Jump to content

Religious liberty/Right to Free Exercise of religious faith and legalized suicide


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I can't speak for the US, but the case law here is quite clear that there are some things you can't consent to, and this would include being voluntarily murdered in a religious ceremony. Basically, the law overrides your consent.

Note that in most jurisdictions there are far more mundane (and often comparably harmless) cases when a law overrides consent and the "contract" is nullified although both parties consented. E.g. prostitution in many countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Because it's much more likely one would be indoctrinated and coerced into "willing" sacrifice in a religion, whereas most suicide is only legal as euthanasia in cases of terminal illness etc. I don't really see the two as particularly similar at all

eta: and I would need to look further into it, but certainly in the recently debated (and rejected) Bill in the UK, there were safeguards to prevent undue influence by others affecting the decision to end one's life

Exactly.  Maybe the issue is thinking that someone dying before their terminal disease takes them and drains their nest egg is committing suicide.  Perhaps it should be thought as death by an extreme treatment of their terminal disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I can't speak for the US, but the case law here is quite clear that there are some things you can't consent to, and this would include being voluntarily murdered in a religious ceremony. Basically, the law overrides your consent.

RBPL,

Precisely.  But if we can consent to suicide what are the broader implications?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

RBPL,

Precisely.  But if we can consent to suicide what are the broader implications?

None, necessarily.

There are perfectly rational reasons that one might want to end their life. We only need to identify and respect those reasons. We need not respect every possible reason, especially when so many of them are stupid. 

Are you suffering from a chronic, degenerative and ultimately fatal disorder that will cause you excruciating pain throughout the last months of your life? Deciding to end your life under those circumstances can be a rational choice.

On the other hand, deciding to be a human sacrifice in some religious ceremony can never be a rational choice, because the underlying bases of such a decision - ie: that there's a god, that god wants you to sacrifice yourself, that god is going to grant some divine favor or beneficence to their followers as a result of your sacrifice - are facially absurd and irrational. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

On the other hand, deciding to be a human sacrifice in some religious ceremony can never be a rational choice, because the underlying bases of such a decision - ie: that there's a god, that god wants you to sacrifice yourself, that god is going to grant some divine favor or beneficence to their followers as a result of your sacrifice - are facially absurd and irrational. 

Good luck proving that assertion in court though, which seems to be the point that Scot is driving toward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Good luck proving that assertion in court though, which seems to be the point that Scot is driving toward.

Sort of.  If we have the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs and choosing to end your life is no longer presumed to be an irrational act does that right to choose to end your life then mean making a choice to be a religious sacrifice is one that must be respected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Sort of.  If we have the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs and choosing to end your life is no longer presumed to be an irrational act does that right to choose to end your life then mean making a choice to be a religious sacrifice is one that must be respected?

It's not categorical. It's a fact-specific inquiry. Whether or not one has a legitimate reason for ending one's life is a matter of fact. 

Some bases are rational, some or not. Religious convictions are not rational. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nestor,

Sure, but we have the express right to freely exercise religious faith.  If the choice to die is no longer presumed irrational why couldn't an irrational choice to be a sacrifice be protected by the right to freely exercise your faith?

Suppose someone is dieing of a terminal illness could they then choose to be used as a human sacrifice?  Could they choose to end their life as a sacrifice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you watch "Purge" recently Ser Scott? Lololol in the movie it was legal in the future U.S. for poor people to be Martyr's to the wealthy. Rich families could buy old folks and sacrifice them during the purge, they depicted it like a Thanksgiving affair, only someones poor old grandpa was the turkey!

I sincerely hope this government would be overthrown before it ever devolved into something as heinous as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the vested interest for society to prevent someone from committing suicide for religious reasons? What's the compulsion for us to stop this?

 

I see none.

 

If legalizing assisted suicide means we cannot stop religious people from sacrificing themselves, I don't see that as a problem that needs solving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the idea is that once you get into religion there are hugely skewed power dynamics and how on earth can you determine if someone is genuinely wanting to die vs having been coerced into it.  Of course there is still the question of whether we even care about preventing these situations, and if so whether the cost of doing so is worth the gain, as someone who is pro reform in this area but very wary of religious coercion I can see both sides of it all.  An adult convert is one thing, but kids can be raised with indoctrination and never have a choice.  But then we run into other areas I know I have different views on to most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, the whole subject seems like a non-starter to me. Any country, state, province whathaveyou that would draft a bill legalizing euthanasia would in language describe how it would/could be applied and, by the same, which would be excluded. I can't imagine Religious Freedom within the inclusions.

The Feds here in Canada are attempting to move in that direction [legalized euthanasia] Quebec already has something to that effect [iirc] yet I find it strange how seldom cases of passive euthanasia are brought up in those discussions and/or negotiations. Passive Euthanasia being, very ill patients either choosing for themselves, or if unable to do so coherently then their families choosing to abstain from life prolonging treatments [which is one thing] but it's often coupled with heavy dosages of morphine to quicken the slipping away [which is another] 

While passive euthanasia is illegal [in Canada] I'd imagine it happens with an overall frequency high enough that it should've at least been noted by authorities if not directly curtailed, but that really doesn't seem to be the case that I've noticed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there was some snarky remark around WW I that human sacrifices have now been replaced by sending young men to kill each other on the battlefield (back then usually with the blessing of established religion).

