Ethical Opinions please

Hello everyone, my name is Anthony, I am an 19 year old student from Loyola University in Chicago.
Experience and education have honed a pretty well rounded perspective of this world from my brief philosophical years, however two topics remain particularly taxing on my conscience. One is a matter concerncing assisted suicide, the other is of the decision to have children.

With assisted suicide I will introduce a case example of what could be; challenging you to make a judgment as to how it can be resolved according to your moral intuition.

Reguarding the decision to have children; I would like to know if you are for or against it in your personal life. I will tell you my personal belief on this matter shortly.

Assisted Suicide

Do you believe its okay in some circumstances? For example, a paralyzed person from the neck down who is tested negative for depression, makes the informed decesion to end his life because he can't imagine what he could contribute to society, being dealt a life encumbered to a matress/wheelchair? In his case it would be hard for him to take his life himself. Is it his right to put an end to it. As much as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a right to us as citizens (in the US)?

If you say yes, then what should assisted suicide be extended to? Should it go so far as being extended to everyone's right no matter what health condition they are in? (Even though it would be easy if a perfectly healthy person decided to sincerely end his life to execute his wish without approval).

Is it so deformed of a human proclivity (wishing death upon oneself) that it is inexecusable in all cases?

Or could it be humane for us to consent for someone to take their own life?

Think again. We tell this person he must live, but then we ignore his life of hell on earth by continuing with our various hedonistic mistakes/pleasures ourselves. Who are we? Fallible as we are. Who would tell this man "No you cannot kill yourself," but then fail to give him company and support that he desrves. There he is solitarily rotting away because I denied him this right.

I just can't come to a conclusion with this one. I don't even have half of an opinion.

Well I wrote a long thing about the decision to have children when it forgot that I was logged on. Luckily I copied my first half of what I wrote.

Anyways. I would like to know if you want or do not want to have children and why you think that is a responsible decision.

This applies to those who already have children as well. Do you think it was the Right decision?

Thank you for your thoughts.

I agree with J.S. Mill when we wrote:

Quote:

---

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant... Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

- from On Liberty

---

In your example, the person was of sound mind, but physically unable to carry out the suicide themselves. I don't believe there should be any laws against euthanasia in this case. There would have to be some legal body that would supervise in such cases, but, ultimately, the government should have no say in what a person does to himself/herself, so long as it doesn't physically harm others.

Of course, all sorts of problems arise when you begin to deal with people that can not make sound judgements (and who decides whether someone is able to make a sound judgment"?). If someone is in a vegetative state, and has no written record of their wishes regarding the matter, I don't think you can justify ending their life. Even if it was to be carried out with the best intentions, society would be stepping on a slippery slope if it allowed the assisted suicide to take place.

I seem to be rambling, so I'll quit here.

It seems there are two questions being asked, and it might help to clarify both. The first question seems to be, does a person under certain circumstances have the moral right to end his own life? (And is this 'moral right' absolute or conditional upon fulfilling specified requirements).
The second question seems to be, does a person, under certain circumstances, perform an immoral act if he assists the first person in ending his own life?
Notice I have avoided,with purpose, any discussion of the legality of either action; this adds a second level to the questions and views the actions from an entirely different horizon.

Well I personally do think that everyone has the right to take thier own life if they so choose to do so. I do not find anything ethcially wrong with assisted suicide becasue I think a person should have the choice to decide over thier own lives if they want to live or die. I do not see how it is anyone else's right to decide for them.

As to your second question, I admanantly do not want to have children, and I have pretty much held that view for as long as I was old enough to understand such things. There is a long list of reasons for why I feel this way, but one of the reasons is the simple fact that I think the world is already over populated with people and no need to add anymore, particuarly seeing how destructive human's are to the earth. I think it is more enviromentally frinedly not to reporduce.

