Right to Die, or Duty to Die?

Debby said:
Here's a link to a video that you would probably appreciate QuickSilver. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g although maybe you've already seen it.

It's a TEDTalk by Nick Hanauer (self made millionaire business man) that was actually banned by TED. He makes the case that tax breaks for the wealthy NEVER result in more jobs. He points out that while a few thousand dollars tax relief will never result in that rich guy buying another pair of pants (supporting the economy) that same tax break to the middle class would mean they can go out and buy shoes for their kids, groceries for the table, etc. And that is a VERY loose paraphrase of his talk.

Imagine, banning his talk when every word of it was true and I think (not positive because it's been a while since I followed this little controversy) that he even got a standing ovation for it. (Hmmm or was that another banned TEDTalk?) Anyway, I think you'll enjoy it.
Click to expand...

Thanks... but cannot access youtube from this computer.. will take a look later.
 

QuickSilver said:
This is why I've never believed that pure unfettered capitalism works. It ends up cannibalizing the very economy that supports it. The one and only goal of every corporation under capitalism is to make a profit. It strives to reward it's shareholders and it's executives. It has no conscience. In this profit driven atmosphere everything possible is done to create MORE profit.. including underpaying employees... decreasing benefits... and avoidance of taxes. Money is slowly shifted to the top rather than being redistributed to the middle and bottom.

It's the Middle class that drives an economy IMO.. when people have money in their pockets.. they spend it.. They do not move it into off shore tax havens. When people spend money on goods and services.. it creates a demand for MORE goods and services. This in turn stimulates business to expand and to hire to fill the demand. When businesses hire.. that makes MORE people spending AND paying taxes. IMO taxes on large corporations and the wealthy need to be increased not decreased. This will also slow down the "profit taking" and encourage business to reinvest in the business..in order to defer tax. This will create more jobs and more revenue for services.. I believe in Capitalism.. but there has to be a balance with some socialist programs... There has to be a social safety net below which no citizen can fall. More jobs and better wages will limit the number of people needing assistance... and more taxpayers will produce more revenue.

Those who believe in decreasing taxes and regulations on business are mistakenly buying into "Supply Side" econonmics. This is the mystical magical notion that somehow... someway... if you give the rich more and more money, they will become generous and share... by share I mean paying better wages and creating more and more jobs. That just doesn't happen.. and the last 30 years of "Trickle down" have been proven to not work, and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. By their very nature.. Corporations are going to protect that profit.. they will move money off shore.. OR they will play the little game of Tax inversion.. Hopefully Congress can put a stop to that garbage.. but not until we get a few folks out of office I'm afraid.. as the pockets of the wealthy are deep.. and buying elections is expensive you know..

We also need to impose penalties on companies who move overseas but still want to tap the US market for profit.. This can be in the form of tarrifs.. or tax codes. Or this economy is going to shrivel up and die. AND the wealthy along with it.
Click to expand...

Wow, this makes perfect sense.........I'll vote for you.
 
Warrigal said:
This is an excerpt from a much longer opinion piece with the same title.

​
How do you feel about euthanasia as an obligation? A duty?

If you think such a thing is unthinkable I suggest you read the full article here: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/09/01/4078456.htm
Click to expand...
I have worked for Adult Protective Service and As a Medical Case Manager. Care givers often do become depleted by caring for their spouse. This includes men as well a women. I have often had "heart to heart" discussions with my client in which I pointed out the likelyhood that they themselves would become ill as a result of their efforts to care for their loved one. This can be almost a 24 hour a day job. The mental stress and physical results in illness often for the care giver. I used this information as a lever, along with the idea that it was OK to set the burden down. I usually was trying to get the patient into a nursing home, or even get the person in home care.

It was always amazing to me when they refused. However, having planted the seed they often times came back willing to have their mate sent to a nursing home where they could visit and provide some care themselves. But let's consider the problem of euthanasia. "They Shoot Horses Don't They?"

I am very much a believer in the idea that we make a contract with God before coming to earth. Many times I have seen people "carrying their cross" to the end. So I wonder if it is my job to say whether a person has suffered enough. I am not sure that demonstrating the suffering of a caretaker is enough of a reason to end anothers life. The caretaker is also carrying their own cross.
Often times the caretaker has vowed to care for their spouse in the home until the end. They carry this like it was sacred. They also may feel enormous shame and guilt if they give it up. If they leave they feel like they are abandoning their love. We carry this fear of abandonment, especially if we were abandoned as children.

If we are going to allow euthanasia then the contract must be in writing and well before the patient "needs" it. The spouse should also be included in the discussion. It should be like a living will, which specifies whether a patient wants heroic measures taken to save their life. You see, this would require changing the law in every state and probably the federal government as well.

Then we must decide at what stage of responsiveness that we will initiate the contract. We need to decide whether the patient will call for it due to pain, or just for depression. In other words, we better know what the hell we are doing.
 
