I used to oppose euthanasia because I believed it was wrong, and because of the "slippery slope" argument: that legalized euthanasia would lead to forced euthanasia. But I changed my mind when I realized a couple of things: we allow lots of things that would be bad if they were forced, and the morality of euthanasia is not something that threatens society as a whole. Prohibiting euthanasia because the majority believe it's wrong is equivalent to prohibiting adultery because the majority believe it's wrong. Just because a majority believes something is wrong is not grounds to make it illegal.

I watched my father die from liver cancer. His last night was spent in a hospital when he should have been home, but that's another argument. I watched this man who had been strong my entire life now withered away to under 100 pounds thrashing about in his bed in immense pain and wondered who in the world has the right to say he cannot choose to put himself out of his misery. His last few months were nothing but excruciating pain. I have a friend now who is terminal and has made the decision to stock up on certain meds because she does not want to die the way my father did. She would like to choose a more peaceful ending on her own terms and that should be her right.

The problem is, you have to off yourself before you're too incapacitated to do so, but you don't want to do it too soon, either.

In the near future, our PDAs will be able to monitor our mood. At that point we will be able to communicate our desires to our machines and have them carry out our wishes when we're no longer able to.

Unfortunately I can't think of a solution to the problem of how to handle the situation where a person changes their mind (either way) after they lose the ability to communicate.

Pseudonym - I'm with you on this. I too have changed my mind.

And then I read things like this
and it gets into that slippery slope loop for me again. I just don't like these things in the hands of the government. I could be paranoid, but I've never really trusted them in having people’s best interests in mind. The PDA actually sounds like a good solution.

Above all I believe in a right to human dignity. My grandmother has a "do not resuscitate" notice posted above her bed should she have another stroke. It's really hard to look at when I go over there, but I am comforted that she made this decision and it will be her choice.

I liked this article.

Traditional Judaism correctly draws a clear line (as clear as is possible) between non-treatment and active killing.

Yes, that's what "euthenasia" is - killing.

No human being should be given legal permission to kill in such often unclear circumstances. Not even themselves.

Yes, there's a slippery slope, and we're already well along it - as in the recent story in which a perfectly healthy man was killed along with his terminally ill wife - simply because he, caught up in the grief of her coming death, thought he couldn't bear to be a widower.

Yes, there's a slippery slope - with the current attempt to socialize medical care looming over this whole discussion.

So when Pseudo wrote:
the morality of euthanasia is not something that threatens society as a whole
- - - - - - - - -
Nope - it does threaten society as a whole.

Each individual is a part of a larger family and society.

Throughout one's life, membership in that society imposes all kinds of restrictions, material losses - and suffering.

Pain should be relieved, treatment can be suspended.

But then the ill must perform their last duty to the society they lived in - and leave it with its values intact.

> At that point we will be able to
> communicate our desires to our
> machines

I have many friends who have Iphones, and they all adore them... But I don't think Steve Jobs (especially Steve Jobs) is ever going to permit the Apple Istore to sell an application called "Kill Me Now".

But let's all imagine the gaily-colored icons that would dance underneath the touchpad surface, and the cute little beepy melody that would play. Anyone wanna do a photoshop mockup?

Quite aside from liability for the programmers, this is not a decision for machines. Hell, that's the point of the law: It's not even a decision for humans. They call suicide the permanent solution to a temporary problem (mood), so it's against the law.

If you want to insist that there are circumstances where that's no longer true, I won't argue with you... But for most people, the law against suicide is an indisputably Good Thing. Don't let a pissy teenage attitude about independence confuse you on this point.

And for those with end stage diseases, it's been my experience that doctors are sensible about deploying painkillers and treatments. They've seen more death than you have. They know how it goes, and most of them aren't monsters. They're not into it.

Eventually-eventually-eventually, we all have to have some humility. This is not a policy problem, OK? The end of human life is almost always horrible.

Ben-David's tradition is not to be casually dismissed in matters like this. It gave us (if I understand correctly) the word spirit, meaning wind. The derivations roll on from there. Perspire (with wind, i.e. heavy breathing), conspire (with wind, by the influence of those surrounding), inspire, etc. And finally, "I saw the spirit leave his body", meaning the wind left his chest.

I heartily recommend this book.

