Many anti assisted suicide advocates worry that Idaho is on the pro-doctor prescribed death target list for legalization, probably by test court case, since there is not a specific law prohibiting assisted suicide. A just filed bill, S 1070, seeks to change that. From the bill:
18-4017. CAUSING A SUICIDE — ASSISTING IN A SUICIDE — INJUNCTIVE RELIEF — REVOCATION OF LICENSE — EXCEPTIONS. (1) A person is guilty of a felony if such person knowingly by force or duress causes another person to commit or to attempt to commit suicide. (2) A person is guilty of a felony if such person, with the purpose of assisting another person to commit or to attempt to commit suicide, knowingly and intentionally either:
(a) Provides the physical means by which another person commits or attempts to commit suicide; or
(b) Participates in a physical act by which another person commits or attempts to commit suicide.
The bill would also permit injunctions against a pending assisted suicide and for stripping the licenses of doctors who assist suicides. Pass this please.
Meanwhile, in other states: Montana–which is in a very confusing situation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s weird decision declaring assisted suicide not against public policy with regard to its advance medical directives law–has competing bills, one to legalize explicitly and one to prohibit explicitly. Hawaii’s State Senate just defeated a legalization bill in committee. Vermont has a legalization bill pending.
No rest for the weary.
February 9th, 2011 | 3:51 pm
If God is calling these people home, who is man to stand in His way?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Well, UncleJohn: We are not talking about taking artificial means to keep someone alive, but of using artificial means to make them dead. And if being suicidal is God’s way of calling people home, then we shouldn’t try to prevent any suicides.
February 9th, 2011 | 5:32 pm
Thanks, Wesley, for the best argument in support of suicide (assisted or unassisted) I’ve heard so far. If God is in control of the universe, as many believe, then it’s presumptuous of us mortals and our legislatures to second-guess His intentions. I can imagine a case contesting the Idaho law on violation of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.
Of course we have to ask ourselves why any Idaho resident who’s determined to end his life would trouble himself over the proposed law. He has only to step west across the border into Washington or Oregon, east into Montana, or north into Canada to avail himself of existing facilities.
February 9th, 2011 | 7:07 pm
Comments like this really make clear that we need to do more work to make sure people are aware that depression is a disease.
Unfortunately, there’s a real financial incentive for ignoring the problem, and simply pretending that there are no issues around ‘informed consent’ involved.
February 9th, 2011 | 7:40 pm
HistoryWriter, I don’t know if you’re simply wishful thinking but as far as this Canadian knows, the Criminal Code of Canada still outlaws suicide assistance, with penalties of up to 14 years in prison but then again some think that if we keep trying, guys like Wesley might just give UP the fight!
I hear ya Wes! Keep dreaming HW! :)
Peace
February 9th, 2011 | 8:42 pm
[...] First Things (blog) [...]
February 9th, 2011 | 8:56 pm
I still don’t see what’s so great about suicide. If God is in charge, and He has made it explicit that all human life is important to Him (which He has, in a variety of ways), then protecting life is the best thing human beings can do. We’re called to be co-creators, not destroyers.
February 10th, 2011 | 5:39 am
Clearly, with your courageous efforts, Wesley, we can ensure that all elderly, and other vulnerable people, actually get from doctors, what they should get, treatment, and care, not death.
February 10th, 2011 | 9:14 am
Tabs: You’re missing the point. If God IS in charge, then every life and death is His responsibility, and every life and every death (including suicides) is simply a manifestation of His will. We may imagine that we have “co-creator” responsibility with God, but that’s kind of presumptuous, isn’t it — giving humans god-like powers? No, God is either in charge of things or He isn’t. The Boss may delegate authority, but he/she can never delegate responsibility.
February 10th, 2011 | 9:16 am
Victor: While assisted suicide is technically illegal in Canada the Canadians are nowhere as heated up over the issue as we are here in the USofA. My Canadian friends tell me that it’s often ignored.
February 10th, 2011 | 11:48 am
History Writer: how do you establish that a person who wants to kill himself is of sound mind and body (a necessary precondition to entering into a legally binding contract)?
I mean, is there a method, other than simply ignoring the problem?
February 10th, 2011 | 1:23 pm
HW, uh, are you reading him right? Wesley is AGAINST the whole “God calling people home” idea. He made no point even close to what you are debating.
