Assisted Suicide for Terminal Patients

There is no "assisted" suicide. It's homicide. If money is the issue (.."a cost benefit for all involved.") then I should be able to "assist" the "suicide" of any of my family members when times get lean. And what is dying with dignity? When someone dies in a horrible car crash do you say to yourself,"they didn't even get to die with dignity, what a shame?"

Life is sacrosanct and holy no matter what their condition. Do you see less fortunate people around the world (North Korea, Africa, Iran, etc.)and tell yourself how undignified they are and they should be killed?

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy...

I appreciate the response, truly. You've done a pretty good job at twisting the discussion. The title clearly states "Assisted Suicide for Terminal Patients." I'm not talking about people in less fortunate conditions, strictly people with a terminal illness.

Let's take a look at your arguments one by one though.

"When times get lean" this one is just blowing hot air and so far off point it isn't worth commenting further on.

"Horrible crash" Yes, these people do die with dignity (possibly not if they were driving drunk). One typically dies with dignity when they have not been reduced to lying in a hospital bed with tubes and drugs keeping the heart beating and the brain barely functioning. Would you want to be dependant on family and hospital workers just to go to the bathroom?

"Sacrosanct and holy" This is the good argument and one I felt I basically covered originally. If life is this way, then why is it acceptable for the medical profession to step in and extend life by treating a terminal illness? One could argue that God has a plan and that the medical profession is interfering with that plan by treating people to help them live longer.

"Less fortunate people" This is a huge twist that suggests genocide. I am in no way a fan of mass murder and I made no comment that I was. While I understand there is a lot of suffering in third world or "less fortunate" areas, they also help make my point. Most of these countries don't have the medical technologies to step in and extend life. When someone in one of these areas becomes a terminal patient, nature (for the most part) takes its course.

One question I should have posed at the beginning but did not is: Do you believe the government has the right to tell us that we have to live as long as the Doctors can keep us alive, regardless of the quality of life?

Again, thanks for the post. We all have our opinions and this seems a great place to discuss them.

"'When times get lean' this one is just blowing hot air."

You mention the financial burden on insurance and families. At that point life becomes relative to the resources of the people taking care of the patient.

You state treatment is a form of playing God. Then that would equate procreating with playing God so we shouldn't do that either. It is impossible for anyone to "play" God under any circumstances, we play fallible human beings.

Referring to the car crash and unfortunates, you state that the car crash victim died with dignity unless he/she were intoxicated. Says who? Are you the one who will now write the rules for what is dying with dignity and what isn't. And if it is not you, then who is?

What do you have against fighting "terminal" illnesses anyway? There was once a time when a simple cut was terminal, influenza was terminal, and a host of others diseases, but are now curable because doctors began to treat them and find out its characteristics in order to defeat them. Cancer will someday be cured.

"One could argue that God has a plan and that the medical profession is interfering with that plan...." I can't remember reading such satire. Do you actually believe that if a doctor decided to extend a person's life one day unbeknownst to anyone else, God thinks,"Darn it, Dr. Smith, you foiled my plans!" Ri*dic*u*lous. Why do bring God into this when don't even know Him or His awesome power of creating Everything?

And about government involvement, never because they should never be in the medical field; a la Nazis. But rule one in the Hypocratic oath: First do no harm.

Good day.

For many people the financial burden is part of the equation. Not just because the medical costs are more than they can afford. Because for them, dieing with dignity could mean leaving an inheritance to provide for loved ones after they have died.

For the fundamental Christian, procreation is why we are here. It is a task that is assigned to us through the Bible. There is a huge God complex in the medical profession and many doctors do feel they are playing god by saving lives.

Yes a person killed in a car crash can die with dignity. To die with dignity means, to me at least, to die without having become a burden to loved ones. I'm not trying to define dignity for the world. I'm simply stating that it should be the choice of the person and family involved in cases of a terminal illness.

I hope cancer is cured someday. I'd like it to happen tomorrow but I don't see that happening. Are you suggesting people be forced to live against there will for the sake of science? While I want my organs donated to someone who needs them, I have no desire to be a guinea pig. It should be a choice for the one involved.

God is brought into the subject because many people feel that he is the creator of life and death. If you believe this, at what point do we decide that we are interfering with natural life?

You feel the government should not be involved, so do you agree that legislating assisted suicide is wrong? The first rule in the Hippocratic Oath is do no harm but who is deciding what harm is? Is harm dieing a long drawn out death from a terminal disease?

For me it comes down to choice. If I am diagnosed with a terminal illness, I want to be able to say enough is enough when the time comes. When my life is reduced from having quality to lying in a bed and knowing that I will never function as an active human again, I want to be able to end it.

You are starting off the premis that logic, personal views, and economics are all that is needed. But, from a absolute moral perspective--an absolute is something that is true regardless of your religion or worldview--taking a life is a power that belongs only to God (or to 'nature' if you want to leave God out of it).

The argument is flawed because it sits on a squishy foundation. It must start from an absolute truth--all life is valuable, and worth preserving. From that point, lets talk about dealing with pain, economic consequences, medical issues, etc.

Great discussion--keep it going. This seems like a hot discussion, so I wanted to join in and remind everyone to keep it nice.

Josue Sierra
Online Community Manager
Townhall.com

Life is Life, regardless of the quality. If we make taking life an arbitrary decision, then we have the proverbial "slippery slope", and taking of life will eventually reach the lowest common denominator.

Josue,

Birth and Death are both absolute. From the fundamental Christian pov at what point do we decide that medical treatments are interfering with God's plan by extending life?

All... I appreciate the comments! Just to be clear, I am on the side of assisted suicide for terminal patients. I do try and ask questions to be a devil's advocate though.

Greg,

One could argue that we are on a slippery slope the other way by treating people so they live longer than they would without the treatment. I'm not advocating abolishing medical treatments for a life of no vaccinations, surgeries or anything like that.

I do think it is possible to allow people to decide enough is enough and not punish anyone that assisted them if the patient clearly asked for help and was a terminal patient.

Isn't that WHY most people would prefer to end their lives? I CAN speak about this issue, as both my mother and then father went through H*** during their last days.

Yes, I know, now we have morphine drips and things but the fact is too many people still die in tremendous PAIN. It's either PAIN or no brain. Cause you can't think with a drip. And they ASK to die when they are lucid.

It's NOT quiet oblivion, it's SCREAMING AGONY sometimes.

Although I feel sympathy for those who suffer from alzheimer's for instance, it is not the same as a painful death. It is MUCH harder on the relatives than the patient. But that may be where dignity plays a part.

Using an argument of a different sort: Why not end their suffering BECAUSE WE CAN.