Jack Kevorkian, why did he live so long?

Hodar, I think you might be on the wrong forum.

Has it ever occurred to you that the “right to die” quickly becomes the “duty to die”? Greedy heirs can have a great deal of influence on sick and vulnerable patients. I do hope that you don’t have a large estate, or you may eventually fall victim to your heirs encouraging you to pull the plug or just your own guilt at not leaving them more. How would anyone know if someone “helps” you die out of compassion or greed?

What you are proposing is truly a slippery slope, as has been amply demonstrated in countries (such as the Netherlands) which have seen the “right to die” quickly devolve into involuntary euthanasia of those deemed not to have a sufficient “quality of life.”

Has it ever occurred to you that the “right to die” quickly becomes the “duty to die”?

Using that logic, then the right to drink, becomes a duty to get drunk.

My stance is quite simnple ... allow the person the OPTION to determine his own fate. Some people would call this 'Freedom' (a topic that I'm pretty sure FreeRepublic is pretty much in favor of). Other people would call this Liberty (another topic that FreeRepublic espouses as a 'good thing').

As a healthy person, we have the option at any point in time to terminate our lives. Some do, but a vast majority endure whatever hardship they have, and persevere. But, if we are suddenly struck sick, paralyzed or terminal - this ability is stripped from us, without appeal. Life is full of slippery slopes; it's up to us to know what to do, and when. I call it "Personal Responsibility".

To say that "right to die" quickly desolves into "involuntary euthanasia" is like saying that abortion proponent's "right to choose" quickly becomes "involuntary abortion". (for the record, I am a "Right to Life" proponent - the baby has no voice in his fate).

To force someone to remain alive, beyond what would be a normal lifespan - is nothing short of sadism. You are abusing a person who is helpless to fight back.

Is your stance "Life at all costs" or do you support a "Death Panel" that determines when your 'Quality of Life' or medical costs justify pulling the plug?

We all have the option to kill ourselves or to put in place living wills with our wishes.

What I disagree with is that we have a right to force or expect someone else to do it for us. Funny you should bring the abortion debate into this. The “right to choose” is becoming the right to force someone else to terminate the life of the unborn. As you may know, in some places there aren't enough butchers willing to do the dirty work, so medical schools are forcing doctors to be trained in abortion techniques.

“To force someone to remain alive, beyond what would be a normal lifespan - is nothing short of sadism.”

Your statement sure sounds like those awful prolifers “forcing” someone to continue with an unwanted pregnancy.

“Is your stance “Life at all costs” or do you support a “Death Panel” that determines when your ‘Quality of Life’ or medical costs justify pulling the plug?”

Sorry, I don't accept either of your choices. Are you aware that most people who commit suicide are depressed (rather than terminal) and that treating the depression often eases the urge to commit suicide?

I did notice that you didn't really deal with my main point of the vulnerable being pressured into assisted suicide. Sorry, I can't take your “duty to get drunk” flip comment seriously.

The culture of death has no place on FR.

What I disagree with is that we have a right to force or expect someone else to do it for us

And I have NEVER expressed this desire in any manner, way, shape or form.

Please have the courtesy to NOT credit me with things I have neither said, nor implied. I promise I will show you the same respect and courtesy.

Abortion, for all intensive purposes is 'Convenience murder'. Literally, "It's 'inconvenient' for me to have a child, so I will have it killed". The baby is the one who ultimately pays the price, and has no means to appeal. Naturally, and I believe we may agree on this - in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy, some consideration may need to take place.

But, in the 'right to die' discussion my stance is quite simple. The right to die should always be an "option" - not a requirement, not determined by a panel - but an individual choice. Same thing with the doctor who may (or may not) opt to assist. I would no more force a doctor to perform an abortion, than I would suggest he be forced to perform as a prison system executioner.

