|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 7:42 pm
Resolution: This house believes that the suicidal should not be assisted by anyone in their goal and that any who play a role in the success of a suicide should be prosecutable.
Defining terms:
This house: PSIRockin
the suicidal: Those who desire to end their lives prematurely.
assist: Aid by any means, including prescriptions for medications, acting as a lookout, or providing schematics for a suicide.
prosecutable: Vulnerable to sentencing in a court of law for the crime of assisting a suicide.
Criteria: The debate will be won if I affirm that people who assist suicides are criminals worthy of prosecution.
Case proper: (Hastily written, sorry if it's not up to snuff)
Referring to Chief Justice Rehnquist's 1997 opinion on the ruling of Washington v. Glucksberg, assisting a suicide has long been frowned upon by the law in England as well as America*. As of the time of that case, forty-eight states had laws against it. These laws are just. I find that this is true because of two points and what may be deducted from them.
The first is that suicide is, essentially, murder of oneself. In assisting a suicide, the perpetrator is becoming an accessory to murder. Second, the person is not in his or her right mind. Whether or not the assister has considered this, he or she is helping someone who is not in a stable state of mind carry out that state of mind or to intensify it. To put it bluntly, this is akin to yelling "frag!" to a homeless war veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder to set him into a panic.
Another way the second point can be used is to point out that while one of America's foundations is the autonomy of its citizens, the decision to take one's own life is not a valid option because it is not based on sound judgment. Thus, the (I really need to find another word for this) assister cannot claim that the person had the right to choose death and that, by proxy, he or she cannot be prosecuted for aiding such an action.
In conclusion, assisting a suicide in any way, shape, or form should remain illegal because it is inherently wrong.
*http://www.euthanasia.com/history.html
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 9:26 pm
The simple fact someone is in an unstable state of mind should be more than enough to convince people that the person(s) is unable to properly make a decision with good judgement.
I don't see how anyone else could think different, unless they are unstable as well.
burning_eyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 9:39 am
A definitive: NO
Because these rights can be abused too easy. Even when you define controlling positions, it is too easy, to kill someone who never wanted to commit suicide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 1:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lucifer H. Marik Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 5:22 pm
PSIRockin Another way the second point can be used is to point out that while one of America's foundations is the autonomy of its citizens, the decision to take one's own life is not a valid option because it is not based on sound judgment. Thus, the (I really need to find another word for this) assister cannot claim that the person had the right to choose and that, by proxy, he or she cannot be prosecuted for aiding such an action. I view things on a swing basis For prosecution- Depending on the situation the person may want to but they dont have the will power or the morale to do it so then if the person gives them that extra push which in my opinion is manipulating a emotional disturbed person then they should be held responsible Against Prosecution- If and only if they have 100% proof that the person was pre-set to carry out their own execution then and only then the person should be held responsible ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PSIRockin assisting a suicide in any way, shape, or form should remain illegal because it is inherently wrong. True very true Yes some people could learn alot from this debate set up and I like that it gives links unlike the vegetarian thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 4:14 am
I personally think it should be legal, why because it's humane.
When a family dog gets sick we naturally try all we can to help it get better, we take it to the vet, we get it the operations, we give it dose of medication upon dose of medication, but no matter what we do nothing seems to work. The dog is dying slowly, painfully and is depressing for not only it but those around it. So what do we do? Why we put it down of course! surprised
Of course there are many differences between a dog regarded as a pet and a human who has the power to inform us of their thoughts and feelings but the similar concepts come in to play.
It's kinda like people who refuse treatment, why have them clogging up the hospitals, lazing around in pain waiting to die, why not give them what they want and have a doctor snuff em out.
I personally think euthanasia should be legal but with all things there should be standards that must be met. The person must be incurable, they has gotsta be killed by a doctor, and they must be conscious, fully with it, and able to consent. Naturally this is just a thought, the standards would of course be more elaborate and dramatic looking, not to mention morally sound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 4:42 am
The doctors are NEVER objective, they are men, too. There will be doctors, who will do their duty with consciousness and others who'll say." Ok, you look very ill! Tomorrow it's over.". It is simply not safe from abuse, like death-penalty. It will work well, until you find someone who died without a cause. There are many reasons of that abuse: Faked papers, influence of medication, alcoholism, temporarily "insanity", wrong medical inspection...
It is like turning off a machine. Lying in a coma and not waking up for five years does not mean, you're dead. There have been people who woke up after 20 years.
I am strictly against Euthanasia. When my father was 2 or 3 years old he was close to get killed by euthanasia, used by the Nazis. My father was ranked as "not life-worth". It will always lead to an extinction of people who can not defend themselves.
If I had something incurable, I would take a gun and do it my own! I would never expect from someone, to kill me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 7:05 pm
The only assistance the suicidal should get, is in the form of talking them out of it. Many people have suicidal thoughts at various points in their lives. Then they tend to look back on those points later and laugh quietly at themselves for even considering killing themselves over something that now seem so trivial.
