|
Post by Curtle on Mar 24, 2005 0:47:37 GMT -5
The Terri Schiavo case brough up this question. Simple poll to see what people think about this at a glimpse.
|
|
|
Post by Shelyuki on Mar 24, 2005 7:33:34 GMT -5
You're asking do we have the right to kill ourselves? Sure. It's your life and if you don't want to live it, you don't have to. Do we have the legal right to kill ourselves? If you succeed at suicide I highly highly doubt you'll be prosecuted by the government.
Not that I support suicide at all, I think its completely selfish no matter what the circumstances-unless you're in pain and there's absolutely no chance that things will get better and your loved ones also acknowledge that (example: you're living only because of life support).
The whole Terri Schiavo case is hard to decide because she didn't leave any documents saying she would want to die if something like that ever happened.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan on Mar 25, 2005 0:37:48 GMT -5
I say yes. Like Shel said, it's your life. You either live it, or you simply don't.
|
|
|
Post by Sabam on Mar 29, 2005 14:35:06 GMT -5
I suppose my opinion on this fluctuates from time to time however, today, I happen to agree with Jordan and Shel.
It's difficult to explain - the last remaining thing a person controls, when everything else has sped out of their will, is their body ... no?
Perhaps people will describe suicide as an act of utter selfishness. Selfishness or selflessness? As harsh as this sounds, if a person has surpassed the point of all competance with real life and only remains as a dead weight to their family and friends - it's just not worth it anymore.
In a way, suicide may be relieving their pain as well as the torment endured by their close ones that is imposed by seeing him or her suffer this way.
An individual has been given life without a choice. So instead, there is a counter-option and to take this other way is a personal and rightful choice.
|
|
Simian
Commoner
Monkey Power!
Posts: 16
|
Post by Simian on Apr 4, 2005 11:17:27 GMT -5
I am torn between an answer.
On the one hand, I believe you should be allowed to kill yourself.
On the other, suicide is often a thought or desire brought on by a dislodged mental state. Such as if you've been traumatized or have been so successful in life that when you fail you believe something must be wrong.
So while I agree that killing yourself should be choice, it's only if you're in good mental health. Which is a whole 'nother problem and discussion.
HOWEVER: in the case of Terri Shiavo, I believe there should be proof as to her wishes. Such as a written or recorded will.
Otherwise, we ought to tilt in favor of life.
|
|
|
Post by Nica-Da on Apr 4, 2005 21:00:22 GMT -5
Dude, I think that they should have restored Terri's feeding tube. She could breathe herself...and you could tell she knew what was going on around her. Everytime she saw he parents...she would look at them and smile. Just because she had brain damage and couldn't talk and eat herself doesn't mean she didn't have a right to live. Her husband wanted her gone to get the million dollar settlement and so he could re-marry. The fact that her parents had to sit there and watch their daughter die was horrible. Not feeding Terri because of her brain damage is just like not giving old people that need oxygen tanks their oxygen...or stop giving people organ transplants because "they're just going to die anyway". If they wanted her dead...they should of just put a pillow over her face...at least she wouldn't have to suffer...
|
|
|
Post by Sabam on Apr 5, 2005 15:31:41 GMT -5
She could breathe herself...and you could tell she knew what was going on around her. Everytime she saw he parents...she would look at them and smile. If I recall, I believe that she only seemed lucid in one particular, over-reproduced photograph. This means little. The statement that she was perfectly aware is debatable ... who knows what really happened? I mean, there can be many testamonies made in court that are unverifiable ... If they wanted her dead...they should of just put a pillow over her face...at least she wouldn't have to suffer... I would agree with a simple needle just to make it a quick death however, euthanasia is illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Nica-Da on Apr 5, 2005 16:14:35 GMT -5
I would agree with a simple needle just to make it a quick death however, euthanasia is illegal. You've gotta be kidding me. Get a grip...I was using it as an example. You know...being sarcastic. But yea, Terri's family accually used the fact that she showed different emotions towards different people to prove that she knew what was going on around her to get her feeding tube replaced last time it was removed. The reason that her feeding tube wasn't replace this time was because her husband. He claimed that she wouldn't want to be kept alive like that. Yet, as you said yourself...how would he know what state she was in? He doesn't. Can anyone honestly say that taking away a feeding tube and letting the person starve to death was a humane way to let someone die?