For example, would you force a cancer patient to undergo Chemotherapy? If he does nothing, he will almost certainly die. So, do you feel you have the right to strap him down, and by force - administer the Chemotherapy? Or by threat of law? Perhaps threaten to take his children away? (Happened here in Utah, by the way) I would say the answer is obviously 'No, that is his decision'. He bears the responsibility to make that decision, and lives with the consequences of that decision. Then, why would his decision be valid in this area; but be invalid if he decides that instead of suffering the oncoming cancer, he wished to pass quickly?

As for the person being 'pressured'; you could make that statement about any legal activity under the sun. Selling a home, buying a gun, getting married, getting divorced, buying shoes, joining a church, mowing the lawn .... at the end of the day, it's a decision that each person must make for themselves. I call it a quaint concept called "Personal Responsibility".

Now, what I would do in a variety of circumstances is my choice; in some cases our choices will coincide, in some cases they will diverge. However, I would never mandate that MY choice should override YOUR choice. I ask for the same consideration.

In the end, we will all face judgement for what we have done.

Aunt Polgara: What I disagree with is that we have a right to force or expect someone else to do it for us

Hodar: And I have NEVER expressed this desire in any manner, way, shape or form.

Riiight, you have never expressed an interest in having a third party "help" someone commit suicide...

Hodar: (about your pet)....So, realizing that the most humane thing I could do; was to ask the vet to use the smallest needle he had...

and

I also think, that if I am paralyzed - and I request help in a suicide; that anyone who is compassionate enough to grant my wish, not be thrown in jail for murder.

I’d consider it a act of mercy if the policeman (who cannot get close enough to rescue me) were to fire his weapon to kill me. Others can decide if you have expressed a desire to expect someone else to do you in.

Hodar: Please have the courtesy to NOT credit me with things I have neither said, nor implied. I promise I will show you the same respect and courtesy.

And then you go on and accuse me of wanting to force someone to undergo Chemotherapy.... sigh...

Do you understand the idea of diminished capacity? Does it matter to you that many people near the end of their lives become incapable of making rational choices? Or that depressed people also suffer from diminished capacity? Should we try to help them overcome their obstacles or just throw them out with the trash? Is that the loving thing to do? Well, at least it gets them out of our hair and lets us collect our inheritance, doesn't it?

You can do whatever you want with your life. Just don't ask others to either help or approve of you killing yourself.

So, in your view; If you are able to pull the act off all by yourself, that's fine. But if you are helpless, then I guess God meant you to suffer.

Maybe you will be blessed to experience some of the same 'compassion' you are so willing to dispense upon your fellow man.

Spare me the theatrics.

From a public policy perspective, the problem with your pro-euthanasia views is that they ignore the very real threat of someone being killed against their will (or merely without their permission), for any number of reasons such as cost containment, greedy heirs, the inability of loved ones to bear the pain of watching someone in failing health, etc. in order to accommodate the much less likely scenario of someone desperately wanting to die but being unable to do it themselves.

I really do believe that you would be more comfortable on a libertarian website than here on FR (unless, of course, you are just here to stir things up).

Thus, it boils down to the fear of the “What if” as a justification for upsurping another’s rights.

Cute, Hodar. You assume that you have a right to have someone else kill you, and then you accuse me of wanting to usurp those "rights".

There are many sources on the Internet of the abuses that are taking place where euthanasia is common. Here's one from the UK:

Now the Dutch Turn Against Legalised Mercy Killing

And here's another:

Fearful Elderly People Carry 'Anti-Euthanasia' Cards

And here's one from the Atlantic magazine:

Whose Right to Die?

Here's an interesting quote from the Atlantic article:

The Netherlands studies fail to demonstrate that permitting physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia will not lead to the nonvoluntary euthanasia of children, the demented, the mentally ill, the old, and others. Indeed, the persistence of abuse and the violation of safeguards, despite publicity and condemnation, suggest that the feared consequences of legalization are exactly its inherent consequences.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.