February 10th, 2011 | 5:11 pm
We do not need this law. We do need the help of medical practitioners in making informed end of life decisions.
February 10th, 2011 | 6:59 pm
Dblade:
Wesley wrote: “And if being suicidal is God’s way of calling people home, then we shouldn’t try to prevent any suicides.”
I thanked him for suggesting what I believe to be the ultimate argument in favor of suicide: if God is really in control of things then every death (including every suicide) suicide is a manifestation of His will, and we have no business interfering with it. Are you suggesting that God ISN’T in control?
February 10th, 2011 | 7:20 pm
History Writer
You make some incredible leaps of logic about God. I’m not going to refute you, you are doing all-too-well on your own.
You wrote:
Tabs: You’re missing the point. If God IS in charge, then every life and death is His responsibility, and every life and every death (including suicides) is simply a manifestation of His will. We may imagine that we have “co-creator” responsibility with God, but that’s kind of presumptuous, isn’t it — giving humans god-like powers? No, God is either in charge of things or He isn’t. The Boss may delegate authority, but he/she can never delegate responsibility.
You don’t agree with Tabs’ view of matters from faith, so you superimpose yours. I get it!
Stick to your atheism. You are better rejecting the existence of God than you are discussing theology. You seem to spend a lot of time explaining away something you don’t believe exists anyway.
February 10th, 2011 | 7:21 pm
If you are of sound mind and are really determined to kill yourself, then just do it yourself. Get ‘er done. The key phrase here is sound mind. Don’t expect to be entitled to help to do the deed if you’re serious, though.
With rare exceptions such as profound disability rendering a person unable to do the deed himself, I think that dragging someone else into assisting with a suicide is essentially being a drama queen. “Look at me—I’m so determined to die!” For some people, suicide can be seen as the ultimate in narcissism.
February 10th, 2011 | 7:29 pm
Blake:
There is no shortage of clinical tests that can tell you whether a person is mentally ill, or whether he or she suffers from clinical (rather than situational) depression. I think we err when we make generalizations such as “all people who wish to commit suicide must be mentally unbalanced.” They want to do something to themselves that you might consider inappropriate for yourself, but that doesn’t make out a prima facie case of insanity. A person with ALS, for example, can be of perfectly sound mind and still desire to end his life before the disease progresses to the point where, in his opinion, it becomes unbearable. One might ask, who is a better judge of what’s bearable under those circumstances, than the sufferer himself? If Steven Hawking decided tomorrow that he had had enough, and wanted to end it all, should we assume that he suddenly become insane?
February 10th, 2011 | 9:40 pm
>>HistoryWriter wrote
February 10th, 2011 | 9:16 am
Victor: While assisted suicide is technically illegal in Canada the Canadians are nowhere as heated up over the issue as we are here in the USofA. My Canadian friends tell me that it’s often ignored.<<
Forgive me for being so slow in responding but I just got here.
Anyway personally speaking, I think that there should be a lot more noice made in The U.S of A's where they have at least 10 X the population that their cousins in Canada have and as for your friends who say that "IT" is often ignored here in Canada then I must reply that we really are making progress.
My gut feelings tells me that you really do believe in yourself but just won't admit "IT" and I do agree with you that guts have no right even thinking about you. :)
Listen HW! We could laugh all the way with the cows who graze in the milky way but if you really want a serious debate, why don't we do "IT" by email?
I hear ya! No thanks sinner vic, you scare me!
Really? :)
Peace
February 11th, 2011 | 7:07 am
History Writer: Have the people who vote on what is and isn’t normal now decided that suicidal ideation is no longer a symptom of mental illness?
You reveal the truth of your biases when you assume that a disabled person’s life is less worth living than yours is. You are projecting your fears and disgust onto other people.
The available evidence suggests that, unless we are going to change our entirely line of medical ethics to the “useless eaters” school of whose life is valuable (which is obviously the real point of the exercise IMO), what people struggling with end of life issues need is support and adequate reason to trust that their needs will be met. To simply affirm them in their belief that yes, they are viewed as worthless, and yes, their life is over, and yes, we do want them to hurry up and vacate the bed they’re in is not “death with dignity”, it is lack of care.
Either way it does not change my opinion that assisted suicide needs to be opposed because there is no way to have assisted suicide co-exist alongside real medical systems without doing harm to the medical systems. There is no way to class some people as useless eaters without implying everyone with that condition is equally the same, and nobody should have to feel they need to justify why they aren’t ready for suicide yet.
