Dear Dignitas, I think it's good that you do what you do. We humans shall decide over our own lifes (and sometime others), but obviously not our own deaths.
I think it's a lot better to go to you and die with Dignity, than to commit suicide. If I get severe cancer or get severe damages in an accident, and are in a lot of pain, I want to be able to make the desicion if I want to stay alive or not. That should be everybodys right. And under some kind of legal supervision of course.
Lizenbette.
Thank you, Dignitas.
Moderatoren: Ludwig A. Minelli, Mediator
persistence, not illness should be the criterion
I believe that the criterion for legalizing suicides should be only one: the PERSISTENCE of the suicidal wish, not illness. The desire should be persistent, let's say for more years: it should not be impulsive.
Arguments:
1. who are you (or anyone) to judge the quantity of psychological pain someone might endure? Psychological pain can be even worse than physical pain. Indeed, most people who attempt and/or commit suicide do so because of psychological, not physical pain
2. if suicide/euthanasia is restricted to the physically ill (say, the terminally ill or those sufferring of a certain incurable disease), you know the anti-Euthanasia arguments: society creates a category of people whose life values less than that of ordinary people; those belonging to these categories who want to live will feel guilty for clinging to live.
3. especially in the case of psychiatric diseases, there might be significant differences of opinion among different psychiatrists concerning a diagnosis and its prognoce, as psychiatry is the less medical branch of medicine among all branches. Not to mention the fact that some people don't accept the existence of mental illness and the claim of psychiatry to be a science (Szasz and the scientologic church).
All these problems can be solved if the criterion is made to be the PERSISTENCE of the suicidal wish. Indeed, if there is a category of people who are entitled to be helped in suicide and whose life values "less" than that of other people, this is the category of those who PERSISTENTLY ask to end their lives, no matter whether they are sick or not.
Arguments:
1. who are you (or anyone) to judge the quantity of psychological pain someone might endure? Psychological pain can be even worse than physical pain. Indeed, most people who attempt and/or commit suicide do so because of psychological, not physical pain
2. if suicide/euthanasia is restricted to the physically ill (say, the terminally ill or those sufferring of a certain incurable disease), you know the anti-Euthanasia arguments: society creates a category of people whose life values less than that of ordinary people; those belonging to these categories who want to live will feel guilty for clinging to live.
3. especially in the case of psychiatric diseases, there might be significant differences of opinion among different psychiatrists concerning a diagnosis and its prognoce, as psychiatry is the less medical branch of medicine among all branches. Not to mention the fact that some people don't accept the existence of mental illness and the claim of psychiatry to be a science (Szasz and the scientologic church).
All these problems can be solved if the criterion is made to be the PERSISTENCE of the suicidal wish. Indeed, if there is a category of people who are entitled to be helped in suicide and whose life values "less" than that of other people, this is the category of those who PERSISTENTLY ask to end their lives, no matter whether they are sick or not.
age and criteria
Indeed, from a 17-years old suicidal teenager I became a 20 years old suicidal young man, then a 26-years old who wanted to commit suicide, and now i am a 33 years old man who still wants to commit suicide. I am alive because i dont have the courage to commit suicide, because i am afraid i would fail again.
I attempted suicide 4 times with barbiturates and failed after emergency treatments in hospital, so after the age of 26 i came to terms with the idea that i am condemned to live and become old. For one year (since i am 32) i started the request for assisted suicide with Dignitas, but the procedure is very difficult because i have no physical disease, nor a clear psychiatric illness (there are differences of opinion between different psychiatrists about my illness) and psychiatrists don't want to send the report to Dignitas.
So who are you to tell me that suicide is appropriate only for patients with "severe cancer or get severe damages in an accident"? If you say suicide may be appropriate ONLY for such people, what about those with this condition who want to live: indeed, you tell them they belong to a category of persons whose life values less than that of other people - and this is a customary anti-Euthanasia argument. Who are you to oblige me to wait until i am an old man hit by an incurable illness, to tell me that i have the right to control the duration of my life ONLY if i am in such a situation, and that i am obliged to live otherwise?
