TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Does TA believe in "the right to die"
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

when you die from..let's say cancer, it affects others adversly as well.

if they want out, go then imo. It is sad when someone i know dies for sure, but at the end of the day it is part of life and the show must go on.

quote:

Originally posted by lenazi when you die from..let's say cancer, it affects others adversly as well. if they want out, go then imo. It is sad when someone i know dies for sure, but at the end of the day it is part of life and the show must go on.

that's different i wasn't talking about someone who is going to die from an illness. i do see your point though

I think the decision rests solely with our almighty father in heaven. None of you have the right to usurp his ultimate authority on the matter.

PKC, I read that and completely agreed with it, and only a few seconds later realized you were being sarcastic.

I think a lot of people might agree with this sentiment, substituting "the almighty Father" with whatever force they believe to be the ultimate power in the universe (i.e. fate, nature, a holy spirit, etc.)

Oh for fuck's sake.

quote:

Originally posted by Ania_xox I think a lot of people might agree with this sentiment, substituting "the almighty Father" with whatever force they believe to be the ultimate power in the universe (i.e. fate, nature, a holy spirit, etc.)

Yeah, and if they kept their mouth shut and followed their ideals for themselves, everyone would be happy. But they�ll use any tool at their disposal to force their beliefs onto other people, which is when the mighty atheist army shall rise and destroy the oppressive believers.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Oh for fuck's sake.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, and if they kept their mouth shut and followed their ideals for themselves, everyone would be happy. But they�ll use any tool at their disposal to force their beliefs onto other people, which is when the mighty atheist army shall rise and destroy the oppressive believers.

I am also inclined to agree with this (save for the concluding clause which dances around some sort of science-fiction plot) because, for a lot of people, the "almighty power in the universe" is the individual's right to choose: the uniquely liberal pursuit of happiness, backed by all that wonderful stuff that those enlightened despots and philosophes advocated.

People from the woods sure have some wonky beliefs.

I believe Voltaire stayed in some kind of castle, although he did have some weird things to say about ice cream.

quote:

Originally posted by Ania_xox I believe Voltaire stayed in some kind of castle, although he did have some weird things to say about ice cream.

Are you implying that this is not the best of all possible worlds!?

quote:

Originally posted by chimera66 that imo is taking one's pity party too far.

I disagree. Insofar as you're the one directly affected by your decision, it's up to you to decide what is worth doing.

He had no longer a connection with his ex-wife, since she was no longer his wife (killing his wife wouldn't be an option, because she's the one that makes the decisions about her life); as for his family, he was a grown man, so once again their decision would no longer be relevant (forcing him to live wouldn't be an option, because his family has no right whatsoever upon his life in this case); the only person that could've objected to his death would be the kid - but, since (s)he's got a parent with whom (s)he was probably leading a new life, there's no reason why this would be a strong objection.

That being said, judging his actions as an outsider is really unfair: you don't know what it was like to be in his situation (any situation you've experience is different because - lest we ignore the obvious - you're not him), and in no grounds can you judge the causes and effects of what he did. You could only have a say if you were, like I said, directly affected by his decision. Well, were you?

quote:

Originally posted by trancechan Are you implying that this is not the best of all possible worlds!?

You're thinking of the wrong guy (though Voltaire did criticise Leibniz... if your joke was to make any sense, you should've dropped the word "not" ).

quote:

Originally posted by Lira You're thinking of the wrong guy (though Voltaire did criticise Leibniz... if your joke was to make any sense, you should've dropped the word "not" ).

i guess reading Candide wasn't enough for TA. goddammit, i'm back to the library.

quote:

Originally posted by floyd741 If you want to die you should be able to die. It's as simple as that (though I'm sure many would say it's not).

Well it's not that simple. Remember that often that persons judgement is clouded by many factors and/or their mental ability and focus is impaired.

I'm not against the right to die, quite the contrary but it's not as simple as many of you believe it is.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I disagree. Insofar as you're the one directly affected by your decision, it's up to you to decide what is worth doing. He had no longer a connection with his ex-wife, since she was no longer his wife (killing his wife wouldn't be an option, because she's the one that makes the decisions about her life); as for his family, he was a grown man, so once again their decision would no longer be relevant (forcing him to live wouldn't be an option, because his family has no right whatsoever upon his life in this case); the only person that could've objected to his death would be the kid - but, since (s)he's got a parent with whom (s)he was probably leading a new life, there's no reason why this would be a strong objection. That being said, judging his actions as an outsider is really unfair: you don't know what it was like to be in his situation (any situation you've experience is different because - lest we ignore the obvious - you're not him), and in no grounds can you judge the causes and effects of what he did. You could only have a say if you were, like I said, directly affected by his decision. Well, were you?

no don't know what it was but seems like he should have tried to work through things. tons of people lose their jobs and get divorced among other awful things but many ultimately end up living happy lives. it wasn't like this guy suffered for a long time, all this happened in the course of a year which i can image is very difficult and stressful. i consider life to be something important so you shouldn't just give up on it without giving it a good try and as a parent you owe it to your kid(s) to stay alive. i just don't think it's fair to leave your child without a father or mother; to me it seems selfish.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, and if they kept their mouth shut and followed their ideals for themselves, everyone would be happy. But they�ll use any tool at their disposal to force their beliefs onto other people, which is when the mighty atheist army shall rise and destroy the oppressive believers.

lol exactly


and lira wtf!! the guy cheated on his wife and when she was going to leave him, he kills himself and leaves her alone in the world with their child who is now fatherless? i'm sorry but that is disgraceful. he probably did her a fucking favor though if that's the kind of pathetic person he is (no offense to chimera). that story pisses me off. the poor woman. gets cheated on AND loses the father of her child.

quote:

Originally posted by palm u have a task in life which is staying healthy, work, pay taxes and be a good consumer!