The obligation to die must be a non-issue if we are to exist in a civilized world that resembles, in any shape, way or form, the world we now occupy. That being said, I can envision a coming "Brave New World," where all health factors are weighed, for a given individual, and then decisions are made, with or without that individual's active participation, towards ending the life of that person. For me, personally, I would NEVER want to simply exist, sick, debilitated, almost unaware (or totally unaware) of who I am, where I am, who my loved ones are. I have felt like opting out, only once, after a very painful surgery and healing process. The fact that I started on a new professional path only three days after the surgery, kept me in the game, and I healed back to 100%. Still, I had insight into what it's like to suffer and wish for an end to the same. I cannot understand how so many greedily hang onto life, even though the lives they lead are terrible, beyond belief, and the suffering they bring on their loved ones/caregivers are also truly miserable.
 
Ralphy1 said:
The baby boomers will break the system in a matter of a few short years. There won't be enough government funding or probably enough workers to keep this lot going on and on...
Click to expand...

The boomers are going to be dying off in 15 years. After that, with populations shrinking the world is going to have to change its ideas about having children. The earth's population needs to be reduced by half. If all the boomers died it wouldn't make a serious dent. The world's economy will also need to change. The rich will not be as rich any longer and will have to pay people at least a living wage.
The real problem will be global warming. By the time the population has been reduced there better have been years of living with renewable energy going on and reducing CO2 levels. That is if you want to be able to go out side.
 
Warrigal said:
This is an excerpt from a much longer opinion piece with the same title.

​
How do you feel about euthanasia as an obligation? A duty?

If you think such a thing is unthinkable I suggest you read the full article here: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/09/01/4078456.htm
Click to expand...

First, I agree with posters who said it's dangerous- it could be a fast slide from 'right' to 'duty.'
But I do have additional concerns:

One concern would be "how ill is 'ill enough'?" I'm not heartless- I'd have an awful time expecting someone to 'stay alive' if they were either in a permanent vegetative state or unbearable pain, but it seems what constitutes 'tolerable' is shrinking and shrinking.
Another concern would be who calls the shots? Going by Hillary C's remark that children should be able to make their own decisions, and with the frequent instances of teenagers and even children committing suicide, I'd be very concerned for young people who think a bad day or a difficult situation is reason to end their lives. There are places that consider some teens 'mature minors,' and some that give underage kids full rein on their own health care with parents not even having the right to know about it.
I know there are people who believe individuals, regardless of age, condition, or situation, should have the 'right' to end their lives whenever they 'choose,' but I don't agree with that and don't think many people would.
 
JaniceM said:
First, I agree with posters who said it's dangerous- it could be a fast slide from 'right' to 'duty.'
But I do have additional concerns:

One concern would be "how ill is 'ill enough'?" I'm not heartless- I'd have an awful time expecting someone to 'stay alive' if they were either in a permanent vegetative state or unbearable pain, but it seems what constitutes 'tolerable' is shrinking and shrinking.
Another concern would be who calls the shots? Going by Hillary C's remark that children should be able to make their own decisions, and with the frequent instances of teenagers and even children committing suicide, I'd be very concerned for young people who think a bad day or a difficult situation is reason to end their lives. There are places that consider some teens 'mature minors,' and some that give underage kids full rein on their own health care with parents not even having the right to know about it.
I know there are people who believe individuals, regardless of age, condition, or situation, should have the 'right' to end their lives whenever they 'choose,' but I don't agree with that and don't think many people would.
Click to expand...

IMHO, first off, you can't really prevent people from committing suicide if they are determined to do so. But that's a whole 'nother issue. I do not believe physician assisted suicide should be available to those who, for whatever reason, have decided they just do not want to go on.

I believe assisted suicide should be available to those facing a horrible end to their lives. It should be limited to those who are medically certified as terminally ill, and only to those who make the decision for THEMSELVES and that mental health professionals are satisfied have indeed made the decision rationally for themselves. I realize that would not help those who can no longer communicate in any way or who are no longer capable of making rational decisions, but I strongly feel that no one should ever make such a decision for another human being.

I don't believe that this would slide from right to duty if it were carefully regulated.
 
Butterfly said:
IMHO, first off, you can't really prevent people from committing suicide if they are determined to do so. But that's a whole 'nother issue. I do not believe physician assisted suicide should be available to those who, for whatever reason, have decided they just do not want to go on.

I believe assisted suicide should be available to those facing a horrible end to their lives. It should be limited to those who are medically certified as terminally ill, and only to those who make the decision for THEMSELVES and that mental health professionals are satisfied have indeed made the decision rationally for themselves. I realize that would not help those who can no longer communicate in any way or who are no longer capable of making rational decisions, but I strongly feel that no one should ever make such a decision for another human being.

