Yeah but I'm not so sure we should be allowing people to make that choice on a whim because they're depressed or feeling down at the time. Humans are wildly impulsive sometimes.
They're not drive thru places. Typically you have to go thru counseling and thru evaluations to make sure it's what you want. But right now people are just buying guns to blow their heads off and leaving their body for first responders or their family to find. People are always going to kill themselves, you might as well make it a clean and dignified end.
People are always going to kill themselves, but programs like MAID make it more attractive to people that normally wouldn't.
They're already allowed....
No one is suggesting a Futurama style suicide booth on the side of the road my man.
Why? What's the offensive part of that?
Is it how accessible it is? Because for millions of American households, needing to venture out into public is less accessible than the firearm of their nearest "responsible gun owner".
Is it that a company makes a small profit from each suicide? Because the guns used in all these suicides aren't given away for free.
Way back in 1999 when this episode first aired, the joke was that phone booths have been replaced by suicide booths, a joke written when the Nokia 5110 was a flagship phone.
But of course, 25ish years later, neither phone booths nor suicide booths are anywhere to be found because they simply can't match the convenience of the phone in your pocket or the gun in your drawer.
It's primarily the accessibility, yes.
While I support assisted suicide being an option, it should have requirements including a wait period.
On topic: Dignity includes being able to determine one's own end. However, it is difficult to find a regulation that excludes knee-jerk reactions and external influence in the decision.
A distinction should also be made here between different forms of temporary mental problems and fatal physical illnesses as a reason for ending the own life.
That's why I'm not sure what I would support here.
What is dignity and why is it morally relevant? I'll even let you assume that dignity by definition requires a third-party to provide assistance in active killing.
Part of (inner) dignity is self-determination. So in the end, freedom again?
And what is freedom? Why is it morally relevant? Using vague weasel words doesn't really permit any evaluation of a claim. This is why statements like "freedom" and "liberty" are political claptrap you will never see them in formal ethics.
The freedom and the secure feeling of being able to decide for yourself when you want to die under certain circumstances.
For me, morality (right or wrong) comes into play when a balanced middle way has to be found between an individual's lack of alternatives to dying and external help and advice against it.
It's almost the same issue as making counseling mandatory before an abortion.
Again why is this relevant? This is simply vague posturing.
You need to show that people have a right to have their wishes fulfilled, that this right extends to dying, and with much more difficulty show that society should place limits on it but cannot prohibit it.
I would consider the latter to be impossible, because as soon as you permit a third-party to set criteria for the permissibility of an action, there is nothing stopping them from setting unachievable criteria.
I partly agree to your last sentence. But this moral dilemma couldn't be solved if we see it absolute black or white.
To stay with the example of abortion: In my country, you need a state-recognized counselling certificate (by approved state or private organizations) for this and must comply with a wait time of three days. I don't see any impossible hurdles here if you want to achieve this goal and they don't change the rules by will.
Of course, legislation could change this, but that would be another problem.
Assisted suicide requires that one's desire takes preeminence over any future value of existence and that society has a responsibility to satisfy this desire.
Adding a restriction on when you are allowed to assist in it (besides purely the subject's immediate desire) is special pleading. This is why MAID in Canada is slippery sloping into euthanasia for all and any reason, because there is no actual barrier to it after they accepted the initial premises.
Yeah but I'm not so sure we should be allowing people to make that choice on a whim because they're depressed or feeling down at the time. Humans are wildly impulsive sometimes.
They're not drive thru places. Typically you have to go thru counseling and thru evaluations to make sure it's what you want. But right now people are just buying guns to blow their heads off and leaving their body for first responders or their family to find. People are always going to kill themselves, you might as well make it a clean and dignified end.
People are always going to kill themselves, but programs like MAID make it more attractive to people that normally wouldn't.
They're already allowed....
No one is suggesting a Futurama style suicide booth on the side of the road my man.
Why? What's the offensive part of that?
Is it how accessible it is? Because for millions of American households, needing to venture out into public is less accessible than the firearm of their nearest "responsible gun owner".
Is it that a company makes a small profit from each suicide? Because the guns used in all these suicides aren't given away for free.
Way back in 1999 when this episode first aired, the joke was that phone booths have been replaced by suicide booths, a joke written when the Nokia 5110 was a flagship phone.
But of course, 25ish years later, neither phone booths nor suicide booths are anywhere to be found because they simply can't match the convenience of the phone in your pocket or the gun in your drawer.
It's primarily the accessibility, yes.
While I support assisted suicide being an option, it should have requirements including a wait period.
On topic: Dignity includes being able to determine one's own end. However, it is difficult to find a regulation that excludes knee-jerk reactions and external influence in the decision.
A distinction should also be made here between different forms of temporary mental problems and fatal physical illnesses as a reason for ending the own life.
That's why I'm not sure what I would support here.
What is dignity and why is it morally relevant? I'll even let you assume that dignity by definition requires a third-party to provide assistance in active killing.
Part of (inner) dignity is self-determination. So in the end, freedom again?
And what is freedom? Why is it morally relevant? Using vague weasel words doesn't really permit any evaluation of a claim. This is why statements like "freedom" and "liberty" are political claptrap you will never see them in formal ethics.
The freedom and the secure feeling of being able to decide for yourself when you want to die under certain circumstances.
For me, morality (right or wrong) comes into play when a balanced middle way has to be found between an individual's lack of alternatives to dying and external help and advice against it.
It's almost the same issue as making counseling mandatory before an abortion.
Again why is this relevant? This is simply vague posturing.
You need to show that people have a right to have their wishes fulfilled, that this right extends to dying, and with much more difficulty show that society should place limits on it but cannot prohibit it.
I would consider the latter to be impossible, because as soon as you permit a third-party to set criteria for the permissibility of an action, there is nothing stopping them from setting unachievable criteria.
I partly agree to your last sentence. But this moral dilemma couldn't be solved if we see it absolute black or white.
To stay with the example of abortion: In my country, you need a state-recognized counselling certificate (by approved state or private organizations) for this and must comply with a wait time of three days. I don't see any impossible hurdles here if you want to achieve this goal and they don't change the rules by will. Of course, legislation could change this, but that would be another problem.
Why not? That's the logical conclusion.
Assisted suicide requires that one's desire takes preeminence over any future value of existence and that society has a responsibility to satisfy this desire.
Adding a restriction on when you are allowed to assist in it (besides purely the subject's immediate desire) is special pleading. This is why MAID in Canada is slippery sloping into euthanasia for all and any reason, because there is no actual barrier to it after they accepted the initial premises.