Death, or Death by a Thousand Cuts

I tend to see a difference between "letting" someone die in accordance with their wishes (not putting them on life support, not doing the latest and greatest cancer treatment, etc.) and outright killing someone (guns, drugs, etc.) I suppose the difference is that with one, we are letting nature, or Divine Providence, or Fate take what path it will. The other, we're actively aiding it.

What I really want to know is: where does the right to assisted suicide you're advocating come from?
I mean, rights didn't come out of heaven on a silver platter. In the US of A, we claimed certain rights from a Creator's Law via tradition...which is kinda like claiming they came out of heaven on a silver platter, actually. But, they were firmly rooted in tradition.
All this to say, I don't see how assisted suicide is a right by any type of tradition. You can't say "we Americans have always had this right!" So, the way I see it, you could claim we have this right because you say we do, but I doubt that will fly. You can't just come up with something you want and call it a right. I can claim the right to bacon sandwiches all day long, but I doubt they'd appear
Or, you can claim the right via "Natural Law/God Said So." But you've got to think this one through. I don't know of any deities that advocate assisted suicide. And I don't think there is any self-evident principles of "natural law" that bear out this idea. Natural Law usually gets sorta messy unless you interpret it via some sort of Creator anyway.
Or, you could claim it's a right because the democratic majority thinks it is. Which they probably don't. And anyway, I think that the democratic majority is a terrible way to come up with rights...because you can always find a majority somewhere that thinks terrible things are great ideas.
Did I miss anything? Why do you think assisted suicide is a right?

for creating such an important discussion.

reply to post by ValentineWiggin


There was a case of assisted suicide in Canada a few years back, I want to say in Toronto but I don't remember, I just listened to the radio report. i can't remember what disease the man had, but it was crippling him with pain and was getting worse and worse, he'd have bouts of normalcy then back to basically slow painful death. He decided to get someone to help him end his life. Interviews were done, all documented, he wrote out his will and expressed his desire to be in control of his life, and death. when the time came he was setup with what I assume is similar to what Kevorkian would have used. He, and he alone delivered the dose of whatever drugs they used, not his family, though they assisted him.

Because it's still illegal here, they went through all of those motions to ensure those who did help, weren't sent to jail.

In the case of assisted suicide, I'd suggest going down that route to at least prove that it was your decision. I know I'd want that decision to be mine, but I would also be terrified as to what might happen to those who helped after the fact I'd want them to be protected.

I can't speak for this case, the flip flop bothers me, but if it was his choice to end his suffering, who are we to suggest that was wrong?

I think the person needs to be at least able to make a decision on their own. If a person can choose of their own free will that they want to die then they should be allowed to make that decision.

Yet, this case is a bit odd. Even if she gave him massive dose of dope, it did not kill him in the end. Attempted murder maybe but not assist suicide.

Did the old guy write anything down stating that he wanted assisted suicide? That would clear things up real quick.