Death and suffering - what is the non-theist argument against them?

808 Views | 11 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by diehard03
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I know the title is vague and we've touched on it before but I'd like to post a First Things article and ask for responses.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/10/no-argument-against-death

I ask what the limitation is on euthanasia. What medical conditions or suffering is sufficient to limit its use? Is it simply experiential (like paralysis when one's accustomed to hiking and kayaking)? If not why? What makes quality of life sufficiently low enough to justify it (i.e. Downs in Europe)?

Is it based purely on medical diagnoses with statistical survival rates below a certain probability? What rates are acceptable to allow for chance?

Is it cost based? If so, does nationalized healthcare become equal parts bad since that would be a natural limitation? Is death part of healthcare? To what extent?

Is there an overall ethic that can be applied to this situation or is into piecemeal? Does justice factor in (since the poor seemingly have less choice than the rich)?

This can go a million directions and that's fine. I'm really curious what the worldview is on suffering and death. Undoubtedly both are part of life for theist and non-theist.
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think that if there is a doctor willing to perform the procedure, any adult who is mentally competent (for the purpose of this discussion, wanting to end your life cannot be the sole reason one is declared mentally incompetent) should be able to request euthanasia, and after some sliding scale period of time to reconsider, depending on the severity of his physical condition, should be granted it.

diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I think that if there is a doctor willing to perform the procedure, any adult who is mentally competent (for the purpose of this discussion, wanting to end your life cannot be the sole reason one is declared mentally incompetent) should be able to request euthanasia, and after some sliding scale period of time to reconsider, depending on the severity of his physical condition, should be granted it.

I don't disagree with your theory - especially catering to the idea of persona autonomy.

However, I think our inability to get 100% accuracy on the "right" people to go through with this precludes us from considering it as a society.

This is the same problem we run into with the death penalty and abortion - death is final, and you never know if someone is the "right" person to die.
Post removed:
by user
Post removed:
by user
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dargscisyhp said:

I think that if there is a doctor willing to perform the procedure, any adult who is mentally competent (for the purpose of this discussion, wanting to end your life cannot be the sole reason one is declared mentally incompetent) should be able to request euthanasia, and after some sliding scale period of time to reconsider, depending on the severity of his physical condition, should be granted it.




Thank you for the first response. Forgive for I have lots of questions as it's not something I've waded into.

At the end I see you note physical condition. Is it only physical or does this include mental, such as PTSD? I recall a case in the Benelux area where an 18 year old-ish girl who had been raped requested euthanasia and it was granted.

Why is consent and willingness the bar used for allowing it? What about that rubric stands out that it is reasonable in your mind? Do you think this is 'healthcare' or something else? How would you classify it?
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AstroAg17 said:

Regardless of what we think society should "allow", anyone can kill themself at any time. It's not that hard. It is irrelevant what we think about their decisions because we can't control them. Considering this, we should provide a painless and effective alternative to DIY methods.


I dunno, I think it is rather hard. You have to fight a lot of natural urges to carry it out and it's going to hurt like hell if you screw it up unless you sit in a garage with the car on. For all the people out there whose minds it crossed most don't do it and many go on living even if they fail.

One commonality among many suicide victims is their thinking. It's entirely rational! They think they only have two options and choose base on that. I don't ascribe not knowing all options or outcomes as irrational as it describes everyone. They usually just assume they know all the variables and inevitably don't imagine other very realistic outcomes.

If you allow it would it be reasonable to assign them a therapist for x number of visits to talk about what's bothering them and other options? For instance, is it possible to live with dignity with ALS even if it's going to take your life?
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AGC said:

dargscisyhp said:

I think that if there is a doctor willing to perform the procedure, any adult who is mentally competent (for the purpose of this discussion, wanting to end your life cannot be the sole reason one is declared mentally incompetent) should be able to request euthanasia, and after some sliding scale period of time to reconsider, depending on the severity of his physical condition, should be granted it.




Thank you for the first response. Forgive for I have lots of questions as it's not something I've waded into.

