Who gets to decide when and how we die?

[HeyNorm]

.


I have a condition that is often called, colloquially, by some of the people who have it, "the suicide disease" because it's so painful that a shocking number of the people who have it choose to end their lives rather than live with the pain.

My belief system tells me that I do not have the right to end my life, and that doing so would risk my ending up in what some folks call hell.

How can I delegate to another that which my belief system would not allow me to do myself?


.

And in doing so, condemn him/her to hell.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

And in doing so, condemn him/her to hell.

.


Exactly!


.

 

[JGalt]

Enter the hypocrisy.
"Temporary" harm.
"They done changed it."

The God that created you doesn't take kindly to being mocked. You may not understand that at this moment in time.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Dragging capital punishment into this, kicking and screaming, is simply fallacious whataboutery. The topic question being "Who gets to decide when and how we die?" does not magically translate into "we" being prisoners sentenced to death by the State. The actual Hippocratic Oath was designed for newly licensed physicians just to pledge their respect for the craft's established knowledge and practices.

Is "first, do no harm" even possible?​

The idea that doctors should, as a starting point, not harm their patients is an appealing one. But doesn’t that set the bar rather low? Of course no physician should set out to do something that will only be accompanied by predictable and preventable harm. We don’t need an ancient ancestor, however well-respected, or an oath to convince us of that!

But if physicians took "first, do no harm" literally, no one would have surgery, even if it was lifesaving. We might stop ordering mammograms, because they could lead to a biopsy for a non-cancerous lump. In fact, we might not even request blood tests — the pain, bruising, or bleeding required to draw blood are clearly avoidable harms.

But doctors do recommend these things within the bounds of ethical practice because the modern interpretation of "first, do no harm" is closer to this: doctors should help their patients as much as they can by recommending tests or treatments for which the potential benefits outweigh the risks of harm. Even so, in reality, the principle of "first, do no harm" may be less helpful — and less practical — than you might think.

 

[JGalt]

Dragging capital punishment into this, kicking and screaming, is simply fallacious whataboutery. The topic question being "Who gets to decide when and how we die?" does not magically translate into "we" being prisoners sentenced to death by the State. The actual Hippocratic Oath was designed for newly licensed physicians just to pledge their respect for the craft's established knowledge and practices.

Ok, I give up. Go kill yourself then. You have my blessings.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Permission is irrelevant.

How about written, witnessed, and notarized consent? Is that "irrelevant" too?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

How about written, witnessed, and notarized consent? Is that "irrelevant" too?

Damn right it is.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Damn right it is.

Well alrighty then! Just wanted to clear the record

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ok, I give up. Go kill yourself then. You have my blessings.

All that "God's Love" preaching inevitably bubbles to the surface.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

The actual Hippocratic Oath was designed for newly licensed physicians just to pledge their respect for the craft's established knowledge and practices.

I want to respond to whatever text you quoted - I do not know the source, but it is wrong.

Primum non nocere does not mean never do any harm, and it is not part of the Hippocratic Oath, but it is the central tenet of medical ethics.

You are not allowed to intentionally harm your patients unless the harm you are doing is intended to help the patient and the help you are providing is plausible (the care is not futile). Appendectomy to relieve appendicitis is harmful but it will help the patient long term and is very unlikely to cause more harm than good (other than the general low risk of all surgery and all anesthesia).

Chemotherapy, another example, it will make you miserable and sick and tired - but the cancer will kill you dead. If there is a decent chance the chemo will save or extend the patient’s life, or increase the quality of life they have left, then the harm is worthwhile.

Contrast this with just intentionally killing your own patient. You have no good intentions and the harm you are inflicting is objectively worse than whatever you are treating, and you know it. This is a premeditated homicide, a lethal attack against your fellow human being, the same as any other random violent human grabbing a shotgun and shooting a random innocent human.

 

[JGalt]

All that "God's Love" preaching inevitably bubbles to the surface.

God may love you, but I don't give a flying fuck.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The God that created you doesn't take kindly to being mocked. You may not understand that at this moment in time.

I was addressing your attempted false equivalency, which I'm certain you do understand at this moment, but choose to drag your god into this, kicking and screaming, to hide behind since you clearly lack the balls to address well sourced argument and logical deduction in like manner.

 

[JGalt]

I was addressing your attempted false equivalency, which I'm certain you do understand at this moment, but choose to drag your god into this, kicking and screaming, to hide behind since you clearly lack the balls to address well sourced argument and logical deduction in like manner.

Whut?

 

[initforme]

If I give you permission and request you shoot me in the face, and you do, the police will arrest you and put you in prison for murder.

Permission is irrelevant. You are not allowed to attack me. You are only allowed to use force like that in self-defense.

True. But if one wants to end their suffering what you are BEGGING for is for that person to feel more pain. So at that point it's all on you.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I want to respond to whatever text you quoted - I do not know the source, but it is wrong.

Thanks. Much appreciate the attitude, but my sources are provided and no, I'm not "wrong."
Will follow up.. later. Busy..

 

[initforme]

As a lifelong Christian I am at direct odds with carsomy.

 

[Grumblenuts]

True. But if one wants to end their suffering what you are BEGGING for is for that person to feel more pain. So at that point it's all on you.

My wife helps people who are dying every day. The youngest of five, I was left caring for my own mom in the end. I think having been there at least once really helps cut through all the crap.

 

[initforme]

My wife helps people who are dying every day. The youngest of five, I was left caring for my own mom in the end. I think having been there at least once really helps cut through all the crap.

Yep. But if one is in intense suffering and wants out who are YOU to override them? You are NOT God. Stick it.

 

[sparky]

Occam's Razor, my friend.

William of Ockham is probably doing pirouettes in his grave OPJQ

~S~

 

[sparky]

You are not allowed to intentionally harm your patients unless the harm you are doing is intended to help the patient and the help you are providing is plausible

plausibility being entirety objective

My wife helps people who are dying every day

and you're not nervous?
~S~