Get it from the library if you can't afford to buy it. The lessons will stay with you without further review, and you must resist the temptation to pass it to friends and loved ones as a holiday treat.

The key theme is "man is an obligate aerobe"... You gotta breath. Death is all about a failure of oxygen to reach one tissue or another.

As it happens, I read this book while learning to scuba, and it was exactly the point my dive instructors were making... You can get out of almost and problem as long as you can stop, and breath, and think.

The book gave the lessons a little extra juice.

> This is appalling.

See "humility" and "pissy teenage attitude", above.

Being kept alive against your will is the stated objective of the organ harvesting industry. They want you to die under ideal circumstances, so that they can maximize the potential revenue from your body. A whole body donation is worth up to $2 million to an industry that has $20 Billion in annual revenues.

If you live in a state that has adopted the 2006 Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, it is presumed that you are an organ donor until they can find evidence of a contrary position. This includes hooking you up to life support systems even if you have an Advanced Healthcare Directive that says otherwise. They can keep your body alive until they can talk to your family, hoping to convince them that you meant to be an organ donor.

Under this new Act, you have the right to refuse to participate in an organ harvesting procedure, but you must register your desire with a known organ registry. There is only one organ registry in operation that allows you to record your preferences, including allowing for the contingency that just compensation might become legal at some future date.

Check out DoNotTransplant dot com to learn more about your rights under the law.

"Ben-David's tradition is not to be casually dismissed in matters like this. It gave us (if I understand correctly) the word spirit, meaning wind. The derivations roll on from there. Perspire (with wind, i.e. heavy breathing), conspire (with wind, by the influence of those surrounding), inspire, etc. And finally, "I saw the spirit leave his body", meaning the wind left his chest."

Bad historical linguistics. "Spirit"

Ben-David's traditon is not to be dismissed or disrespected, but it is different on many levels from many traditions in the West, and specifically with regard to Chrisitanity and Christian ethics, it bears only some superficial cultural similarities.

I mentioned to my very religious relative that I supported that bill we voted on in Washington state that allows people to kill themselves if they are going to die within 6 months anyways. I expected resistance from her, but she told me that when she took her husband to a hospice care place, they basically gave her enough morphine to kill him anyways. It was the unspoken choice that they gave everyone, since everyone is going to hospice to die anyways.

The reason we stop suicide is because a person is mentally unbalanced, most likely they have a medical condition that is causing them to do something that isn’t what they would want if they could just stay alive a month or two. In the case of a certainty of death, a painful and lingering death, anyone should be able to not be forced to live. That is what nurses and doctors are doing for someone in these cases, forcing them to live an extra month in extreme pain. Who does that help? If someone has things that they want to straighten out, family relationships that they want to stay in as long as possible, issues with dying that need to be worked out, yes, they can fight with they have available to them to hang on for the last second. Someone at peace, who has said good-bye, why force them to fight a battle that can’t be won?

The slippery slope argument is fallacious. It was the first thing taught in my college logic class. Pornography doesn’t mean that all women are going to be raped, allowing gays to get married doesn’t mean that you can now marry a group of a squirrels, and allowing someone with a terminal disease at the end of their life to die doesn’t mean that we are going to be forcibly killing people whose time we think is up. That’s not giving humans the capacity to set limits on themselves, or to be discerning. As medical technology moves forward we are going to be able to keep people alive longer and longer. Technically, someone who is brain dead, and even heart dead, but it being kept alive by a bypass machine, can be kept “alive” almost indefinitely. If someone has religious views that can’t, by choice or inaction, allow themselves to die, then that is a personal decision. Right now we legislate that decision, assuming that it’s what everyone views as moral. Giving people a choice in the matter is much more moral, and much more American when viewed as personal freedom and a right.

> it is different on many levels from
> many traditions in the West

Someone said otherwise?

> with regard to Chrisitanity and
> Christian ethics, it bears only
> some superficial cultural
> similarities.

They're not derivative?

> Check out DoNotTransplant dot com
> to learn more about your rights
> under the law.

I think you're adorable! Amy loves you, too! You guys want to live –and die– with highest marks from Consumer Reports.

Be suspicious, OK? Caveat Emptor! Every man for himself! It's a jungle out there! People will steal the precious organs from your body unless you take steps....