I used to be for suicide, figuring that nobody knows you better than yourself. I have always been against assisted suicide, though. A person who has to give up their trade because they had to have a limb amputated, or a person who was facing a very serious operation with low odds where say, they could easily end up in vegetative state, or somebody who has lost their family, or a person who can't find any good in the world - these I considered the cases when suicide was alright.
Then I learned there's always something else to live for. Life is what you make of it, and there will always be somebody who suffers more than you ever will, who choosed to live. I think for a person to help another kill themself rather than do all in their power to talk the person out of it in some manner, is a failure. They should be held accountable for the death. There is always something they could have done to prevent it - call the police, talk them out of it, restrain them in some way. Then the person would eventually see reason.
And if they don't, their blood isn't on the other's hands. If the person wants to commit suicide, they'll have to do it themselves. It's a very selfish act, one worthy of the illegal label it has. To even consider that assisted suicide be legalized is insane.
The fact that legal assisted suicide could be abused has already been pointed out by everybody else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 1:52 pm
PSIRockin Resolution: This house believes that the suicidal should not be assisted by anyone in their goal and that any who play a role in the success of a suicide should be prosecutable. Defining terms: This house: PSIRockin the suicidal: Those who desire to end their lives prematurely. assist: Aid by any means, including prescriptions for medications, acting as a lookout, or providing schematics for a suicide. prosecutable: Vulnerable to sentencing in a court of law for the crime of assisting a suicide. Criteria: The debate will be won if I affirm that people who assist suicides are criminals worthy of prosecution. Case proper: (Hastily written, sorry if it's not up to snuff) Referring to Chief Justice Rehnquist's 1997 opinion on the ruling of Washington v. Glucksberg, assisting a suicide has long been frowned upon by the law in England as well as America*. As of the time of that case, forty-eight states had laws against it. These laws are just. I find that this is true because of two points and what may be deducted from them. The first is that suicide is, essentially, murder of oneself. In assisting a suicide, the perpetrator is becoming an accessory to murder. Second, the person is not in his or her right mind. Whether or not the assister has considered this, he or she is helping someone who is not in a stable state of mind carry out that state of mind or to intensify it. To put it bluntly, this is akin to yelling "frag!" to a homeless war veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder to set him into a panic. Another way the second point can be used is to point out that while one of America's foundations is the autonomy of its citizens, the decision to take one's own life is not a valid option because it is not based on sound judgment. Thus, the (I really need to find another word for this) assister cannot claim that the person had the right to choose death and that, by proxy, he or she cannot be prosecuted for aiding such an action. In conclusion, assisting a suicide in any way, shape, or form should remain illegal because it is inherently wrong. *http://www.euthanasia.com/history.html look im semi suicidal, as in used to be and still has urges but i have always looked at both sides of this subject. and my answer is yes it should stay illegal, because suicide is the way for desperate people in a depressive state to escape reality, its their way out, but if they are to go to such drastic measures its their resposibility. i know from experiance[sp] that when your suicidal its very hard to kill yourself, because you have doubts. if you aren't able to do it yourself deep down you don't really want to die, so why put your blood on somone elses hands?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 4:46 pm
assisted?
that seems a bit odd to me.
but suicide in general is natural to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 6:22 am
~*~*~
I believe it should remain illegal, with an exception for terminally ill patients. I don't think someone who is going to live the rest of their life possibly in pain should have to do so if they don't want to. But they may still want to go with as much dignity as possible, where assisted suicide would come in.
~*~*~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:48 am
I think if someone is in excruciating pain, to the point where it hurts to blink, and they want help dying, I think it should be legal. It isnt fair for them to suffer...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:02 pm
I support human dignity:
If we'll allow a dog a decent, painless death a human with a terminal disease should get the same rather than being being forced into a situation where they have to suffer a slow, agonizing death in a hospital bed.
It's ludicrous to deny people this right on what is usually a religious ground saying 'God wants them to die naturally' which is first off on rather unsteady footing from the beginning since it presumes something they can't prove (the existence of God), and on top of that it has no scriptural backing, and not to mention, when you're ******** hooked up to life support to prolong your life for as long as possible you are not getting a natural death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:54 pm
Harvested Sorrow I support human dignity: If we'll allow a dog a decent, painless death a human with a terminal disease should get the same rather than being being forced into a situation where they have to suffer a slow, agonizing death in a hospital bed. It's ludicrous to deny people this right on what is usually a religious ground saying 'God wants them to die naturally' which is first off on rather unsteady footing from the beginning since it presumes something they can't prove (the existence of God), and on top of that it has no scriptural backing, and not to mention, when you're ******** hooked up to life support to prolong your life for as long as possible you are not getting a natural death. Exactly, Quality of Life should mean more than that silly 'Rights to Life' slogan the religious buffs push on everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
