A Secular Case Against Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

[Vorpal]

He does better than most. The real question is can forum members refrain from randomly bringing his religion up in these secular threads?

No, the real question is, "Can he?" It's proven a problem before for his "secular" treatment of moral issues.

Let's answer the question.  Can you let me know the number of times he mentions his religion or God as the engine of his argument as opposed to a quick historical reference and unprompted by others in a "secular" thread. Please link just one example.

Meanwhile the following is a list of posts from just the first page of his other secular thread where we reference religion of our own accord:

#4 Szuchow
#5 Deesse
#7 no one
#8 brewer
#16 Mini
#17 Patty
#20  Chas
#23 Alan

Tell me again who has trouble sticking with the premise of the thread!

People seem to want to speculate about his motivations for his point rather than just fully focusing on the point. Of course he is motivated to support his religious conclusions but he is trying to use secular data and logic. Why not let him try without static?

[Vorpal]

... This is the same hole that your other argument fell down. Intrinsic worth necessitates an external set of Values and Somebody to hold said Values and your "secular" argument is exposed as requiring a Higher Power.

This is a bogus and a lazy dismissal.  Life can be seen as having intrinsic worth without a higher power.  It is an important concept for this discussion in fact.  Consider a totally locked-in individual ie with no way to communicate with the outside. Does he have worth? He can think, he can dream, often times he can see.  His worth is only to himself and those who want to see him continue because they understand his wishes.  What would you call this idea. Internal worth?  How about intrinsic worth?  Part of the reason such an experience is worthwhile involves a capacity fairly unique to humans.  A level of consiousness when present endows the entity with worth.

[Alan V]

People seem to want to speculate about his motivations for his point rather than just fully focusing on the point.  Of course he is motivated to support his religious conclusions but he is trying to use secular data and logic.  Why not let him try without static?

To answer your question, because it seems rather obvious that with secular reasoning alone we can both support or undermine the idea of assisted suicides.  It is only with the addition of religious assumptions that Steve can reach the conclusion that all secular people should act the same and oppose assisted suicides.

And Steve did mention his religious biases in his initial post, saying that he believed they should also be supported by secular reasoning.  Yes and no.  That is the assumption we have been addressing.

With what I consider more accurate secular reasoning, I reach the conclusion that people should decide this issue for themselves, that assisted suicides should be permitted within common-sense limits.

[brewerb]

No, the real question is, "Can he?" It's proven a problem before for his "secular" treatment of moral issues.

Let's answer the question.  Can you let me know the number of times he mentions his religion or God as the engine of his argument as opposed to a quick historical reference and unprompted by others in a "secular" thread. Please link just one example.

Meanwhile the following is a list of posts from just the first page of his other secular thread where we reference religion of our own accord:

#4 Szuchow
#5 Deesse
#7 no one
#8 brewer
#16 Mini
#17 Patty
#20  Chas
#23 Alan

Tell me again who has trouble sticking with the premise of the thread!

People seem to want to speculate about his motivations for his point rather than just fully focusing on the point.  Of course he is motivated to support his religious conclusions but he is trying to use secular data and logic.  Why not let him try without static?

bold: Faulty premise, I don't feel the need to comply.

[Alan V]

bold: Faulty premise, I don't feel the need to comply.

Plus Steve has an agenda which we don't want to make any easier for him.

[Paleophyte]

Tell me again who has trouble sticking with the premise of the thread!

You, apparently. You're chasing this tangent and pointlessly blaming me for the actions of other people.

[SteveII]

As emotionally compelling as some scenarios might be, I made four arguments of why there are other important ethical concerns at stake. Address them directly.

Your first one is a fallacious comparison. No, quality of life doesn't reduce humans to their functionality. You can't make such an assertion without proof or evidence. It would be just as fallacious to equivocate that placing importance on life reduce humans to basic biological function and completely devalues the human emotional and psychological experience entirely.

Well, you skipped my first point: "If society sanctions the intentional ending of certain lives to relieve suffering or remove burdens, it implies that some lives have less value." Do you concede that that is the case? (I think you have to to be consistent).

