Forums → WEPR → Euthanasia- The Right To Die

Morale obligation? That makes me laugh. Just because your DNA looks similar to someone else you are required to perhaps spend thousands of dollars to cure some. Nah just because your blood particles look alike to someone else you have no more moral obligation to help them than some random bum off the street.

lol. I don't think you even know what a moral obligation is, but that is beside the point.

No, in my opinion it is the governments responsibility to determine if the person should be allowed to commit suicide or have assisted suicide or even to treat the said person. The government is here for the people, to help the people and appointed by the people. The government is the peoples servants and appointed to carry out the populations wishes.

The government is the monopoly of law and uses force so that the people comply with the laws. Government is a strange entity, though.

The government is not there to carry out special favors to people like it does now. The government is becoming a collectivist institution now, where it once wasn't. The only entity that should help a mentally ill person is the family of the mentally ill person, not government! Even if the family doesn't help, they shouldn't be punished.

The role of government in our country is often misunderstood. People need to help themselves and should help the people around them. I pay for my food, my clothes, and any sporting events I want to go to. That isn't the government's responsibility, even though it has a lot to do with my life unfortunately.

Allow me to get back on topic: what exactly comprises the government? Officials who were elected by us to represent us are. In other words, we, indirectly, comprise the government. So if people need to help themselves and should help others, then why does government need to help everyone?

I'll finish with a question: what is Joe Schmuck's moral obligation to help your mentally ill family member? He has none! He only has the obligation to cough up is money to the government. Do you see the point I'm making?

I'll finish with a question: what is Joe Schmuck's moral obligation to help your mentally ill family member? He has none! He only has the obligation to cough up is money to the government. Do you see the point I'm making?

All I have to say to that is Joe Schmuck's moral obligation to help your mentally ill brother or sister is the exact same as your mom or dad or sister. All that determines who is in who's family is how blood looks. The people that really have the moral obligation are the people you love and your friends. They don't have to help you though, neither does your family. Isn't the fact that your mom or dad gave both to you enough and spent thousands of dollars on you during your childhood enough? They've done everything anyone SHOULD expect of them. The only thing that ties you and your bothers and sisters together is the fact that your blood looks alike.

If you're a good person who is nice to everyone you meet, who doesn't pass judgement on people, you aren't racist or anything, and you are basically a model citizen do you have the moral obligation to cough up money and help some sicko who murders people, beats his wife, and steals from charities because he is your brother? I don't think so.

The government is the monopoly of law and uses force so that the people comply with the laws. Government is a strange entity, though.

Yes... if you want to put it in the worst terms possible. So bad, in fact they're almost not true. What you described is a dictatorship. The government, at least in a democracy, has a responsibility to help people. People do, after all, put those officials in power and write their paychecks.

The government is not there to carry out special favors to people like it does now.

It's not special favors, it's the government's duty to help people.

e government is becoming a collectivist institution now, where it once wasn't.

what exactly do you mean by "collectivist institution?"

The only entity that should help a mentally ill person is the family of the mentally ill person, not government!

What happens if the family can't help? what if the family is lower- middle class and can't afford the extra heathcare insurance, and also can't afford the bills for that person? The government has a responsibility to ensure that the five needs of every constituent is met. Those five needs are water, food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare. The government needs to either provide those things, or set people up so that they can provide for themselves.

Even if the family doesn't help, they shouldn't be punished.

never said they should be.

The role of government in our country is often misunderstood. People need to help themselves and should help the people around them.

What is the role of government, by your standards then? Sometimes people don't have the means to help themselves, or get help from those around them. What are we supposed to do with those people? Just let them die? That would be unethical and irresponsible. The government needs to help them.

I pay for my food, my clothes, and any sporting events I want to go to. That isn't the government's responsibility

No one ever said that the government is paying for people to go see sporting events, and if you weren't able to get that food or clothing, then what would you do? go home to mommy? some people don't have a mommy to go home to. They have to rely on the government, or else they would be either starved, dehydrated, or died from hypothermia. The government should at least provide these people a job so that they can provide from themselves.

even though it has a lot to do with my life unfortunately.

What exactly do you mean?

what exactly comprises the government? Officials who were elected by us to represent us

We can agree on something.

Allow me to get back on topic: what exactly comprises the government? Officials who were elected by us to represent us are. In other words, we, indirectly, comprise the government. So if people need to help themselves and should help others, then why does government need to help everyone?