* you're a catholic aren't you

Since everyone is busy agreeing with each other here, I guess I'll play devil's advocate.

The real bone of contention in this issue, unless you're a very strict follower of religious doctrine, isn't whether people should have the right to die or not. It is the precedent that "assisted suicide" sets with its deliberate involvement of another person in taking a human life. Granting an individual the right to do this presents a throng of legal issues and societal challenges that have to be taken into account.

At what point will a person "be suffering enough" to justify ending his or her life? Who will have the authority to create a legal definition for this? Is it really a good idea to leave this issue to the authorities, where clearly the ones with the most resources and influence are more likely to be heard? Who will deal with a conflict of interest in such an issue among the next of kin? The list goes on.

It's all well and good to agree on the moral concept of right to choose what to do with your own life, but noone seems to be discussing the effects a decision like this will have on the foundations upon which society is built.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Since everyone is busy agreeing with each other here, I guess I'll play devil's advocate. The real bone of contention in this issue, unless you're a very strict follower of religious doctrine, isn't whether people should have the right to die or not. It is the precedent that "assisted suicide" sets with its deliberate involvement of another person in taking a human life. Granting an individual the right to do this presents a throng of legal issues and societal challenges that have to be taken into account. At what point will a person "be suffering enough" to justify ending his or her life? Who will have the authority to create a legal definition for this? Is it really a good idea to leave this issue to the authorities, where clearly the ones with the most resources and influence are more likely to be heard? Who will deal with a conflict of interest in such an issue among the next of kin? The list goes on. It's all well and good to agree on the moral concept of right to choose what to do with your own life, but noone seems to be discussing the effects a decision like this will have on the foundations upon which society is built.

ok so whenever you are sick, let's say you don't like taking medicine because you're not a medicine kinda guy...u just like to rest and drink liquids and let it run its course. what if the police showed up at your door whenever you had a cold and made you take medicine because they feel it's in your best interest?

quote:

Originally posted by Slylee ok so whenever you are sick, let's say you don't like taking medicine because you're not a medicine kinda guy...u just like to rest and drink liquids and let it run its course. what if the police showed up at your door whenever you had a cold and made you take medicine because they feel it's in your best interest?

You're missing my point, but anyway, how exactly would not taking my medicine be a crime that involves ending a human life? Do you honestly believe that laws regulating the issue of right to die will set the precedent for a sort of medical dictatorship where the law tells you what to do whenever you're sick? That's absurd.

As I said, my point isn't to argue over the right to die or not. My point is that noone seems to be taking into account the inevitable conflict and legal issues that this kind of decision brings to the table. You can't just say "yes everyone should have the right to die" without some sort of plan for how society should adapt to this.

I believe that terminally ill people should have the right to be terminated if they so wish. The 'law of suffering' is maybe based on the fact that someday we can cure cancer in its late stage so it is immoral to let someone die because we might find a cure tomorrow. It is a very humane stance in a way, really. The fact that dying patients do not believe in this idea is also very human. Believing that we won't find a cure for a killer disease tomorrow after decades of failure is, after all, very common.

The law that does not allow suicide is, too, quite sensible. It is designed so that there would be legal basis for detaining suicidal people so they could be put in an institution so someone could try to help them. The results are not always successful, but even one person brought out of ultimate depression justifies the means, does it not?

The motives behind this might be somewhat controversial. Are they doing it because they don't want to lose another producer or they really care about human life? Who knows? But if there are people that after therapy and all that shit somehow regain their will to live, we've made the right decision I suppose.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper You're missing my point, but anyway, how exactly would not taking my medicine be a crime that involves ending a human life? Do you honestly believe that laws regulating the issue of right to die will set the precedent for a sort of medical dictatorship where the law tells you what to do whenever you're sick? That's absurd. As I said, my point isn't to argue over the right to die or not. My point is that noone seems to be taking into account the inevitable conflict and legal issues that this kind of decision brings to the table. You can't just say "yes everyone should have the right to die" without some sort of plan for how society should adapt to this.

now YOU'RE missing the point...which is the right to not letting other people decide what you should do with your life and body.

have you ever watched someone suffer from cancer or a horrible mental illness like manic depression where they can't even hold a fucking job or a conversation with their loved ones or even get out of bed to go smell the fresh air?

quote:

Originally posted by Slylee now YOU'RE missing the point...which is the right to not letting other people decide what you should do with your life and body.

It isn't that simple.

The "right to die" basically entails a "right" to forcing someone else to provide you with the means to kill yourself, or even actively killing you if you are physically disabled enough -- this is assuming that we would rather cancer patients (or whoever) take an OD of drugs than shoot themselves in the head or jump off a tall building. Doing that does not sit very well with some medical professionals, who pride themselves on saving lives rather than ending them.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles It isn't that simple. The "right to die" basically entails a "right" to forcing someone else to provide you with the means to kill yourself, or even actively killing you if you are physically disabled enough -- this is assuming that we would rather cancer patients (or whoever) take an OD of drugs than shoot themselves in the head or jump off a tall building. Understandably, doing that does not sit very well with some medical professionals, who pride themselves on saving lives.

well the medical professionals should pride themselves on helping someone end a life of misery too.


*edit* and i'm not just talking about some little whiny bitch who is "depressed" and taking perscription drugs for said depression. i'm talking about cancer patients and EXTREMELY mentally ill people who live life every day with emotional pain and anguish that they cannot control and have tried every drug therapy in the book but nothing helps sort of thing.

Medical professionals don't necessarily have an obligation to SAVE lives, rather to improve the quality of life.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.