Regarding your 'logical assessment', this is my whole sentence: "When dignity depends on autonomy or “quality of life” alone, we reduce human beings to their functionality." Note the bold. I think that sentence is just definitionally true. But in case that is not clear:

Premise 1: If human dignity is based solely on autonomy or quality of life, then a person’s worth is measured by their ability to function autonomously or maintain a certain standard of well-being.
Premise 2: Measuring a person’s worth by their ability to function autonomously or maintain a certain standard of well-being reduces their value to their functionality.
Conclusion: Therefore, when dignity depends on autonomy or quality of life alone, we reduce human beings to their functionality.

The rest of your argument asserts possibilities that are not given. Yes, experiencing aging can foster care into people, but it can also do the opposite or nothing at all. It's not because you experience something that you learn, by necessity, a very specific lesson and develop specific values or skills. There are also other ways to develop the skills of and values of patience, care, tenderness or responsibility. Caring for children or pets or adult friends are also places where such things can be learned. You don't specifically need to look at people in agony as they wither away from terminal illness or great age. This line of reasoning is thus largely spurious and naive at best. It's a rationalization not reasoning.

So that would be this part: "The limitations of aging and illness foster relationships of care that enrich our understanding of human life. Elderly or severely ill individuals, through their reliance on others, provide opportunities for empathy, compassion, and deeper familial connections. Younger generations learn patience, responsibility, and the moral importance of caring for those in need—wisdom that cannot be gained if we equate a “good” life with one free from struggle or dependency."

These are all things that are part of what it means to be human. My proof is all of human experience up until this point. You are making the counter claim that these experiences are not necessary. We can learn theses deeper truths some other way. It seems you are making the non-obvious claim.

I asked you in an earlier post what you thought about expanding euthanasia and assisted suicide to non-terminal cases. You replied that you are okay with that. The reason I asked was that in answering the way you did, you exposed your arguments, which have so far appealed to extremes ("agony...withered...terminal"), to have nothing to do with the extremes and everything to do with personal choice.

Finally, you didn't address the last part of Argument 1. I think it is certainly true that a society that endorses euthanasia and assisted suicide erodes a "respect for life if expedience consistently trumps principle." This is probably the easiest part to show: Many countries who have started with euthanasia and assisted suicide for extreme cases have "expanded it to include non-terminal conditions such as depression, chronic pain, or mental illness." Canada legislature passed a similar measure last year it and was put on hold by their supreme court until 2027. What do you think the likelihood of an eventual implementation?

Why is this important? It is a weakening of the social commitment that underpins the inherent worth of each person. What could possibly go wrong after a few generations of weakening that commitment!?

[Alan V]

Regarding your 'logical assessment', this is my whole sentence: "When dignity depends on autonomy or “quality of life” alone, we reduce human beings to their functionality." Note the bold. I think that sentence is just definitionally true. But in case that is not clear:

Premise 1: If human dignity is based solely on autonomy or quality of life, then a person’s worth is measured by their ability to function autonomously or maintain a certain standard of well-being.
Premise 2: Measuring a person’s worth by their ability to function autonomously or maintain a certain standard of well-being reduces their value to their functionality.
Conclusion: Therefore, when dignity depends on autonomy or quality of life alone, we reduce human beings to their functionality.

You have this exactly backwards.  People suffering and in constant pain have already had their lives reduced to the intolerable by their circumstances, not by others.  We are saying that we should help them stop, by their own choices.  No one would be imposing anything on anyone.

[brewerb]

a

Regarding your 'logical assessment', this is my whole sentence: "When dignity depends on autonomy or “quality of life” alone, we reduce human beings to their functionality." Note the bold. I think that sentence is just definitionally true. But in case that is not clear:

Premise 1: If human dignity is based solely on autonomy or quality of life, then a person’s worth is measured by their ability to function autonomously or maintain a certain standard of well-being.
Premise 2: Measuring a person’s worth by their ability to function autonomously or maintain a certain standard of well-being reduces their value to their functionality.
Conclusion: Therefore, when dignity depends on autonomy or quality of life alone, we reduce human beings to their functionality.

You have this exactly backwards.  People suffering and in constant pain have already had their lives reduced to the intolerable by their circumstances, not by others.  We are saying that we should help them stop, by their own choices.  No one would be imposing anything on anyone.

