Hi Yuyutsu,

As an atheist, I don't have a concept of 'sin' - good and bad, right and wrong, yes (or at least I hope so), morally acceptable and morally reprehensible, yes, but not 'sin'.

I don't think suicide is 'good', in that we each have only one finite life which we should not think about too cavalierly: once you go, you're gone. Forever. You leave behind memories, but you don't exist any more to revel in them. Dust to dust.

But I don't think suicide should be illegal, even with proper counselling services in place: any legal repercussions - such as inheritance issues - should not discriminate.

But this is even more so, why suicide has to be an individual's action, ideally after counselling: with absolutely nobody else seen to be involved.

As you can appreciate, I would strongly support the work of palliative nurses and doctors to alleviate pain and distress, even if this may hasten someone's last hours in the process. I have confidence that they know completely what they are doing and the consequences of their actions.

But I certainly would oppose the involvement of 'friends' and family members being involved in that process.

So can we please differentiate suicide from " 'assisted' suicide", once and for all ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

You say you are an atheist, but if indeed you want nothing to do with God, just as I want nothing to do with the state, then we have no basis to discuss morality.

I do suspect however, that you are an atheist only by name, that you simply do not reference the divine in the traditional Western terms, such as "Father", "Creator" or "Supreme-Being": I have no problem with that as these terms are anyway only optional practical methods in attempt to engage the mind with the inconceivable. But you do seem to genuinely care about others, something a true atheist wouldn't if they can get away with it, because as far as they're concerned there is no common ground between you and me.

<<So can we please differentiate suicide from " 'assisted' suicide", once and for all?>>

Well if you voluntarily wish to subject yourself to the state and its laws, then you already have it because the state already differentiated those things for you, then you don't need my advise or agreement. My only complaint is that they impose their laws on others without consent, which is plain and simple, bullying. Had membership in states been voluntary as-should, then your state could legitimately legislate whatever it likes: it could legislate for example that everyone must stand on their head between 1pm-3pm, and you would be obliged to do so.

Personally, I don't want to suicide, I don't want to kill anyone, I don't want to be killed, but if by chance I do then I don't want to punish my killer: The last thing I need besides losing my body is to also 'gain' the karma of causing someone to spend their years in jail.

<<But I certainly would oppose the involvement of 'friends' and family members being involved in that process.>>

That's quite reasonable and in most circumstances I oppose it too, but it's irrelevant to this article: the question here is whether you agree or oppose to people being forcibly imprisoned for things they do exclusively between them with full and informed consent.

Hi Yuyutsu,

As far as I can tell, I'm an atheist, pure and simple. I don't think there is anything divine anywhere in the universe - wonders and mysteries, the unknown, yes; miracles and gods and demons, no.

You raise an interesting point: that we can opt out of the protection of the state. A couple of blokes got stabbed last night here in Adelaide (it is the Violent Crime Capital of Australia, after all), but imagine if those blokes had signed documents to opt out: would police have to check their databases before responding to a call-out, and simply driven away if they found that the victims did not come under the state's care ? If you were murdered, should the state turn a blind eye ? It can get messy, can't it ?

And as for standing on our heads - if a government demanded that, they wouldn't get my vote next time. Governments are supposed to represent us, the majority of us, so why should they ever contemplate anything as silly ? They would be out on their ear.

I'm glad that we've differentiated conceptually between suicide and 'assisted' suicide. Now we can get somewhere :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe Governments are supposed to represent us, funny about that, they seem not to represent us when 80% of the Australian population want to have the right to end their lives with VE, perhaps the 80% like me are talking rubbish! eh Joe, it is nice to think we agree for once on something Joe, Atheism, I am with you a 100%

Hi Onjab,

80 % ? Isn't it fun to pluck figures out of thin air ?

Murder is not legal yet, mate. And how do you separate out murder from 'assisted' suicide, to the satisfaction of the law ? Sorry, the law still counts for something. And states have the duty to uphold it.

Joe

Joe I would advise you to ring SAVES, that is South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society, they will tell you the same 80% of Australians want to end their lives when the illness is terminal, or ring any other VE society in Australia, it is fact not plucked out of the air, being involved in this organisation we hope to have VE passed by Parliament in S.A. In the near future, if you read the daily papers you would be very much aware of this. It is my life and must be my choice to end it when a terminal illness is present, nothing to do with you or anyone else or Government