In the US constitution, it is said that we have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. If we have the right to life, shouldn't we also have the right to choose to end that life if our quality of life becomes untennable?

If someone is suffering from untreatable pain, isn't inhumane to force that person to continue to suffer by denying them the right to pass on with some dignity.

When we put down an animal because of a debilitating injury or illness, we show more humanity to animals than we do our own kind because we try to deny people the right to end their own life, when that life becomes unlivable.

However, I believe that they can pass all the anti-suicide laws they want to. A person who has been brought to the point where they want to end their life isn't going to care one bit if ending their life is legal or not. The only way the illegality of the act will effect them is if they fail the attempt.

Greetings all.

I fully condone/support euthanasia and as long as you harm no other nor do you ask another to assist you in suiciding unless you're physically unable to perform the action yourself, I have no problem with it. In this case, the being wishing to end their life is thinking rationally and are not under any kind of coercion and they're not suffering from any mental illness. It isn't an easy decision to make but regarding animals, I do agree that they're allowed to die with dignity. Why is it so different with people? I think it's the modern western mentality coming into play. It used to be that death was celebrated and we interacted with those who've passed on in our various rituals but not anymore. For a human, even contemplating euthanasia is frowned on and discussing it can even get you kicked out of some places. It's truly disgusting in my opinion that we're taught to openly ridicule the terminally ill who's considering ending it because they're in too much pain. I always get very angry when I hear of cases like this.

So to wrap this up, I do agree with all posts here and as for leaving children, that is beyond my comprehension and I do not feel safe to comment on it one way or another except to say I'd either take care of the children myself until such time that they've grown old enough to leave home and support themselves or give them to other family members or put them up for adoption or put them into care and then end it.

Kind regards, Amin Abdullah.

Greetings all.

At Gellman, you've definitely given me a lot to consider. If the disabled or indeed anyone is in such dire straights that supporting ones self is either extremely difficult or impossible then yes they should be allowed to euphonies themselves. However, such a thing should not be the first resort because there could be something you can do. If all avenues have been exhausted and their living conditions are impossible then I see no problem with that. However, I'd rather grant them citizenship in another country who're more disabled friendly. I also condone the practicing of removing defective ovum and gametes in order to correct them and reduce the chance of getting disabled foetuses on a genetic level thus improving the quality of life for the ones who would otherwise be disabled. Note that I'm not condoning abortion or the killing of the egg and spermatozoa but to extricate the defective genes. That could be another way but if neither gene therapy or relocation to a better nation is possible then euthanasia should be possible.

Kind regards, Amin Abdullah.

Not only do I have a handgun, I could get one in 2 to 3 days, easy, but that wouldn't be legal, if I went the legal route, probably 3 to 5 days. I don't have a criminal record. Getting guns is easy, especially when you *know* the right people.

@ironcross32

You are very lucky, let me guess you live in the US in a good red state (smile).

I can assure you that getting a handgun legally outside the US is often very difficult due to strict gun control.

@bashue

My situation is also okay, but I ponder the question because there is always the risk that society can cut public benefits.

And all the aid is contingent on the majority not suddently feeling envy or dislike for welfare recipients whom are often said to get too much.

I raise the question because I think its implications are important.

I can understand why the state would make assisted suicide a crime, to allow it would open a large loophole to commit murder. "It isn't murder your honor, he was in pain and asked me to assist him in ending his life."

I don't have to agree with it, but I do understand it.

I am not suicidal either, "Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem."

@GeneWarner

If the risk that people could get away with murder was  the sole or primary justification for banning assisted suicide, the argument would only apply to assistance outside medical clinics and hospitals.

What I think is hypocritical is the stance taken by the law that suicide is not a crime, but helping another with something -- an
act which is not illegal in itself -- is a crime.

It's like arguing that a woman has a right to perform an abortion on herself, but that she has no right to ask a third party  for assistance.

A right which can only be exercised without a third party's assistance is not really a right.

Note that I am not defending the propriety of assisting suicide in private (unregulated) settings wherein there is a higher risk of abuse, , I am merely pointing out that legal euthanasia in a clinical setting is a different beast and can only be banned on the justification that tsociety should go to extra lengths to preserve life for its own sake.

