no, because they could be in denial.
Suicide or Not?
- Thread starter Liebling
- Start date
Leo,
If they are in denial, could that be considered "not of their right mind"? Could we be allowing them to make a choice when they do not have all their faculties about them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swarm,
Why is committing suicide not morally wrong?
I think Kant might disagree with you on the ideal of duty to mankind.
Why is taking your own life not morally wrong? What if you are perfectly healthy, with an intelligent brain and lots to contribute to society?
If they are in denial, could that be considered "not of their right mind"? Could we be allowing them to make a choice when they do not have all their faculties about them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swarm,
Why is committing suicide not morally wrong?
I think Kant might disagree with you on the ideal of duty to mankind.
Why is taking your own life not morally wrong? What if you are perfectly healthy, with an intelligent brain and lots to contribute to society?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Insanity or 'not being in ones right mind' is a far cry from being in denial. If you think that suicide is a choice made by people not in their right mind or an immoral choice then you would never accept someone's choice as theirs but only see it as a manifestation of either failing mental faculties or immorality. In other words it wouldn't matter why they are doing it. What people have to contribute to society is no reason for someone not to commit suicide as its a personal choice, if the person is healthy and intelligent then they would have to have a compelling reason to commit suicide or not be healthy.
If someone decides to refuse any further treatments as they've been proven as vain then there's no point in forcing them into something they've decided against.
Let them enjoy the few remaining years they've got without having to puke the sh*t out of themselves, losing their hair because of some chemotherapy that doesn't help anyway.
There are times where you can't do jacksh*t. Let nature take its course.
Let them enjoy the few remaining years they've got without having to puke the sh*t out of themselves, losing their hair because of some chemotherapy that doesn't help anyway.
There are times where you can't do jacksh*t. Let nature take its course.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
How can they enjoy themselves when they are riddled with pain? I guess high doses of morphine could be administered but I doubt it would amount to 'enjoying their remaining years'
Uh, no. At 44, you're about at middle age.
Why can't you have enjoyment alongside pain?
Right and wrong are relevant only within a social context. Suicide is ultimately refusing to participate in any further way within that social context.
Or if you like, for there to be a right or wrong there must first be a person to be right or wrong. Suicide removes the person. Since they no longer *are,* they can no longer *be* either right or wrong.
Of course you are free to praise or condemn them to your heart's content and it will have as much effect as cursing the sun and the moon.
Duty is predicated by existence.
It is your life. Your choice. Your responsibility. Your freedom.
Does that mean I advocate suicide? No. But it is not wrong and it is the ultimately the person's choice.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Have you ever seen anyone with Cancer? The pain is excruciating and all encompassing, its hardly translates into a Kodak moment you know.
The experience of cancer is different with every patient as are the treatment options, if there are any available of course. The latter depends upon what part of the world the cancer patient lives in.
Not all cancer is painful. It really depends on what kind of cancer, and where or how the cancer is spreading/growing. Some are just located in a place where they shouldn't be and lead to death which doesn't inherently include pain. The thing that sucks are the treatments against it. Not only do they destroy the cancer cells but also have tons of side effects. I think most cancer patients look so ill and fragile because of the therapy against their cancer and not necessarily because of the cancer.
And there are ways to treat pain.
And there are ways to treat pain.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Agreed.
i agree with your sentimate 100%, im not sure whats BEHIND your argument but the argument itself i agree with. Morphine IS relitivly safe (safer than alot of other drugs) even in very high doses as long as the pain matches the morphine level (ie if you double the pain you can double the morphine without an increase in respitory supression and the other side effects), however its by no means perfect and by no means does it work in all cases for pts with massive end stage pain. under current legislation all that can be done for these pts is to combine morphine with another drug (medazilam, a related drug to diazapram, valium, which im sure everyone has herd of) which causes a chemically indjuced coma until these pts die of respitory failure (either directly due to the doses of morphine or an untreated pnemonia). This is concidered to be gold standed palitive care because its aim is the management of pain however if anyone where to watch these pts, knowing there was a better option to offer to them we would see how backwards palitive care really is. Now im not arguing against this treatment at all, pain management and the right to refuse invasive and painfull treatments which carry huge side effects and surverly limit quality of life is a RIGHT to all people whos disease has progressed to a state where conventional treatments with all there side effects could offer them only days or weeks (right to refuse treatment is a right to all no matter what but im talking about this specific group). The problem is that there is another choice which could be offered to them, its the same choice we all make for our pets when they suffer and which has wide spread surport from pts in this situation, there families, health care workers, some pollitions and the general public at large. Sadly though there is a lack of political will to carry through on it by the major parties (at least in Australia). This option is vollentary chemical euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide.
Now there are various ways this could be carried out humainly, some people and doctors surport CO admistration, others helium. My feeling is that this excludes the family from being present when the pt dies and being able to hold there hand because its hard to do this in a sealed enviroment so the only person who is inhaling the gas is the pt. Some surport a potassium OD, the same as is used in lethal injection in the US but there are problems with that as well, evidence is currently being examined as to wether this causes a painful death which has been unrecognised because of the joint admistration of paralitics. Parlitics alone will cause respitory failure but it wont be a plesant death for either the family or the pt as their body gasps for air. So my personal preference is the very safe drug morphine, if given in a massive (massivly above the level of pain i mean) rapid dose it will cause type 2 (wont breath) respitory failure. This means that pts simply lose the drive to breath in responce to the first hypercarbic and then hypoxic drives to breath. These simply stop being recived by the respitory center of the brain and the pt has no desire to breath. There would be no gasping for air, no panic from the pt as there is for those who die from type 1 respitory failure (cant breath), some examples being drownings, asthma, pnemonia, simply a slowing of the respitory rate until it eventually stops. Further more because morphine is an IV drug (in this case anyway, i know it can be given orally, subcut ect) there is no reason why the pts family couldnt be sitting with them holding there hands, stroking there hair, whatever they wanted to do for both the pt and themselves.
I dont mean to suggest that this should be manditory or replace good quality pt care and palitive care but rather that this should be an option for the pt if THEY chose it.
One last thing to think about, if you were in that situation. Knowing you would be dead with in the week and faced with a choice of "chemical oblivian" (which might not even work, alot of pts wake up from this repeatedly as the doctor tries to assess the level of drugs needed) or a quick painless death which would you chose?
Ethically i cant see a difference between chemical oblivian and doctor assisted suicide
how does "in their right mind" have any bearing on this?
if a person is mentally incompetent then someone else speaks for them.
Socially, yes in most societies, but ultimately, no. If some one is sufficiently competent enough to kill themselves and they have set themselves to that course it is very difficult to keep them from it.