Switzerland Approves Assisted ‘Suicide Capsule’

Catholics would have a different moral perspective...

 

Then Catholics are free to lay in a medical bed enduring immense suffering, racking up hundreds of thousands in medical debt for their family while slowly resembling a corpse until their body finally relents — they should not be able to impose this on others however.

 

It's a question of consistency. If you have that right to choose, you have the right to choose for yourself. Broadly. Many of the folks posting here on the left tend to choose also when that particular privilege can or doesn't apply. Simple as that. When it becomes the prerogative of those who believe in their ability to dictate those choices for you, well, there'a problem. Do you agree?

 

I don't entirely disagree. The difference is whether or not you are compelled or not. Do you feel like your choice could be chosen for you? If you decide that folks shouldn't choose for you, then what?

 

Damn what an existential question I didn't expect to answer on the forum. Well, if I could have it both ways I would. I'd love to maintain the autonomy to make my own decision, yet this human body is so fragile, so vulnerable that "something" could happen that would take away my autonomy. In which case, I'd love to have a will down on my sentiment on human life(which was pretty much spelled out in the last post.)

I want to live life as I've lived it. I don't want to live life crippled and left for dead. I don't want to live life suffering in eternal pain.

 

If you are terminally ill, you should have the option to die peacefully. I know there is a contigent who are fine with letting people suffer because of their morals, but are they going to pay the medical expenses?

 

I certainly fear the consequences of having encouraged suicide, be it private or state led. Though I can recognize there are certainly situations that are permanent, with no end to the pain, where this could be a good thing possibly.

I also seem to remember some leftists being against allowing terminally ill patients to test medicines that could save their lives, yet are ok with this?

The lack of intellectual consistency is telling.

 

What medicine were they against?

 

Nature taking it's course means no medical extension of life. Due to our advanced medical care, at the end a lot of people are in extreme pain for years. Lying in their own excrement. Suffering from a progressive degradation of brain function, etc. To me it seems rational to allow people to face their end in a pain free manner and via an exercise of their free will.

This topic should be debated in the Religion section of PF since the basis for not allowing people options for a peaceful and pain free means to die seems to be based on religion and the idea that suffering is somehow necessary for purification.

 

Except that's not a stance I ever made or argued. I've never tried to force a belief or a choice on anyone. You would have to take that up with those that do.

 

If this is.what you were referring to in your question to me then please forgive me. I misunderstood what you were saying and thought you were talking policy wise.

I think it's an individual's choice and should not be anyone else's. If a person feels they want to fight on until the very end, it's up to them. But If someone feels like the pain is to much and they're not going to recover, then that should be their decision, not someone who doesn't even know you.

 

Is that what you do to a horse, cat or dog etc? It's not, now is it?

 

To stop people from dying who wish to live.

 

Cause government can then force you to "wish to live"... hmm.. perhaps you didn't actually think that through very far...

 

that wanting to be alive thing,... it could be a human right already.

 

I’m okay with it for terminally ill people. Not okay with it for people who are just depressed. There are millions of people who have wanted to die at some point in their life and got over it and are relieved they didn’t take their life.

 

I am in full support of any programs that assist a person in their right to die. Some countries have adopted this notion but most cautiously conduct a mental assessment. If one is deemed mentally incompetent, they cannot pursue the legal right. I understand the requirement on one hand, but on the other, I am personally involved in a situation (family member) where this has occurred and its very sad and frustrating.

 

100% agree... I would think a medical condition has to be present, although I wouldn't necessarily limit it to "terminally ill".... it's more a question (to me) of pain management and curability/outlook..

This was approved by a medical review board, so I'm sure the Swiss have covered all those holes in this cheese.....

 

Gibberish. You're arguing that government can force you to "wish to live".....

 

Will life insurance policies payout in such cases?

 

I agree, but I think we need to stay away from using the phrase terminally ill... that seems to have a medical definition of less than 6 months to live.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870193/

Don't think this product should be limited to that, if you are facing many years of difficult-to-manage pain with little chance of improvement...

I'm open to a better definition... chronic??

 

They all died anyway, didn't they?

 

Great question, but I understand suicide in general isn't covered, so I wouldn't expect this to be....Here, there is zero doubt of cause of death.

Here's the US, but it may be different in Switzerland.... dunno...

https://www.investopedia.com/does-l... contain,restart the suicide exclusion period.

 

Thanks for the link.

 

I didn't say a government has the right to force you to live. I said it's a human right to wish to be alive. And forced vaccinations is a way to better guarantee others who wish to be alive, to remain to be alive. Vaccinations work. It's science, not a believe. Keen difference.