Genuine question, is suicide illegal in the states? I thought that Oregon? had legalised euthanasia. Is that correct?
I have some sympathy with that view, except that someone who is mentally ill can be detained against their will. Being suicidal is not the only symptom of mental illness that would lead to forcible detention.Oregon has assisted suicide for the terminally ill. If we accept the standard of "It's my body, it's my choice", then people shouldn't be forcibly detained for merely expressing suicidal ideation as that would hinder their choice.
Do you support the legalisation of heavy drugs? If an individual wants to commit suicide, should they not be prevented from doing so?
Not sure what word you're aiming for here. I support the decriminalization of drugs. I'm not sure what the weight of the drug has to do with it.
I also support the right to die, if the individual is of sound mind to make the decision. If a person is mentally unsound, then they should be hospitalized and put under the care of a mental health professional.
None of these things have anything to do with abortion.
I have some sympathy with that view, except that someone who is mentally ill can be detained against their will. Being suicidal is not the only symptom of mental illness that would lead to forcible detention.
A person can be committed if the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person has a mental disorder and, because of that mental disorder, is:
A person can also be committed if the judge finds that the person is:
- Dangerous to self or others, or
- Unable to provide for basic personal needs like health and safety.
- Diagnosed as having a major mental illness such as schizophrenia or manic-depression, and
- Has been committed and hospitalized twice in the last three years, is showing symptoms or behavior similar to those that preceded and led to a prior hospitalization and,
- Unless treated, will continue, to a reasonable medical probability, to deteriorate to become a danger to self or others or unable to provide for basic needs.
An individual is mentally unsound when he or she cannot make decisions for him- or herself. This is pretty basic, and there are already standards which doctors utilize almost universally.At what point is an individual mentally unsound such that they lose their right to die?
Why should we as a society force people to stay alive if they express such displeasure of living?
Should we force doctors, pharmacists, etc. to assist in suicide even if it might be against their own personal beliefs?
Fair enough. I see where you're going.These issue fall under "My body, my choice." I'm curious on how far the mantra will be accepted.
The two are not analogous for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that "some random man" is not analogous to a baby's mother.If someone is pro-life, and would want (demand by law) a woman to carry a child to term no matter the personal case (rape, incest, doesn't want / can't afford) then please answer this for me. Why shouldn't we also make it mandatory to be a bone marrow or kidney donor, in order to keep that same child alive after it's born? If we're asking a woman to literally risk her life to carry a child, why not ask the same thing of some random man that happens to have the life saving donor match of a kidney?
Because men are more important than women. Come on, Electric, try to keep up.
An individual is mentally unsound when he or she cannot make decisions for him- or herself. This is pretty basic, and there are already standards which doctors utilize almost universally.
In fact, the current debate on "right to die" says that those who are terminal are NOT the main question. I mean, if I have 2 months to live, what's the difference whether I take my life now or just wait? The real ethical question is if the doctors say I have a condition that is NOT terminal. I could live another 30 or 40 years, THAT'S when it's a question.
That's already been dealt with. Doctors who do not wish to confer this treatment are not forced to.
Fair enough. I see where you're going.
For me, "my body" implies that the person is a consenting adult, a person who is able to make decisions.
This is true, but it is also true that the capacity to make decisions is determinable. People with mental illness and/or mental disability may or may not have capacity depending on the severity of their condition. Lack of capacity may be temporary or permanent. Capacity would affect matters such as whether or not to have a physical relationship with someone, marriage or whether to have an abortion, as well as the right to refuse treatment or commit suicide.Mentally competent and mentally ill aren't the same. There's nothing about depression, etc. that would make a person unable to make decisions with intent.
I find it astonishing that suicide is illegal in most of the US. Here the debate is all about whether it should be legal to assist a suicide, by procuring the means or by encouragement. I can think of no valid moral reason why any adult with capacity should not have the right to commit suicide.Assuming the principle of "My body, my choice", having a terminal illness wouldn't give you the right to die nor would being perfectly fit deny you the right to die. As long as the considered mentally competent, they should be allowed to commit suicide without interference. Presumably, such a right to die would be obtained upon legal majority.
There actually have been cases where nurses were forced to participate in abortion.
So would you say that people obtain the right to die upon legal majority?