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

[Stubby]

I am suggesting what I said, because that is how it works in those places in the world where it is permitted.

See my post upthread from when this topic was new for links etc.

The only people omitting "voluntary" in these discussions are the opponents. Which is unethical, imo.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stubby,

I think determing true voluntariness in the choice to take your own life is more difficult than you want to admit.  That is my, rational, concern.

[MercenaryChef]

I am pro human sacrifice. I try to start each day with one.

seriously though, doctor assisted suicide  is legal in five states. it will become legal in many more as years go on. it being a religious aspect is minor.

for me a much larger issue is religions that prevent the use of medical care. these organizations are far more damaging to their followers.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

A paper discussing the problems that have arisen in those States where euthanasia has been made legal:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/

[MercenaryChef]

scot, as a free living free thinking dude you are down with people living mostly as they choose but have a hard time with them dying as the choose. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

From my link:

In Belgium, the rate of involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia deaths (that is, without explicit consent) is 3 times higher than it is in the Netherlands 8,9. (“Involuntary euthanasia” refers to a situation in which a person possesses the capacity but has not provided consent, and “non-voluntary euthanasia,” to a situation in which a person is unable to provide consent for reasons such as severe dementia or coma). A recent study found that in the Flemish part of Belgium, 66 of 208 cases of “euthanasia” (32%) occurred in the absence of request or consent 10. The reasons for not discussing the decision to end the person’s life and not obtaining consent were that patients were comatose (70% of cases) or had dementia (21% of cases). In 17% of cases, the physicians proceeded without consent because they felt that euthanasia was “clearly in the patient’s best interest” and, in 8% of cases, that discussing it with the patient would have been harmful to that patient. Those findings accord with the results of a previous study in which 25 of 1644 non-sudden deaths had been the result of euthanasia without explicit consent 8.

Some proponents of euthanasia contend that the foregoing figures are misrepresentative, because many people may have at some time in their lives expressed a wish for or support of euthanasia, albeit not formally. The counterargument is that the legal requirement of explicit written consent is important if abuse and misuse are to be avoided. After all, written consent has become essential in medical research when participants are to be subjected to an intervention, many of which pose far lesser mortality risks. Recent history is replete with examples of abuse of medical research in the absence of explicit informed consent.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said:

scot, as a free living free thinking dude you are down with people living mostly as they choose but have a hard time with them dying as the choose. 

I have a hard time dertermining the mental state or level of voluntariness of someone who is choosing to commit suicide.

[MercenaryChef]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I have a hard time dertermining the mental state or level of voluntariness of someone who is choosing to commit suicide.

perhaps that is the point. it isn't for you or me to know or to decide.

certainly kids indoctrinated into all religions and in particular hurtful ones that ban medical care are not volunteers.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, MercurialCannibal said:

perhaps that is the point. it isn't for you or me to know or to decide.

certainly kids indoctrinated into all religions and in particular hurtful ones that ban medical care are not volunteers.  

Yeah, that's why when my daughter was 7 and we were on our way to church and she asked (unprompted) "Daddy... is the Bible true?" I said, "Darling, that's a great question and something your going to have to answer for yourself."  because I don't want my kids to think for themselves.

Additionly, that's totally off topic.  The two circumstances are not related.

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Stubby,

I think determing true voluntariness in the choice to take your own life is more difficult than you want to admit.  That is my, rational, concern.

As I said, Scot, read the link I posted last year.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, Stubby said:

As I said, Scot, read the link I posted last year.

Stubby,

I've gone through the thread and I don't see where you posted a link last year.  What's your take on the concerns raised by the article I linked?

[Stubby]

10 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Stubby,

I've gone through the thread and I don't see where you posted a link last year.  What's your take on the concerns raised by the article I linked?

The point of the article I linked last year was to highlight the administrative and legal hoops that have to be jumped through before anything can be done for patients who are not in a fit state to voluntarily request euthanasia.  Medical opinion (from different specialities), affidavits from people who knew the applicant before becoming incapable, court orders etc are all required.

There is no situation where an ill person can simply be killed off by relatives in the manner suggested.  It is a far more complicated procedure than that.  I maintain that arguing that such might happen is simply a tactic that opponents to voluntary euthanasia laws like to run with.

[Swordfish]

9 minutes ago, Stubby said:

The point of the article I linked last year was to highlight the administrative and legal hoops that have to be jumped through before anything can be done for patients who are not in a fit state to voluntarily request euthanasia.  Medical opinion (from different specialities), affidavits from people who knew the applicant before becoming incapable, court orders etc are all required.

There is no situation where an ill person can simply be killed off by relatives in the manner suggested.  It is a far more complicated procedure than that.  I maintain that arguing that such might happen is simply a tactic that opponents to voluntary euthanasia laws like to run with.

I would tend to agree.  I've never seen a  compelling argument against voluntary euthanasia.

i would suggest, in fact, that it's friends and family members who are attempting to block voluntary euthanasia that are the selfish ones.  denying some their right to choose the time and manner of their death for purely selfish reasons. 

Mind your business and deal with it.  It's not your life in the balance.

[TerraPrime]

It is also possible to set up extra safeguards for people who have been diagnosed with physical handicaps, and also reject the requests from individuals with prior diagnosis of mental health issues. Just like drunk people cannot legally consent to sex, we should say that people with documented episodes of clinical depression, suicidal ideation, schizophrenia, etc., are excluded from voluntary assisted suicide. This might of course have the unintended consequences of discouraging people to seek treatment so that they won't be blocked from that option, so I don't know. Perhaps simply extra layers of safeguard will be sufficient instead of complete barring. 

[Stubby]

Here is an article published yesterday that is an example of my criticisms.

I respectfully point out that the author is an ethicist, at Notre Dame University Australia.  This particular author has written a series of articles criticising euthanasia, where the term "voluntary" is never applied.  In the above-linked article, she refers to "individual choice" but then immediately denigrates it.