I don't believe that this would slide from right to duty if it were carefully regulated.
Click to expand...

That's why I believe Advance Directives and Living Wills are a good idea. They aren't about assisted suicide, but do make a person's end-of-life decisions clear.
 
All civilised human beings have a duty to live and to safeguard the right to live .
How many of you chose to be born?
Not a single one.
That choice was made by other people and from that point onwards those people have a moral obligation to ensure your continued right to exist.
I am well informed on N.D. E. and I don't know of anyone who has experienced N.D.E. who would accept the " Right to Die ".
If they thought they did- that it was their choice, they would not have come back to life.
With some exceptions - they do actually have a choice,.
I have done more than a little research on the subject.
Euthanasia, Positive Eugenics and so-called Bio-ethics are not about compassion for the suffering , they are scientific claims to ownership of life.
 
Warrigal said:
This is an excerpt from a much longer opinion piece with the same title.

​
How do you feel about euthanasia as an obligation? A duty?

If you think such a thing is unthinkable I suggest you read the full article here: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/09/01/4078456.htm
Click to expand...

I made comments earlier about this issue and have realized that I did not go far enough with my comments. This argument for euthanasia is based on "the slippery slope" idea. The problem is that there is no slope. If we carry out experiments of any kind based on the slippery slope idea we have already gone down that slope. We have become the Nazis.

They decided to kill more than 6 million people because Germany was running out of money. Even the work camps could not produce enough to support themselves, so those people had to die as well. The movie "Schindler's List" played out this theme. Hitler never even thought about allowing these people to be taken by the Allies to other countries. Then these people could have been repatriated.

If we have a slippery slope it is in our thinking. If we were to consult Immanuel Kant what might he say about this problem. "We are bound by our duty to one another to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people for the sake of the good." The "Categorical Imperative" tells us that the individual should not be treated as a means to an end, but as the good itself. It still applies as "the greatest good for the greatest number". We must apply this thinking to the present and the future. The "Golden Rule" fails here because "Do unto others" may allow us to kill others if the others would want to be killed.

So what are we left with? We are left with the idea that we cannot apply arguments that cannot be extrapolated from small number of cases to a large number of cases. The U.S constitution gives rights to each individual. We have the right to, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is why we must be careful not to amend the constitution in ways that would erode these rights.

Our civil law may not care as much for the rights of the individual. I am not a lawyer despite the fact that I am often a sophist. So it might appear that we would be able to kill people if the law granted a corporation the right to kill, or endanger others based on property rights. This appears to be true and in practice in the U.S. and Canada, in the southern Americas, probably all over the globe. For example, fracking is a very dangerous process as it leads to cancer and earth quakes.

I believe I have debunked the "slippery slope" idea because there is no way to practice the result except in our thinking. I believe the laws should continue to back the rights of the individual because this is the only way consent for euthanasia could be practiced. I hope this appears in other constitutions around the world in democratic and socialist countries.

Having said all this I believe there is one more right we must consider. Atheists may not like this discussion, considering it invalid. Yet, the rights of the individual must prevail. I have already considered this argument in my other comment, but will restate it here.
If we are sent to earth as part of a sacred contract, do we have a right to participate in the death of another by causing that death.
This is difficult because we do not know even the nature of our own contracts. I think I may have changed my opinion re: this issue.
It is not really about what God wants except to say that God wants us to live out our contracts.

We accomplish this by living through our archetypes, my belief only, and by participating in our laws and society. So with God it still comes back to the rights of the individual. Nuff said.
 
Last edited:
Like I posted earlier last week, I had just found out that an old high school friend was just diagnosed with ALS. I saw a person die from AIDS and also a person, who was my friend's mother died from ALS maybe 10 or so years ago. Both diseases are horrific going through the process before death. I was always against taking one's own life, but I am kind of on the fence now, if a terminal illness is at hand.
 
I think a distinction needs to be made between the right to die and the right to refuse treatment in hospital where the individual knows they are going to die anyway.
My sister passed away five months ago after suffering from cancer for years.
She was very devout and when nearing the end she decided to leave hospital and return home to her family to die in peace.
She refused any further medical treatment knowing that it would only have kept her alive a few months longer and till her passing took only pain killers while she awaited the inevitable.
She would never have considered Euthanasia or sanctioned any form of " mercy - killing " . People do sometimes have the " right " to die where that death is not consciously instigated and knowing direct intervention to maintain their existence is of temporal value, but they do not have the right to kill themselves, nor do others have the right to kill other people.
 
That's the way I see it too LinuxCat. I'm not there yet but I see the process of dying as the last stage of living and I see value in accepting this time if it is given to me. I have been with my mother and aunt during their last days and I am not fearful for myself. Refusing life extending medical treatment is not the same as assisted suicide or medically induced death.
 

Back
Top