At the end I see you note physical condition. Is it only physical or does this include mental, such as PTSD? I recall a case in the Benelux area where an 18 year old-ish girl who had been raped requested euthanasia and it was granted.

Why is consent and willingness the bar used for allowing it? What about that rubric stands out that it is reasonable in your mind? Do you think this is 'healthcare' or something else? How would you classify it?

Just to be clear, I think more or less anyone, regardless of whether they are suffering from a physical ailment or not, should be allowed the option of euthanasia. I, in general, believe that there should be some sort of waiting period so people have time to reconsider what is an irreversible decision, but that that particular restriction should be relaxed for people that are suffering tremendous amounts of pain. So, for the woman suffering from PTSD, I think she should be required to go through a waiting period, and if she decides the pain is still unbearable for her then she should be allowed to go ahead and do it. On the other hand, for someone who suffers from constant trigeminal neuralgia, I think that waiting period can be much shorter. I don't personally want to get too deep into trying to quantify various kinds of suffering, but in general I think this is how it should be done.

I think that which is not prohibited by the law should be acceptable for an adult who both consents and is willing. I do not think Euthanasia should be disallowed by law. Therefore, I believe that consent and willingness are sufficient.

I suppose it would qualify as healthcare. It's not something I've given a great deal of thought to.
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
diehard03 said:

Quote:

I think that if there is a doctor willing to perform the procedure, any adult who is mentally competent (for the purpose of this discussion, wanting to end your life cannot be the sole reason one is declared mentally incompetent) should be able to request euthanasia, and after some sliding scale period of time to reconsider, depending on the severity of his physical condition, should be granted it.

I don't disagree with your theory - especially catering to the idea of persona autonomy.

However, I think our inability to get 100% accuracy on the "right" people to go through with this precludes us from considering it as a society.

This is the same problem we run into with the death penalty and abortion - death is final, and you never know if someone is the "right" person to die.

In my opinion this is different from the death penalty and abortion because, in my scenario at least, the individual dying is making the choice for himself. I personally think the vast majority of people should be permitted euthanasia if they choose, and in the situations where they should not be permitted it's the doctor's responsibility to diagnose them correctly before performing the procedure.
Star Wars Memes Only
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AstroAg17 said:

What if they're in debt, or have kids? Don't you voluntarily sacrifice autonomy when you make promises? Why should society be responsible for cleaning up the messes left by those who decide to die?

My debtors have the right to the fruits of my labor, because I explicitly gave it to them, but they do not have a right to compel me to labor. So, if the euthanized has an estate then the debtors should be given access to it, otherwise the risk of default is one the debtor accepts. Similarly, my children, wife, parents, nobody can compel me to work for them. Nobody can compel me to raise my kids. It's a responsibility I either choose to take or abdicate, but that choice is mine. Again, my kids may have the rights to the fruits of my labor, but not to compel me to labor. As such, I don't think either of those situations should disqualify someone from euthanasia.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Your second and third paragraphs contradict the first. If you're letting people have autonomy it doesn't matter whether you think the right people are dying. It is their choice, not yours. If you don't want autonomy that's fine, but you can't have it both ways.

It's not about having it both ways. As darg noted, must of the discussion will be around whether someone has the autonomy to begin with, and even then, there's a waiting period...which suggests that you need time to really determine if you have the right to take your own life with medical assistance.

So, my comment was more that I can appreciate the personal autonomy aspect. But how that functions in reality is different.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

In my opinion this is different from the death penalty and abortion because, in my scenario at least, the individual dying is making the choice for himself. I personally think the vast majority of people should be permitted euthanasia if they choose, and in the situations where they should not be permitted it's the doctor's responsibility to diagnose them correctly before performing the procedure.

It's easy to sit here and say "vast majority". It's much harder to establish actual criteria for when this should occur....and in the end, the individual is NOT making the choice for what the this criteria is.

To put it simpler to me - putting that responsibility on the doctor introduces the chance for the "wrong" person to die and therefore should be avoided due to the finality of death.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.