Your paragraph doesn't flow at all. People do need to help themselves, but to help ourselves, sometimes we need a crutch. That crutch is the government. The government needs to be the thing that people who aren't able to find work, or people who can't put enough food on the table for their family, or people who can't afford a house to live in, can lean on and depend on temporarily, so that they are able to survive. You can't help someone else until you help yourself first. If I had a dollar, and nothing to eat, I would go buy a cheeseburger for myself rather than give it away to someone else with no money. If I had a dollar and a fridge stocked full of food, then I would give the dollar to someone else who needs food, because I have my own supply.

what is Joe Schmuck's moral obligation to help your mentally ill family member?

Humans have a responsibility to help other humans when they can. That's a philosophy that I believe deeply. If Joe can help Jill with her mentally ill brother, he should. It's his responsibility towards his fellow humans Jill and her bro. (not to mention he might get some tail later.) But remember, Joe must be well Financially, physically, and mentally first to do so. He has to make sure his end is good.

He only has the obligation to cough up is money to the government.

So that the government can help people who can't help themselves.

Do you see the point I'm making?

No, not really.

The only thing that ties you and your bothers and sisters together is the fact that your blood looks alike.

Everyone's blood looks alike, not counting a DNA test. We all bleed the same red blood. We all come from the same species. Homo (meaning one) sapiens. We all have a responsibility to help each other.

If you're a good person who is nice to everyone you meet, who doesn't pass judgement on people, you aren't racist or anything, and you are basically a model citizen do you have the moral obligation to cough up money and help some sicko who murders people, beats his wife, and steals from charities because he is your brother? I don't think so.

Yes, because it is his brother, his fellow human, and he should also take steps to make sure that this stuff stops happening. There are plenty of charities out there.

Here's where I'm coming from. We, as humans, are a very special, very unique species. We are civilized, we are advanced beyond our wildest dreams. We are all connected (literally now, with phones and facebook). I believe that we have a moral responsibility, as humans, to help other humans. We have that responsibility because we are humans, civilized, modern, and connected.
But we can't help others out until our lives are stable. One must make sure that he is first able to help someone else before attempting. Like in the example above. I have a dollar, and no food. In order for me to survive, I need to make sure that I have food, so instead of giving that dollar to someone with no money and no food. I'm going to provide for myself first. If I have a dollar, and a fridge full of food, then I can give that man who has no money or food my dollar, because I am able to provide for myself.
Sometimes, we can't provide for ourselves, and we don't have anyone to rely on. So who can we turn to? The government. The government should be there as a crutch-- a temporary post that we can lean on until we get ourselves squared away. (notice: TEMPORARY.) We have five things we need in order to survive: Food, water, shelter, clothing, and healthcare.
Food, water, and clothing are obvious. We need shelter to protect us from the elements. We need healthcare for necessary treatments for certain diseases that are treatable (notice: NECESSARY treatments.) Necessary being whether the disorder is life- threatening, and can the person actually be treated (as in will his life be taken permanently out of danger for that particular disease?)
The government should provide these things, while helping in securing a job for this person so that they can provide for themselves in the near future.
Should people completely and perminantly rely on the government? no. Only when it's necessary. If a person is able to work, then they get temporary help. If a person is physically disabled, or too old to work, then that's a different story. Those would have to be taken on a case- by- case basis. Under the ideas of "why is this person not able to work? can their family support them fully? and what particular circumstances is this person in?"
If a person is receiving temporary help, and fails to comply with a job the government has given them, then they're on their own. We can only try to help someone so many times until our only logical and ethical move is to give up. The system has to be set so that people can't abuse it. That is one of the biggest problems with help programs in the government today is the people who completely abuse them.
Now, to tie this all the way back to the OP, If a person has some type of mental disorder that alters their normal personality (like DID or schizophrenia,) and they go into a doc's office and ask about assisted suicide, they would have to go through a full psychological profile, and then it's the psychologist's job to determine whether this person's decision to choose the path of assisted suicide was influenced by either outside forces, or the disorder that the person has. I know it's not a bullet proof plan, and some will slip through, but it's the best plan I can think of.
So, what happens if this person can't pay for the expensive lethal injection, or the psychologist's sessions? They find family that can.
As far as assisted suicide goes, I don't think that it should be done with taxpayer money. (remember, this is a side point of the main topic of this post.) But, if a person does have a mental disorder, and no family can financially afford psychology work, that's when the government should step in and help with that. As far as the psychological evaluations, the government should help with that (because I think it is necessary in someone who is suicidal, and it will help catch the disorder(s) this person may have.) But not with the suicide itself.

