| | I have no desire to continue this repetition. My words have been quite clear. If someone overdoses in private, wakes up and finds that they have vomited on the bed but haven't died, do you think that I am saying they should report to a judge and ask to be hanged? Am I so oversubtle that I might mean this but not know how to say it? Or where did I say that if someone finds them that way that they should be turned in as if we live in a police state? It is when the authorities get involved and the suicide becomes an aggressive altruist that they should "run afoul" of the authorities. Yes. I don't understand the last two sentences. Could you elaborate? What's "an aggressive altruist"? I would rather not repeat myself again and again, but I also fail to see where either you or Bill has refuted my argument that suicide is a meta-ethical choice, not a political right. Bill himself quoted the appropriate Rand. You and he then agreed over a broader interpretation of what action is, one broad enough so far as I can see to include everything and to exclude nothing. This is simply not true, Ted. Our position is that one has the right to freedom of action consistent with a respect for the equal rights of others. Such freedom excludes the right to interfere with other people's freedom of action, which is perfectly consistent with Rand's view.
If I understand what you mean by a "meta-ethical choice" (you haven't defined the term), I would say that suicide can be both a metaethical choice and a political right. Why does it have to be one or the other? If it's a meta-ethical choice, then one has a political right to make that choice. As it stands, these statements, which are the core of my argument, have not been answered:
Suicide is a meta-ethical choice.
There is no political right [according to Objectivist theory, which grounds rights in the necessities of man's life] to suicide per se, although there is certainly a right to own the means to commit suicide. Yes, there is a political right to suicide per se (although not a political right to interfere with the rights of others in the process) and it's perfectly consistent with the right to life. Both Joe and I have argued precisely that point -- that the freedom to judge what actions are life-sustaining and to choose them implies the freedom to choose actions that the state happens to regard as life destroying. Therefore, it implies the right to commit suicide. If you disagree with us, then address this argument. Don't just ignore it and continue to assert the opposite. Successful suicides are beyond punishment.
Unsuccessful private suicides can do as they will, quit or try again. If their action is truly private, it is not subject to political notice. Suppose it were on the suicider's private property or that of another willing party, but did attract political notice. Would the authorities have a right to stop it or to punish the person who tries it, if he or she fails in the attempt? Public failed suicides have by their own acts demonstrated that they are a danger to themselves and others. It doesn't matter that they are a danger to themselves; they're trying to kill themselves; what could be more dangerous than that?! It's only if they endanger others that their action should be subject to prosecution or penalty. Such people are a threat to society. They should be treated like the mentally ill, if not like dangerous animals. Like dangerous animals?? There are trained professionals who can judge how best to treat such people.
And if it is appropriate to have legalized assisted suicide, what, pray tell, is the difference between that and execution? Oh, come on, Ted! You know very well what the difference is. Assisted suicide is done with the consent of the person whose life is to be terminated; execution is done without his consent. Admittedly, very strict legal guidelines would have to be followed to ensure that consent was present, but it is possible to establish such guidelines and ensure that they are followed.
It's interesting to observe the attitudes toward assisted suicide in other parts of the world. "The Right to Die Newsletter" has compiled some interesting data. Russia [as you might expect] has no tolerance of any form of assisted suicide, nor did it during the 60-year Soviet rule. The Russian legal system does not recognize the notion of 'mercy-killing'. Moreover, the 1993 law 'On Health Care of Russian Citizens' strictly prohibits the practice of euthanasia. A ray of commonsense can be seen in Estonia (after getting its freedom from the Soviet bloc) where lawmakers say that as suicide is not punishable the assistance in suicide is also not punishable.
The only four places that today openly and legally, authorize active assistance in dying of patients, are:
1. Oregon (since l997, physician-assisted suicide only);
2. Switzerland (1941, physician and non-physician assisted suicide only);
3. Belgium (2002, permits 'euthanasia' but does not define the method;
4. Netherlands (voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide lawful since April 2002 but permitted by the courts since l984).
Two doctors must be involved in Oregon, Belgium, and the Netherlands, plus a psychologist if there are doubts about the patient's competency. But that is not stipulated in Switzerland, although at least one doctor usually is because the right-to-die societies insist on medical certification of a hopeless or terminal condition before handing out the lethal drugs.
The Netherlands permits voluntary euthanasia as well as physician-assisted suicide, while both Oregon and Switzerland bar death by injection.
The difference between what is called "physician-assisted suicide" and "euthanasia" is that under physician-assisted suicide, a physician prescribes a lethal dose of medication to a patient, but the patient -- not the doctor -- administers the medication. How do you feel about that, Ted? Oregon does not allow euthanasia in which the doctor injects the patient with a lethal dose of medication, but Belgium and the Netherlands do. There is no state in the U.S. that permits euthanasia, however -- which is not surprising, as the U.S. is far more religious than either Belgium or the Netherlands -- and no other state besides Oregon that permits physician-assisted suicide in which the doctor prescribes the medication, but the patient administers it.
- Bill
|
|