|
|
|
Post by Sabam on Apr 6, 2005 17:15:16 GMT -5
You've gotta be kidding me. Get a grip...I was using it as an example. You know...being sarcastic. You weren't being sarcastic or else the entire claim would be reversed. What you mean is that you pushed an example to the extreme. And I did pick up on it, I don't think you're that dense. It seems that you two were just making the same point about an easier death. The wires just got a little crossed/misread. Do try to play nice though. - LinaHe claimed that she wouldn't want to be kept alive like that. And why should she be "kept alive"? It isn't as if she's living her life. She's just there. She exists. If her parents are just using her physical presence as an amend to pretending that she's still "here" and "well" then that's wrong. Can anyone honestly say that taking away a feeding tube and letting the person starve to death was a humane way to let someone die? It's the only alternative they had. I reiterate: euthanasia is illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Nica-Da on Apr 6, 2005 20:22:26 GMT -5
*Going to ignore what some people said so this can be posted* ANYWAYS, just because she wasn't running around doing stuff doesnt mean she should be put to death. Hell, what kind of difference are you making in the world? Maybe you should be denyed the right to have food and water. What do people with Alzheimer's Disease do? They can't do anything but exist because of their DISEASE. ITS AN ILLNESS. Are you honestly...i mean HONESTLY trying to tell me that if one of your loved ones had a stroke or a diease that only allowed them to "exist" you'd want to cut short the remaining time you had with that person by not feeding them? You don't think it was cruel to have her family sit there and watch her die? What if that were your mother...and she couldn't eat herself but she showed signs that she knew what was going on around her. Would you let them not feed her because they "think" that she doesn't have the right to live? If you can sit there and say that they're right for taking away her god given gift...then theres seriously something wrong with you. She's a victim, not a criminal...theres no reason why she should be put to death like that, and to put it nicely thats exactly what they did. Not to mention the pain she could have been feeling from the lack of food and water. You can't say that she didn't feel that pain because even the doctors won't know until they get the autopsy back. Just the fact that she COULD be feeling pain should have stopped them from doing it. I just think the fact is that you have no compasson for people, esp. dieing people that don't have much time on the earth anyway. Suck it up, cowboys...face it...
|
|
|
Post by Sabam on Apr 7, 2005 15:56:17 GMT -5
ANYWAYS, just because she wasn't running around doing stuff doesnt mean she should be put to death. Hell, what kind of difference are you making in the world? Maybe you should be denyed the right to have food and water. I'm not saying she should have died because she wasn't a productive member of society, I said she should be put out of her misery because she couldn't enjoy the simple pleasures of life that everyone has a right to experience. She could never know anything beyond her walls ever again. Are you honestly...i mean HONESTLY trying to tell me that if one of your loved ones had a stroke or a diease that only allowed them to "exist" you'd want to cut short the remaining time you had with that person by not feeding them? If I couldn't have a conversation with them, if I couldn't hear their voice directed at me anymore, if I couldn't even recognize their spirit in their limp bodies then I would want my pain and their's to end. If the only thing that was bringing me comfort was that they were breathing then that's no comfort at all. I'm not attached to anyone's physical presence, but their souls, their spirits, their words. I want to feel them respond, I want to know for sure that they're with me. Would you let them not feed her because they "think" that she doesn't have the right to live? This isn't about rights ... it has no context whatsoever. If you want to mention rights, then mention that her husband had the RIGHT to move on, her family had the RIGHT to stop clinging to a void ocean of hopelessness. Sometimes, people have the RIGHT to let go, understand? I just think the fact is that you have no compasson for people, esp. dieing people that don't have much time on the earth anyway. Suck it up, cowboys...face it... I just think the fact is that you're unwilling to see the side of another story. Terri Schiavo wasn't the only one suffering here.
