Let's discuss DWD (Death with Dignity)

[Cardinal]

Hopefully, they’re okay and have grown past the “invincible” stage of maturing.

Being so enormous, it’s obviously impossible to wrap it with safety rails. Parents really gotta look out for their kids.

Losing a child due to parental inattentiveness would be the most horrible thing to have to live with.

The grandmother was looking out for them. Which means that, as with the Native Americans who built our skyscrapers in the beginning of the 20th century, they just weren't raised with a fear of heights.

In fact, that grandmother heard me say, "Wow, those kids have zero ****s to give" and she gave me a dirty look and said, "Language."

 

[RaleBulgarian]

We give our pets death with dignity. When they become so ill that their death is imminent in a few days or weeks or months, we let them be “put to sleep” rather than allowing them to suffer. But we will make fellow humans suffer terribly over the same length of time. I’m sure that most of us have witnessed friends or relatives going through such suffering, and to what end? What really is the point? If the person in question wants to be released from suffering, and his or her relatives agree, then let’s do the right thing and allow their wishes to be fulfilled. I can’t imagine even a single reason why this should not be done. To what end did my gather suffer through months of colon cancer, having to take lots pain medication just to get through the day, with basically no “quality” of life to speak of? It makes no sense.

Hear, hear!

Every mentally competent adult suffering the agonies (including emotional distress) of a terminal illness should be able to choose, for themselves, how they leave the world.

 

[trouble13]

Not really. One should be a consenting adult able to make informed choices. If one is incapacitated, then ideally they should have advanced directives in place. Barring that, it's up to the legal next of kin to make the determination.

How about if a twenty-something beautiful female who is doing pivotal research work in curing cancer loses her lover, who died fighting in a war. What if she decides that life without her lover is worth living. Should she have the freedom to seek out assisted suicide? Why or why not?

 

[watsup]

The Humanist Perspective:

“Humanism supports the worth, dignity and autonomy of every human being and their right to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others.

In the case of a person suffering great pain from an incurable and untreatable condition and facing a cruel and undignified remainder of life, with a slow and unpleasant death appearing inevitable, it makes sense that in that situation some would consider the option of a swifter, more dignified, death. Someone in such a situation, making such a decision, would be exercising their freedom and autonomy in an effort to live the remainder of their life, and end it, with dignity. Such a decision is a type of decision humanists would support.”

Dying with Dignity — CAHS

www.humanist.org.au

 

[trouble13]

I'd vote against that. You've got to be at least 21 before you can legally commit suicide (unless you're real sick or something).

Yeah, it is. I think all laws are that way.

Laws try to control the behavior of millions of people, but every person's story is different.

I view laws as our collective moral code that society decides we must all abide by.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The grandmother was looking out for them. Which means that, as with the Native Americans who built our skyscrapers in the beginning of the 20th century, they just weren't raised with a fear of heights.

In fact, that grandmother heard me say, "Wow, those kids have zero ****s to give" and she gave me a dirty look and said, "Language."

Some looking out, huh?

 

[Cardinal]

Some looking out, huh?

Unless fear of heights is a manufactured fear. Which isn't to say that being that high up isn't dangerous, because of course it is. But really, when you think about it, how is it any different than getting on the highway and piloting a 3 ton vehicle at upwards of 80mph?

 

[Lursa]

How about if a twenty-something beautiful female who is doing pivotal research work in curing cancer loses her lover, who died fighting in a war. What if she decides that life without her lover is worth living. Should she have the freedom to seek out assisted suicide? Why or why not?

Absolutely, her right to life, bodily autonomy is hers to exercise or not. For the state or society to impose otherwise on her for the reasons you stated? That's involuntary servitude. Now let's see your answer?

 

[Ambig]

I view laws as our collective moral code that society decides we must all abide by.

Yeah, but many of them are immoral.

 

[Gordy327]

How about if a twenty-something beautiful female who is doing pivotal research work in curing cancer loses her lover, who died fighting in a war. What if she decides that life without her lover is worth living. Should she have the freedom to seek out assisted suicide? Why or why not?

If she decided, then that's her choice. It's her life so she can decide what to do with it.

I view laws as our collective moral code that society decides we must all abide by.

Morality is subjective.

 

[PirateMk1]

Drugs, man, DRUGs! The Doctors will keep you comfortable.

You may as well already be dead. Most drugs leave you incoherent. I dont do them because dislike effects and lack of control. If I am going to off myself I want to know I am do it it and why, and have the stones to follow through.

 

[trouble13]

Morality is subjective.

This is true. The law attempts to remove the subjectivity from it.

Like we have freedom of speech unless it's fraud, liable, etc... Law tries to draw a distinct line for us not to cross.

