Dieses Thema ruht momentan. Die letzte Nachricht liegt mehr als 90 Tage zurück. Du kannst es wieder aufgreifen, indem du eine neue Antwort schreibst.
1Mr.Durick
I find the neo-atheists to be angrily vapid, and I have enjoyed referring people to Jennifer Michael Hecht's Doubt: A History for serious deliberation on the big question of whether one should have faith. Now she has written this article and a book, Stay: A History of Suicide and the Philosophies Against It. I haven't read the book although I think it is on a wishlist, but I have read the article, and I think it is empty save for her conclusion that folk should not quit from despair.
Does she say anything here? Is resigning an option? Is it not selfish in turn to demand that a person live so as not to disturb others with a suicide?
And so forth?
Robert
Does she say anything here? Is resigning an option? Is it not selfish in turn to demand that a person live so as not to disturb others with a suicide?
And so forth?
Robert
2HarryMacDonald
It certainly isn't unreasonable to hope -- though one can hardly control these things -- that suicide doesn't burden total strangers. Case in point from my long acquaintance with railroaders: you'll rarely find an engineer, especially in passenger or commuter service, who doesn't dread the prospect of seeing somebody in front of his (or now, her) locomotive. Perfectly understandable.
3timspalding
I tend to think the two questions of morality and legality get mixed up too much.
As regards morality, I strongly suspect that suicide is immoral, but that almost no one who does it can be blamed. They should be pitied, and we should take modest measures to ensure people don't do it lightly. I have in mind that New Yorker article about people who survived jumping from the Golden Gate bridge with its tiny railing. They all immediately thought to themselves "that was a mistake."
As regards legality, I don't see the point. Excepting a tiny population of those truly incapable of pressing a trigger or going over an edge, most of those who claim to want the legal right can perfectly well off themselves. They have the right by the laws of nature; they seem to want more than that--affirmation, or approval. I would not begrudge them of it, except that I worry that legalizing and normalizing it outright would allow people to pressure others to do it. When you're dying and your care is depleting your children's inheritance, you can at least refuse to kill yourself on the grounds that it isn't legal. Once we can all call for Dr. Kevorkian, I fear that people who don't want to kill themselves will be pressured into making the call. "Nana, don't you want your grandkids to go to college?"
Anyway, if you want to watch, not read, something, there's a good frontline about suicide and the right to die movement: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/
As regards morality, I strongly suspect that suicide is immoral, but that almost no one who does it can be blamed. They should be pitied, and we should take modest measures to ensure people don't do it lightly. I have in mind that New Yorker article about people who survived jumping from the Golden Gate bridge with its tiny railing. They all immediately thought to themselves "that was a mistake."
As regards legality, I don't see the point. Excepting a tiny population of those truly incapable of pressing a trigger or going over an edge, most of those who claim to want the legal right can perfectly well off themselves. They have the right by the laws of nature; they seem to want more than that--affirmation, or approval. I would not begrudge them of it, except that I worry that legalizing and normalizing it outright would allow people to pressure others to do it. When you're dying and your care is depleting your children's inheritance, you can at least refuse to kill yourself on the grounds that it isn't legal. Once we can all call for Dr. Kevorkian, I fear that people who don't want to kill themselves will be pressured into making the call. "Nana, don't you want your grandkids to go to college?"
Anyway, if you want to watch, not read, something, there's a good frontline about suicide and the right to die movement: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/
4Gail.C.Bull
Tim, I think you're confusing suicide in general with euthanasia, which as far as I'm concerned is 2 totally different issues.
Suicide is a mental/emotional health issue. People who commit or attempt suicide usually do so out of depression, loneliness, or despair. No one who is content with the their life has ever jumped off a bridge.