Steve's position is that the world is filled with evil men (people) and given the opportunity they will do evil. His premise and all of his arguments reflect this position. But I doubt he can help himself, he's been trained to believe that evil resides in people without a belief in god.

As far as I'm concerned, this thread was flawed from the beginning. Using 'secular' was a ruse, some people fell for it.

[Paleophyte]

... This is the same hole that your other argument fell down. Intrinsic worth necessitates an external set of Values and Somebody to hold said Values and your "secular" argument is exposed as requiring a Higher Power.

This is a bogus and a lazy dismissal.

No, that was a bogus and lazy dismissal. But hey, way to take the high road and kick things off with a round of insults. And you wonder why people think you a troll.

Life can be seen as having intrinsic worth without a higher power.

How? What determines this "intrinsic worth"? Or perhaps I should ask "Who"?

Consider a totally locked-in individual ie with no way to communicate with the outside. Does he have worth?

Consider the same individual but have an eagle rip his liver out on a daily basis. That "intrinsic" worth has dropped a few notches, hasn't it? What you're talking about isn't "intrinsic worth", it's simple self-valuation of a thinking entity, and that isn't going to fly well for this argument because it's incredibly subjective and dependent on your current mental and physical state. When that "intrinsic worth" goes negative and there's no real hope of it recovering then there's only one rational course of action. But that isn't what the OP is talking about, is it?

The OP is talking about something that makes all life inherently worthwhile in some way that never diminishes no matter how horrifying the situation. And for that to fly you're going to require an External Power to make those value judgments and say, "Nope, your life still has value even though it's the sort of torment that can't be properly put into words and will never get better except by ending." It's Divine Command Theory wearing a mustache and hoping that none of us notice because nobody actually said "God" out loud.

And if you're wondering why Stevell is getting short shrift with this thread it's because we've already. Done. This. To. Fucking. Death. in his other thread of almost exactly the same name. It was a dismal failure there and hasn't gotten any better with resurrection.

[epronovost]

Well, you skipped my first point: "If society sanctions the intentional ending of certain lives to relieve suffering or remove burdens, it implies that some lives have less value." Do you concede that that is the case? (I think you have to to be consistent).

No, the value of a life is not lowered because it ends. Everybody dies; it's the manner and circumstances of their death that could change this to a certain degree. A person who commit suicide doesn't make anybody's life less valuable, including their own.

Premise 1: If human dignity is based solely on autonomy or quality of life, then a person’s worth is measured by their ability to function autonomously or maintain a certain standard of well-being.
Premise 2: Measuring a person’s worth by their ability to function autonomously or maintain a certain standard of well-being reduces their value to their functionality.
Conclusion: Therefore, when dignity depends on autonomy or quality of life alone, we reduce human beings to their functionality.

Even if this were true, what system of ethics or moral based human dignity SOLELY on autonomy OR quality of life as you mentioned? I don't think there is any. Nobody here says that human dignity is based exclusively on autonomy or quality of life, but that these are important factors. It doesn't imply its the only factor. Plus, its also clearly mentioned that this assessment is individual and personal. It's not because one person wants to die that my life or the lives of other people in general and diminished. It's a personal decision.

It is a weakening of the social commitment that underpins the inherent worth of each person.

Don't you think that forcing someone to suffer and wither towards an inevitable and painful death against their expressed will might be a direct assault on your social commmitment towards the protection for the life, dignity and safety of that person? You are basically telling them that what you force them to endure is for the greater good including for their own which is more than dubious on its face. If you can force someone to agonize against their will, what can't you do to them; how can we trust you when you say our lives, dignity and safety are of paramount importance to you?

[Vorpal]

Tell me again who has trouble sticking with the premise of the thread!

You, apparently. You're chasing this tangent and pointlessly blaming me for the actions of other people.

I am asking you to support your statement and refute my evidence that contradicts it, not to answer for them.

[Paleophyte]

I think one of the fundamental questions that @SteveII needs to answer is how this "intrinsic worth" is determined. Who or what comes up with the value?

If the worth is truly intrinsic then it's the individual determining the value of their own existence to themselves. Nobody else should be involved in that equation, because that's heading out into imposed values PDQ. At that point we need only ask what a rational individual does when they determine that, due to truly unpleasant circumstances, their intrinsic worth is negative and unrecoverable.