 

[lwf]

Plus, it only takes a fall of 36 inches to create an impact that can kill you.

I'd never heard that, but I believe it. Regardless, death by fall wouldn't be my preferred way to go.

 

[Gordy327]

This is true. The law attempts to remove the subjectivity from it.

Like we have freedom of speech unless it's fraud, liable, etc... Law tries to draw a distinct line for us not to cross.

Then our laws cannot be created based on some notion of "collective moral code," nor should they be.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Unless fear of heights is a manufactured fear. Which isn't to say that being that high up isn't dangerous, because of course it is. But really, when you think about it, how is it any different than getting on the highway and piloting a 3 ton vehicle at upwards of 80mph?

No difference at all if one dies from impacting the ground, or a tree at a high rate of speed/velocity.

A healthy fear of potential dangers is what causes smart people to use proper caution in any potentially hazardous situation.

 

[trouble13]

Then our laws cannot be created based on some notion of "collective moral code," nor should they be.

But that's exactly what they are built on. They attempt to define things like fairness and what's right and wrong. These are subjective concepts based on our values and ethics.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I think the landing would be the least of your concerns since by the time you hit the earth you would be traveling ~122mph. However, I really didn't think through the height when I made that post, because you wouldn't have any oxygen (a crappy way to die) and it would be incredibly freezing (also a crappy way to die). So perhaps something a little more reasonable...say, 15,000 feet...would be preferable. That's about the altitude of Everest Base Camp (before shit gets real), and you wouldn't freeze to death so long as you jump out of the plane around July, which would make it about 60 degrees F.

Well, I'll think about it.

But, if they won't let you even walk out on a bridge, how the hell do I get a pilot?

I think calling my doc, should it come to it. But thanks, anyway. Besides, at only 122 Mph, why bother? I've gone faster than that in a car and I can get a rice rocket to get me to 180.

 

[Gordy327]

But that's exactly what they are built on. They attempt to define things like fairness and what's right and wrong. These are subjective concepts based on our values and ethics.

No, they are based on liberties and rights with respect to the Constitution.

 

[trouble13]

No, they are based on liberties and rights with respect to the Constitution.

That's the same thing just phrased differently. Our rights and liberties are answers to ethical questions.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

On my morning rounds on reddit this morning, this post caught my interest. Not necessarily the politics behind it, but the step by step process (or mechanics) of death with dignity. In other words, a "prescription" from your doctor on how to legally "check out" (in some states)

Here's the written instructions. Some may find this difficult to read. Makes you think. It's sounds like a very peaceful way to go.

https://i.redd.it/2g3831qwjbpa1.jpg

As for the legality, i believe everyone should have the choice if they are terminal.

In highschool health class we watched this movie. The story convinced me that my first ideas of this concept were wrong.

 

[Gordy327]

That's the same thing just phrased differently. Our rights and liberties are answers to ethical questions.

Our rights and liberties are based on the Constitution. That governs legal questions. It is an objective foundation. Since morality is subjective, as you agreed, then morality cannot be used as a basis.

 

[Rexedgar]

Unless fear of heights is a manufactured fear. Which isn't to say that being that high up isn't dangerous, because of course it is. But really, when you think about it, how is it any different than getting on the highway and piloting a 3 ton vehicle at upwards of 80mph?

You would benefit from a sky-diving course at your local drop zone!


On a side note:

I was in hospital a few years back for a semi-serious issue. My stay involved an overnight. The floor nurse came through in the early evening and wanted to verify that the information in my chart was correct, (years ago, the missus and I had filled out DNR forms,) she wanted to verify the DNR form that was on file. My response was, “wait, wut, do you know something that I don’t?”

It’s one thing to plan ahead and another altogether, when it slaps you in the face and says, “are you sure?”

 

[Ambig]

You may as well already be dead. Most drugs leave you incoherent. I dont do them because dislike effects and lack of control. If I am going to off myself I want to know I am do it it and why, and have the stones to follow through.

I see you have no experience with drugs.

 

[Ambig]

But that's exactly what they are built on. They attempt to define things like fairness and what's right and wrong. These are subjective concepts based on our values and ethics.

Many laws are cynical rules concocted by guys in suits who couldn't figure out anything better to do with their lives than to go into politics. Some of them only got into the biz to take bribes and help their business partners.

If laws are to be moral, we should have professional ethicists directing our legislatures.

 

[trouble13]

Many laws are cynical rules concocted by guys in suits who couldn't figure out anything better to do with their lives than to go into politics. Some of them only got into the biz to take bribes and help their business partners.

If laws are to be moral, we should have professional ethicists directing our legislatures.

Your criticism is fair. There are many corrupt laws on the books. Hence my signature.