Page 2 of 6
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:35 pm
by sgt.null
beacause in the Church the assumption is always for life.
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:41 pm
by DukkhaWaynhim
But that is assuming that he does not have the capacity to make his own decision, and that someone else will be making it for him, perhaps against his will. If he is a devout Catholic and his Catholic family are clustered around him, yes, they should be counseling him against that action, because they feel it is a grievous sin.
I don't doubt that the man is situationally depressed. But if he is found to be of sound mind despite that, he should be able to take action to end his own life, whether it be judged a sin or not.
DW
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:43 pm
by Cail
Absolutely DW.
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:11 pm
by Warmark
sgtnull wrote:so we should allow depressives to die because what they think life should be isn't? how far will you carry this? if someone loses their legs and doesn't want to live anymore? if someone is really fat? or if someone has a bad case of acne? when you allow for slef murder you open the flood gates. so how bad off does someone have to be? is your level the same as my level? do we go the strictest level or allow for full access? is it right to tell the quad he can die, but not the depressive? is the quad suffering from depression that effects his judgement?
If they want to die because of their acne, let them.
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:39 pm
by sgt.null
that wa a joke, right warmark?
teens have large number of suicides. do we extend this logic to include their right to die?
it is my contention that anyone in the right mind will want to live, no matter the odds stacked against them. maybe that is why i can not see you sides of the argument.
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:56 pm
by Cail
Your contention is dead (no pun intended) wrong.
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:09 pm
by Avatar
Good posts folks. I thought I was surprised at Cail's position on this, but I'm not actually now that I think about it.
And for what it's worth, I agree with Warmark. It's your life, you can do what you want with it. I'm not even too concerned about how sound your mind is. It's yours. Nobody else lives your life, nobody else feels what you're feeling. Laws against Euthanasia and suicide are the last vestigaes of monarchial/feudalist control, when you were the property of your overlord.
--A
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:31 pm
by Cameraman Jenn
I have to agree with Av and crew. It's my body and I should have the right to do what I want with it and to it and that goes for my mind as well.
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:33 pm
by Avatar
Damn straight.
--A
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:38 pm
by Waddley
Avatar wrote:Anything less, the denial by the state of the right to self-determination, equates to nothing less than slavery.
What he said.
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:52 pm
by sgt.null
well lets have a hugfest. most of you wouldn't lock up a man with tb who refuses not to infect others, but you are all for anyone who wants to kill themselves. and you would let teens or depressed themselves off at an equal rate. hoo-ha.
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:10 pm
by Cameraman Jenn
Hey, I would lock up a guy who had a deadly disease that was willfully infecting others!
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:15 pm
by Waddley
I would let someone pull the plug on themselves, yes, because a person has every right to be in control of every aspect of their body. The decision to euthanize is one that only majorly affects the person asking for the euthanization.
On the other hand, TB guy has a major affect on others. Working in food service he has the perfect position to spread a sickness around. I don't think the two are comparable situations. (That said, I am with Cail and Syl on that position to respect the confidentiality of the patient. )
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:27 pm
by Cameraman Jenn
Well, I understand patient confidentiality but when it imposes a health threat to others willfully done by the carrier of a disease then isn't it akin to assault?
And Wadds you are absolutely right, they are not the same subject at all...
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:35 am
by Holsety
Although I feel suicide should be something we can do legally and freely, I'm glad that there's suicide prevention because people do recover from dangerously depressed states. If there were no laws and such against suicide, there'd I assume be no prevention and no way of stopping it. I can believe that the guy in question will never feel the urge to live again, but for how many cases of suicide is that actually true?
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:47 pm
by Warmark
sgtnull wrote:that wa a joke, right warmark?
teens have large number of suicides. do we extend this logic to include their right to die?
it is my contention that anyone in the right mind will want to live, no matter the odds stacked against them. maybe that is why i can not see you sides of the argument.
No, not really.
Of course, its
rediculous to want to kill yourself because of acne, howeer if thas what they want, who am i to stop them?
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:58 am
by sgt.null
because someone who wants to die because of a temporary condition is not in their right frame of mind. and unable to adequately speak for their own actions. normal, balanced people do not want to kill themselves.
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 4:04 am
by Loredoctor
Holsety wrote:Although I feel suicide should be something we can do legally and freely, I'm glad that there's suicide prevention because people do recover from dangerously depressed states.
Good post.
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 4:58 am
by sgt.null
suicide, a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:11 am
by Cail
May be, but I'm not arrogant enough to tell someone they can't off themselves. I will tell them why they shouldn't.