If the worth is being determined by Somebody Else then we need to ask ourselves why the word "intrinsic" has been abused for these ends and why the term "secular" has been applied to an argument that clearly requires Somebody Else.

[pattylt]

No, the real question is, "Can he?" It's proven a problem before for his "secular" treatment of moral issues.

Let's answer the question.  Can you let me know the number of times he mentions his religion or God as the engine of his argument as opposed to a quick historical reference and unprompted by others in a "secular" thread. Please link just one example.

Meanwhile the following is a list of posts from just the first page of his other secular thread where we reference religion of our own accord:

#4 Szuchow
#5 Deesse
#7 no one
#8 brewer
#16 Mini
#17 Patty
#20  Chas
#23 Alan

Tell me again who has trouble sticking with the premise of the thread!

People seem to want to speculate about his motivations for his point rather than just fully focusing on the point.  Of course he is motivated to support his religious conclusions but he is trying to use secular data and logic.  Why not let him try without static?

Because he involves his religious views without mentioning religion doesn’t mean it’s a secular argument.

I quote:When dignity depends on autonomy or “quality of life” alone, we reduce human beings to their functionality. Yet dignity should not hinge on productivity, health, or independence. The limitations of aging and illness foster relationships of care that enrich our understanding of human life. Elderly or severely ill individuals, through their reliance on others, provide opportunities for empathy, compassion, and deeper familial connections. Younger generations learn patience, responsibility, and the moral importance of caring for those in need—wisdom that cannot be gained if we equate a “good” life with one free from struggle or dependency./quote from Steve…

Discussing the enrichment, empathy and compassion of those caring for the terminally ill is pure Catholic hubris.  Fuck the patient, it helps others develop these desirable qualities?  I can think of many better ways than forcing torture on the patient.  In some cases, it does the opposite…instilling guilt, hatred or frustration in being forced to watch a loved one die “naturally”.

[Paleophyte]

You, apparently. You're chasing this tangent and pointlessly blaming me for the actions of other people.

I am asking you to support your statement and refute my evidence that contradicts it, not to answer for them.

My "statement" ends in a question mark and references Stevell's past thread on abortion, wherein he couldn't keep God and religion out of it, and which this thread is a patent clone of. Feel free to read through all 132 pages if you're into self-abuse that way. Your "evidence" is the actions of others, not Stevell or myself, and thus has no bearing on my "statement" whatsoever except to try and take me to task for their words.

[Vorpal]

 Life can be seen as having intrinsic worth without a higher power.

How? What determines this "intrinsic worth"? Or perhaps I should ask "Who"?

The human powers that be recognize that the capacity of consciousness might be worth treating with reverence because it is unique to the individual who would no longer exist if summarily dismissed. Of course many people would not want that limited existence. People who live in their head and enjoy their own company might.  It's an individual decison hopefully made clear in a living will.

Consider the same individual but have an eagle rip his liver out on a daily basis.

  Why am I considering this? It is not actually possible. The individual would just die.

What you're talking about isn't "intrinsic worth", it's simple self-valuation of a thinking entity, and that isn't going to fly well for this argument because it's incredibly subjective and dependent on your current mental and physical state. When that "intrinsic worth" goes negative and there's no real hope of it recovering then there's only one rational course of action.

  I described two different concepts that can be confused. One aspect recognizes the known or unknown wish of the individual as relevant, the other is the intrinsic worth of a unique human being with consciousness. That in many cases it will be hard to determine the individual's wishes in an ongoing way, is a separate issue.  Because it is hard does not mean we can should just choose one course of action. People are different. Some would choose it; others definitely would not.

It's interesting that there is a weird flip of perspective between an atheist and a theist.  I would think an atheist would more often accept the low quality of life because it is better than nothing.  While in death, the theist believes they will go on living. Yet, it is the theist that is likely to be against premature death.
 

But that isn't what the OP is talking about, is it?

 

I am not entirely sure, but I think asking him to clarify is a lot better than assuming what his response would be and arguing against that emphatically as if you can read his mind.  That might be why this got boring for you.

[Vorpal]

Let's answer the question.  Can you let me know the number of times he mentions his religion or God as the engine of his argument as opposed to a quick historical reference and unprompted by others in a "secular" thread. Please link just one example.

