The Slippery Slope of Assisted Suicide: Offending the Disabled Community

[Sorry!]

Exactly, (lol) how do you plan on STOPPING people who would like to commit suicide from doing so. I do not think that the inability to adapt to society is the MAIN reason for assited suicide.
Of course society (at least where I live) would be FULLY willing to accept a person who was disabled-- aside from the children of the society because generally speaking they are very investigative so sometimes may seem rude to something that doesn't seem 'normal'. Living in Toronto and living with disabled people (in my family) I have noticed that most people will BEND OVER BACKWARDS to ASSIST a disabled person of any sort... whether it be they are amputees or mentally challenged. Of course sometimes people are scared of them... but that doesn't mean if they saw this person going to jump in front of a train they just wouldn't care or maybe push them in front or cheer them on... You have this ALL mixed up. Supporting euthanasia is not telling people to kill themselves. It's giving them the freedom to decide when they would like to end their lives.

I think that the reason people decide to use assisted suicide is because they DO NOT WANT TO LIVE. Like how is that hard to understand? It's a personal choice and I certainly do not think YOU should be making the choice for the 6 billion people of this planet.

 

[ExactlySolved]

Exactly, (lol) how do you plan on STOPPING people who would like to commit suicide from doing so.

I'm not saying we should stop them, I'm saying we should not help them.

I do not think that the inability to adapt to society is the MAIN reason for assited suicide.

I've been trying to provide links to an ongoing scholarly discussion that says it is the MAIN reason.

Living in Toronto and living with disabled people (in my family) I have noticed that most people will BEND OVER BACKWARDS to ASSIST a disabled person of any sort...

This is a difficult issue. Of course assistance is good, but it often comes with disrespect from deeply held prejudices, even if this is far from intentional. For example, a wheelchair riding professor I had used to tell anecdotes about going to dinner with his wife at resteraunts and having the waitress address his wife with the question "does he know what he wants?" --- presuming that just because he is in a wheelchair that his wife makes decisions for him. It's just an example but it shows you how bending over backwards can be insulting, especially when the person looks down on your condition as a fate worse than death.

You have this ALL mixed up.

The views I'm expressing are nonstandard, but I'm also familiar with yours. I would call your view 'ordinary' in the sense that you have not yet examined it critically, for example against the things I am saying.

Supporting euthanasia is not telling people to kill themselves.

Of course not, it just sends the message "everyone will understand if you just want to end you life, since, you know, your life sucks."

It's giving them the freedom to decide when they would like to end their lives.

A choice made under pressure is not always free.

I think that the reason people decide to use assisted suicide is because they DO NOT WANT TO LIVE.

The question is why they don't want to live. If you look at the statistics, its not because of pain. It's because people don't want them, because people are embarassed of them, because people are afraid of becoming like them. They are made to feel that there lives should be ended.

Like how is that hard to understand?

It's trivial to understand, like I said that is the ordinary view that most non-religous people hold. But the arguments I am presenting are non-standard, these are the ones that are hard to understand but it is important to examine them in case they are right.

It's a personal choice and I certainly do not think YOU should be making the choice for the 6 billion people of this planet.

Of good, another believer in personal choice, then for consistency sake you must believe in the legalization of all drugs, and in the legalization of prostitution, since harming our bodies with chemicals is A-OK, it's our body so it's our choice. If you think that drugs are not A-OK, that the government has a right to interfere, then it's not much different if the government interferes with your suicide either, since either way they are interfering with personal choices for your body.

 

[Gokul43201]

Exactly Solved, if you will pardon the seemingly off-topic nature of what's to follow, can you tell me if you find it justifiable that a person be opposed to dog-fighting, yet not be vegetarian? How would such a person justify such a seeming contradiction in values?

 

[turbo]

Also, note that the law forbids citizens from using drugs, and their guilt under these laws is not conditional on their value to society. For example, Richard Feynman or Carl Sagan are valuable people who would have gone to jail like anyone else if they had been caught by our nation's drug laws!

You might want to reconsider that belief. If you are rich and/or famous, you will NOT go to jail for violating drug laws. Instead, you plead to a lesser charge and agree to attend rehab. How much prison time did Rush Limbaugh do? I'd like to see some poor person with an Oxycontin habit like his get off. Ain't happening. Laws apply very differently to people of different social status, prominence, and wealth (or lack of).

You don't have to be important to society in any meaningful way to avoid jail, either. If you're a musician, professional athlete, or someone else in the public eye, you apologize for "letting down" your fans, record a couple of PSAs and agree to rehab and you're off. Meanwhile, the prisons are full of poorer people who broke drug laws.

