Can anyone present explain why, in the united states, where rights held by the people are supposedly subject to greater value and protection than they are by other nations, there is no constitutionally recognized right for on to die as they see fit? When an individual wishes to end their own existence, why does society see fit to deny the individual in question that choice, and force them to continue living when they have no desire for such?
Mostly it is a remnant from everybody and their pet dog back then being some flavor or the other -- at least officially -- religious; and so far as I know all major religions are against euthanasia in regards to humans. It takes time to chip away at this stuff.
If you have to, you could move to Oregon. https://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2017/04/study_oregon_patients_using_ph.html
The reasons for suicide are: depression, psychotic, impulsive, cry for help, accidental and philosophical. All are treatable or transient except philosophical which is usually due to a terminal illness to alleviate suffering. That is a narrow reason and the other reasons would need to be ruled out.
Nor do a great many other behaviors engaged in by the united states public, be them legal or illegal. Yet they are still the decisions of the public to make on what activities they wish to engage in. Some choose to undergo physical mutilation because they claim their body is not right, and that is considered to be socially acceptable. The same should hold true with regard to one and their own continued existence.
The ready availability of suicide, like sex and alcohol, is one of life's basic consolations. --Edward Abbey
I assume you mean euthanasia. Probably stems back to religious times when belief was that euthanasia is not God's will. Jesus suffered on the cross and wasn't put out of his misery. It's always been a contentious issue and some countries allow it. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/17/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-laws-world Only trouble is, once you allow terminally ill people to have euthanasia, which group will next campaign. Does it get to the point where some one who's so distraught their cat got ran over, could they have euthanasia?
The assumption is incorrect. What is meant, in plain, simple, uncomplicated terms, is suicide. If a person desires to end their own existence, even if they are in reasonable health, why should society work so hard to prevent the individual from actually engaging in such? If such a person wishes to put a bullet through their head to end their own perceived misery, real or otherwise, why are they not allowed to do so? Why does society see fit to claim ownership of such an individual and force them to continue existing against their own wishes?
Unfortunately in the majority of cases, the victim of suicide is all to often the friends and family. They're left to cope with grief. That's why suicide is said to be a selfish act.
That’s a slippery slip argument. A thing should not be argued against on the grounds that it would lead to something deemed less desirable. Changes in the law should be argued on a case by case basis. There is clearly merit to terminally ill people seeking medically assisted suicide. It helps them avoid the remainder of their existence being one of physical and mental anguish, and saddling family and loved ones with mountains of medical bills for care they do not wish to receive. A person who is just feeling sad, or more seriously medically diagnosed depression, do not have a strong case for medically assisted suicide. For obvious reasons, I think. It’s like arguing against SSM, because maybe someone down the road will want to marry a chicken. Both cases would have to be argued on their individual merits.
I don't want to get into a debate about homosexuality, but if I'm allowed to briefly use this group as an example, in the 1970's the psychology community agreed, "Let's take homosexuality off the mental illness list". Obviously I don't have to go into specifics, but I'm sure you can see how this idea has trickled over the years to where we are at now (marches, weddings, LBGT this and that, gender identity and so on). So that was just an example to illustrate that once the government says, "Ah sod it, let's give the terminaly ill the coice of euthanasia", we can see where this is gonna lead over the decades. I predict that once a doctor says, "My patient is so distraught over her cat being ran over, she can't bear to live", they'll be marches and demonstrations to allow this group with access to euthanasia. You might think that's silly but boy, are we going through some weird times with gender etc..
I think you’ve mischaracterized the change in classification, but that’s a different thread. If someone is arguing that they should be allowed to seek physician assisted suicide because their cat died, then by all means let them make that argument. The possibility of insane things being requested because of very sane things being made legal is not a valid argument. Plain and simple.
If a case has no merit then it will fail. You personally don’t have to agree with any new laws for them to have merit.
The same could be said about a great many everyday actions and/or activities that one may engage in. However such is not a legitimate excuse for attempting to legislate against said legal actions and/or activities. Once again. Can anyone present explain why, in the united states, where rights held by the people are supposedly subject to greater value and protection than they are by other nations, there is no constitutionally recognized right for on to die as they see fit? When an individual wishes to end their own existence, why does society see fit to deny the individual in question that choice, and force them to continue living when they have no desire for such?
It’s simple, a majority of American society doesn’t value rights as much as they’re perceived. Most people believe in freedom so long as it follows they’re own moral compass. People who truly believe in maximizing freedom regardless of they’re own personal ethics is rare. It’s your body and your life then you should have the right to end it if you want. Plain and simple.
Not in the constitution and just the way it is. I don't think suicide should be supported. There was an oldish guy, early 60's and thought about committing suicide. He knew how to cook chicken and make it tastes. So he set up the first KFC branch. So it doedoes matter how dark of a place people can go, with help, they can go on to do great things.
What if an individual simply does not want said help, and simply wishes to end their own existence? Why should their wishes not be honored and respected, no different than one who wants to undergo gender reassignment surgery, or any other procedure that one in the general public might consider to be radical in nature?
If they do it themselves, it's suicide. If they want help to be legally killed, it's euthanasia. As for wishes, you would have to ask the government, they make the laws.
What exactly constitutes "help" in this particular regard, for the sake of discussion? What authority does government possess to empower it to dictate that an individual must continue existing when they have no desire to do such?
Why does human life hold value? And why is one ending their own existence not regarded as an acceptable course of action to be engaged in?
because unlike Nazis and Communists, we believe in Judeo-Christian values that all life has some value and meaning.