Death Beckons

[Syne]

LOL. I would happily give you the benefit of the doubt, if you even made an attempt to justify your opinion. But then suicidality among gays would give good odds that you suffer from suicidal ideation. If so, you may very well have a vested interest in justifying the competence of your own thinking on the matter, even in the face of any options for relief of your suffering.

[Magical Realist]

LOL. I would happily give you the benefit of the doubt, if you even made an attempt to justify your opinion. But then suicidality among gays would give good odds that you suffer from suicidal ideation. If so, you may very well have a vested interest in justifying the competence of your own thinking on the matter, even in the face of any options for relief of your suffering.

Hey this is your little hate party. Invite into your head anybody that you need. Horrific pieces of shit. Selfish suicides. Those disgusting gays. Whatever you need to sustain your contempt high. It's like a drug for you isn't it?

[Syne]

Those disgusting gays.

Do you have a complex?

[Secular Sanity]

Jan Bernheim, an emeritus professor of medicine at the Free University of Brussels, who studies ethics and quality of life, told me that euthanasia is "part of a philosophy of taking control of one’s own existence and improving the objective conditions for happiness. There is an arrow of evolution that goes toward ever more reducing of suffering and maximizing of enjoyment." [1]

Dying is in the details for Antoinette, as she also has a cloth to be laid on her coffin that depicts the journey of a caterpillar to a butterfly, which she sees as her journey. She emphasizes that the caterpillar has to travel across difficult stones in the illustration, symbolic of how difficult can be.

"When do you become a butterfly?" Vikram asks.
"When you die," she replies.

Antoinette feels like death is the transition she’s been craving all her life. "I work in a hospice so I’ve seen many dead people," she says. "You always see their soul go out. They are happy. They are really happy. Nothing matters anymore." [1]


In 2011, Godelieva saw Dr. Wim Distelmans, a "leading proponent" of Belgium’s 2002 euthanasia law. She visited him at his clinic in September, and four months later she notified her children via email that she had filed a request to be euthanized. Three months later, her wish was carried out — without either of her children having been notified or consulted by Distelmans. Her son, Tom, found out via "a short letter from his mother that was written in the past tense." He eventually met with Distelmans to ask why he had approved the request without looping him or his sister into the process, and the encounter didn’t go well. "You went along with the madness of my mother!" Tom shouted at Distelmans, according to the doctor. "You went along with her tunnel vision, her defeatism. You’ve just taken away the suffering of one person and transposed it to another!"

Even though their bodies are fine, they had simply given up on the idea of their lives ever improving. Should a doctor respect their wishes to die in the same way he or she might respect the wishes of a patient with stage IV cancer? Should a doctor factor in the wishes of adult children who will be affected by a parent’s choice, but who can’t know exactly what that parent is going through, especially given that in any other instance, the children of a competent adult patient don’t get to make major medical decisions for them? [1] [2]

[Syne]

It's a question of competence. Mental states are transient, so a belief that mental suffering is inescapable is not objective.

[Magical Realist]

It's a question of competence. Mental states are transient, so a belief that mental suffering is inescapable is not objective.

Who gets to decide whose mental state is competent? What if the point of the mental state is the subjective evaluation of one's quality of life vs it's perpetuation? Who has the right to make that decision for someone else? And who says mental suffering isn't inescapable? What do you know of the mental suffering of a paraplegic for instance? Or a burn victim with PTSD? Or a homeless schizophrenic? You have no idea what incurable depression is like. What such people have to go thru. How dare you to presume to morally dictate what their decisions should or shouldn't be.

[Syne]

It's a question of competence. Mental states are transient, so a belief that mental suffering is inescapable is not objective.

Who gets to decide whose mental state is competent? What if the point of the mental state is the subjective evaluation of one's quality of life vs it's perpetuation? Who has the right to make that decision for someone else? And who says mental suffering isn't inescapable? What do you know of the mental suffering of a paraplegic for instance? Or a burn victim with PTSD? Or a homeless schizophrenic?

I only said mental suffering...I didn't comment on permanent physical handicap or disfigurement. But I have already commented on inescapable interminable physical suffering.

"In United States law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings or transactions, and the mental condition a person must have to be responsible for his or her decisions or acts. Competence is an attribute that is decision specific. Depending on various factors which typically revolve around mental function integrity, an individual may or may not be competent to make a particular medical decision, a particular contractual agreement, to execute an effective deed to real property, or to execute a will having certain terms." - wiki

[Magical Realist]

"In United States law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings or transactions, and the mental condition a person must have to be responsible for his or her decisions or acts. Competence is an attribute that is decision specific. Depending on various factors which typically revolve around mental function integrity, an individual may or may not be competent to make a particular medical decision, a particular contractual agreement, to execute an effective deed to real property, or to execute a will having certain terms."

That's an entirely arbitrary legal definition having nothing to do with one's rights and moral principles. And all the examples I gave are NOT physical suffering. They ARE mental suffering. The despair of their condition burdens them everyday. It is ALL mental suffering, and some people just can't handle as much as others.

[Syne]

That's an entirely arbitrary legal definition having nothing to do with one's rights and moral principles. And all the examples I gave are NOT physical suffering. They ARE mental suffering. The despair of their condition burdens them everyday. It is ALL mental suffering, and some people just can't handle as much as others.

Assisted suicide, where legal, is a medical decision. Unless mental suffering is a result of brain injury or defect, it is not necessarily permanent. Do you suffer every day?

[Magical Realist]

That's an entirely arbitrary legal definition having nothing to do with one's rights and moral principles. And all the examples I gave are NOT physical suffering. They ARE mental suffering. The despair of their condition burdens them everyday. It is ALL mental suffering, and some people just can't handle as much as others.

Assisted suicide, where legal, is a medical decision. Unless mental suffering is a result of brain injury or defect, it is not necessarily permanent. Do you suffer every day?

Mental suffering by defect is the only kind of mental suffering there is. Defect of the brain, or your environment, or your psyche, or your body, or the people in your life. Who are you to decide what is or isn't permanent about these defects? Or even if that is the standard by which to judge mental suffering. The Holocaust wasn't permanent. But would we condemn anyone for commiting suicide under those circumstances? Hardly.