You spoke of platitudes and what I was offering is simple reality. Since the reality is that life itself is a terminal condition, there must be a measure by which one gauges the worthiness of one's own early exit. I maintain that this measure is unique to the individual but you would impose your measure, your will, on others.
You pivoted to talk about something else instead of addressing the point. Why are you so eager to see people end themselves?
I think human life has more value than to throw it away for frivolous reasons. Am I the big bad for valuing their lives more than they value their own?
While it's not likely to be the course of action I'd choose for myself, I don't see any reason to prohibit one's ending their own life after suffering the loss of a pinky. Have you forgotten that you're the one suggesting restrictions on one's right to exit life on their own terms?
You forget that currently there is no such right, anything I suggest is more than what's already available. Either way this is not just about the person committing suicide, they have a responsibility to others whether you want to acknowledge that or not.
You offered a vague "terminal condition" as justification for early exit without, to the best of my recollection, specifying physical pain. I'm trying to explore this as you've determined it to be reasonable justification.
Because I assumed having a deliberating physical condition that makes living hell, is already a given and not under debate. I didn't even consider the possibility that someone would want to end their lives without that condition being met, because it totally goes against my own morality and values.
As it happens, plenty of terminal conditions don't themselves cause physical pain. I mentioned crippledom and dementia which, when in the extreme, place significant burden on those suffering these conditions and/or those tasked with their care. Is early exit not reasonably justified in these circumstances? Why or why not? And if it is, why would it not be in others?
I remember leaving the exact conditions open for as I'm no medical expert and don't know all ailments that can cause life to be unbearable.
What is mitigation and how is its efficacy measured? Maybe consider the question instead of pussying out by stating you're not in the position to make such determinations, as you're still the one advocating for restrictions on access to specific palliative care.
That's actually one of society's big problems. The inability to say "I don't know" No, everybody wants to be an expert on everything, because they see admitting to not knowing something as weakness. So no "pussying out" as you say is not a weakness, it is a strength where I recognize the limits of my knowledge.
So no I'm not going to even attempt to answer a question I do not know the answer to. Just because I do not know how to fix the crankshaft pulley in a car doesn't mean I have to automatically accept the judgement that the car has to go to the junkyard.
Why shouldn't it? Why should there be "qualifications" at all? I'm not the one advocating for these restrictions.
No, your advocating for everyone to have the right to just off themselves willy-nilly. But I already explained why that is a problem. Going in circles won't change my stance on social debt, and the rights of the people left behind.
Would I personally? No. I also wouldn't want to personally provide hospice care. I still believe access to these should be unrestricted and governed only by consent as recognized in common law.
Here is the gun, go end yourself is not care.
Since when is there such an obligation? If one chooses to "save" someone who wants to be "saved," great, but absent either or both of these things, one should not undertake said effort. One should not be required to "save" and one should not be required to be "saved."
So if you see a person lying on the street clutching his chest, you'd step over him, because you have no obligation to save anybody? Nice. I'm beginning to see the problem here. In this the person who feels suicidal and the one having a heart attack, are no different than the other, they are both people in need.
Again, this seems like it's rooted in religious doctrine. I know you said it's not, but your rebuttal didn't really go beyond "nuh-uh" and so it wasn't very convincing.
It is the realization that every human being alive has had a minuscule chance of existing, so killing any one is like destroying something invaluable and irreplaceable. It has nothing to do with religious doctrine, no matter how much you insist. In this I'm no more religious than Richard Dawkins.
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here."
Suicide has never not been an option. When attempts may result in additional suffering for the individual and may also endanger the lives of others, why should access to assistance be so restricted?
I'm a big proponent of services to help those who want help dealing with situations that have them considering suicide. I also recognize that some may not want this help and I don't think they should be required to get it.
So how do you decide if someone needs help to deal with a situation or just a gun to the head? That's all I'm advocating for, do everything else possible before actual assisted suicide is even on the table.
There is no debt. I mean...save for actual real debt. This "debt to society" is a machination of your making. The only societal obligations one has are to engage in it without being a burden on it when it is in one's power to not be and to not violate the rights of others. There is no obligation to simply continue engagement.
So every facility, every infrastructure, every social net, that you use and take for granted, you think just exists and come out of nothing? Or are they machinations of my making?
I've seen the term bandied about but it's never struck me as particularly meaningful. When opportunities exist, individuals ought to be permitted to seize them.
And nobody said anything about banning individuals from doing anything. that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. If you want to keep migrants out don't build a wall, invest in their home countries to improve economic conditions. That's where most conservatives fail the litmus test, they'll always choose to build a bigger wall and have bigger guns to defend it. But that just results in those wanting the riches inside using more desperate measures too.
Ah, yes, because there's no more obvious a representation of the spirit of globalism than denying one the right to leave one country for another.
Who said denying the right? With globalism there is no overwhelming economic incentive to leave one country for other, it's still allowed.
Should there be such a right? There simply isn't one. Such a right couldn't be recognized, respected or protected by enforcement of law.
Then why did you use that as an argument for assisted suicide?
Though one who has chosen to end their life is unlikely to continue to endure emotional trauma, ending one's life is in accordance with the right to bodily integrity.
There is no absolute right to bodily integrity because your choices affects others too. For example you can't opt out of certain vaccines.
lol
For the record, this supposed hill is me recognizing a right equally and consistently.
Yeah, no...no reason there. I'm talking about actual reason and not some "reason" (or rather justification) you've proposed. There is no debt to society of which you speak and the interests of loved ones or dependency on an individual are not reasonable justifications for denying one access to a means to exit life on their terms insofar as it results in minimal suffering to the individual and does not expose others to physical harm. One may take into consideration loved ones and/or dependants, but that's a part of their choice.
If it affects others it is not their choice purely. There must be restrictions on what an individual is allowed to do based on how it affects others, even if we assume zero value to the individual themselves.