 

[ExactlySolved]

a person be opposed to dog-fighting, yet not be vegetarian...how would such a person justify such a seeming contradiction in values?

Good question, this is the best counter attack so far on my (suicide is a personal choice) <=> (drugs are a personal choice).

Here are three justifications I could imagine such a person offering:

1. I think dog fighting should be illegal because I don't like dogs to be killed because they are cute and friendly pets, but I don't mind cows and pigs being raised for slaughter because they are not pets, and not as cute.

2. I think dog fighting should be illegal because it is associated with gambling, and I don't like gambling. Eating animals is not associated with gambling so that's fine.

3. I think dog fighting should be illegal because the animals are terribly abused, to a much greater extent than occurs for the farm animals that I eat.

can you tell me if you find it justifiable

Since you asked, I don't see any good secular reasons to single out dog-fighting in the law. Obviously (1) is a bad reason, since the cuteness of dogs should have no legal bearing. The reason (2) is a failure is that if you don't like gambling you should outlaw gambling, not things that are associated with it some of the time, since otherwise you will sometimes put people in jail who were not gambling at all. Reason (3) fails for the same reason, if what you don't like is animal abuse beyond a certain point then you should make animal abuse illegal, rather then ilegallizing something that is only associated with animal abuse some of the time.

I'm not claiming to have found all the possible anti-dog fighting / pro-carnivore justifications of course.

 

[ExactlySolved]

If you are rich and/or famous, you will NOT go to jail for violating drug laws.

Oh yeah, I agree that this kind of coruption is prevalent, but since it doesn't appear in the law I left it out. In general I totally agree, but this is the case of two wrongs (poorly written laws plus corruption) making a right (productive druggies getting away with it).

 

[drankin]

After reading this thread, I've decided to kill myself.

Would you like some assistance?


j/k

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not saying we should stop them, I'm saying we should not help them.

So do you or do you not support criminalizing assisted suicide? I'm not sure if you made this clear along the way - I might have missed it.

Of course not, it just sends the message "everyone will understand if you just want to end you life, since, you know, your life sucks."

So, should we remove all individual rights that might send a "poor" message to people? How about criminalizing plastic/cosmetic surgery, since you know people might get the idea that being possessed of certain appearances, you know, sucks? Let's criminalize dieting, since that sends the message that, if you weigh more than bumblety goop, that totally sucks. And while we're getting starting down this road, let's impose limits on how many hours a week you are allowed to spend in a gym (geez, how sucky is it that you don't have six-pack abs), how much wealth you are allowed to accumulate (aww shucks, how can we let people think that being poor, you know, sucks), how much you can get yourself educated ('cause, you know...) ...

A choice made under pressure is not always free.

You heard this argument from secular groups opposing state-assisted suicide, or from your friendly neighborhood dictator? =D

So many of the decisions made by people about different aspects of their lives are not always made freely; let's help them out by making all their choices for them.

 

[Gokul43201]

Reason (3) fails for the same reason, if what you don't like is animal abuse beyond a certain point then you should make animal abuse illegal, rather then ilegallizing something that is only associated with animal abuse some of the time.

(emphasis mine, purely for identification)

The "something" above is eating meat? In that case, shouldn't reason (3) succeed? It justifies preventing animal abuse by criminalizing abusive treatment such as dog-fighting (I picked that as just one example), but not criminalizing meat eating, which needn't always be abusive. Did I misunderstand you?

Or are you saying that you can find no argument that justifies permitting meat eating while criminalizing say, dog-fighting?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So do you or do you not support criminalizing assisted suicide? I'm not sure if you made this clear along the way - I might have missed it.

I believe he is responding to the continued argument against not allowing people to commit suicide. He has not argued against people killing themselves (which is not illegal and can not really be punished if one succeeds) only against helping people commit suicide. The thread is about physician assisted suicide. You may ask the difference and he has already been attempting to explain the difference but unfortunately everyone seems to keep getting caught up on the idea that he is supposedly saying people should not be allowed to kill themselves.

So, should we remove all individual rights that might send a "poor" message to people? How about criminalizing plastic/cosmetic surgery, since you know people might get the idea that being possessed of certain appearances, you know, sucks? Let's criminalize dieting, since that sends the message that, if you weigh more than bumblety goop, that totally sucks. And while we're getting starting down this road, let's impose limits on how many hours a week you are allowed to spend in a gym (geez, how sucky is it that you don't have six-pack abs), how much wealth you are allowed to accumulate (aww shucks, how can we let people think that being poor, you know, sucks), how much you can get yourself educated ('cause, you know...) ...

