This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
Rystrave
Having experienced death in my family and friends has been some of the worst times of my life. I honestly don’t think family or close friends can decide for someone who is deathly ill or in serious pain whether to pull the plug or not. Now, if they have it written down or on record someway that if some sort of illness or unfortunately happenings were to occur that the person suffering would want to suffer no longer, that’s a different story. I think that request should be fulfilled, although I don’t find it ethical.
My mother sat on her deathbed for a week, and the nurses that came out asked her if she just wanted it to be over. Although she wasn’t able to speak, the hand squeeze she gave me and the pursed frown that came over her lips let them know that assisted suicide was not the way to go. I’m not a religious person by any means, but I do believe that when your time comes, it comes. You shouldn’t be able to change your fate.
Post by
Ksero
I say assisted suicide should be legal, as long as the person whose life was in question was mentally stable and had no chance of recovery.
This
article is particularly relevant to this debate, a judge has ordered that the law against assisted suicide in Canada is unconstitutional.The court has recognized that the government has no place at the bedside of seriously ill Canadians who have made firm and considered decisions about the amount of suffering to endure at the end of life and the level of care they will or will not receive in their final days.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Ksero
It's my belief that it should be a freedom to choose. If something is said to be causing you pain and you wish to exit this world of your own accord then it's not my place to say no.
But the question is about Assisted Suicide.
I dont see how sas148's statement isn't about that, its implicitly mentioned in the post, by leaving on their own accord he means choosing assisted suicide. People cant commit suicide by themselves legally, assisted suicide with the help of a physician would be a legal alternative, getting around the problems of inheritance and life insurance policies.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Ksero
It's my belief that it should be a freedom to choose. If something is said to be causing you pain and you wish to
exit this world of your own accord
then it's not my place to say no.
But the question is about Assisted Suicide.
I dont see how sas148's statement isn't about that, its implicitly mentioned in the post, by leaving on their own accord he means choosing assisted suicide. People cant commit suicide by themselves legally, assisted suicide with the help of a physician would be a legal alternative, getting around the problems of inheritance and life insurance policies.
I highlighted the part which to me suggests sas148 was talking about non-assisted suicide. I read that as choosing to end your own life.
Accord Definition: To grant someone (Power, Status, Recognition)
. or
Spontaneous or voluntary desire to take a certain action
. ie. grant someone the option of ending their life through assisted suicide.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Ksero
Ok, I am not arguing the point with you, I am just saying I read the "YOUR OWN". I am prepared to concede that maybe I read that wrong. Lets leave that for sas148 to answer.
Agreed, i may have read it wrong also.
Moving on, Adam didn't have an answer, but what are peoples thoughts on those who want to end their suffering, but physically are not capable of "pushing the button" themselves?
I believe they should be able to have someone push it for them, i know if i was in that position, i probably would want to have the option of ending my own life through assisted suicide, rather than wasting away until i die.
Post by
FatalHeaven
I guess you could put it that way, yeah. He is in pain, yes and I feel bad. But he isn't dying.
Isn't it inhumane to prolong someone's suffering? After all, if you amputated the legs of a cat after it was hit by a car and had nervous system damage and was in crippling pain, despite the fact that it's not going to die any time soon, you'd still put it down.
I still feel like you're being inconsistent. Their quality of life is next to zero.
I'm not being inconsistent. I even provided examples of people with the very same predicament. Are you saying because they are successful and choosing to live life to the fullest, they are in any less pain than someone who is not?
Post by
FatalHeaven
Where would you put the border? What if the person is expected to die within 10 months, 2 years, 10 years? At some point, the person has to die anyways.
The law of which I was basing the topic on makes it legal for the request to be made if they have been given 6 months or less to live. Personally,
if
they are terminal and they have followed all the same steps of the process otherwise, I'd be fine with it. Even if it was later down the road than 6 months.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm not being inconsistent. I even provided examples of people with the very same predicament. Are you saying because they are successful and choosing to live life to the fullest, they are in any less pain than someone who is not?
For every person you've linked, there are hundreds of others who aren't able to overcome it. I'm sure there's a post-car-crash kitten out there who's gone out and lived a fulfilling life.
The law of which I was basing the topic on makes it legal for the request to be made if they have been given 6 months or less to live. Personally, if they are terminal and they have followed all the same steps of the process otherwise, I'd be fine with it. Even if it was later down the road than 6 months.
Everybody is terminal, just later down the road :P
Post by
Magician22773
This debate shows that while, on the surface, allowing someone to assist another person that is in pain, or facing a painful death is a humane practice, there are simply too many variables that can be introduced, and thus exploited.
The law, as presented by the OP, says you must be diagnosed as terminally ill, and have less than 6 months to live. What if you are terminally ill, in extreme pain, yet your illness will likely not cause death for a year? Do you make them wait, in pain, for 6 months before giving them the drugs? Many ALS patients suffer much longer than 6 months before they die.
So now, you have to consider extending the time frame....maybe a year. But a lot can happen in a year. I am sure that thousands of cases could be brought up where a patient was given a year to live, and has lived for much, much longer.
So do you shorten the time frame....to 3 months.....or 1 month? Now you get into situations where the time frame is so short, that either the patient is probably so far gone they would be unable to communicate, or so close to death that by the time the process is completed, they will have expired already on their own.
Then you have to consider non-terminal illnesses that limit a persons quality of life. Chronic pain diseases like arthritis (which, FWIW, I have). Don't we have to include those that feel their quality of life is so poor that they would rather die? How about amputee's, or people that are paralyzed? How many limbs must a person lose, or at what level of paralysis would it be OK to end it all?