But if life is so paramount, this purported interest should logically lead to complete funding of all healthcare and medical costs.

Otherwise we end up in a situation where society can keep people alive but  without owing them anything.

And this is the issue I have with opponents of euthanasia of the poor, disabled and vulnerable.

- They accept no responsibility for clearly stating how much welfare (tax money) these groups are due.

I personally believe that anyone should be able to do whatever they like with there own lives. I find it extremely offensive that many people believe that they should have the right to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own lives and bodies, whether it be abortion, suicide, or something else. Noone should have that right. Not family, not the government, not even the goddamn president.

@themadviolinist
You write:

"It is a short road from accepting simple disability as a legitimate reason for ending one's life to applying pressure to the disabled to do so in pursuit
of savings, less bother for the temporarily able, who are often very good at ignoring the likelihood of their own eventual disability.  I'm not certain
we want to give society permission to think that disability could be a state of being for which death is the only solution."

No, that's no more a counterargument against an unconditional right to die than fighting poverty is a strong argument against permitting abortion.

If someone due to individual circumstance no longer thinks life is worth living, he or she should not be deprived of his liberty just because his continued existence  may aid the promotion of policies in support of the disabled.

That's like saying that abortion ought not be legal because terminating unwanted children may have detrimental consequences for fighting poverty or that genetic testing for children with Downes' Syndrome should not be permitted because these children are needed to promote happiness.

The fallacy in the argument that there is a short road from permitting disabled to die to pressuring them to die by cutting spending is that society can already make life unplesent for the weak simply by cutting welfare and masking its sindifference by supposedly neutral 'concerns' for fiscal responsibility.

Also in most countries, you don't have an unconditional and judicially enforceable right to healthcare or a minimal wage.

Your concern would make more sense if there was already a clearly established enforceable bargain between the individual and society stating that you don't have an unconditional right to decide to end your life, but society will in turn guarantee an absolute and nonnegotiable minimal wage and legal recourse in case of inaccessible establishments and services.

But such a bargain does not exist, and if society does not guarantee absolute accessibility and equal accomodation for the disabled, it has forfeited its 'right' to compel people to live with conditions that a majority would not   find acceptable, or that at least my opinion.

And even if there was such a bargain, it would likely not guarantee absolute equality and accessibility in public accomodation.

It would likely be riddled with loopholes allowing establishments and the government itself to scale down its commitment to 'reasonable' rather than 'absolute' accommodation.

This is already the case with the American with Disabilities Act and other legislation.

"That's much easier than creating
acomodations, taking universal design principles into account, even funding disabled people to help us live in the main stream world.  That's a dangerous
precedent to set."

This may be your preference, but why should political activism serving the collective preclude the individual's choice in this matter?

I mean if the individual finds the entire premise of equal acommodation unsatisfactory, either because the accommodation is only partial, or because he thinks that the disability movement is only a sham,  should he legally speaking be kept on life support just for the greater good?

"As I get older, the notion of absolute rights comes into conflict for me with the notion that we have responsibilities to the society as a whole to help
those less fortunate, to allow each to maximize their own liberty, even at some expense to our own.  It is all well to articulate an absolute liberty argument
about the right to die, or any other issue.  (remember I am disposed to agree with this argument.)  This liberty interest exists in tension with a societal
interest in promoting life, in choosing to develop medical, legal and design protocols to bring those of us with disabilities into the fold."

Sorry, but preserving or promoting life without regard for individual autonomy
is not even a valid interest in itself.

If that was so, why not keep everyone on artificial life support for as long as the heart could be kept beating.

People have a right to right to refuse medical treatment or to smoke, drink and expose themselves to danger
even when the behavior is likely to shorten their lives.

If restricting individual liberty is so easy, because promoting life is a legitimate interest, a lot of behavior can and perhaps should be restricted even when the directly injured party is only the individual itself.

Therefore the only tension I perceive in the right to die is between the individual's autonomy and a rather fascist or totalitarian desire to keep them around for social experimentation.

