Can someone help me understand this

Temujin

Well-known member
Do you support the legalisation of heavy drugs? If an individual wants to commit suicide, should they not be prevented from doing so?
Genuine question, is suicide illegal in the states? I thought that Oregon? had legalised euthanasia. Is that correct?
 

Diogenes

Active member
Genuine question, is suicide illegal in the states? I thought that Oregon? had legalised euthanasia. Is that correct?

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.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
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.
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.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
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.

If you mean "legislation," then I would want to see a minimal amount of legislation around most things, in general.

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.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
Genuine question, is suicide illegal in the states? I thought that Oregon? had legalised euthanasia. Is that correct?
Suicide is still illegal in most states. Currently 10 states (Oregon among them) allow for medically-assisted suicide, under strict requirements.
 

Diogenes

Active member
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.

"Heavy drugs" like cocaine, heroin, PCP, etc.

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.

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? Is the right to die limited to situations of terminal illness or is it conferred on legal majority? Should we force doctors, pharmacists, etc. to assist in suicide even if it might be against their own personal beliefs?

None of these things have anything to do with abortion.

These issue fall under "My body, my choice." I'm curious on how far the mantra will be accepted.
 

Diogenes

Active member
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.

From https://www.oregon.gov/oha/HSD/AMH/Pages/Civil-Commitment.aspx

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:
  • Dangerous to self or others, or
  • Unable to provide for basic personal needs like health and safety.
A person can also be committed if the judge finds that the person is:
  • 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.

Under the ICD-11, even if no other symptom was present, suicidal ideation is listed under MB26.A so it alone would likely suffice dentation, at least in Oregon. Under the more primitive ICD-10, it, as a stand-alone, would be R45.851.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
At what point is an individual mentally unsound such that they lose their right to die?
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.

Why should we as a society force people to stay alive if they express such displeasure of living?

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.

Should we force doctors, pharmacists, etc. to assist in suicide even if it might be against their own personal beliefs?

That's already been dealt with. Doctors who do not wish to confer this treatment are not forced to.

These issue fall under "My body, my choice." I'm curious on how far the mantra will be accepted.
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.
 

Mike McK

Active member
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?
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.
 

Diogenes

Active member
Because men are more important than women. Come on, Electric, try to keep up.

Actually, the objection is one of responsibility to offspring vs responsibility to strangers. It has nothing to do with men being more important than women.

Edit: I should add, "try to keep up" as what's been proposed by the OP is a staple in the abortion debate.
 

Diogenes

Active member
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.

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.

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.

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.

That's already been dealt with. Doctors who do not wish to confer this treatment are not forced to.

There actually have been cases where nurses were forced to participate in abortion.



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.

So would you say that people obtain the right to die upon legal majority?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
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.
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.


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?
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.
 
Top