Other, more enlightened, countries allow their people the freedom to choose how and when they die. Given the holier than thou religiousness in the US these days, it’s no surprise that us, the world’s shining light of freedom, doesn’t. The Declaration of Independence talks about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so shouldn’t there be a similar right to end that life at a time of our choosing should illness make the others impossible? Conservatives, who want government out of our lives, should be for this, right?
Below is an article about the issue in France. Then here is one from China.
‘Every person shall have the right to die with dignity; this right shall include the right to choose the time of one’s death and to receive medical and pharmaceutical assistance to die painlessly. No physician, nurse or pharmacist shall be held criminally or civilly liable for assisting a person in the free exercise of this right.”
Within the next half century, perhaps much sooner, the right to choose to die with dignity will be as widely recognized as the right to free speech or to exercise one’s religion.
It will cease to be called euthanasia or mercy killing. It will not be viewed as killing, but as a fundamental human right as expressed in the imaginary constitutional amendment above.
In Europe, euthanasia is already sanctioned by law in Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland. In the United States, the state of Oregon has also allowed it.
The decision last week by a French criminal court in Périgeux illustrates how social mores precede changes in the law. The facts of the case are simple: A 65-year-old woman suffering from terminal pancreatic cancer was given potassium chloride by a nurse and died shortly after.
At present, the law focuses on the act of the physician or nurse, and not on the rights of the patient. As that focus shifts so that the right of the patient to die with dignity becomes paramount, one can expect to see the law proclaim a fundamental right.
Good luck trying to get this sort of thing passed in the US of A. There are enough Xian fundies in this country to block this sort of thing. No amount of rational argument will change their minds.
I agree with #1. Ever hear of Terri Schiavo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo
Overdue.
“The Constitution guarantees us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”
Actually, you are referring to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution [fixed]… but small quibbles aside, why should this new amendment be necessary in the first place? We already have the 9th Amendment, and killing oneself does not inherently infringe on any right held by another person, so why it’s the government’s business to interfere in the first place is beyond me.
The Religious Right allowing this to pass? HAHAHAHAHA! You would have a better chance of impeaching bush.
“Given the holier than thou religiousness in the US these days, it’s no surprise that us, the world’s shining light of freedom, doesn’t.”
Are we responsible for that? I’m the religousness type, and I don’t remember voting on this….
Doesn’t the Right to Life imply a Right to Die?
All that’s really needed is a strong federal law (heh, embed it in the Pentagon’s budget or something) that leaves the issue up to the states. It’s one of the many places congress, the executive and the rest of the feds have no business meddling with.
And then the people who yell “jump, jump” will be vindicated!
The difficulty lies in three areas: (1) who makes the decisions and (2) which tools are used to implement the decision (3) what critieria does one use to measure quality of lie.
#2: in the debate surrounding Terri Schiavo there was more than enough evidence to indicate, based on certain definition of quality of life that Terri Schiavo should not have been put to death by removing her from food and hydration.
Many people remember that Jack Kevorkian was found guilty of second degree murder. But what most folks forget is that he was tried many times over the years for assisting suicide and acquitted everytime!
the nut
Too bad #10 hasn’t tried a “definition of quality of life” that doesn’t proceed from the pope and his fellow-travelers.
#7 No more than the right not be be shot implies the right for me to shoot you.
But, you may infer whatever you like. You only need to get 5 Supreme Court justices to agree.
#2: in the debate surrounding Terri Schiavo there was more than enough evidence to indicate, based on certain definition of quality of life that Terri Schiavo should not have been put to death by removing her from food and hydration.
I guess if your definition of “quality of life” includes living protoplasm, then it would be a crime to stop watering our lawn. After the Terri Schiavo fiasco, I have made sure my next of kin knows my wishes on this subject.
#13: If it weren’t for living protoplasm, none of us would be here! Isn’t that what you evolutionary types believe? Perhaps these vegetables are the next step or the missing link.
It all comes down to free will, if somone doesnt want to be alive, that should be taken into consideration. But i think stringent mental tests should be given, in order to make sure the person has teh capactiy to understand what he or she is doing.
Anyone that has ever explained to a child that the dog or cat had to be put to sleep to end his/her suffering is either lying or believes that dogs and cats have greater rights than parents and grandparents.
Sometimes I feel lucky to be diabetic. At least I won’t need the help of a doctor or nurse. I’ll just have to try to avoid doing my Sunny Von Bulow impression.
But, seriously, I have seen that there are definitely fates worse than death. Death in such cases is a welcome alternative. It is certainly not the worst thing that can happen to a person.
What I really don’t understand is that it is precisely the people who do not even believe in death that oppose this. Yes. I am making the claim that truly religious people do not believe in death the same way that an atheist such as myself does.
If you believe that your loved ones are going to heaven, why keep them in hell on earth when every moment is filled with pain and suffering?
If you believe that your loved ones are going to heaven, why not have huge parties to celebrate their entry to heaven when they die?
Isn’t mourning the death of the righteous a form of hypocrisy for the religious?
Perhaps religious people are not quite as sure of themselves as they like to sound. Perhaps they merely think they’re right rather than Knowing they’re Right. Perhaps the delusion isn’t as deeply ingrained in their own minds as they think it is.