What will be happening (and is already e.g. in Belgium) that euthanasia will be made more palatable by connecting it to sacrifices of our implicit civil religion. If in doubt euthanize to harvest nice fresh and healthy organs and this will be hailed as ending suffering and dying "for the greater good". Whereas in many traditional religions blood sacrifices have been mostly replaced by symbols and similar alternatives a long time ago (Judaism got rid of them aftter the 2nd temple was razed and Christianity started out with symbolic replacement.)

http://europe.newsweek.com/healthy-24-year-old-granted-right-die-belgium-329504

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

I think there was some snarky remark around WW I that human sacrifices have now been replaced by sending young men to kill each other on the battlefield (back then usually with the blessing of established religion).

What will be happening (and is already e.g. in Belgium) that euthanasia will be made more palatable by connecting it to sacrifices of our implicit civil religion. If in doubt euthanize to harvest nice fresh and healthy organs and this will be hailed as ending suffering and dying "for the greater good". Whereas in many traditional religions blood sacrifices have been mostly replaced by symbols and similar alternatives a long time ago (Judaism got rid of them aftter the 2nd temple was razed and Christianity started out with symbolic replacement.)

http://europe.newsweek.com/healthy-24-year-old-granted-right-die-belgium-329504

This from the article you linked:

Update: After comments from readers, the headline of this article was updated to better reflect that the woman is physically healthy, but has severe problems with her mental health.

Also,

Quote

If in doubt euthanize to harvest nice fresh and healthy organs and this will be hailed as ending suffering and dying "for the greater good".

Harvesting of organs was not mentioned at all in the example you cited.  Never let a slippery slope misrepresentation get in the way of a factual debate, hey?

Of course, the case you cited was about a patient who was an adult (24), with severe mental health issues, who has made her choice.  She has had suicidal thoughts since she was a child.  She has been a patient in a mental institution for 3 years.  She tried treatments that have all failed.  She has the support of the medical practitioners who have reviewed her case.

But you just dismiss all of this as irrelevant I guess.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not only refer to the article linked; it was the only one I quickly found in English. You are welcome to do your own research. (I agree that it is a problem that many reports are from obviously biased (often catholic) sites.)

I include a fairly notorious story from the New Yorker below and should you be able to read German, there is a long one where a woman in her early 40s was euthanized about 15 months after a stroke (apparently without any attempts at longer physical or psychotherapy which is very unusual) and even the doctor who proposed and carried out the euthanasia was chilled by the quick efficency with which the subsequent gutting proceeded. There is a large sector of "bioethics" providing philosophical justifications that really shows we are only about one step from the notorious example of killing the homeless person without relatives to save five others with his organs.

Be that as it may, for me the interesting things are the following: These people are often neither in constant pain nor too ill to swallow an overdose of some pills themselves. I am not going to take that freedom away from them but I think we have the duty of suicide prevention through therapy and care. If we extend assistance in suicide to ones who are not terminally ill and in great pain, who decides whether to watch over someone to prevent their suicide or to help them along? After all, they are of legal age. How much money could probably be saved/put to better use by ceasing suicide prevention and lengthy therapy of deeply depressed persons?

But they want the "blessing" and assistance of doctors (which are obviously one kind of priests of that kind of civil religion, they give live and they take it away). Right now we  talk of personal liberty to end one's life. But there is a constant, sometimes subtle battering about "lives not worth living", burden to relatives and society etc. And all the good those organs can do...

In any case, in such a climate it seems moot to speculate about some imaginary evil religion brainwashing people into giving themselves as sacrifices. There might be a few such crackpots that cannot be helped with. But they are hardly as powerful and established as the euthanasia doctors, medical ethics committees etc.

http://www.zeit.de/2011/43/DOS-Euthanasie

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/22/the-death-treatment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2016 at 2:56 PM, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

It's not categorical. It's a fact-specific inquiry. Whether or not one has a legitimate reason for ending one's life is a matter of fact. 

Some bases are rational, some or not. Religious convictions are not rational. 

that's never been the standard to protect free exercise in the US, though, right?  all one needs is sincerity and religious belief?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2016 at 4:01 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Okay, a question on facebook just prompted a question.  I presume (I do not know for certian) that things like human sacrifice are not currently protected as "free exercise of religion" in the US because it is presumed that no one would ever rationally consent to be sacrified.  Please, if someone knows otherwise correct me if I'm wrong.  

There is precedence in Roman law with case studies about.....2000 odd years old

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jo498 Those examples are precisely why I refuse to be a organ donor and even had the designation removed from the back of my I.D. long ago. I will never have that kind of trust in strangers to overlook a possible economic incentive to not do everything available for life saving procedure. All it takes is one unscrupulous person to take it upon themselves to decide your worth more dead than alive and you could be getting harvested. Fuck that, cremate me, Im fine with being a selfish bastard when it comes to self preservation, totally fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2016 at 0:53 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Sort of.  If we have the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs and choosing to end your life is no longer presumed to be an irrational act does that right to choose to end your life then mean making a choice to be a religious sacrifice is one that must be respected?

Of course.

Provided it's still a suicide.

it's problematic that you are using 'suicide' and 'sacrifice' interchangeably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...