For those of you that don't know what euthanasia is, its basically assisted suicide. It is illegal in most countries because it's technically murder however the argument towards making it legal is that people should have the right to choose when they want to die. Euthanasia is here mainly for the those who have a terminal illness and don't have the strength to kill themselves or want to die peacefully and with the family knowing exactly when they're going to die.
You often hear things like, "it wasn't her time..." as to imply that a person passed away prematurely. But couldn't the opposite also be true, such that their time has come and passed? They have done everything they want to do, having lived a full and rich live, only now to be held within the stagnant stasis of their mortal shell against their will; their soul/essence prisoner to the tenacity of their biology which has long since begun to deteriorate. Also, if we are to stay on the subject of euthanasia, we are also assuming that they are probably no longer able to enjoy life so much for what ever reason, and not merely because of their attitude or outlook on life.
You're right about the implication in it not being "her time," however swinging the other way also must presuppose some sort of predetermined date of death that can be altered by human choices. Since the Fates of classical mythology are far too powerful to have something not go their way, we must be presupposing the existence of some other entity or force that seems to have a vested interest in when we die. While I think the "before your time" argument is fallacious, using this flawed premise to refute the argument isn't going to work either. I really think we have to reject this idea of some sort of universal concern for ourselves; humanity simply needs to get over itself and allow for the possibility of a non-standard set of values, even in reference to our own existence.
So, where does this leave us at this point with Euthanasia? Supposing we have a "non-standard set of values," where do we make the decision on the choice of euthanasia, I guess is my question.
There's a LOT of wiggle room here. Without an intrinsic worth of human life, we could have different extremes. No Euthanasia for some other reason than to protect life, legalized Euthanasia is a "normal" view of how it would work, or even some sort of Logan's Run scenario! I can't seem to find the right language to convey what I'm thinking, but I'm wondering if there even is a choice to be made regarding Euthanasia, if we accept this premise.
Moe, I don't think I have to presuppose that unless I were making a claim about fate in a metaphysical sense. I'm ambivalent such transcendental considerations in the present context so I wouldn't mind if someone wanted to read this into what I said so long as it is logically coherent. All I meant though was that there is subjective sense of timeliness when it comes to death, which is probably determined by nothing more than a person's own will-to-live, influenced by the status of their vital capacity.
Okay, I just read up on Logan's Run. That is an intriguing idea. For those that don't know here is the wiki summary:
Logan's Run is a novel by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. Published in 1967, it depicts a dystopian future society in which population and the consumption of resources is managed and maintained in equilibrium by the simple expedient of demanding the death of everyone upon reaching a particular age, thus avoiding the issue of overpopulation. The story follows the actions of Logan, a Deep Sleep Operative or "Sandman" charged with enforcing the rule, as he "runs" from society's lethal demand.
The introduction to the book states:
"The seeds of the Little War were planted in a restless summer during the mid-1960s, with sit-ins and student demonstrations as youth tested its strength. By the early 1970s over 75 percent of the people living on Earth were under 21 years of age. The population continued to climb â" and with it the youth percentage. In the 1980s the figure was 79.7 percent. In the 1990s, 82.4 percent. In the year 2000 â" critical mass."
------------------- So, with no choice on euthanasia, I wonder how this would change our views on death. Would we all be more comfortable with death, thus leading to a more fulfilling life because you KNOW your death day? Or is it the other way around? This is really cool.
This is what I'm contemplating. Health care costs would plummet, no more old people driving 12 mph in the left hand lane, no having to buy adult diapers... It seems like a really nice scenario, though, all joking aside. But perhaps at first people would feel like they had to accomplish a lot, but after several generations, maybe people would be back to their old habits. It seems that we are a very lazy species as a whole...
Oh, I didn't see your most recent post, Strat. That certainly makes sense, but while it is clearly self-referentially valid, could it be normatively applicable. And to which groups would this type of argument appeal?
Moe, I was making an analogy for the purpose of trying to get people to empathize with the how certain people seeking euthanasia might feel, to recognize an alternate form of 'timeliness' apart from their own sense of morality or some universalized scheme. Instead this other form of timeliness exists only within the mind of the person they are judging. It occurred to me that if people could empathize, the less likely they would be to deny requests to euthanize on the basis they "ought to enjoy the rest of their life" and "they are being selfish by depriving their friends and family of their mortal presence sooner than their appropriate time".
Oh, I see that now. Sorry, I'm not sure what's wrong with me today. That's a great analogy, then, and I think it would certainly have a strong appeal to those who do accept this "timeliness" to steal your word.
This is what I'm contemplating. Health care costs would plummet, no more old people driving 12 mph in the left hand lane, no having to buy adult diapers... It seems like a really nice scenario, though, all joking aside. But perhaps at first people would feel like they had to accomplish a lot, but after several generations, maybe people would be back to their old habits. It seems that we are a very lazy species as a whole...
I think you are right. We are a very clever species when it comes to getting around things and accomplishing the difficult the easiest way possible. It would probably spur people to seek out "the fountain of youth" drug. Then NO death. So, we can return to being lazy! Yippie!
Probably better than "suicide" because at least then everybody will know why they killed themselves if they just ask the person before they go. Also if they are truly just depressed and want to comnit suicide and somebody says they can't kill themselves when he/she tells somebody else s/he want to kill him/herself then the person that wants to die will probably just jump off a cliff or something anyways.
I suppose there will always be some bloody sickos out there that could talk the terminally ill into euthanasia, but I still believe that it is the basic right of a person who is suffering and has exhausted all efforts to survive to be allowed a comfortable, painless death.
Assisted suicide is the greatest thing in the world. I am forced to live with my grandmother who has Alzheimer's and I wish she had signed a document saying if she ever got Alzheimer's that she could be put down. I, myself, would sign one if I could at any time. I believe that if you can prove in court a sound mind, you can sign a paper saying that you can be, "ut to sleep" if you are diagnosed with certain conditions. Alzheimer's is in my family and I will kill myself if I am ever diagnosed. God knows I will kill that old bat before it's all over.