#16
After your post your nomer has become a misnomer. 🙂
BTW.. Your post nailed it.
#16 those people believe that ending a person’s suffering through euthanasia is defying god’s will to make that person die painfully.
I don’t have a will. Nuthin’ left to leave to anyone.
I like the painful part, though. At least for True Believers.
Just give em a gun (a loaded gun that is)
You drips shouldn’t discuss how ‘religion’ gets in the way of such ‘advances’ as the right to die. You don’t know enough ‘religion’ to know what the church’s beliefs are. Read a few encyclicals before you pontificate.
The Catholic Church for instance, does not believe in keeping someone alive at all costs. The difference in belief here is the difference between accepting the inevitable and intentionally foreshortening the natural life span.
My personal fear is the possibility of social mores and economic ‘necessity’ changing the concept of ‘right to die’ to ‘duty to die’. Think it can’t happen? Of course it can. This is why the doctor has to be given great latitude and discretion. I’ll trust the doc before I’ll trust the law.
Actually tkane, I have seen enough to know what it does to the minds of its followers regardless of its texts. As for natural life span, sometimes that includes pain that is truly far worse than death. At those times, a person should have the right to choose.
Further, RELIGIOUS VIEWS should have no say in the LAW in a country with FREEDOM OF RELIGION. That’s the really important bit in all of this. YOUR RELIGION does not get to take away MY RIGHTS. If euthanasia violates your religion, live in pain as long as you want. Don’t make me do it. Or, as is more often the case in the U.S., don’t make me live in pain ’til my money runs out!!
This is the same exact point that the anti-choicers keep missing. If YOUR RELIGION forbids abortion, DON’T HAVE ONE!! But, you don’t get to legislate based on YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
In short, keep your delusions out of our laws.
#22: +1
Americans already have a right to die.
It’s killing people I have an issue with.
This whole “right to die” group creeps the hell out of me.
#24 Letting people die naturally, the way they always have, rather than by sticking tubes and IV lines in them, should be an option if people want it. Letting Terri Schiavo die naturally wasn’t “killing” her, it was just letting what would have happened naturally happen. The autopsy later proved that she was already brain dead anyway. I work in the hospice field and trust me, there are many things worse than death, and lingering in an incapacitated state is miserable. I think people can be made comfortable without resorting to euthanasia, but I have seen enough people die to fully understand why some people would choose it. Ask anyone who has watched someone die from something like ALS (Lou Gehrig’s), where they just become completely unable to move and then unable to talk and then slowly unable to breathe, and then you tell me what you would do if you knew that was your fate.
Death isn’t the worst thing that can happen to a person…..but it is the LAST thing that happens to a person.
No one should be forced to suffer interminable pain. No one should be kept alive to satisfy the guilt or whims of their family. Government should never be allowed to dictate who, or when, or how a person dies. No one should have that power, except the person who wants to die.
I could have more faith in the government saying that I didn’t have the right to choose my time or method of dying, if that same government would rescind it’s laws against providing pain medications to the terminally ill, that are presently illegal, or nearly impossible to get from a Doctor. Then I could just be blithely unaware of the fact that I’m still alive, until the natural time comes that I won’t be.
#16….you can rant on about religion until you turn blue and die….but laws are made by men (or woman) who at least pay lip service to religion, so the laws they pass are going to have some basis in the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Oh…as an aside…..the so called *civilized* countries of Europe are overwhelmingly NOT in the **right to die** column. This issue is becoming a big one over there, but most countries still have laws against Doctor assisted or any other assisted kind of death for the seriously or terminally ill. But, in the Netherlands, you can have Doctor assisted infant euthanasia.
#26, Unfortunately, you’re right about our present law-makers. However, the framers of the constitution were about as nontheistic as one could be at that time. They were deists, believing in a god that set things in motion and went away. They did not believe in a personal god that watched over you like a hawk waiting for any slip to throw you in hell for eternity. Nor did they believe in a god that would break the laws of physics on request. So, no, our founding fathers based their system on everyday morals, not derived from the bible.
#18 – #16 those people believe that ending a person’s suffering through euthanasia is defying god’s will to make that person die painfully.
Comment by michael — 3/22/2007 @ 1:06 pm
Because they are idiots.
These people seem to believe we are all just puppets dancing at the end of God’s strings… which, by the way, makes God a megalomaniac and an asshat.
Why would God create a planet load of people, blass them with the ability to reason and to make use of the thier environment… give them the ability to advance medicine… let them create tools to solve their challenges… and then forbid us to to use all that?
Answer… He wouldn’t.
#25, Terri Schiavo wasn’t using a respirator, it was a feeding tube. I guess no one should be forced to feed a newborn baby either. It can’t fend for itself, let’s not feed it.
#28 – OhForTheLoveOf,
Actually, the religious texts of the judeo-christian-islamic religion (deliberately singular) do indeed create the concept of a god who is a megalomanaical asshat.
It is people like yourself that have brains and choose to interpret the texts rather than believe them blindly that make god seem like something else.
And, just for the record, you are attributing 18’s comment to both michael and myself. I did not say the bit about god wanting us to die painfully. However, I do believe there are many people who believe in god that want others to die painfully rather than allowing or helping them to terminate their own lives.
God cannot do this because s/he does not exist.