Somehow most of the second paragraph got chopped.

"Sprit" is a purely Latin-based word; the original form is 'sprirtus'. All the usages you cite are present in Latin and daughter languages and are not translation loans from any other language other than perhaps Greek. Greek and Latin cultures were quite dismissive of Middle Eastern cultures and any cultural or linguistic loans were looked down upon as barbaric or effeminate. This attitude BTW was a significant deterrent to the spread of Christianity in its early days.

Greek has an analgous word 'pneuma' which also refers to breath. All of these usages in Latin and derived uses refer specifically to breath and never to wind, whereas "wind" is the core meaning, as I understand of the Hebrew 'ruach', which can be extended to breath. Thus the terms are not semantically identical, though close. Wind can but need not equal breath; in English for instance 'wind' when applied to body function metaphorically can mean either breath or farts.

the morality of euthanasia is not something that threatens society as a whole

Nope - it does threaten society as a whole.

If euthanasia became more common, in what specific ways would society itself be harmed or threatened?

Our respect for human life might be diminished, but arguably it might also be increased.

We might prematurely lose some people who would have otherwise had a miraculous recovery, but in large numbers? Not likely, I think.

> allowing gays to get married doesn’t
> mean that you can now marry a group
> of a squirrels

If gay marriage supporters were plain-spoken about the tremendous change they're making in civilization's standards, they wouldn't have to face those arguments about people marrying animals and family members and large groups and so forth.

It's there own rhetorical cowardice that's brought those arguments upon them. They deserve it.

> This attitude BTW was a significant
> deterrent to the spread of
> Christianity in its early days.

We do what we can.

Spirit. Breath. Wind, etc. Just high sounding pap. Ben and Crid would have us just tough it out and feel good about it. Absurd.

> Just high sounding pap.

So you're saying that civilization never made any strides in mastering the mortal challenges until you got here, right? Nothing bit "pap".

What a tragic, put-upon creature you are. Condolences.

Who needs a slippery slope when our wonderful government is building us an escalator to hell?

Step one - Get the populace to accept voluntary euthanasia.

Step two - get them to accept "universal healthcare"

Step three - sell "duty to die" as a cost containment measure

Step four - Profit!

They've already admitted that this is their end goal. Why not prevent it NOW?

My favorite author ever is currently suffering from early-onset Alzheimers. He recently spoke to the House of Lords (in England, of course) about his wish to die before life is no longer worth living. It was a moving piece - the article (and the full text of his essay) are here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1203622/Ill-die-endgame-says-Terry-Pratchett-law-allow-assisted-suicides-UK.html?ITO=1490

It really is a fantastic piece, with lots of insight; I encourage everyone to read it.

Interestingly enough, I learned from this article that Switzerland allows assisted suicides, and many of the English are going there or having their loved ones take them there for the "final bow".

By the way, I agree with assisted suicide. If I start to lose my mind, I want someone I love to be allowed to take me out before I'm gone completely. What's the use of living if I'm not coherent enough to be myself? Who am I helping? If I'm so lost as to no longer be any shade of myself, I don't want to be here. Same thing if I'm in immense pain. I'm not helping anyone, and the parts of me that make me who I am have disintegrated, what's the use? I don't believe I have any duty to society to suffer or be a vegetable. There is no benefit to that sort of torturous existence.

"> This is appalling.

See "humility" and "pissy teenage attitude", above."

Unless I missed the announcement, or unless you're incredibly secretive, you aren't on death's doorstep.

You don't have MS eating away at your body's electrical circuitry causing seering flashes of pain through your limbs. You don't have ALS and aren't choking up solidified chunks of your own lung.

I find it sickeningly haughty of people to presume they know death and suffering better than someone else. Death and suffering isn't the same for everyone - wanting to speed up the Grand Finale and end the pain isn't selfish, destructive to society or some adult manifestation of former teenage impertinence.

It's fucking death. And suffering. You don't have the copyright on it, nor does anyone else! It's a deeply personal decision that has so little to do with society.

People who kill themselves out of desperation or depression can be treated and helped. People who do it because they're dying and in pain might be helped with pain drugs - but is it really enough? Does that REALLY stop the pain?

No one can judge another person's ability to withstand suffering. Fighting through one more minute of unbearable pain doesn't make you a better, more moral person.