Meanwhile the following is a list of posts from just the first page of his other secular thread where we reference religion of our own accord:

#4 Szuchow
#5 Deesse
#7 no one
#8 brewer
#16 Mini
#17 Patty
#20  Chas
#23 Alan

Tell me again who has trouble sticking with the premise of the thread!

People seem to want to speculate about his motivations for his point rather than just fully focusing on the point.  Of course he is motivated to support his religious conclusions but he is trying to use secular data and logic.  Why not let him try without static?

Because he involves his religious views without mentioning religion doesn’t mean it’s a secular argument.

When dignity depends on autonomy or “quality of life” alone, we reduce human beings to their functionality. Yet dignity should not hinge on productivity, health, or independence. The limitations of aging and illness foster relationships of care that enrich our understanding of human life. Elderly or severely ill individuals, through their reliance on others, provide opportunities for empathy, compassion, and deeper familial connections. Younger generations learn patience, responsibility, and the moral importance of caring for those in need—wisdom that cannot be gained if we equate a “good” life with one free from struggle or dependency.

Discussing the enrichment, empathy and compassion of those caring for the terminally ill is pure Catholic hubris.  Fuck the patient, it helps others develop these desirable qualities?  I can think of many better ways than forcing torture on the patient.  In some cases, it does the opposite…instilling guilt, hatred or frustration in being forced to watch a loved one die “naturally”.

I think your rebuttal is a good one. I actually think he has a point as well as long as it isn't the only reason. I am just not sure the Catholic connection needs mention.

And, if it is mentioned, you cannot discount him for talking about his religion in the thread --something that Paleo has done not Patty.

[pattylt]

I mention it because he’s Catholic and it informs his views. It’s also a Catholic apologetic argument disguised as a secular one. If I didn’t already know he was Catholic, this argument would have me highly suspecting it.

[Paleophyte]

How? What determines this "intrinsic worth"? Or perhaps I should ask "Who"?

The human powers that be recognize that the capacity of consciousness might be worth treating with reverence because it is unique to the individual who would no longer exist if summarily dismissed.

So are we talking state or social contract here? Sorry, not sounding exactly "intrinsic".

Consider the same individual but have an eagle rip his liver out on a daily basis.

  Why am I considering this? It is not actually possible. The individual would just die.

Because I got tired of considering actual horrors and decided to go with something more "light-hearted". Clearly you haven't read any Greek Mythology or you'd know how Prometheus got thanked for giving fire to humanity. Insert your realistic torment of preference.

Type "liver ripped out by eagle for all eternity" into Google and it's downright weird how consistent the search results are for something that bizarre. Even weirder, he's not the only Greek god to suffer that fate. Talk about your cruel and unusual.

It's interesting that there is a weird flip of perspective between an atheist and a theist.  I would think an atheist would more often accept the low quality of life because it is better than nothing.  While in death, the theist believes they will go on living. Yet, it is the theist that is likely to be against premature death.

Yeah, you'd think that theists would be in a big damned hurry to get to their eternal reward of 72 raisins but religion makes people weird that way. Atheists don't have that baggage, so we're more willing to give others the same basic decency that we'd show to an ailing pet.

[SteveII]

On to the second argument. That one thing can be dangerous doesn't mean that danger can't be effectively managed or that the risk isn't worth the benefits. You can't throw the baby with the bathwater simply because there is a risk. Inaction also has risks.

Right now there are people killing themselves in brutal ways, alone and afraid instead of surrounded by their loved one's because they have no help. There are people rotting in jails because they helped a loved one escape agony and there are people suffering more than human can stand for months or years with no hope of relief of remission. Those are tragedies too and represent the risk of forbidding medically assisted suicide. You are correct, there are serious and real risks and challenges associated with assisted suicide and euthanasia, but there are benefits too and there are ways to mitigate risks. There are also risks and costs associated with the status quo.

There is a lot of appeal to emotion in there rather than a substantive argument. You are also kind of begging the question that a better form of killing is the answer.

The danger is an attitude that you cannot avoid. The risk has already been proved. Ironically you are making the same case that they did: Euthanasia and assisted suicide is for the terminally ill--look at the pictures! You're a monster for making people suffer!! Fast forward not even a generation and countries are expanding it to include non-terminal conditions such as depression, chronic pain, or mental illness.

