this thread. Though I wish they did, as it would make your responses make a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I am responding to people who write lengthy diatribes that amount to saying that if you administer the Heimlich maneuver to someone who's choking without them asking, you're a totalitarian tyrant.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Look guys all I'm saying is that if I want to drive on the left side of the road like what right do any of you have to stop me? I have the freedom to do as I please. You pathetic tyrants and your obvious Napoleonic sympathies should be ashamed.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Look guys all I'm saying is that if I want to drive on the left side of the road like what right do any of you have to stop me? I have the freedom to do as I please. You pathetic tyrants and your obvious Napoleonic sympathies should be ashamed. Nobody supports ending one's own life in a way that endangers others. So, you're pretty much just an idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Look guys all I'm saying is that if I want to drive on the left side of the road like what right do any of you have to stop me? I have the freedom to do as I please. You pathetic tyrants and your obvious Napoleonic sympathies should be ashamed. If you want to drive on the left side of your private road you are welcome to do so.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Look guys all I'm saying is that if I want to drive on the left side of the road like what right do any of you have to stop me? I have the freedom to do as I please. You pathetic tyrants and your obvious Napoleonic sympathies should be ashamed. You're a loving moron. Driving on the left side of the road is illegal because driving into oncoming traffic harms other people.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Nobody supports ending one's own life in a way that endangers others. So, you're pretty much just an idiot. Except that people in this thread have made the argument that as an institution physician assisted suicide is harmful. Those arguments have been glossed over with either emotional appeals or literally the most puerile "I should be able to do whatever I want gently caress seatbelts and the man" philosophy on personal liberty imaginable.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Except that people in this thread have made the argument that as an institution physician assisted suicide is harmful. Those arguments have been glossed over with either emotional appeals or literally the most puerile "I should be able to do whatever I want gently caress seatbelts and the man" philosophy on personal liberty imaginable. Unlike libertarianism and libertarians in general, discrimination against the mentally ill is historically well documented and well known. You can't turn on the news without them talking about the mental health of a mass shooting suspect, even if mentally ill people are statistically less violent than their contemporaries. Having you ever come clean with your family before about suspected schizophrenia or some other disorder? If you haven't, you don't know what it's like. Let me keep this on topic and in proper context with a question: On what legal grounds should suicide be legal and/or be socially accepted by family or friends?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Except that people in this thread have made the argument that as an institution physician assisted suicide is harmful. Those arguments have been glossed over with either emotional appeals or literally the most puerile "I should be able to do whatever I want gently caress seatbelts and the man" philosophy on personal liberty imaginable. And those of us who instead point to the places where such things are legal and have asked for real examples of such abuses have been ignored or strawmanned.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I am responding to people who write lengthy diatribes that amount to saying that if you administer the Heimlich maneuver to someone who's choking without them asking, you're a totalitarian tyrant. I am responding to people who see nothing other than a binary choice between suicide booths and dystopia. Please see: Bel Shazar posted:Those people don't actually exist in this thread. Though I wish they did, as it would make your responses make a lot more sense. Smudgie Buggler posted:Do you honestly not understand that nobody thinks, or do you actually think we who are telling you that you do not get any input on when we die would hold it against a paramedic for giving us CPR after a suicide attempt? Thanks. Ogmius815 posted:Except that people in this thread have made the argument that as an institution physician assisted suicide is harmful. Those arguments have been glossed over with either emotional appeals or literally the most puerile "I should be able to do whatever I want gently caress seatbelts and the man" philosophy on personal liberty imaginable. Harmful in what way? Your loved ones will miss you so you ought to have to suffer for as long as medically possible? When those of us in this thread who respect human autonomy and an individual's absolute right to their own life speak of harm we mean mainly, if not only, physical harm. You have no right to physically harm someone against their will for the same reasons you have no right to prevent them from making decisions about their own life, i.e. that life and body is not yours and therefore you have no right to it. Appeals to emotion are fallacious in the first place, but obviously the loved ones will miss someone who dies, suicidally or not. But if they aren't selfish pieces of poo poo they will respect the wishes of their loved one and want them to stop suffering more than they will want their own emotional peace of mind for a little more time. By your argument speech ought to be limited in such a way that no one ever gets their feelings hurt. Grow up.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Unlike libertarianism and libertarians in general, discrimination against the mentally ill is historically well documented and well known. You can't turn on the news without them talking about the mental health of a mass shooting suspect, even if mentally ill people are statistically less violent than their contemporaries. Having you ever come clean with your family before about suspected schizophrenia or some other disorder? If you haven't, you don't know what it's like. You don't think it's a bit of a jump from "mentally ill people are unfairly discriminated against" (which is true) to "we should just let depressed people kill themselves? I've been treated for depression, and there were even days when I was a teenager when I thought about killing myself. I wasn't ever that close to actually doing it myself, but if I had been the state would have been absolutely justified both legally and morally in taking action to prevent me from pulling the trigger. I don't think anyone who has actual experience dealing with suicidal people would disagree with that. The obvious hitch is "well it's different for the terminally ill they actually are in a lot of pain and their lives are terrible and they have no hope of ever getting better". I think that's a a poisonous and disappointing way of looking at life. I've already mentioned that in most cases terminally ill people have options other than dying alone under the cold florescent lighting of an ICU and don't explore those options because they aren't thinking clearly. A better alternative to physician assisted suicide would be free mental health care and increased access to top-notch palliative care. I don't think we should let patients kill themselves because we're too cheap as a society to actually spend time and money making their lives better when we can.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 20:01
|
|