Do you really think that someone who is on the verge of death and is completely paralyzed and on breathing machines from advanced ALS is having some sort of internal battle or morality? How can you really say it's a Good Thing to keep that person alive? For whom? To what end? The state should not have authority over someone's ability to face their own impending death in one way over another.

If our society is so fragile that preventing the slightly-quicker yet certain death of the suffering is the only thing keeping it from unraveling and keeping hoards of unstable people from putting a bullet through their heads then we're way more fucked then I'd ever have imagined.

If someone wants to off themselves they'll do it - b/c it tends not to be a decision people take lightly. And the ones who do take it lightly are mentally ill and a law won't prevent or fix that, but psychiatric intervention will.

> What's the use of living if I'm
> not coherent enough to be myself?

If your out of your mind, what difference does it make?

You're. Sorry.

Amen, Gretchen.

I think the future of euthanasia is best illustrated in this educational video clip:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=136575&title=suicide-booth

> I find it sickeningly haughty of
> people to presume they know death
> and suffering better than
> someone else.

Me too! That's why I resent it when people pretend that by dint of some (unspecified / imaginary) personal insight, they're certain that that no one has anything to tell them about how it ought to go, or what bonds will continue to tie them to society as the bad fate befalls them. Because after all, humanity began on the day they were born. Language teaches us nothing, medicine teaches us nothing, culture offers nothing....

As implied above, all the resentment I hear in this chatter is from the Consumer Reports magazine. "No one tells me how to live or die... I grow my own food on the mountainside... I wear the skins of bears I've killed by my own hand... I taught myself to read before I learned to walk... I'm my own man, and I don't owe anyone anything, dammit! I WILL NOT BE CHEATED! "

It's infantile.

Listen –again, as noted above– If you get real fuckin' sick and you want treatment aggressively withdrawn, I doubt you'll get much argument from your doctors. But meanwhile, let's keep the entitlement talk to a dull roar, OK?

In early childhood I watched my mother suffer with MS, and thanks for asking.

Good ol Futurama.

"> with regard to Chrisitanity and
> Christian ethics, it bears only
> some superficial cultural
> similarities.

They're not derivative?"

Depends on what the referent for "they" is. Do you mena theology, or ethics, or cultic practices or what?

Are you dull like this in person? Where no general statement with an imaginable exception is allowed to pass?

Jim, play well with others!

There is no more morality in suffering to the bitter end than there is in deciding you do not want to suffer till the bitter end. The night my father died, the doctors with my mother's permission were scheduling dialysis. So much for letting a terminal man die in peace. He was way beyond saving and in pain like I've never seen a person before. Where is the morality in prescribing every treatment to a man who is not only terminal, but obviously on death's door. As far as my friend goes has been suffering for a very long time. She is not ready to go, but feels that when she is it is nobody's business to tell her otherwise. And yes, she is a devout Catholic but she is not worried about burning in Hell or any other religious or moral consequence. I support her in her decision and wish that she was suffering less.

Where is the morality in prescribing every treatment to a man who is not only terminal, but obviously on death's door.

This is where the whole active/passive euthanasia discussion gets muddy. Lots of people who oppose allowing the terminally ill to actively off themselves have no problem with refusing treatment to prolong life.

When the time comes, I'd like the right to have someone end my life, even if I never exercise it. Dying can take a long-ass time.

Monica - you completely ignored the single biggest issue:

Allowing people to off themselves versus requiring someone else to "help" them do it.

And we both know that the arc that assisted euthanasia will follow ends with doctors being required to do it.

And I still contend you have no right to force someone else to end your life.

I'm surprised, considering this blog's epic, ongoing debate about health insurance and lack thereof, that no one has brought up the cost of the matter--specifically, who pays for all this extended time life support, which from what I understand can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars in no time flat? What if the person on life support was uninsured? Do we bankrupt their survivors for the sake of a few hundred more breaths? If the infamously uninsured Brian was being kept alive only by machines, would Crid be willing to pony up the cash to keep him there for the good of society?

In more direct terms: Are those willing to legislate a human's right to die based on their own morality also willing to provide the means to do just that? Or would a person deemed too irresponsible to choose his own time of death be considered just responsible enough to pay for prolonging a life he'd rather end?