It is illegal (and generally considered unethical) to influence a person to commit suicide. It is not illegal to influence a person to diet, get breats implants, work out, or make more money. If we accept that legalizing physician assisted suicide may unduely influence patients to make that decision then we find ourselves in an ethical and legal dilemma. So maybe we can focus on this 'If' instead of silly strawman 'If's?

Consider... A child is born with a severely debilitating and painful disorder. Should it be killed? Post natal abortion? It apparently should not have to live through this problem but can't make the decision itself so can the parents? Maybe we have to wait until the child is older and can make the decision itself. Technically, legally, that would not happen until the age of 18 (if it lives that long), at least not without an injunction. Should the parents be able to ask for assisted suicide for their child before they are 18? At around what age? And at what age do the parents begin to discuss this with their child? Do you think there is any way to have that discussion without it constituting an undue influence? Even if we wait until the child is 18 at what point does someone sit down and discuss the decision with them? How do you prevent undue influence from that discussion?
And besides if you do not allow the post natal abortion then you have already consigned the child to how ever many years of "living hell" so that if they survive they may or may not be capable of an uninfluenced decision of physician assisted suicide.

 

[Gokul43201]

I believe he is responding to the continued argument against not allowing people to commit suicide. He has not argued against people killing themselves (which is not illegal and can not really be punished if one succeeds) only against helping people commit suicide. The thread is about physician assisted suicide. You may ask the difference and he has already been attempting to explain the difference but unfortunately everyone seems to keep getting caught up on the idea that he is supposedly saying people should not be allowed to kill themselves.

No, I am not caught up on that idea at all. From what I've read, I have seen ExactlyS state directly that he opposes state-assisted suicide (but have not yet seen such a direct admission in general for all assisted suicide). I wanted to have this made clear.

It is illegal (and generally considered unethical) to influence a person to commit suicide. It is not illegal to influence a person to diet, get breats implants, work out, or make more money.

But why should only the first thing be illegal and not the others? ExactlyS made the case for the first on the basis that it sends the wrong message to people. I was pointing out that the same argument could be used for the others too.

If we accept that legalizing physician assisted suicide may unduely influence patients to make that decision then we find ourselves in an ethical and legal dilemma.

Then we already begin by insulting all adult human beings. Anyway, what determines whether it unduly influences or duly influences patients? And going by that argument, legalizing alcohol and cigarettes unduly influences people to drink and smoke. Perhaps we should criminalize them too.

So maybe we can focus on this 'If' instead of silly strawman 'If's?

It's not a strawman argument; it is a pretty straightforward 'slippery slope' argument.

Consider... A child is born with a severely debilitating and painful disorder. Should it be killed? Post natal abortion? It apparently should not have to live through this problem but can't make the decision itself so can the parents? Maybe we have to wait until the child is older and can make the decision itself. Technically, legally, that would not happen until the age of 18 (if it lives that long), at least not without an injunction. Should the parents be able to ask for assisted suicide for their child before they are 18? At around what age? And at what age do the parents begin to discuss this with their child? Do you think there is any way to have that discussion without it constituting an undue influence? Even if we wait until the child is 18 at what point does someone sit down and discuss the decision with them? How do you prevent undue influence from that discussion?
And besides if you do not allow the post natal abortion then you have already consigned the child to how ever many years of "living hell" so that if they survive they may or may not be capable of an uninfluenced decision of physician assisted suicide.

I have not made any statements yet about what do with non-adults or adults with severe mental disabilities (I have different responses for those two cases, but they both derive from the same fundamental argument), and unfortunately, do not wish to be drawn into this discussion (relevant though it is, primarily because I foresee not being able to spend much time on the forums for a while after this post. I will make time, however, to respond to one final post by ExactlyS, if he chooses to answer the questions I have posed him about animal abuse.)

 

[neu]

I say yes.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

But why should only the first thing be illegal and not the others? ExactlyS made the case for the first on the basis that it sends the wrong message to people. I was pointing out that the same argument could be used for the others too.
...
It's not a strawman argument; it is a pretty straightforward 'slippery slope' argument.

To begin with the first is illegal and the others are not, regardless of any opinions on whether or not they ought to be. Comparing something that is illegal to things that you may conceivably be able to argue ought be illegal makes it a strawman hidden perhaps in a slipery slope.
The other difference, and a fairly big one, is that only one of these messages (if successful) invariably results in death. Not something generally taken very lightly on the scale of ethical consequences.