February 12th, 2011 | 8:59 am
Blake:
You’re missing my point. I’m saying: “Who can better decide whether life is worth living — for whatever reason — than the person to whom that life belongs?” It has absolutely nothing to do with the way you or I feel may differ in our feelings about disability. It has everything to do with other people’s right to make that kind of decision for themselves with neither a presumption of insanity nor interference by well-meaning strangers.
I think YOU may be the one who’s projecting a bias here — namely, that anyone who considers suicide is insane, or that assisted suicide will lead inexorably to involuntary euthanasia.
February 12th, 2011 | 9:01 am
jb:
Looks like you flunk not only Law but Theology as well.
February 12th, 2011 | 1:34 pm
I know this is very much off-topic, feel free to censor is necessary.
HistoryWriter:
Your point is not stupid. It’s useful to highlight what characteristics God has.
Classical theism (not including deism) gives God many attributes, including that he is a person with free will. Classical Christian doctrine says, that human beings are made in the image of God. From this one can argue follows many things, including the universal human rights, but in this case the claim that human beings also have free will.
Free will means that a person can freely choose to act A or not A. Having free will seems to me a necessary supposition for any ethical or legal responsibility: a) an avalanche that kills skiers is not a legal defendant in any sane court: the huge mass of snow simply follows the laws of physics. b) Some people are categorized as mentally incapable to determine their own actions, so they are in practice freed from legal responsibility. John Hinckey Jr. shot Ronald Reagen because he wanted to make a “good impression” to Jodie Foster.
Alvin Plantinga has presented an argument for the defence of free will with regard to the problem of evil. This is an abridged version: God has to create the best possible world. A world without free will is not a best possible world. Evil acts are impossible without free will. So God has created a world with the possibility to do evil.
Now, we have that human beings have free will (they are not the puppets of God or physics) and they have the capability to do evil. So God doesn’t direct anyone’s actions, including suicide.
Judaism and Christianity also have direct commands from God, including “do not kill/murder”. I haven’t seen any Christian theologian to argue that God commands us to commit suicide: on the contrary, the above command is interpreted that it doesn’t specify the object, meaning that also killing yourself is a sin. People still have free will to commit suicide, but God doesn’t want this.
February 12th, 2011 | 4:09 pm
Considering that God is supposed to have intentionally created humankind with the mental capacity to perform evil acts (“free will”), how can He escape complicity when humankind engages in them — especially when He knows beforehand what they’re going to do? Remember, Christianity claims that man is inherently evil, while asserting that man is made in the image of God. If God has a nasty streak then He defies the definition of him as epitomizing goodness — that is to say: if God causes evil to exist He is not good; and if He can’t prevent evil from existing, then He’s not God.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 12th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
This is way past our jurisdiction, but since the two of you are discussing theism politely and in a way that may interest others, I will allow it to continue. But I reserve the right to put an end at any time. Carry on.
February 12th, 2011 | 5:16 pm
HistoryWriter:
The God created the world a good place. He also created human beings with the ability to make free decisions, including whether to follow him his commands or not (to sin or not). It was the fall that screwed things up, and is told as the story about the Eve and the forbidden fruit. Man chose to sin because he had the capacity, at the same time God didn’t want this to happen. Mankind was now “bound to sin”: one evil deed had corrupted Adam and Eve, and this is transferred to further generations. This is compatible with both statements 1) man is made in the image of God 2) man is inherently evil.
The problem of evil is not a trivial one and deserves an adequate answer. I try to give it my best shot (though I’m not a philosophy/theology major).
Plantinga’s free will defence actually claims that God is not responsible for evil acts between human beings. In a similar tone, Christian philosophers have argued that the existence of God and the existence of evil are not logically incompatible. This is now widely accepted and “settled philosophy”. The next stage is to claim that the existence of evil makes the existence of God likely/unlikely. I have no knowledge of these or the competence to defend them, so you have to look them up yourself.
God wanted the best possible world, and put free will into the equation. He created the world a good place. He very much wished us to do his bidding, but He cannot force us, because that would destroy free will. So to make it short:
1) God is good. He doesn’t cause evil. A classical attribute of God is that he is omnibenevolent, or a perfectly good being.
2) He cannot prevent evil, because it would necessitate the destruction of free will. Christianity, however, gives an ingenious answer to this: Jesus Christ.