If the infamously uninsured Brian was being kept alive only by machines

Which will never happen. If there is a low likelihood of this body being self-sustaining, I will not accept being attached to machines.

The only person who ought to be allowed to end a life is the person who is living it.

> Where is the morality in prescribing every
> treatment to a man who is not only
> terminal, but obviously on death's door.

Nowhere. None. Shouldn't have happened. I'm not into gratuitous suffering either. [For the third time-] If you're a fully-concho and fully responsible person who doesn't want to go through weeks, days or maybe even hours of unremitting torture, then do what you need to do.

In the handful of cases I've seen up close in the last decade, doctors have been wonderful about this. They haven't passed the patient a loaded pistol or pumped hemlock extract into an IV tube, but they've been exquisitely thoughtful and sensitive about what makes a life worth living.

Doctors are in the health business, though. If they think you're inclined to sue, they'll (righteously) cover their asses. Try to understand what they're up against, especially if they haven't visited the patient or the family's home for dinner.

Mostly I dislike the boomerish consumer petulence in comments like these... As if there's this final fontier of complaining to be explored... As if, because death itself hadn't been made pleasant and easy, someone in Congress must have dropped the ball.

"Call Pelosi! Make Bill Clinton feel my pain! Change the law! No one ever died before I did!"

Then Brian, you'd better make sure you don't get in an accident that leaves you unconscious at a hospital where not a soul knows you. Cause otherwise they're going to start inserting tubes to keep you breathing even if you'll never walk again.

Maybe you should just tattoo NO HEALTH INSURANCE on your chest. That'd maybe make them think twice.

Who let you out of your fucking cell?

You are so easily riled. I was simply pointing out that despite your chest-thumping proclamations that you are in complete control of your life and death, it ain't so. And why not use your lack of health insurance to your benefit (cause those sip-and-blow wheelchairs and round-the-clock caretakers are expensive and you've told us at every opportunity that you fully intend to pay back every penny, even suddenly unemployed due to complete paralysis)

I like the cut of 12P's jib. He writes the stuff I was saving for later in the day.

Like never before, the market for tattoos is better than the one for health care.

Yeah, he's kinda like your id, ain't he? I wonder if he's got the same IP address as anyone else here?

Well, it ain't me, anyway. Care to address his point?

No.

He only shows up to insult me, and I'm supposed to engage him as though he has anything worth saying?

No.

Aw c'mon, Bri-bri! It's not a club of friends, it's a public blog! Answering passersby is the whole point!

Don't be a Hollywood prima donna! ("I simply cannot work with that man! I'll be in my trailer! [slam])

Even Paula Abdul's retired.

'Sides, it's only an insult if you concede the point— If you were substantially disabled, how would you-

[A] Warn your caretakers of your preferences and

[B] see to it that "eventually, they'll get their money"?

I haven't given it any thought because it is not going to happen.

Why don't you tell me what you plan to do when your insurance hits its lifetime limit?

Wow! You can see the future! Do other people not need insurance too, Brian?

That, Brian, is the most hilarious and inane thing you have ever said all rolled into one. So you have visionary powers in addition to being able to beat everyone up if you ever get on that flight or bus. Whooee.

Oh, Crid you lovable curmudgeon you. How I've missed you since you took your ball and went home in the other thread.

Anyway.

I'm with Amy, Gretchen, Feebie, Kristen etc. on this one. I think it's your choice to live or die, and if you need help, you should get it, as long as you have made it clear that's what you want. Of course, people shouldn't force euthanasia on anyone else. But there are a ton of things you're allowed to do as an individual that are illegal and morally wrong if forced upon you by someone else. Like sex, for example. Or marriage. You can give your stuff away, but people can't steal it. You can lock yourself in your home for a month, but if someone else locks you in there, it's false imprisonment. You can stick a corncob up your ass and sing yankee doodle, but if someone made you do it . . . . And so on. I don't think the slippery slope argument is valid here (or for that matter, in most instances).

I have a living will. I've asked that my family unplug me and stop treatment if I become a vegetable. I wish I could be sure they'd respect that wish.

