State assisted suicide (and not just for the elderly/seriously debilitated)

[dem862]

Who determines if a life is worth living or not? What objective criteria is there?

[rob1984]

i think , if rape or kill a person you die.. and if you are a vegetable

[Love'sReject]

In this case, since it's not a death penalty debate, the person who's living the life they want ended is the one who came to the determination that their life isn't worth living.

Even if someone wanted to commit suicide, not everyone who tries does so privately nor has the capacity to consider the consequences of trying to carry it out in public.

[fearoflove]

haha then you wake up

Oh, don't worry about that. I live a conscious life. ; )

[dem862]

Well, if it is "state assisted", then I think the state would have some say so in the matter. That being the case, the state would want to know what objective criteria it can use to determine if the life is indeed worth living, and if the person asking for suicide is mentally capable of making that request. This would be so the state is not subject to lawsuit from other parties who disagree with the decision. The whole thing would become a matter of public law.

[fearoflove]

I am surprised this thread is not closed. I posted a similar suicide thread and it was closed. WTF!

[AdminOnline]

i remember i posted a thread about a old & sick british man want to die ..But the law (i think) forbird him to do so. He brought the case to the court...
pretty heart breaking..

Here is the link
http://www.loveforum.net/threads/67796-Truly-saddening-Locked-in-man-dies-after-legal-bid-to-end-life?highlight=

Attachment 1541

Attachment 1542

A man left paralysed but fully conscious and aware of his predicament died Wednesday, days after losing a legal bid to end his life of "pure torture", his lawyers and family said.

Tony Nicklinson, 58, who had locked-in syndrome after suffering a stroke on a business trip to Athens in 2005, died of natural causes, his family said.

On August 16, High Court judges dismissed his legal plea for the right to die, unanimously ruling that it would be wrong to depart from a precedent that equates voluntary euthanasia with murder.

After the verdict Nicklinson broke down in tears, saying he was "devastated" by the decision.

Nicklinson's family said Wednesday that he died peacefully at their home in Melksham, western England, at 10:00 am (0900 GMT) following a rapid deterioration in his health after contracting pneumonia.
Wiltshire Police said they were not involved in dealing with the death and neither was the coroner, suggesting it was not suspicious.

"He has been visited regularly by the doctor and the doctor will be signing the death certificate," a spokesman said.

- AFP
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/-locked-in--man-dies-after-legal-bid-to-end-life.html

[Princess Kiara]

I think this sort of thing should only be done as a last recourse, and only if the person in question is absolutely willing. It should not be a matter of convenience!

[Love'sReject]

I appreciate the read and response. Yeah, I figured that a criteria would be necessary.

[Rowen]

Okay, first of all, this is an extremely interesting discussion, as I've had it numerous times with my classmates, teachers, and even my Lit Professor. Also, there was a story in the news about this in my state last month. You can read about it at this link:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/19/17374616-man-kills-elderly-wife-in-murder-suicide-at-pennsylvania-hospice-da-says?lite

While that story is not one carried out by the government, it did raise a number of questions. For two weeks, it was mostly what everyone talked about.
Either way, my belief is that we should "help" (excuse the expression, please) along the ones that are terminal or are on death row. However, as for depressed people? No. Save them, or try to, as best you can.
Depression is a lot like falling down a massive hole you can't climb out. You try and try, but your fingers cannot manage to get a hold on the earthy walls, so we all need the help of another. While there are some cases of people overcoming it on their own, in the scenario you're talking about, you have people who desperately need help and are not in a mindset to accurately judge their life. They've broken away from reality.

And who would volunteer to kill people who are simply too depressed to bother living?

I agree with Basil. Someone would have to live with the guilt of ending the life of another. While I could imagine, in terminal illness cases, a "new profession" being created for a doctor, I can't imagine someone actively wanting to put themselves into a career such as this unless some measure of propaganda were used. Even then, it's kind of scary to think about someone in that position... However, in cases of state executions for criminals, I would imagine that the executioners would just be working a lot harder.

I agree with you. But also, I think those who are a liability to society (harmful to others, non-productive people wasting a massive amount of resource) should be killed. Hell, if I become a parasite to society, I want someone to kill me too (if I am unable to do that myself).

I would want someone to do it too. It's sad how much my country pays for their death row. For example, we have Charles Manson currently in prison, along with the other members of the Manson family. Every few years, Manson comes up for parole. Of course, every time he's denied, but even so... Why are we paying for this?

Who determines if a life is worth living or not? What objective criteria is there?

This is another good question. I imagine, in the health care version, they would need to have a meeting of the top people in the departments dealing with terminal illnesses. But even then, we would be at the mercy of whoever we put in these hospital meetings.

I think this sort of thing should only be done as a last recourse, and only if the person in question is absolutely willing. It should not be a matter of convenience!

While I can agree with that, I'm going to play the devil's advocate here... Have you ever read anything by Robin Cook? He's an eye surgeon who has written dozens of different medical thriller novels since the 70's, each one raising a new moral question. One of his novels is about a hospital that's struggling to remain open with being under capitate. The novel explains that capitate provides this hospital with a government allowance, essentially, and it goes on to state that with the more tests and hospital beds that are filled, the less money there is for the hospital to spend on remaining afloat. As a result of this, a number of patients that continuously have to keep checking in (some terminal, some not) and making visits end up being "helped along."
Anyway, in a case like that, isn't that partially out of convenience?


Overall, however, I'm not opposed to the idea of helping along the ones who are either a threat to society or terminal. My only question about the criminals, however, is this: What about the ones who end up on death row who are wrongly accused?