|
|
|
Post by Nica-Da on Apr 7, 2005 20:15:20 GMT -5
I guess I'm gonna have to repeat myself. The fact that she couldn't be active doesn't mean she had to be put to death. Yes, I said PUT TO DEATH. I'm not saying she should have died because she wasn't a productive member of society, I said she should be put out of her misery because she couldn't enjoy the simple pleasures of life that everyone has a right to experience. She could never know anything beyond her walls ever again. Hmm...seems to me you're contadicting yourself. This isn't about rights ... it has no context whatsoever. I'm pretty sure the title of this thread is "the right to die"...how does this not involve rights? Sabam says that her husband should be allowed to move on. Move on to what? His wifes money and a new wife that wanted and wanted terri dead to enjoy both? I don't understand how Sabam can say that terri was hopeless. Doctors dont know if terri was hopeless...how can she? I'm pretty sure that was the point of the autopsy. I just think the fact is that you're unwilling to see the side of another story. Terri Schiavo wasn't the only one suffering here. Here we go, just what I wanted. The fact that she could "suffer" means she could "feel suffering". If she could "feel suffering" she can "feel" hunger and thirst. If she can FEEL hunger and thirst...wouldn't it be inhumane to have her go through the suffering of having to feel it? Also, If she could still feel, she could get worse to the point where she can't feel. If she can get worse...she can get better. If she can get better...why take away her RIGHT to live? I'm also going to restate that she is a vitcim...not a criminal...and shouldn't be put to death as does a killer. I also think that I'm going to stop posting on this thread because its not even a debate anymore. It's me and Sabam going back and forth, and it's gotten extreamly boring. Can someone else post that discusses the full issue and just doesn't pick small details and attacks them?
|
|
|
Post by Sabam on Apr 8, 2005 19:34:55 GMT -5
Once again, I'm going to have to explain myself. I'm not quite sure how many times I'll have to SPELL it out, but, I suppose I rather enjoy this. The fact that she couldn't be active doesn't mean she had to be put to death. Yes, I said PUT TO DEATH. I quite very much understand that she was "PUT TO DEATH" as you so tried to imply with your unnescessary capital letters. Now, once again ... "couldn't be active" is the understatement of the year. She was in a coma of fifteen years. She didn't even respond to light anymore, and doctors agree that a human response to light is the last thing to go when a person is dying. Hmm...seems to me you're contadicting yourself. Please indulge, oh Mighty One, as to HOW I'm contradicting myself? Sabam says that her husband should be allowed to move on. Move on to what? His wifes money and a new wife that wanted and wanted terri dead to enjoy both? I don't understand how Sabam can say that terri was hopeless. Doctors dont know if terri was hopeless...how can she? I'm pretty sure that was the point of the autopsy. Once again, I reiterate ... fifteen years. This is an exaggerated amount of time and Terri Schiavo was taking up resources that could have been given to patients who's survival was more certain. Here, I'll even use your tactics so you can recognize my message: FIFTEEN YEARS. Her husband could've been a jerk for all I know, I've never met the guy but I'm sure he didn't marry Terri Schindler knowing that she would be comatosed and he could rake in the dough. So he suffered from this ordeal and unbeknowest to them, her parents suffered too by burdening themselves with a false sense of hope, a false comfort in the fact that their daughter was still physically there. The fact that she could "suffer" means she could "feel suffering". If she could "feel suffering" she can "feel" hunger and thirst. If she can FEEL hunger and thirst...wouldn't it be inhumane to have her go through the suffering of having to feel it? Also, If she could still feel, she could get worse to the point where she can't feel. If she can get worse...she can get better. If she can get better...why take away her RIGHT to live? I honestly can't respond to that. Happy? All I know is that this game of tug-a-war has been going on for fifteen years. You seem to be a very "hopeful" person. I've got nothing against that however, hope can make and break a person. Fifteen years is just too much, a little under how old I am. That is simply too long to "keep up hope" ... to me, that decade and a half would have been unbearable to add to. She could've gotten better, hell, who knows? But the chances are slim. It's alot easier to get worse than it is to get better. I'm also going to restate that she is a vitcim...not a criminal...and shouldn't be put to death as does a killer. She wasn't put to death as a killer. A killer has shame to go down with, she had nothing. A killer has a reputation to go down with, she had nothing. There are different kinds of deaths. Justice is not dealt to a killer through death, it is dealt through the lack of dignity with which they depart. And personally, I would rather die a "criminal" than die a matyr. I also think that I'm going to stop posting on this thread because its not even a debate anymore. It's me and Sabam going back and forth, and it's gotten extreamly boring. This IS a debate, a contradiction of opinions and the individuals' struggle to prove their opinion has value. What do they teach you in school?
|
|
|
Post by Nica-Da on Apr 8, 2005 20:27:35 GMT -5
It seems to me that me posting, repeating myself and fighting for this issue is a waste of my time and energy. I also feel that there is no need to fight for this issue when with every post, Sabam is proving my point more and more (thanks, a lot of people can't do that and make it seem like a arguement at the same time). In conclusion, I'm not going to post on this thread until a third party comes in and makes it worth posting on.
|
|
|
Post by Sabam on Apr 9, 2005 10:39:35 GMT -5
I'd just like you to explain HOW I'm helping you prove your point, if that's not too much to ask?
|
|