Dear Ojnab,

<<so have compassion for the people who wish to die by Voluntary Euthanasia to end their suffering, that is there right.>>

Are you a beggar that you ask for favours and compassion from Joe's State? First they take away your freedom, then you beg for them to return some of it back as "rights"!

Who the hell are they in the first place to tell you what you may or may not do?

Sorry, Yuyutsu & Najbo,

Are you talking about suicide, or 'assisted' suicide here ?

Nobjob, Every bull-frog is entitled to puff himself up and demand the obvious from the world: if you really want to do it, who's stopping you ? There's more than a little "I am Sir Oracle, and when I ope my lips, let no dog bark" about your brave declaration that you will demand the right to top yourself.

Can we bury that side of the discussion, once and for all ? We - all three of us - are FOR suicide, pure and simple, agreed ?

Let's move on to the real guts of this issue, and stop trying to confuse the two.

We know that "assisted suicide" is by no means 'pure and simple', especially if it involves anybody who stands to gain from a death.

Convince me :)

Joe
www.firstsources.inf

Dear Joe,

<<We - all three of us - are FOR suicide, pure and simple, agreed ?>>

Definitely not!

I believe that suicide is a sin.

But I also believe that the state has no authority to prevent people from sinning or to punish them for their sins. If you believe in heaven, then this will be taken care of at the pearly gates and if you believe in karma, then this will be taken care of in your next lifetime.

As for assisting the suicide of others, the question whether it's a sin or not is rather more complex and I don't think we need to get into it here. Instead, I am stating something quite simple:

The only authority of the state comes from [ordinary] people voluntarily handing some of their individual powers and authorising it (the state) to act on their behalf. One of those powers is self-protection. If you never handed that power over to the state (or if you opt out and withdraw that authority), then the state has no legitimate power to protect you, which includes punishing those who kill you.

Distinguishing whether or not a now-dead person authorised the state to protect them against being killed in general or against a particular killer or method of killing, could at times be ambiguous (but not always). We can continue to discuss what's to be done in the ambiguous cases, but we should keep in mind that when no ambiguity exists that the killed-person has NOT authorised the state to punish their killer, then the state has no right to punish that killer.

Whether one stands to gain from another's death can possibly add to the ambiguity of the case, but in no terms should it change the outcome once the ambiguity was resolved.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Okay, now I'm confused: if killing oneself is a sin, then surely killing somebody else is - to use you word - a sin ? Even if they urge you to do it ? And especially if they don't ?

I can appreciate your anarchist approach, that no state should dictate what someone wants to do with their life. My grand-dad claimed to be a Wobbly in the early twentieth century. As a Wobbly, opposed to all capitalist wars, yada yada, he still went off to Gallipoli.

I don't agree with that stance: in my view, we have obligations towards the state and towards our fellow citizens, just as they have towards us. We don't expect the State to pick us off the street at random,and drop us into a mincer, and we expect it - through its agencies of force such as the police, courts, jails and armed forces - to ensure that we can go about our normal business without any fear of being bashed to death or run over with impunity. Surely it's not that other sort of society ?

Each of us has our 'moral compass', or has to constantly strive to develop one (or should, in my view). A brilliant book has just come out - 'In Search of a Moral Compass" - by Kenan Malik - which I highly recommend: it's a beautiful, clear history of the philosophy of ethics, the constant struggle that we each have (this is my take on it) to know what to do in terms of right and wrong, good and evil. I don't know yet how it ends :)

Joe

This article is the self-centred and the narrow opinions of the elite class of secure citizens who are much farther away from the regular masses where the overwhelming majority of suicides are not old sane and happily lived individuals maybe simply wishing to avoid pain and humiliation in old age and illness, but in those regular people’s world most suicides are never euthanasia oriented but are rather tragic losses of the distressed and confused youth whom have few options of work and family and wealth or maybe the mentally ill people that society ignores often leading those sick minds to live in poverty and sleep on park benches.

I always see these legal discussions on suicide completely selfishly prejudiced and focused on the small fraction of suicides that are the types of euthanasia being exclusively dealt with and cared about.
When are the academics going to become decent and concerned for more than just their little world of elite, culturally closed off suburbs . . . . . and realize that the issue in discussion and in legislation needs to urgently be shook to clarity by dividing the suicide laws into 2 main types – namely the main suicides of physically healthy but mentally distressed individuals as separate and apart from the 2nd category of the minority euthanasia suicides that involve fully conscious and stable individuals?

Surely anyone can comprehend that the current state of the debate which for all intents and purposes deals only with the euthanasia type suicides and espouses elegant notions of liberty and choice and rights, is why the legislation nation-wide on suicides has been tending to lean towards the whims of those euthanasia lobbyists evidence by the abrogation of suicide as a crime under law some decades ago.
Why not leave common suicides of disturbed people as a crime in all ways since it is effectively the “murder of the self by self” without sense . . . . . and make a separate legal concept and laws to suit which exclusively deals with the other types of suicides known to be euthanasia?

Dear Joe,

I was hoping not to digress into issues of morality and religion in this particular thread, because that could imply as if state laws have anything to do with morality.

Anyway, if you really need an example where killing others who urge so is not a sin, take the Jews besieged on Massada who knew that Roman victory was imminent, whereby if caught alive, they would be sold to slavery and forced to break their religion (eat pork, worship other gods, etc.), so they made a suicide pact where those selected by a lot had to kill the others (then the last had to suicide).

Yes, we do have obligations towards our fellow citizens (and all other sentient beings) - however, punishing them for their sins is not one of those. We MAY also have obligations towards the state IF we chose to be part of it, voluntarily, fully-informed and without coercion - but that's rarely the case.

SOME have expectations as you stated for the state, through its agencies of force such as the police, courts, jails and armed forces - to ensure that THEY can go about THEIR normal business without any fear of being bashed to death or run over with impunity. While no human(s) can truly deliver on that expectation, indeed, for those who want it, the state is obligated to do its best.

Yet there are others who are not sharing that expectation or are unwilling to pay its price - and they shouldn't. The state has neither obligation nor permission to protect them and punish their killers.

Dear Matthew,

<<I always see these legal discussions on suicide completely selfishly prejudiced>>

What's selfish about it?
Even if the option was given (legally), I would not be using it or benefit from it (because I consider it sinful).

Even those who do not consider suicide and assisting suicide sinful, but are well-off and educated, can get away from the Australian law, for example by travelling to Switzerland where euthanasia is legal. It's the poor, low-caste and homeless who don't have such options.