By social experimentation I mean policies which are purportedly imposed to 'help' the individual but are either not proven to work or are mere sham justifications for other agendas.

For example, bringing disabled into the fold is frankly not an aim I consider very compelling; if individuals want it, they should be free to pursue that with all their might, but universalizing that to a societal command to perpetuate life against individual choice smacks of totalitarian control.

And such state control even if we accept it may be legitimate in some situations does not translate into benefits for the individual.

I personally believe that liberty defined as the individual right to exercise autonomy over life or death is always better than the society telling him that you must not do this or that.

The only caveat is that this choice must not violate the tangible rights of others to whom the individual owes a duty.

Do I think that the individual owes any duty to society to live?

Not at all.

So what about his or her family?

Maybe but only insofar that he or she is still legally responsible for underage children.

Children under 18 who are still legally dependent on their parents are a wholly different subject.

"  A world without
Stephen Hawking is certainly a lesser place.  A world where Franklin Delano Roosevelt is dead rather than President may see a different outcome to World
War II.  What would be lost to the world if everyone who thought they might want to die because things were hard was kicked through that door.
"

Yes, but the same could be said with regard to abortion. We don't know how many gifted individuals would have been born but for  the legal availability of abortion.

I know it's not necessarily your own opinion, but just try to replace right to die with abortion and see if the speculation doesn't sound rather inhumane.

If the right to die can be restricted for the greater good of society, I hardly see no reason for not applying the same paternalistic logic to abortion -- which I by the way think ought to remain a human right.

And abortion unlike the right to die might plausibly be said to infringe the life of a party who is incapable of saying yes or no which can not be said for killing oneself.

This is the reason why I intensely dislike the 'Disability-rights'  movement:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … death.html

"Samantha Crane is the director of public policy at the
Autistic Self-Advocacy Network.
Crane recently lost her grandmother, who had Alzheimer’s disease. While Crane mourns her loss, she doesn’t view her grandmother’s final days as a tragic
decline or a fall from the dignity of her earlier days. “She didn’t remember a lot of things, but every day she woke up, she was happy,” Crane told me.
“She was dignified. I want to reclaim the term ‘dignity.’”

The Autistic Self-Advocacy Network is one of several disability-rights organizations that opposes legal physician-assisted death.

Supporters of physician-assisted death argue, however, that it’s a matter of freedom of choice whether people live or die. They say that no one should die
without dignity, that sometimes life is too painful or difficult to be worth living. Thus compassion should compel us to aid someone suffering, and who
has a terminal illness, to end their lives. The leading right-to-die organization, Compassion and Choices, did not reply to an emailed request for interview
by the time of publishing.

Disability-rights advocates, on the other hand, are concerned that there is a double standard. Suppose a good friend of yours says that she wants to kill
herself. You, and most people others close to her, would probably try to help her so she did not feel that suicide was a viable option. Suicide prevention
would be the goal of the medical profession, of family and friends. Not, however, in the case of someone seeking physician-assisted death.

“The difference is your health or disability status. Then suddenly suicide is a rational decision,” Diane Coleman, president and CEO of
Not Dead Yet,
a disability-rights group that advocates against assisted suicide and euthanasia, told The Daily Beast. “We think equal rights should also mean equal rights
to suicide prevention.”'

Am I the only one finding this stance utterly orwellian?

The right to suicide prevention is not any right in the sense of having autonomy over one's body but a duty to live so that organizations can use one's disability to promote their often twisted conception of human dignity.

Just because Samantha Crane may find her own life great ought not give her a veto over the lives of other disabled.

I was not aware of this article, but after reading and rereading it, I simply find the attitude of these so-called disability rights spokesmen appalling.

Calling any rights based organization a self-advocacy network while clammering for depriving the individual of free choice and bodily autonomy is simply an orwellian abuse of self-advocacy and rights.

Where in that article did you get inclusion? His main thrust has nothing to do with inclusion, and everything to do with not letting people end their life out of depression. He talked about his life, and how in 1984 he had no idea his life would turn out as happy as it has.