February 13th, 2011 | 12:10 am
History Writer, the only way you can justify assisted suicide is by agreeing that yes, some people really are useless and better off dead.
Which is apparently exactly why so many people are eager to have the right to do just that.
The correct alternative is to offer dying people adequate treatment – starting with adequate pain relief – so that people are not made to fear the horrific death that makes suicide seem preferable.
Anything less is inhumane.
February 13th, 2011 | 1:12 pm
Blake: I consider it far more important that THEY may think their lives are no longer worth living, that that you or I may think so. Likewise the decision to undertake palliative care. It all depends on the degree of pain and the amount of medication required to alleviate it. If the required amount is enough to make a person insensible, then I can see where he might decide that there’s no difference between dying and living in a state of unconsciousness. What’s “appropriate” should be the sufferer’s choice first, and other people’s choice second.
HW
February 13th, 2011 | 1:57 pm
Wesley: Thanks for permitting this discussion to continue for a while longer.
Markus: I think that the seeming contradictions in the Judeo-Christian deity’s behavior are inherent in monotheism itself. The moment we posit a single, all-powerful deity we are bound to create conflicts between opposing attributes. For example, one might question whether God can be simultaneously all-merciful and all-just. One attribute demands that He punish any violation of His laws, no matter how slight, with eternal death; the other demands that He forgive any violation, no matter how serious, out of lovingkindness.
You yourself cited “the fall” as the reason for evil in the world; yet the temptation of Eve was brought about by a creature of God’s own creation. And an all-knowing God would have known that Eve would sin even before He created her. That being so, why would the fall of His creation so anger Him that he would curse humankind in perpetuity? That reaction seems not only capricious but contradictory for an omnipotent, omniscient benevolent deity.
Now I could understand the presence of evil if God were NOT omnipotent, for He could then plead an occasional inability to prevent its occurrence. He could also claim that His battle with Satan is a “win some-lose-some” proposition. But once we posit a single, omnipotent deity, then evil must exist because He suffers it to exist for some reason — presumably in order to tempt us. An omnipotent deity wouldn’t have to wage war with Satan when He could simply obliterate the adversary by thinking it. An omnipotent deity makes it necessary for us to muddy the waters of logic with such concepts as free will, or elaborate salvation scheme that enables God to be both just and merciful simultaneously by making Him triune.
In summary, anyone who has both the moral imperative and the capacity to prevent an evil act from occurring, yet does absolutely nothing to prevent its occurrence, must be regarded, at the very least, as an accessory to it.
February 14th, 2011 | 1:01 am
jb: I think HW was trying to say that since god is almighty, if he wanted to prevent suicides, he would do so directly.
The fact that we humans CAN commit suicide therefore shows that suicide is part of god`s plan.
Many Western jurisdictions (including Australia, via the case of Christian Rossiter) grant their citizens the right to suicide through self-starvation. And yet most RTL groups are usually silent on this issue.
February 14th, 2011 | 1:35 am
Markus: Why would your god simply not create a perfect heavenly word from Day 1? Surely you believe this to be within his power.
And besides, if heaven is eternal, then 80-odd years of free will can`t be that important to him, correct?
February 14th, 2011 | 1:48 am
Apologies for the triple-post.
Markus: the Old Testament would appear to depict god as approving of Samson`s suicide/murder at the end of his life.
There is no excuse for a tri-omni god to use evil as a means to a greater good. Can`t he simple achieve this greater good in an instant, no misery or suffering required?
I also recommend this video on the topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtiwt2FwPG0
February 14th, 2011 | 5:58 am
History Writer, any person who is suicidal is not “sound of mind and body” and not eligible to make those decisions.
To allow someone to be guided by irrational fears to their death would be immoral.
You will say, “oh, but the fears aren’t irrational!” This leads us to exactly the point: who decides at what point a fear becomes irrational?
Why, you do, of course! That is the only way you can decide that one person’s suicidal ideation is logical and reasonable, while another person’s is not.
I have noticed you tend to ignore my arguments. Would you like to go back and actually address the points I make, that constitute the meat of my argument? How do you propose to handle the problem of your own value judgments regarding which lives are worth valuing (and which lives are worth legally declaring worthless) and how those value judgments will impact society?
Where is the line between suicidal people whose lives are worth saving vs. suicidal people whose lives are not, and – more importantly – what is that line based on? That is the real meat of the argument right there.