Euthanasia is about people who are terminally ill and facing a death no one would choose. I was diagnosed with Hodgekin's disease (a form of lymphatic cancer) when I was 17. I was fortunate. I was given an 80% chance of survival with no recurrences. I've now been cancer free for almost 16 years, but I know very well how I would have died if the cancer had run its course. It started in the glands in my neck and moved into the glands in my chest. Then it spread to my groin. Over time, the cancer would have limited blood flow to my legs, and I would have ended up in a wheelchair for the last 4 - 6 months of my life. The tumours in my chest would have continued to get larger, and it would have become more and more difficult for me to breathe. Ultimately, I would have died of slow strangulation. From the moment a patient begins to struggle for breath until the actual moment of death can take from 12 to 36 hours. Imagine strangling to death for 36 hours. Would I have wanted someone to give me a lethal injection once I began to strangle. Damn f*cking right! And anyone who says they would prefer to strangle to death for 36 hours is either a liar or lunatic!
Suicide is a mental/emotional health issue. People who commit or attempt suicide usually do so out of depression, loneliness, or despair. No one who is content with the their life has ever jumped off a bridge.
Euthanasia is about people who are terminally ill and facing a death no one would choose. I was diagnosed with Hodgekin's disease (a form of lymphatic cancer) when I was 17. I was fortunate. I was given an 80% chance of survival with no recurrences. I've now been cancer free for almost 16 years, but I know very well how I would have died if the cancer had run its course. It started in the glands in my neck and moved into the glands in my chest. Then it spread to my groin. Over time, the cancer would have limited blood flow to my legs, and I would have ended up in a wheelchair for the last 4 - 6 months of my life. The tumours in my chest would have continued to get larger, and it would have become more and more difficult for me to breathe. Ultimately, I would have died of slow strangulation. From the moment a patient begins to struggle for breath until the actual moment of death can take from 12 to 36 hours. Imagine strangling to death for 36 hours. Would I have wanted someone to give me a lethal injection once I began to strangle. Damn f*cking right! And anyone who says they would prefer to strangle to death for 36 hours is either a liar or lunatic!
5steve.clason
From the article: "There are in fact very good secular reasons to reject despair suicide, reasons with deep roots in Western culture."
I don't think she went anywhere with this and I would like to know those "good secular reasons". I understand the sociological and therapeutic reasons ("suicide contagion " and "it's going to get better" -- I almost wrote "You'll be sorry"), I wish she had explicated a little on Wittgenstein's original idea that "morality begins with the refusal of suicide." A friend in college made the same assertion and I wasn't convinced then or now.
And to get in on the poll, I don't see any immorality in ending your life, though we retain some moral responsibility for the consequences for our acts, even the final one.
So, I don't think she said anything, though there was a lot to say.
I don't think she went anywhere with this and I would like to know those "good secular reasons". I understand the sociological and therapeutic reasons ("suicide contagion " and "it's going to get better" -- I almost wrote "You'll be sorry"), I wish she had explicated a little on Wittgenstein's original idea that "morality begins with the refusal of suicide." A friend in college made the same assertion and I wasn't convinced then or now.
And to get in on the poll, I don't see any immorality in ending your life, though we retain some moral responsibility for the consequences for our acts, even the final one.
So, I don't think she said anything, though there was a lot to say.
6timspalding
If you have any positive moral duties, then early suicide is usually wrong. That is, you're not going to be helping the poor or advancing justice when you're dead.
7Gail.C.Bull
Tim, I agree with you that despair suicide is morally wrong, but I think the moral issue with suicide has nothing to do with "helping the poor or advancing justice".
Morally, we should not do anything that causes emotional or physical pain to others. As suicide inflicts emotional pain on those who loved you, you have broken the first moral law. But this opens another debate. Can a person who is suffering from depression be held morally responsible for an act done under the influence of mental illness?
Morally, we should not do anything that causes emotional or physical pain to others. As suicide inflicts emotional pain on those who loved you, you have broken the first moral law. But this opens another debate. Can a person who is suffering from depression be held morally responsible for an act done under the influence of mental illness?
8timspalding
Well, as I said, despair may be morally wrong, but I don't think many who do it are morally culpable. It would be a terrible thing to turn your back on life with a clear head and full intent; I doubt many do.