Why is it considered merciful and kind to put a dog in pain out of his misery, but cruel and morally wrong if a terminally ill person expressly requests the same service? I'm serious here. I'm not suggesting we decide for other people the way we do with dogs ("Oh, Aunt Betty is wheezing a lot and doesn't get around that well, let's put her down."). But if Aunt Betty is in pain, wants to go, is no longer physically able to do it herself, and begs for help -- why not?

> I'm serious here.

!

Sorry to leave Crid alone in the battlefield, but I'm swamped at work. Briefly:

1) No straw men, please: as in the "progressive" conceit whereby all Judeo-Christians are neanderthal, and couldn't possibly hold nuanced values.

I specifically started by saying Judaism does NOT require any and all life-saving interventions, and that treatment can/should be removed.

Other posters have pointed out the nuance in hospice and pain relief aspects of this situation.

Kindly address the actual positions being put forward by traditionalists, which have been shaped by much human history.

Which brings us to:
2) Grow up - it's not about you, and not just your decision.

I knew this angle would come up on a libertarian-slanting forum, but...

No Amy, the idea of suffering uphold higher social values is not "appalling" - as you would know if you met any of our fine men and women in uniform.

The Goddess constantly complains about everything from litterers to carousers who keep her awake at night. So: being an adult means taking up one's obligations to others - even strangers - in society.

Which brings us to:

3) History - you know, the experiences of ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS who preceded you narcissistic know-it-alls, and left a more civil and prosperous world for you to throw your selfish tantrums in - HISTORY has shown that the scope of various licenses to kill tends to creep over time, often in dangerous ways.

And Amy - our own people's recent history figures in this, as you know. The techniques AND cultural/values shifts that made the Final Solution possible were first developed during the Nazi program to eliminate "worthless eaters" such as the terminally ill.

... and there are 2 separate words in Hebrew for "wind" and "soul" - since we're not pagans like the rest of you .

Goddess:
Having a job that could be dangerous isn't the same as extending one's life while suffering terribly for some imaginary benefit that you see to society.
- - - - - - - - - - -

- what about a draft of all civilians during wartime, or countries with compulsory military service?

"Your job is now to suffer and perhaps die, even if you voted for the other guy. Because you are part of our society."

Period.
Yes, society can make those demands - and those who shirk them are selfish children.

Again - I am NOT talking about artificial prolongation of life by intervention. At a certain point, treatment can be withdrawn or refused. No straw men, please.

That is very different from giving humans the right to kill - which inevitably leads to *some* humans deciding unknowables for *others* - the depth of their suffering, and the worth of their lives.

'I haven't given it any thought because it is not going to happen.'

Brian, I hope you aren't serious. My sister says the same thing 'I'm not going to get sick when I'm old' and all I can do is shake my head. You have NO idea what's coming down the pike for you, no one does. My fit, healthy father who was lifting weights and ice skating in his mid-70s was struck down by esophageal cancer. He was the LAST person we ever thought would get sick...my mother has been sickly all her life, she herself always thought she'd 'go first'. She's still chugging along at 78. I never thought I'd get injured and spend months in a neck brace (all better now...)You just don't know.

I too, think that I should decide when it's my time to go. I don't know how I feel about having someone help me though...however if I got into bad enough a state, someone would have to do it for me. A sobering thought.

'You can stick a corncob up your ass and sing yankee doodle, but if someone made you do it '

Thanks for the laugh, I agree completely with what you've written.

"Having a job that could be dangerous isn't the same as extending one's life while suffering terribly for some imaginary benefit that you see to society."

Agreed, Amy.

If, while stricken with ALS, my suffering until my last breath left my body, it meant saving the life of another human being I might consider it.

Or if prolonging my suffering followed by death somehow contributed to an entire country not collapsing I might consider it.

Or if my death took a dangerous drug dealer who deals around the corner from an elementary school off the street then I'd consider it.

Or, if god personally contacted me and said "Yo, G, if you hold out another week I'll make sure your experience up in heaven is rockin'" then I'd consider it.

And yet, I am not so full of myself to think that an extra week of absolute misery is going to 1) benefit me (I am my primary focus, especially when I'm in great pain) or 2) benefit at least one other person.

There is NO social or personal "benefit" (net gain, whatthefuckever) as far as I can see. Prolonging suffering isn't a SACRIFICE. It's simply prolonging suffering. The end result is the same - death. As in, not fuckin' alive no more.