Then we already begin by insulting all adult human beings. Anyway, what determines whether it unduly influences or duly influences patients?

Right because the vast majority of Americans who drink either coke or pepsi, are christian, believe in angels, believe in ghosts, believe in creationism or intelligent design, ect are all going to be terribly insulted by the idea that they may be influenced by a shift in cultural norms. Seriously Gokul, I have never known you to be the champion of the intelligence and unrelenting individualism of the average man.
As for due vs undue influence, I think that's the point of debate with Exactly isn't it?

And going by that argument, legalizing alcohol and cigarettes unduly influences people to drink and smoke. Perhaps we should criminalize them too.

We've seen the consequences of illegalizing alcohol and marijuana. I don't doubt that we would see something similar though perhaps lesser in the case of tobacco.
Do you think we will see a significant drop in crime if assisted suicide is legalized? Maybe fewer doctors jailed for assisting I'll grant. What of the number of suicides in general? You know in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, suicide rates in general have increased yearly for the last decade and are much higher than the national average.

I have not made any statements yet about what do with non-adults or adults with severe mental disabilities (I have different responses for those two cases, but they both derive from the same fundamental argument), and unfortunately, do not wish to be drawn into this discussion (relevant though it is, primarily because I foresee not being able to spend much time on the forums for a while after this post. I will make time, however, to respond to one final post by ExactlyS, if he chooses to answer the questions I have posed him about animal abuse.)

Ok. I was using it as a lead in and of course most laws can not be tailored to descriminate with regard to age. The matter of young people opting for suicide and the manner in which we would let them know of the option is certainly a problem.

Hope what ever you will be busy with will be more fun than discussing suicide. :-)

 

[ExactlySolved]

So do you or do you not support criminalizing assisted suicide? I'm not sure if you made this clear along the way - I might have missed it.

No, I am not caught up on that idea at all. From what I've read, I have seen ExactlyS state directly that he opposes state-assisted suicide (but have not yet seen such a direct admission in general for all assisted suicide). I wanted to have this made clear.

It's not just the assistance from the state that's wrong, but also the approval, therefore the Disability Rights (DR) position is that assisted suicide is always wrong no matter who is doing the assisting.

So, should we remove all individual rights that might send a "poor" message to people? How about criminalizing plastic/cosmetic surgery, since you know people might get the idea that being possessed of certain appearances, you know, sucks? Let's criminalize dieting, since that sends the message that, if you weigh more than bumblety goop, that totally sucks. And while we're getting starting down this road, let's impose limits on how many hours a week you are allowed to spend in a gym (geez, how sucky is it that you don't have six-pack abs), how much wealth you are allowed to accumulate (aww shucks, how can we let people think that being poor, you know, sucks), how much you can get yourself educated ('cause, you know...) ...

The difference is that in the case of assisted suicide there is an active minority, the DR activists, who claim that these 'rights' to kill yourself if you beome disabled are offensive to them. This is unlike the groups of poor people, ugly people, fat people, etc who have not yet become a political force. The DR activists are the same ones who got the 1992 ADA act passed in America, so they have already demonstrated that their arguments can potentially convince Washington.

The "something" above is eating meat? In that case, shouldn't reason (3) succeed? It justifies preventing animal abuse by criminalizing abusive treatment such as dog-fighting (I picked that as just one example), but not criminalizing meat eating, which needn't always be abusive. Did I misunderstand you?

Actually the 'something' in that clause was "animal abuse", sorry for my awkward writing. If you are running low on time to post, and so am I, we can pick that argument back up later.

You heard this argument from secular groups opposing state-assisted suicide, or from your friendly neighborhood dictator? =D

The argument comes directly from:

Amundson, Taira, The Effect of Life Experience on the Perceived
Morality of the Policy of Physician-Assisted Suicide JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL. 16/NO. 1/2005/PP. 53–57

My line is from this excerpt from the conclusion:

“Your money or your life” is a forced choice, not a true choice,
and neither is “Drive your family into bankruptcy or else ac-
cept assisted suicide.”Or “Accept the help of caregivers who re-
sent and despise your life, and would rather die themselves
than live like you . . . and are willing to tell you that to your
face ...or else accept assisted suicide.”

But why should only the first thing be illegal and not the others? ExactlyS made the case for the first on the basis that it sends the wrong message to people. I was pointing out that the same argument could be used for the others too.

Just to make sure I'm clear, it's the difference between offending some people in theory and offending real people right now who have actively spoken up about the offense.