I also simply do not think I am a maternal person, I have no maternal instincts, and do not like being around the children of other people, and I simply know well enough that I would not make a good, responseable mother. It would be irresponseble for someone like me to have kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgweed

It seems there are two questions being asked, and it might help to clarify both. The first question seems to be, does a person under certain circumstances have the moral right to end his own life? (And is this 'moral right' absolute or conditional upon fulfilling specified requirements).
The second question seems to be, does a person, under certain circumstances, perform an immoral act if he assists the first person in ending his own life?
Notice I have avoided,with purpose, any discussion of the legality of either action; this adds a second level to the questions and views the actions from an entirely different horizon.

---

You're absolutely right. I only brought up the legality issue because suicide (assisted or not) is illegal in the U.S. (and I'm a little obsessed with law right now). I believe it is, in most cases (Rosa Parks' defiance of Jim Crow is one notable exception), immoral to break the laws that govern society.

If we take the legal issue out of the poster's original example, I think suicide and the assistance thereof, are both morally justifiable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierreGringoire

I just can't come to a conclusion with this one. I don't even have half of an opinion.

---

This is one of those occasions where moral relativity becomes useful. I find no argument with the premise that having a terminal illness should allow for the right to suicide, assisted if necessary. This is the legal position in some Eiropean countries and should probably exist everywhere.

All arguments against that position which have ever been presented to me are based on theistic reasons and therefore [in my view] not worth a damn, as forcing someone to accept pain and misery due to another person's belief in a fairytale is highly repugnant to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierreGringoire

This applies to those who already have children as well. Do you think it was the Right decision?

---

I have three kids. There are several ways of looking at your question, first of which is the moral one of "was it right to bring them into the world?" In that regard, I don't believe an answer is possible until they are older themselves, as only they will be able to decide whether we did them a favour by creating them. Personally, I've enjoyed my life so far and intend to contimue enjoying it, so I'd certainly vote for existence over not. I'm hoping my kids feel the same way.

Another issue is simply "does the world need them?" to which the obvious answer is no - there are already 6.6 billion people on the planet and nobody needs to add to that total. However, I trust that my kids will take an altruistic attitude to their adulthood and will help others. That will make them worth the price of the carbon dioxide they produce.

Looked at from an evolutionary perspective, it's important that people have children - one of them may contain a DNA mutation which benefits all of mankind, or one may discover a form of travel which enables us to migrate to other planets.

I think having kids is still individual choice - some people choose not to, most do, and in the end, none of the decisions matter to anyone else. (aside from women who have kids to get welfare, but that's a different subject entirely)

My "opinion" regarding assisted suicide, which is also sort of half-opinion as I have not thought as extensively about the subject to have a solid one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierreGringoire

Do you believe its okay in some circumstances? For example, [...] In his case it would be hard for him to take his life himself. Is it his right to put an end to it. As much as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a right to us as citizens (in the US)?

---

First, I would like to make a distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia.

If you define [medical dictionary] assisted suicide as the deliberate hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from a doctor, family member, or another individual, and if a decision is done by a patient himself, then I see nothing ethically wrong with it, as long as the bolded word is correct. In that case, we do speak of suicide, not of an act in which somebody else takes your life. Given that those individuals are not able to perform classical suicide, it can be 'assisted' the way that conditions are created in which minimal 'work' is needed. As long as the 'work' itself is done by a patient, with full knowledge of what is he/she doing, and with full consent (wrong word, not consent, it must be his/her initiative in the first place), no ethical problem as far as I am concerned.

Euthanasia, though, is something I have mixed feelings about, because by definition euthanasia is an act performed by somebody else, and because it is often brought up in context in which patient is in coma or other state in which he/she cannot make a judgement. I have still not fully formed opinion on the matter, even in cases when one has written record of a desire for an end to be put to his/her life in certain cases. Certainly, I do not see much of a legal issue in that case, but I am not quite sure that there is no ethical one (and here we speak in the category of ethics).

Quote:

---

If you say yes, then what should assisted suicide be extended to? Should it go so far as being extended to everyone's right no matter what health condition they are in?

---

No, I think it should be limited only to cases in which patient is physically inable to perform a classical suicide, yet strongly willing to do it. Not quite sure where would the line be exactly.

Quote:

---

Or could it be humane for us to consent for someone to take their own life?

---

Define what do you mean by "human".

Anastasija's distinction is an important one. This is especially true if we consider some of the arguments that have been hitherto presented to make the case, for example, that society (or a doctor) has, in defined instances, the right to terminate another's life without their consent.
A doctor, for example, has sworn a sacred oath to protect life, and that oath is the basis of the medical profession and its special (almost fiduciary) status in society. Is he violating the moral code of this oath, if he ends the life of a patient (even with what one would consider good cause), and it is a violation of trust or ("ultimately") not?
Further, we all remember that botched and bungled babies were thrown from the Spartan cliffs, and governments have decreed the extermination of whole groups of the Unfit and Semi-Human. Even though presumably protected by the law, were these actions ethically justifiable?

As we examine various examples and instances, we are clarifying our thinking about the problem.

here's some ideas:

Terminally ill patients are in pain, in poor quality of life. Some people believe that if they would prefer to end their life rather than carry on, is it ethically correct to deny them of their wish?
Suicide is an option open to all, yet people in hospital don't have this option - either because of mental or physical conditions which prohibit them. People could believe that these people are being discriminated as they dont have similar options to others, and thus should be given access to suicide.
In contrast, some would argue that these people do not know what they are saying - that they are driven by pan. Also, there are effective drugs, and large funds, that go towards prolonging life and improving its quality.

Christians attitudes, such as those of the Catholics, regard suicide as wrong because of the theory of the Sanctity of Life. life is created by God and so it is sacred to God. It is up to God, not humans, when people die. To commit suicide, therefore, is to put oneself on a par with God, which is condemned in the Scriptures.
Catholics regard assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia and non-voluntary suicides as wrong because they are a form of murder. People are taking upon themselves God role, which is a grave sin. it is up to God to decide when to take a person's life, and humans should not interfere with that process.
Not striving to keep alive causes problems for religious believers. The Catholic Church accepts that treatments which prolong life, but do not cure, do not need to be given to the patient if he or she does not want them. However, this should only be for exceptions because stopping drugs could be considered non-voluntary euthanasia. For Catholics, the doctrine of double effect means that terminally ill patients can be given increasing doses of painkillers, even though it will shorten their lives, but not a large enough dose to end life immeadiately.
Many catholics regard switching off a life support machine as direct euthanasia. They certainly do not allow switching it off and allowing the patient to starve to death.

Aside from that, it has been proven that people actually sometimes change their minds after choosing euthanasia. A man found happyness in seeing his children from his immobile state, and communicated via blinking that he did not want the procedure, regardless of the pain. Also, a man woke from a coma after thirty or so years on life support, this shows that non-voluntary suicide could end these, somewhat rare but possible, chances and hopes.

cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierreGringoire

Hello everyone, my name is Anthony, I am an 19 year old student from Loyola University in Chicago.
Assisted Suicide

Do you believe its okay in some circumstances? For example, a paralyzed person from the neck down who is tested negative for depression, makes the informed decesion to end his life because he can't imagine what he could contribute to society, being dealt a life encumbered to a matress/wheelchair? In his case it would be hard for him to take his life himself. Is it his right to put an end to it. As much as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a right to us as citizens (in the US)?

If you say yes, then what should assisted suicide be extended to? Should it go so far as being extended to everyone's right no matter what health condition they are in? (Even though it would be easy if a perfectly healthy person decided to sincerely end his life to execute his wish without approval).

---

Hi Anthony, and welcome to LitNet. I am the resident disabled writer and exiled disability activist on the forum, as some of the regular members know by now, and I am a wheelchair user. I know it is a bit pc, but if you ever have to interact with a person in any kind of chair or scooter, please don't use *wheelchair bound*. Some find that phrase offensive.

I am going to be as honest as I can here and hope I don't shock or offend anyone. One, if I had a high C spinal cord break, which I do not, I'd want to be dead, this is based on my experience with my own disease, my observations of the disabled in institutional settings, and my own readings, and my disagreement with the late Christopher Reeve. I did not know him personally but was hired as a journalist with his late wife, Dana.

To my mind the actor lived in a state of denial by his focus on getting himself cured, and he died of a lowly pressure sore which had become subcutaneous, so maybe he should have focused more on his condition as it was--but I am getting sidetracked.

My position is, the more egregious the condition, the better it is to die in peace. Most disability activists would stone me for stating this in public, especially when I raised my voice over a PBS documentary on P.O.V., in a controversy over the filmmaker's father. He shot himself to death and I so vehemently disagreed with viewers who applauded what he did that I wrote an essay attacking the film. I'd post the url but the woman who owned the site of Angry Gimp vanished and her domain went with her. Not that I am surprised. She tried to be a mother hen to mentally ill people and well, I worked in MH and that culture can suck you in.:(

I believe that disability activists have their hearts in the right place, I really do. I don't think *we* should be shut away; I do think society should provide the proper support services so we can integrate and work and marry just as able persons do, but the price of that struggle takes its toll, and I am getting tired.

Tired of the paperwork and rules involved in entitlements, and access, tired of panic when my power chairs start breaking. I'm just tired of fighting and the age of 50 is on the horizon.

I do not want to die. There is still a tiny-weenie part of me that feels she has something to achieve as a writer, but I also do not want to die in a nursing home, and the age of 50 looms on the horizon...

In short, I prefer an assisted and humane death as opposed to becoming the next Terri Schiavo, but to me this is a real moral struggle with myself and not just *an argument*.

I live this life, and it sucks. Most activists would say I'm smart. Yes. My younger sister says I am stronger and more independent than she is and she's probably right.

But I'm tired, and I haven't come near to living the kind of life I hoped, and do not want to become the butt of some orderly's joke when they are giving me a bath while I'm drooling.

As to children, don't have any--and that is a personal decision that doesn't faze me all that much.

I hope I have caused no offense on answering your query with a personal approach.

There are few - if any - better posts than that ever written on the internet.

I salute you.

Alan

I just have a question for "The Atheist", because I have talked to several people who call themselves "atheists", and I am still confused as to what you actually believe. In order to not believe in a god, which is what atheists usually claim is there position, you are must recognize that the possibility of god existing is exactly equal to the possibility that he does not exist.

Is that what atheists are? I only ask because I am often referred to as an atheist because I don't follow a religion, and it drives me crazy because I refuse to give any recognition to the possibility of a god, which is a corner stone of atheism. Even if it is reject that cornerstone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

There are few - if any - better posts than that ever written on the internet.

I salute you.

Alan

---

O bosh my friend;) I'd be rich by now if that were the case. :blush: You've made me blush now.

Quote:

---

I just have a question for "The Atheist", because I have talked to several people who call themselves "atheists", and I am still confused as to what you actually believe. In order to not believe in a god, which is what atheists usually claim is there position, you are must recognize that the possibility of god existing is exactly equal to the possibility that he does not exist.

---

Doo: Most atheists know they can no more offer proof in the absence of god than believers can in his presence.

We, atheists, simply believe that the evidence leads to the probability of no god.

There are two types of atheists.
1. Soft atheists--and this is me, who do not believe in god.
2. Hard atheists, who say there is no god. I lean toward 2 but leave room for some doubt.

Does this help you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DooRag

I just have a question for "The Atheist", because I have talked to several people who call themselves "atheists", and I am still confused as to what you actually believe.

---

Thanks for asking, because this is one of my favourite subjects and the answer is quite simple, but badly confused. Many dictionaries are badly mistaken in their descriptions.

Theist = belief in a god
Atheist = belief in no gods

Because atheism is seen as the "anti" position by many theists, they feel it incumbent to attach negative traits to it, and given that more people believe in a god than don't, the mud tends to stick.

First and foremost, atheism is not a belief system, a philosophy, or anything other than describing people who do not believe in any god/s. As I've been pointing out here recently, even many Buddhists describe themselves as atheist, because while they have supernatural beliefs, they don't believe in any god. Secondly, the belief that atheists don't accept the possibility of a god existing is just completely wrong.

Many people don't collect stamps; almost none of those people found it necessary to research stamps in intimate detail to decide that philately was not the right hobby for them. In the same way, it isn't essential for atheists to know every fact in the universe to come to the conclusion that religion and gods are human constructs not backed by any believable evidence. Just as aphilatelists will tell you that they don't collect stamps, they generally wouldn't deny that stamp collecting could possibly be fun in some way and that all philatelists are raving idiots.

Matters are made worse by many anti-theists. To me, and many others, anti-theists are a separate group entirely. Many people are angry at religion for various reasons and turn that anger towards religions and their gods. Hating god doesn't not make one an atheist - in fact, I hold hatred of god as a purely theistic position.

Atheism doesn't have a leadership, isn't a movement and has no rules.

As Jozanny points out, some atheists do deny the possibility of the existence of god. Almost all of the atheists with brains will tell you, as Jozanny did, that our tendency is think that there is almost certainly no god. Just as the sun may unexpectedly explode tomorrow, or the Loch Ness Monster turn out to be real, we're pretty comfortable with living our lives in the assumption that none of those things will come to pass.

Further mention of Jozanny, she's right on the money with the strong/weak line. Personally, much like Richard Dawkins - on a scale of atheism of 1-7, where 7 = "There is no god!" - I rate myself about a 6.75.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DooRag

In order to not believe in a god, which is what atheists usually claim is there position, you are must recognize that the possibility of god existing is exactly equal to the possibility that he does not exist.

---

Nope, this is completely wrong. Two contradictory positions are not necessarily equivalent in probability and in reality, hardly ever are.

Bertrand Russell used to have a great answer for exactly this question. He firmly and utterly believed that a teapot was in orbit of the sun between Earth and Venus. That this isn't true and that it is true are not equal beliefs, and demonstrably so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DooRag

Is that what atheists are? I only ask because I am often referred to as an atheist because I don't follow a religion, and it drives me crazy because I refuse to give any recognition to the possibility of a god, which is a corner stone of atheism. Even if it is reject that cornerstone.

---

Well, now you're safe!

Atheists don't have any cornerstones, and you can safely point people towards me as an authority - it is my name, after all - or otherwise Richard Dawkins who espouses the position very nicely.

Simple analysis: if you don't believe in any of the many gods available, you're an atheist. No baggage required!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

O bosh my friend;) I'd be rich by now if that were the case. :blush: You've made me blush now.

---

Blushing's good for the capilliaries, isn't it?

Popularity has no relationship to value.

This is really an interesting subject, yet this needs to be dealt with meticulously. In fact suicides or the right to kill oneself is a matter that aired lots of discussions. I do not subscribe to this view at all. People out of frustration or humiliation choose to finish off their lives at times when they become depressed or undergo emotional convulsions or imbalances. But they will return to normalcy in the course of time.

Of course it sounds right when one can not help another person in his pathetic condition when he is fighting with his plight he has no right to stop him when he is willing to take it.

But people take life at some particular moments when they fail to cope with the situation. Once the situation subsides man returns to normalcy and is likely to give up the idea of committing suicide.

Then another thing you said of birthing children. This is natural right and that is why we are together here if our parents did not have the desire of begetting us. We cannot make a judgment about it. It is individual and no one can say perfectly, rather than giving just his or her opinions about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Matters are made worse by many anti-theists. To me, and many others, anti-theists are a separate group entirely. Many people are angry at religion for various reasons and turn that anger towards religions and their gods. Hating god doesn't not make one an atheist - in fact, I hold hatred of god as a purely theistic position.

---

I started out as an anti-theist, actually, which is why I am in some ways weaker than Dawkins, and I still have to be careful, because anger with the Roman Catholic god can get the better of me in a rant, but it also led me to eventually reject the entire model of Semitic to Christian theism.

In fairness to Christian believers, their theology drives me absolutely crazy, and get the brunt of my intellectual pushback. I single out this theology more than others, but Dawkins made some good points using Eastern faiths too.

If all of you would pardon me tho, I think Anthony's ethicial presentation is much more interesting, and we might continue with that debate?

right, another viewpoint, which is deemed quite cruel, is this idea:

in the wild, if there is an injured fox...the fox will die.
in the wild, if there is a disabled, malformed, or needy deer, it will be left behind to die naturally, the strong surviving.
when we humans were a young race, disabilities would be left to nature...people would die naturally.

however, we mother our illnesses, allowing these illnesses to pass on through generations and generations...such as genetic diseases, and more to the point, we sustain life unnaturally, when naturally...these sufferers would be left to die.

now, applying this to the world today, and you'll end up with another Aryan Race/Hitler-esque thing going on. History taught us this was wrong. Though there are some benefits, such as genetic issues that would, in western civilisation, be passed on and on would die out completely.

its just another idea, however heartless. A biology teacher of mine once taught me that opinion, he believes it.

Ethics is an interpretation or construal and as a matter of fact in reality there is nothing called unethical and it is borrowed point of view. It has no stuff at all.

When a tiger is hungry it pounces upon a deer and from the tiger's standpoint it is a moral act, a matter of fulfillment and from the deer's standpoint it is unethical.

It is simply a standpoint only not the crux of the thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierreGringoire

however two topics remain particularly taxing on my conscience. One is a matter concerncing assisted suicide, the other is of the decision to have children.

---

How interesting, and perhaps fitting that you choose to present those two problems in the same post: To help someone finish their own life, and to decide whether to start a new life or not. Both decisions are monumental, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierreGringoire

With assisted suicide I will introduce a case example of what could be; challenging you to make a judgment as to how it can be resolved according to your moral intuition.

---

Disregarding the legal problems involved, I would say yes: I am for it. I have not always held that opinion, but today I do. I had an eye opener when I was at your age: I worked summers as a temp at the local hospital, and spent some time among terminally ill people. It was a truly shocking experience, but also a very illuminating one. Some of them somehow managed to keep their good mood despite terrible pain and a generally awful situation. Others did not, but fought equally hard to stay alive.

A few expressed a will to get it over with. I was surprised to learn that they all belonged to those who were not depressed or in a state of panic. They also appeared to be of sound mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierreGringoire

This applies to those who already have children as well. Do you think it was the Right decision?

---

Oh yes, there is no doubt in my mind that it was the right decision. It happened somewhat late in my life, when I was 35 years old: When we were prepared, mentally as well as economically, and had reached a phase in our lives when it felt right.

/Claes

I have thought about euthanasia and assisted suicide for a long time. I usually come to the conclusion that it's a very individual choice and no one should be forced to do what others want in this choice. I understand some of the religious views, and if I were a believer in any of them then my only problem would be of accepting what god (or gods) dealt me and or my family.
Many things occur to me when I think of this, some of them along the lines of what Judas130, posted. For example, if a pet becomes terminally ill a lot of people, but not all, choose to have the pet put to sleep. One of the big reasons is to end the suffering that the animal is going through. It may sound cruel to compare humans and animals but it seems, to me, we have much more in common with animals than we have differences.
On the other hand, medicine continues to advance and cure things that previously killed millions. Quite a dilemma. Which is why I think it really comes down to the individuals and family members in the situation, only they can answer what they can deal with in terms of pain, belief and hope for a different tomorrow.