My point about helping the poor and advancing justice is simple. Some moral systems have positive moral duties. That is, they ask you not only to avoid doing wrong, but also to do right. If, for example, we have a moral duty to love and help others, then suicide is a refusal to perform that duty. As I said, I think suicides should be pitied, not criticized—and certainly not by fortunate people like me, who've never been tested to that degree. But if morality is about what you can do for others, it's worthwhile considering that suicide is a turning-away from that.
My point about helping the poor and advancing justice is simple. Some moral systems have positive moral duties. That is, they ask you not only to avoid doing wrong, but also to do right. If, for example, we have a moral duty to love and help others, then suicide is a refusal to perform that duty. As I said, I think suicides should be pitied, not criticized—and certainly not by fortunate people like me, who've never been tested to that degree. But if morality is about what you can do for others, it's worthwhile considering that suicide is a turning-away from that.
9chg1
re: suicide
Has anyone ever considered that those who actually do commit suicide might have done so out of a deeply rooted curiosity? Are there folks who are audacious enough to do that?
Is this a superfluous question? I, for one although curious, feel that I can wait as the time to exit this life will come on its own (in whatever belief system the reader of this has).
Has anyone ever considered that those who actually do commit suicide might have done so out of a deeply rooted curiosity? Are there folks who are audacious enough to do that?
Is this a superfluous question? I, for one although curious, feel that I can wait as the time to exit this life will come on its own (in whatever belief system the reader of this has).
10pmackey
I've known two people who commited suicide - my brother and a good friend. I regret so much that I couldn't help either. Anyone who has been through this knows how this feels.
Legally and morally suicide is wrong. I suppose that from a legal point of view, suicide is an act of civil disobedience. Morally? It's wrong. It's a sin, even. But a suicide is assumed to be mentally ill-at least in my opinion. God knows where we are and loves us so very much. I trust he holds my brother and my friend in his arms.
Thanks for listening.
Legally and morally suicide is wrong. I suppose that from a legal point of view, suicide is an act of civil disobedience. Morally? It's wrong. It's a sin, even. But a suicide is assumed to be mentally ill-at least in my opinion. God knows where we are and loves us so very much. I trust he holds my brother and my friend in his arms.
Thanks for listening.
13LesMiserables
I tend to agree that euthanasia and suicide are wrong. I also think that many who take their lives are not in charge of their full faculties and that attributing blame is problematic in individual cases but generally the act, as a pre-meditated course of action, should be shunned by society. I
I'm not sure there are any good reasons for it, whether you are a hard-boiled materialist or a theist.
I'm not sure there are any good reasons for it, whether you are a hard-boiled materialist or a theist.
14bacchus.
>13 LesMiserables: What might be considered a good reason is when someone is affected by a terminal illness or chronic and severe physical pain.
There's a non-profit organization in Europe, called "Dignitas", that offers accompanied (legal) suicide for such purposes.
It's a subject Terry Pratchett also explored in his short documentary "Choosing to die"; he said he was also thinking about it before reaching the latest stages of Alzheimer's.
There's a non-profit organization in Europe, called "Dignitas", that offers accompanied (legal) suicide for such purposes.
It's a subject Terry Pratchett also explored in his short documentary "Choosing to die"; he said he was also thinking about it before reaching the latest stages of Alzheimer's.
15LesMiserables
>14 bacchus.:
I do not for a second tread lightly on such a grave subject, and for those personally affected, I can not begin to imagine the angst.
That being said, in the cold light of day, we know we are dying from our birth. It's an intrinsic and defining part of our life-cycle and absolutely necessary for the survival of future generations.
Part of that process is illness and death: a slow decline as we age to our end.
So the idea of terminal illness is merely to say that one has prior notice of their demise, in a temporal regard. Horrible of course, but nonetheless factual. I would not wish to explain the innermost thoughts of those people who want to take such unnatural courses of action, but I suspect it has to do with despair. I simply do not buy into the dignity reasoning. Dignity tends to come about from a combination of experience in respect and honour. I would imagine bravery and reflect for life does too.
Pain is manageable completely in sensible graduated prescription, and as a doctor once told me, in our day and age, no one should die a death in extremities of pain. But there is a chasm of a difference between pain management through palliative care, and suicide.