People simply aren't so unstable that, upon lifting suicide laws, millions will throw themselves under lawn mowers or into meat grinders like in that creepy movie by M. Night Shyamalan (which I could never bring myself to watch). We're talking about critically ill people who should be allow to say "enough" or keep going if they have little kids and one more day of pain is completely worth it to them just to spend more time with the kids. Anyone see Montel on Oprah the other day?

It's a personal choice just like something as big as getting pregnant or benign as what to eat for lunch. If I don't want to get preg society can't, morally or ethically (let alone legally), make me because someone perceives some kind of benefit to it. And I can't prevent people from eating tuna fish at lunch because the smell makes me want to vomit.

"Period.
Yes, society can make those demands - and those who shirk them are selfish children."

Hey - I'm sorry but I don't think I am following your arguments, even after reading a few times.

How exactly is society obtaining a benefit by preventing a person from ending his/her own life earlier when death is impending and that person is suffering?

Or how is it harmed?

"That is very different from giving
humans the right to kill - which
inevitably leads to *some* humans
deciding unknowables for *others* - the
depth of their suffering, and the worth
of their lives"

There you go with the slippery slope argument again. As someone pointed out above, the first thing you learn in a logic class is that the slippery slope is a fallacy.

It is not "inevitable" that allowing people in pain to choose to die will lead to legalized killing of people who don't. It's not even remotely likely. There's a pretty big clear bright line between saying you can help a suffering terminally ill person who specifically wants to die, and saying "Joe's getting on my nerves, let's kill him".

Does going to the dentist to get a filling entitle him to pull out all of your teeth without asking? If you offer to donate a kidney to your brother, can they strap you down and take both of them? For that matter, does the fact that you can donate a kidney to your brother mean that society mandates that you do? Does letting people ask for pedicures lead to enforced foot care?

"They call suicide the permanent
solution to a temporary problem (mood),
so it's against the law"

Being terminally ill and in horrible pain is not a "temporary" problem. That's just it -- the dying person knows for sure that their quality of life is horrible and is only going to get worse, and they are going to die anyway. No one on this thread is advocating putting love-sick teenagers out of their misery (although they certainly can be annoying sometimes, can't they).

As for the "we should suffer for society argument" -- oh please. That's horrible. Yes, we should make sacrifices for society when pursuing what we want steps too far into someone else's rights (i.e., "my right to swing my fist stops at someone else's face"). Keeping a dying person alive who just wants to be at peace doesn't benefit society.

Besides, even if we assumed that forcing those people to stay alive would somehow benefit society -- the mere fact that something would benefit society doesn't, all by itself, mean we force people to do it. We don't force people to clean the streets, plant flowers in the parks, and mentor inner city kids, even though society would unquestionably be benefited if everyone did those things. We don't legislate that people with bad breath must use mouthwash. We don't mandate that people with foot fungus to either do something about it or for pete's sake stop wearing sandals in public. Yet a little more hygiene undoubtedly would make the world a happier place.

The "I'm not going to get sick argument" -- as Crella and some others point out, you just don't know that. It reminds me of a former acquaintance of mine who constantly criticized divorced couples, saying "man, whenever I get married, I'm never getting divorced." His wife divorced him a couple of years after they were married. Sometimes, it's not in your control. Ever see that Twilight Zone episode where an accident left a guy blind, deaf and mute, with no arms or legs? He pounded on the wall with his head in Morse code asking them to kill him. He had no other way to ask, and he couldn't do it himself anymore. (Makes me think I should learn some Morse code, just in case.)

"Ever see that Twilight Zone episode where an accident left a guy blind, deaf and mute, with no arms or legs?"

Ahh!!

And by the way --

You can donate organs after death. I have a nice little thing on my driver's license saying I want to do it. My corpse won't look so pretty, but that's my gift to society. If more people did it, more lives could be saved or improved. Isn't that nice?

But I don't favor making everyone doing it. It may be against Ben-David's religion to be chopped up for parts, however much it would benefit the rest of humanity. If so, we'll just have to do without his organs. But there would be a damn sight more benefit to society by an enforced after-death organ donation program, than there is to forcing suffering terminally ill patients to stay alive.

How 'bout it Ben-David?