I believe that the only criterion for legalizing assisted suicide should be the PERSISTENCE of the suicidal wish, regardless of the medical condition. If PERSISTENCE were the criterion of public policy making, all the usual arguments against Euthanasia would vanish.
But, as you can easily imagine, my power to change legislation are very limited.
regards,
klsaurian
I attempted suicide 4 times with barbiturates and failed after emergency treatments in hospital, so after the age of 26 i came to terms with the idea that i am condemned to live and become old. For one year (since i am 32) i started the request for assisted suicide with Dignitas, but the procedure is very difficult because i have no physical disease, nor a clear psychiatric illness (there are differences of opinion between different psychiatrists about my illness) and psychiatrists don't want to send the report to Dignitas.
So who are you to tell me that suicide is appropriate only for patients with "severe cancer or get severe damages in an accident"? If you say suicide may be appropriate ONLY for such people, what about those with this condition who want to live: indeed, you tell them they belong to a category of persons whose life values less than that of other people - and this is a customary anti-Euthanasia argument. Who are you to oblige me to wait until i am an old man hit by an incurable illness, to tell me that i have the right to control the duration of my life ONLY if i am in such a situation, and that i am obliged to live otherwise?
I believe that the only criterion for legalizing assisted suicide should be the PERSISTENCE of the suicidal wish, regardless of the medical condition. If PERSISTENCE were the criterion of public policy making, all the usual arguments against Euthanasia would vanish.
But, as you can easily imagine, my power to change legislation are very limited.
regards,
klsaurian
Re: age and criteria
klsaurian hat geschrieben: I attempted suicide 4 times with barbiturates and failed after emergency
So who are you to tell me that suicide is appropriate only for patients with "severe cancer or get severe damages in an accident"? If you say suicide may be appropriate ONLY for such people, what about those with this condition who want to live: indeed, you tell them they belong to a category of persons whose life values less than that of other people - and this is a customary anti-Euthanasia argument. Who are you to oblige me to wait until i am an old man hit by an incurable illness, to tell me that i have the right to control the duration of my life ONLY if i am in such a situation, and that i am obliged to live otherwise?
I believe that the only criterion for legalizing assisted suicide should be the PERSISTENCE of the suicidal wish, regardless of the medical condition. If PERSISTENCE were the criterion of public policy making, all the usual arguments against Euthanasia would vanish.
regards,
klsaurian
HOW RIGHT YOU ARE!!!!
PERSISTENCE, not ILLNESS
Indeed, ever since i was a child i thought that society should provide a "tanatorium", something similar to Dignitas, for people who persistently decided to leave this world.
Euthanasia organizations want to keep in force the interdiction of suicide for healthy people, but allow suicide for unhealthy people, and it seems that most Westerners think this should be right.
But this is absurd, because you create categories of people whose lives value less than those of other people, and who must justify themselves for living, and this is wrong. (see. eg. organizations of paraplegics such as "Not Dead Yet" in USA who oppose Euthanasia because it targets only them; i.e. they are angry suicide is not advocated as a right for everybody)..
So the answer is simple: the right to suicide is to be granted to those who PERSISTENTLY have this desire, while those who are IMPULSIVE should be prevented from committing suicide.
A 20 years old has the right to enlist as a mercenary and risk dying by taking innocent lives, so why shouldn't the same person have the right to painlessly take his own life, if he persistently wants so? Again: the ONLY criterion should be PERSISTENCE.
Euthanasia organizations want to keep in force the interdiction of suicide for healthy people, but allow suicide for unhealthy people, and it seems that most Westerners think this should be right.
But this is absurd, because you create categories of people whose lives value less than those of other people, and who must justify themselves for living, and this is wrong. (see. eg. organizations of paraplegics such as "Not Dead Yet" in USA who oppose Euthanasia because it targets only them; i.e. they are angry suicide is not advocated as a right for everybody)..
So the answer is simple: the right to suicide is to be granted to those who PERSISTENTLY have this desire, while those who are IMPULSIVE should be prevented from committing suicide.
A 20 years old has the right to enlist as a mercenary and risk dying by taking innocent lives, so why shouldn't the same person have the right to painlessly take his own life, if he persistently wants so? Again: the ONLY criterion should be PERSISTENCE.