But we can't help others out until our lives are stable.

So when are peoples lives stable? If you live like that, something will always come up that will seem, to you, to take the first priority.

Like in the example above. I have a dollar, and no food. In order for me to survive, I need to make sure that I have food, so instead of giving that dollar to someone with no money and no food. I'm going to provide for myself first. If I have a dollar, and a fridge full of food, then I can give that man who has no money or food my dollar, because I am able to provide for myself.

...Ah, but what the better man to give the dollar to someone else that needs it more, when things are down... And who know's, maybe he will help you someday in the future, like to give protection, or food when you need it.

Or maybe you could do a needed service with skill's that you posses, instead of you starving, which isn't fun. Everyone has a talent, the trick is to find it, practice it, and use it to help others.

~"The fridge is great to have full, but a full fridge means that things will rot unnoticed inside, and cause the fridge to stink over the passing of time."

The government should...

And back to government... While I do agree on most of the points presented, could we keep out government out of this thread as much as possible please?

I know it's not a bullet proof plan, and some will slip through, but it's the best plan I can think of.

Here is a better one, with less human failure involved, as well as taxpaying money.

Drum-roll please,

Don't have assisted suicide in the USA. We are not a third World country, lets just not worry about it. of course there are people that will try to commit suicide, but lets try to prevent it in this country, and not encourage it.

~krill11

So when are peoples lives stable? If you live like that, something will always come up that will seem, to you, to take the first priority.

By "stable", I mean we are able to provide the five necessities for ourselves. And not necessarily true. Helping others take priority over a lot of things.

...Ah, but what the better man to give the dollar to someone else that needs it more, when things are down...

I did say that, besides me having the dollar, we are in equal predicaments, right?

Or maybe you could do a needed service with skill's that you posses, instead of you starving, which isn't fun. Everyone has a talent, the trick is to find it, practice it, and use it to help others.

Fair enough, but most people can't find their talent. Even if they do, who says that people are going to pay for that talent.
For example. My talent is poetry. But who is going to pay good money for my books if no one reads poetry anymore? I can't provide for myself relying only on talent. I need a job, first and foremost, to provide the necessities.

And back to government... While I do agree on most of the points presented, could we keep out government out of this thread as much as possible please?

No, not really, since this is talking about the legal right of assisted suicide. The government has much to do with the issue at hand.

Don't have assisted suicide in the USA. We are not a third World country, lets just not worry about it.

Oh, the old cliches. Being a third world country or not has nothing to do with the right of someone's life. And the let's just not worry about it idea doesn't work in this situation, plus it's just no fun to say "let's just not worry about it". Especially in a forum debate, lol

of course there are people that will try to commit suicide, but lets try to prevent it in this country, and not encourage it.

Fair point. good one sir.

Thank you Pyro! I agree with many of the points that you presented, but I didn't clarify very well on a couple of my points which I should have made clearer. One of them is the thoughts about talents.

[quote] Everyone has a talent, the trick is to find it, practice it, and use it to help others.

Fair enough, but most people can't find their talent. Even if they do, who says that people are going to pay for that talent.
For example. My talent is poetry. But who is going to pay good money for my books if no one reads poetry anymore? I can't provide for myself relying only on talent. I need a job, first and foremost, to provide the necessities.[/quote]
Everyone has talents, many, multiple, more than one. This is what I should have cleared up on a bit more. Were Pyro, you have a talent of poetry, that is one of the talents that you possess. You may have another that developed from, or goes along with poetry. Like, say, you can communicate with people really well. This can help you find a job. And while poetry didn't get you the job, it helped you in the long run. And if you have another job, peotry could be a hobby, and you might be able to publish some of your work. When someone see's a poem that you have wrote, it may change their lives forever for better or worse, depending on what was said/intended. It is the same with all other talents that everyone else has. Because you practice it you gained another talent from it, that helped you in the long run.

~krill11

Ever take any courses in logic?

It's obvious that you haven't.

Suicide=bad

Care to elaborate on how you arrived at this conclusion?