How about people who are blind, or deaf? I am sure that you will find plenty of people that believe that living a life in the dark, or unable to communicate by normal means would be agonizing for them.
And what about people with debilitating mental illness'? The OP's law says they must be competent. How could someone with a severe mental disorder be considered capable of making the choice? Should someone be able to make the choice for them? And if so, does that extend upward, to all the other people?
All these questions are just a tiny portion of what other scenarios could and would arise if this cat is let out of the bag. That is why I still say it either has to be a decision that is made, and carried out by the person with the illness, or they just need to let God (or Nature, depending on your belief) take its course.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Don't we have to include those that feel their quality of life is so poor that they would rather die?
How about amputee's, or people that are paralyzed? How many limbs must a person lose, or at what level of paralysis would it be OK to end it all?
My Nonnie had one leg and three toes when she passed. She had been in a wheelchair since before I could remember. (She passed when I was 12.) She had horrible wounds around her ankle of the remaining limb. She was in constant pain. But, and I will admit this had a lot to do with her faith, she would never have opted for Assisted Suicide. I also like to think it had a lot to do with me. As, at the age of 12, I called her everyday to check on her (I lived about 30 minutes away) and I spent every weekend, school holiday and otherwise free day either with her or doing something for her. So far as to sit with her, silent, for 4+ hours multiple times a week while she received her dialysis. She had 8 grandkids and non but me took an interest in caring for her. I say all this to show why I,
personally
, am so against ending ones life when you have life. When time is still on your side. She suffered so much and she was so sick. It started with diabetes and just got worse. But she was my role model and whatever she believed is what was influenced on me. I understand everyone feels different, as they are entitled to. But everyone is picking me apart for being 'inconsistent'. Well, the examples in my life say if you still have a chance, if a doctor hasn't told you your time is up, then you keep on living!
As a side note, also per her faith, even if she was deemed terminal and given a time frame, I still fully believe she would choose to live it. So, while I believe in giving terminal patients the right, don't assume that means I personally think one should. I just don't believe in denying them it.
Post by
Squishalot
As a side note, also per her faith, even if she was deemed terminal and given a time frame, I still fully believe she would choose to live it. So, while I believe in giving terminal patients the right, don't assume that means I personally think one should. I just don't believe in denying them it.
Appreciate that, I don't think we're assuming that you're advocating it.
But why should the folks who have a particular diagnosis saying that they're going to die be given different rights to others who know that they're going to die, but don't have a said timeframe?
Post by
FatalHeaven
As a side note, also per her faith, even if she was deemed terminal and given a time frame, I still fully believe she would choose to live it. So, while I believe in giving terminal patients the right, don't assume that means I personally think one should. I just don't believe in denying them it.
Appreciate that, I don't think we're assuming that you're advocating it.
But why should the folks who have a particular diagnosis saying that they're going to die be given different rights to others who know that they're going to die, but don't have a said timeframe?
For me, the best I can leave it at is personal belief. I am sure someone, somewhere could argue it better than me. I just believe life isn't something to end unless it is your only option....i.e. you've been told you won't live past said date due to your illness and there is no hope for recovery or cure.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#5: Should students have to undergo drug testing?
Absolutely. Most schools have random drug testing for athletes already but I don't think it should be limited to athletes as I think that's biased. I think that any child that is suspected of or caught with drugs should be subjected to further random and scheduled drug testing. This is exactly what is going to happen to them when they are adults, and I think that if they know what is expected, they are better able to prepare for it. It also allows parents the opportunity to get their children the help that they need, if drugs are a repeated issue.
Post by
Atik
In public schools?
I'm going to say no, as it is an invasion of privacy. It is forcing the student to do something they may not feel comfortable doing, whether or not they actually do drugs.
When joining a sports team, you agree to take random drug screenings, and have every availabillity to quit if it becomes to uncomfortable to you.
But as an average public school student? That option isn;t there for you.
Post by
donnymurph
This is exactly what is going to happen to them when they are adults, .
I've had plenty of conversations with police officers when I was
obviously
under the influence of drugs. They've never tested me except for one time when I was driving (which is fair enough).
Drug testing students is entirely unnecessary and invasive. If they have a drug problem, it will become apparent without having them tested.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
#5.
No, no, and HELL NO!
Schools are there to educate, not police.
If the school feels they have enough probable cause to warrant a drug test, than they need to call the police, and let them handle it from there. That way, a proper investigation can be done, and if the student if found with, or to be under the infulence of drugs, it can be handled in a proper, legal manner.
I am fine with it with students that are participating in sports, or any other extracurricular activity. Those are voluntary activities, and they have the right to include (or exclude) anyone the wish, so long as it complies with the normal non-discrimiation policies.
Think about it. A failed drug test does not mean you are high at the time of the test, only that you have used drugs. A school only has the right to suspend or expel a student that is using drugs while at school, but they have no rights to what the student does off campus.
This is exactly what is going to happen to them when they are adults,
Only at some activity (usually a job), that they choose to be at. The only good analogy to random drug testing students, would be to pass a law that all citizens submit to a random drug test, and have them keep proof of compliance like auto insurance. Either of them are a blatent violation of our right to privacy.
It also allows parents the opportunity to get their children the help that they need, if drugs are a repeated issue.
Let the parents drug test them then. Tests are avaliable for extremely cheap at most drug stores, or on the internet. Also, our police station will provide them for free to any parent that wants one. I have been drug testing my oldest son ever since he got his drivers license. He was pissed at first because he saw it as me not trusting him without cause, but he now realizes that it is more for me to have peace of mind that he is not driving under the influence. Knowing, without doubt, that he is sober, allows me to allow him a little extra time on curfew, or I will allow him to drive a little farther from home, ect.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.