The emotions of the person desiring suicide?
The emotions of the person making the decision re: which suicides are rational vs. which ones are not?
Who decides when a life becomes legally worthless?
February 14th, 2011 | 2:44 pm
HistoryWriter:
The free will defence argument claims that God had to create the best possible world, which includes free will and the possibility to do evil. If you don’t have the possibility to do evil, you don’t have free will, and you don’t have the best possible world. So the argument rests on the supposition that 1) God must create the best possible world (relatively uncontroversial) 2) A world without free will is less good than other possible worlds. It doesn’t go into God’s motivations why He created free will.
I’ll tell a story to give you my view. Imagine a parent and a teenager (this is stereotyping but bear with me). The parent says: “Do not rob a Starbucks. It’s wrong, and you’ll go to jail if you do.” But, the teenager really, really wants to get some cash, robs a Starbucks, gets caught and winds up in jail.
The parent had the moral imperative to prevent evil and had the capability to prevent it, but the teen still did it. This does not make the parent an accessory to the crime: the teen is responsible for his/her actions. The teen could have chosen otherwise, but chose the break the law. In another possible world, the parent could forcibly prevent the teen from exiting the house (i.e. God creates a world without free will).
Now, the teen must pay for the crimes, or his/her parent can pay the bail. In my view, the parent is NOT obligated to pay the bail. The stupidity or wickedness of his/her children does not obligate any action from the parent. If he/she does pay the bail, it’s out of love.
God has paid the bail for humanity trough Jesus. He would like everyone to receive mercy, but He cannot force anyone, because it would destroy free will.
February 14th, 2011 | 5:31 pm
Blake says: “Any person who is suicidal is not ‘sound of mind and body’ and not eligible to make those decisions [i.e., the decision to commit suicide].
Blake, it appears that you’re unable to envision any situation in which suicide might be a rational act. Consider the following: you’re an agent parachuted into enemy territory in order to link up with the local resistance movement. You have the names of your contacts committed to memory, as well as the plans your government has for them to carry out. Before you left you were given a cyanide capsule to be taken in case you’re captured and the enemy tortures you to obtain the information you have. You’re captured, and it becomes clear that there’s no chance of escape. All you need do is crush the capsule between your teeth and you’ll be dead in a matter of seconds. Would you consider the decision to commit suicide under these circumstances irrational? What would you do in this situation?
February 14th, 2011 | 11:47 pm
Markus:
`The free will defence argument claims that God had to create the best possible world, which includes free will and the possibility to do evil. If you don’t have the possibility to do evil, you don’t have free will, and you don’t have the best possible world. So the argument rests on the supposition that 1) God must create the best possible world (relatively uncontroversial) 2) A world without free will is less good than other possible worlds. It doesn’t go into God’s motivations why He created free will.`
If there is free will in heaven (which the angelic rebellion seems to indicate), then god should simply have created heaven without the cruel testing grounds of Earth and this life. Those who god knew would sin would sin should never have been created in the first place.
If there is NO free will in heaven, then free will isn`t that important to your god, and he should still have created a bunch of benevolent souls in heaven from the get-go.
QED. :)
February 15th, 2011 | 2:54 am
As an addendum to HW: anyone who thinks that suicidal ideations can *never* be rational should watch On the Beach starring Gregory Peck. What would *you* do after WW 3?
(Apologies, I’m not tech-savvy enough to italicise my posts)
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 15th, 2011 at 10:04 am
HCM: To italicize, type in front of the word you want emphasized. Then, after the word do it again, only add a / in front of the i. Yikes. Let me try again. First type the open sign, which is the capitalized comma. Then i. Then close it with a the symbol above the period. At the back, first type < then / then i and then > to close it.
February 15th, 2011 | 10:15 am
To the suicide commentary:
The question actually is not can we find rational reasons for suicide. This is simply too easy: it’s always in the form “I cannot take the world anymore, so I decide to end my life”. The “world” can be a) possible torture from enemy combatants b) the aftermath of WW3 c) the death of a spouse.
The better question is, is there any case where suicide is ethically justified.
February 15th, 2011 | 6:29 pm
Thank you Wesley. :)
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 15th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
You’re welcome, HCM.
February 16th, 2011 | 12:17 am
Markus: you didn’t answer the question.
In any case, in HW’s hypothetical, suicide would save lives and preserve the integrity the resistance movement and the lives of those in it.