Anyway, this misses my point. Anyone can kill themselves. The question is should we as a society condone a system where we have other do it for you--a system that by it's very nature, sends a variety of signals about what it means to be human and how we should think about life and death. Do you think there will be more assisted suicides or less?

[Vorpal]

Yeah, you'd think that theists would be in a big damned hurry to get to their eternal reward of 72 raisins but religion makes people weird that way. Atheists don't have that baggage, so we're more willing to give others the same basic decency that we'd show to an ailing pet.

Pets.--  Perfect way to explain the use of the term intrinsic.  Pets for the most part (unless chimpanzees and dolphins can be considered pets.) do not have the same intrinsic value as humans because their level of consciouness does not warrant continued existence at the same point. They just can not reminisse, formulate a story, formulate a hope, contemplate philosophy like a human could.  Cats and dogs love to interact with the environment and to eat.  I cannot see a reason to let their brain function continue with out their central pleasures. 

Intrinsic refers the consiousness within not really synonomous with volition.  Intrinsic motivation is motivation from within that cannot simply be chosen but can be found. Valuing the internal life within a human being is intrinsic. Recognizing that consiousness exists and treating it as precious is important even when no extrinsic utility can be identified. Other things complicate matters but they do not take the importance away.

[mordant]

Often overlooked in these discussions is the paradoxical effect that having the right to determine the timing and manner of one's death often leads to a person living longer than they otherwise would have. Because having the choice and control of that choice means you can "skate closer to the edge" without fear of being unable to make your final decision or care for yourself, should you hold out too long.

Case in point was my previous / late wife who suffered terribly for a good 2 or 3 years longer than she otherwise would have because she knew she had the means to end her life at any time. If, say, I had been unsupportive of her wishes she would probably have ended herself much sooner. I suspect that if physician assisted suicide had been available she'd have endured even longer. And if euthanasia had been available ... still longer, since each of those gradations of choice require less and less ability on the part of the patient to make it happen.

It's a personal balance between opposing forces -- the natural will to live / instinct for self-preservation, over against pain, suffering, indignity, and yes, expense of if all, the impact on others, etc etc. This is something no one has any business controlling but the patient IMO. Individual doctors or health care orgs can elect to provide or not provide such services according to their own principles. One's immediate family has some legitimate input as well (though not much really beyond expressing their hopes / wishes / desires / communicating how the death will impact them). Who doesn't have input is churches and governments.

It's my view that current assisted dying law is too restrictive. Typically, you must have a death sentence within 6 months which is a subjective determination and says little directly about levels of pain or quality of life. By the time you jump through all the hoops and checks and balances (get a sign-off by two doctors on the prognosis, find someone to provide the meds, talk to a shrink or three, fill out a bunch of paperwork -- all at a time when you aren't in good condition to be spending your final days and limited energy on such things) you may well be dead anyway. In practice, it doesn't ease suffering that much, on a net basis.

The only person my wife asked for permission was from me. She asked me to release her, to let her quit fighting. The only arguments I had against this were ENTIRELY selfish.

[epronovost]

Anyway, this misses my point. Anyone can kill themselves. The question is should we as a society condone a system where we have other do it for you--a system that by it's very nature, sends a variety of signals about what it means to be human and how we should think about life and death.

You see the signals you are psychologically and philosophically primed to see. If you think people are important because they are alive you might see terrifying things. If you see life as important because people have it and desire it, then you see things very differently. How you see things is something you were raised into and can reason yourself out from or simply gain a wider perspective from. You are assuming your conclusion in your premise here.

Do you think there will be more assisted suicides or less?

It doesn't matter.

[Minimalist]

[Rhythmcs]

Don't think so?  We had hardly any nursing homes 100 years ago. Think about the dynamics and expectations of elderly parents and their children have today. I can't tell you how many times I have heard "we don't want to be a burden on our children" as people get older. Do you think these attitudes will magically freeze in place and not continue the clear progression of the last 100-150 years?

The average life expectancy for a us citizen 100 years ago was 58.  We can't even retire then now.   Maybe if you nuts would let government do nice things old people wouldn't be so burdensome?