I do not for a second tread lightly on such a grave subject, and for those personally affected, I can not begin to imagine the angst.
That being said, in the cold light of day, we know we are dying from our birth. It's an intrinsic and defining part of our life-cycle and absolutely necessary for the survival of future generations.
Part of that process is illness and death: a slow decline as we age to our end.
So the idea of terminal illness is merely to say that one has prior notice of their demise, in a temporal regard. Horrible of course, but nonetheless factual. I would not wish to explain the innermost thoughts of those people who want to take such unnatural courses of action, but I suspect it has to do with despair. I simply do not buy into the dignity reasoning. Dignity tends to come about from a combination of experience in respect and honour. I would imagine bravery and reflect for life does too.
Pain is manageable completely in sensible graduated prescription, and as a doctor once told me, in our day and age, no one should die a death in extremities of pain. But there is a chasm of a difference between pain management through palliative care, and suicide.
16librorumamans
>15 LesMiserables: I do not for a second tread lightly on such a grave subject, and . . .
Unless it was entirely inadvertent, the play on words here is, to my mind, insensitively flippant.
I suggest that anyone who has not cared for someone close dying of a painful and slowly progressing condition (or not themselves been temporarily in that situation). should leave aside their judge's robes, button up, and listen and learn from those in a position to speak.
Ditto if you have not experienced up close severe depression.
Unless it was entirely inadvertent, the play on words here is, to my mind, insensitively flippant.
I suggest that anyone who has not cared for someone close dying of a painful and slowly progressing condition (or not themselves been temporarily in that situation). should leave aside their judge's robes, button up, and listen and learn from those in a position to speak.
Ditto if you have not experienced up close severe depression.
17LesMiserables
>16 librorumamans:
Ah! Not at all. You clearly did not read my whole post, nor do you know anything about my lived experience.
In fact your post is a poor one, but that's cherry picking for you.
Edited to add that the OP asked for opinions, evaluations, judgement, call it what you will. Please don't embarrass yourself my attacking those who respond.
Ah! Not at all. You clearly did not read my whole post, nor do you know anything about my lived experience.
In fact your post is a poor one, but that's cherry picking for you.
Edited to add that the OP asked for opinions, evaluations, judgement, call it what you will. Please don't embarrass yourself my attacking those who respond.
18librorumamans
>17 LesMiserables:
In this forum neither of us is willing to discuss these issues in the context of our lived experiences, which is perfectly acceptable. Without that background, I confess to reacting negatively to what I read as airy pronouncements about what others should do when confronted with situations that the opinionators appear blessed not to have experienced.
Alternatively, I think it is valid and desirable to have public discussions about the morality of society's policies around:
In this forum neither of us is willing to discuss these issues in the context of our lived experiences, which is perfectly acceptable. Without that background, I confess to reacting negatively to what I read as airy pronouncements about what others should do when confronted with situations that the opinionators appear blessed not to have experienced.
Alternatively, I think it is valid and desirable to have public discussions about the morality of society's policies around:
- the cost of prescription drugs
- affordable and rapid access to mental health care
- equal access to a variety of options for quality end-of-life care
19LesMiserables
>18 librorumamans:
You can call them airy pronouncements all you like and throw 'opinionator' slights around till your satisfied, but it takes nothing away from the fact that you are irony personified.
OP asks questions, community answers, the censor casts aspersions from their high stool.
Sigh.
You can call them airy pronouncements all you like and throw 'opinionator' slights around till your satisfied, but it takes nothing away from the fact that you are irony personified.
OP asks questions, community answers, the censor casts aspersions from their high stool.
Sigh.
20cpg
>15 LesMiserables: "Pain is manageable completely in sensible graduated prescription, and as a doctor once told me, in our day and age, no one should die a death in extremities of pain."
Perhaps no one should but they in fact do. Many medical professionals in the United States dispense pain medication with an eye-dropper (metaphorically).
Perhaps no one should but they in fact do. Many medical professionals in the United States dispense pain medication with an eye-dropper (metaphorically).