February 16th, 2011 | 2:15 am
HCM: It’s not the suicide that would preserve the integrity, it’s not information NOT leaking, which is accomplished by either a) the guy keeps his mouth shut b) the guy fears for the upcoming torture, knows that he will break and wants to end it all.
If there’s no afterlife, there’s also no punishment for suicide. It’s your life, your pain meter, your choice all the way down.
February 16th, 2011 | 1:42 pm
Markus: you seem to be avoiding the question I asked: What would YOU do in that situation?
HW
February 16th, 2011 | 2:30 pm
HistoryWriter: I would keep my mouth shut.
February 16th, 2011 | 7:47 pm
So, Markus, what would you do if you were in that situation? Most people crack under torture (pain thresholds and all).
You say you would simply not tell the enemy, as though it were as easy as breathing. It’s never that easy.
February 17th, 2011 | 12:46 am
HCM: I would keep my mouth shut.
If I’m a rebel against an autocratic regime, then capture already means that I’m dead. After that, the best thing left is to stay silent until death, whether trough torture or execution.
Why do you keep asking me this, to justify suicide? Under atheism, it’s always justified, so utilitarianism is only convenient self-deception: there are no moral truths, but I really, really like this moral truth (i.e. there’s something wrong with suicide so it should be limited), so I give fancy justifications for it.
If there are no moral truths, then the pursuit for the “common good” is also not a normative statement, i.e. something that should be pursued only by itself.
February 17th, 2011 | 11:42 am
If you really think that suicide is never justifiable, Markus, I would suggest that you go over to Africa, where children are starving, or to a cancer/AIDS ward where the morphine is insufficient.
Go there, and tell them that things will be better, and even if they don’t improve, living to the bitter end is the right thing to do, despite the fact that most of them will end up as little more than nourishment for flies, mosquitoes, bacteria, viruses and cells that destroy their own bodies.
Please, do that, and tell us how well that goes over.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 17th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
The issue, at least for me, is never to judge any suicidal person. None of us knows what circumstances could develop that would drive us to that level of despair.
The question is how we react to the desire to kill oneself. HCM’s example is extremely rare, and is not a factor at all–that is pain that can’t be controlled–in assisted suicides in Oregon or indeed, other places. (And palliative sedation could remedy those awful rare cases.) But when that is brought up, the response is, “What if someone doesn’t want to be palliated?”
So, the issue of uncontrollable suffering is a red herring, a sales tactic. But as I have written often, ideology drives this movement. And the term “suffering” becomes very elastic in such a milieu. So, in Switzerland, the court has declared a right for the mentally ill to have assisted suicide. Ditto, the Dutch Supreme Court, which approved an assisted suicide of a mother in despair over her dead children.
And if assisted suicide is a fundamental human right, how can it be restricted to the very few?
February 17th, 2011 | 12:40 pm
HCM: This simply shows how bitterly confused you are.
First, there are no objective moral truths. However, human suffering is objectively evil. Therefore we must offer suicide to people who suffer greatly. If mass genocide is at the end of the road, so be it. Fortunately, there are no objective moral truths.
I feel your pain, but you direct it to the wrong direction (to my view): all you can give to people in pain is death. Another way to look at is, that human suffering in Africa is real, and is a natural evil (not caused by human action) which can be alleviated by the drilling of wells, Western medicine (which has progressed under favourable conditions for many centuries), rule of law, property rights, education of women, consensual government and many other things.
February 17th, 2011 | 10:39 pm
Wesley: not all pain/suffering is physical.
Psychological, social, emotional and existential distress must also be considered, and when the patients themselves are asked to rate their pain, approximately 25% consider their pain to be moderate/severe.
Source: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=60ca1263-7c4d-4a0c-acd0-0363e56f83e5&k=0
The title of the article is a mite too optimistic for me.
Some pain can only be treated with terminal sedation, and most would rather die in 10 minutes than stay in a coma, unable to do anything, for weeks before death.
Markus: I would disagree. Suffering by definition is objectively bad, and if our goal is the reduction of suffering and the increase of happiness (with consent being a vital aspect of this), then there are objective ways to achieve this.
Although I am glad to hear you say that genocide is not an inevitable consequence of respecting an individual`s right to choose.
February 17th, 2011 | 10:51 pm
My apologies, I did not mean to bold 97% of my post. XD
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact