11–20 of 39 posts
Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die? Rights are not applicable here. How exactly would you stop them from self termination?
It means whether we have to pay for their self termination.
Maybe one day this will be considered an inalienable human right.
But pushing people to take this decision should be criminalised as murder.
Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die? Rights are not applicable here. How exactly would you stop them from self termination?
Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die? Rights are not applicable here. How exactly would you stop them from self termination?
You can put them in a closed facility and minimize their exposure to stuff they can harm themselves with (ropes, cables, strong fabrics, drugs). It’s not like this is unheard of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can put them in a closed facility and minimize their exposure to stuff they can harm themselves with (ropes, cables, strong fabrics, drugs). It’s not like this is unheard of.
Reagan closed most asylums in the US. While your statement is technically true how does that ease their suffering and not make it even worse?
Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die? Rights are not applicable here. How exactly would you stop them from self termination?
Of course, it is not possible to absolutely prevent anyone from self-terminating if they are sufficiently motivated but "self-termination" tends to have legal/criminal aspects attached to it.
Thought experiment: if it is decided that a person without a Terminal Illness indeed has a right to die "would this or would this not completely negate something like an involuntary 5150 hold based on possible self-harm?"
The more I think about it, the more this seems not just possible, but likely. I can only speak for myself but this seems like an unintended consequence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It means whether we have to pay for their self termination.
It's no more your business than what roads "you" pay for with your tax dollars, you may never use those roads but you are not the protagonist of reality.
I don't know if I would even call that hyperbole.
The headline asks the wrong question. Everybody has the freedom to decide what to do with their own life. You need a damn good justification to argue that anybody has the right to force someone else to suffer longer than they want to.
This idea resonates with many as being true at some level, however a terminal-illness can be regarded as different, i.e. not a temporary problem.
If there is not a terminal illness in the equation, would you agree that the situation tends towards the idea of "temporary problem/permanent solution"?
If there is not a terminal illness in the equation, is there any sort of condition or threshold you believe should exist to deprive a human being this "right" under any condition?
For example: should a human who does not have a terminal illness and has not yet reached majority age, have the "right" to self-terminate? Why or why not?