A Secular Case Against Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

[SteveII]

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.

You continue to miss the point because you are defending the idea and not addressing any of the arguments against it. You are focusing on the individual while I am talking about fundamentally changing society in a trajectory toward the cheapening of life. We have evidence of this already as euthanasia and assisted suicide laws are becoming more expansive in the countries that were early adopters. I couldn't ask for better evidence to back up my point.

QUESTION: Do you think assisted suicide should be available for non-terminal chronic pain, mental illness, or depression?

[SteveII]

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.

You don't seem to know what intrinsic means.

in·trin·sic
/inˈtrinzik/
adjective
belonging naturally; essential.

In no way can a person assign others or themselves intrinsic worth. It cannot diminish due to circumstances. It would literally not be intrinsic if any of that were true.

I said this earlier and may be helpful to sort out some concepts: I mean the intrinsic worth of every human being, grounded in their humanity rather than their abilities, autonomy, or social utility. Recognizing someone’s dignity means treating them as an end in themselves—worthy of respect and care—rather than reducing them to what they can or cannot do. Everyone in the nursing home, regardless of the condition of their diapers, is owed dignity.

[mordant]

I am talking about fundamentally changing society in a trajectory toward the cheapening of life.

The same people who oppose right to die are busy ruining the quality of everyone else's life, such as it is. Nothing cheapens like like poverty and want, sickness, bigotry and hatred, and we are increasingly stewing in it. Courtesy of the so-called pro-life folks.

QUESTION: Do you think assisted suicide should be available for non-terminal chronic pain, mental illness, or depression?

In principle, yes. But not without some limits. In Europe, people have requested, and gotten, assisted suicide for severe, unremitting, lifelong, totally treatment-impervious depression or other forms of mental illness. Chronic pain and suffering is chronic pain and suffering.

None of this means we can't, shouldn't, or don't strive mightily to ease suffering and help people better cope with such things. We can chew gum and walk at the same time.

[1Sam15]

QUESTION: Do you think assisted suicide should be available for non-terminal chronic pain, mental illness, or depression?

Interested in what your answer to this question is?

Please explain your answer

[SteveII]

That difference in values and assessment between you and I is probably why we arrive at different conclusion on this issue in my opinion. If you believe people are valuable because they are alive, then I completely understand your fears and repulsion at the prospect of suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia. If you value life because it's something that people have and desire, then the prospect of suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia is less frightening and repulsive.

This is certainly true. I have a deontological ethical framework and you have a utilitarian. I knew that most of you would and that's why I mentioned the comparison in each of my arguments. But a different ethical framework does not mean we agree to disagree. The outcomes are very different in meaningful and important ways. I've been told a thousand times here that ethics and morality are about human flourishing. Now that I make that argument, all the sudden it's about personal dignity and autonomy.

I had another thought since I wrote the OP. Your position is self defeating if in the pursuit of honoring people's personal dignity and autonomy you undercut the very thing that your argument relies on. If euthanasia and assisted suicide changes peoples core perspectives on what it means to be human, on life, on death, the very principle invoked to defend euthanasia (respect for dignity) very likely will, over time, erode the broader social ethos that upholds every person’s dignity, regardless of their autonomy or health status.

[SteveII]

QUESTION: Do you think assisted suicide should be available for non-terminal chronic pain, mental illness, or depression?

Interested in what your answer to this question is?

Please explain your answer

um...no. See the OP.

[epronovost]

 I have a deontological ethical framework and you have a utilitarian.

I'm not an utilitarian; though I could be described as some sort of a consequentialist (which is what is actually opposed to deontological ethics since utilitarianism can be deontological too). 

I've been told a thousand times here that ethics and morality are about human flourishing. Now that I make that argument, all the sudden it's about personal dignity and autonomy.

It might be, if you read the reply you received so far, because you argument for human flourishment by preventing people who want to die to die on their term making people, society and humanity as a whole worst off, at best, as hypothetical and based on fearmongering and motivated reasoning. It suffice not to appeal to human flourishment to be moral, you also have to demonstrate that this is actually the case and that the flourishment is not just a question of personal appreciation or taste. I'd like to mention that morality is all about human flourishing but what is human flourishing exactly and how to bring it about is not always easy to determined and sometime highly subjective; that's why people have various ideas as to what is moral from era to era, region to region and individual to individual. 

If euthanasia and assisted suicide changes peoples core perspectives on what it means to be human, on life, on death, the very principle invoked to defend euthanasia (respect for dignity) very likely will, over time, erode the broader social ethos that upholds every person’s dignity, regardless of their autonomy or health status.

Please make a demonstration of this. How does assisted suicide changes peoples core perspectives on what it means to be human, on life, on death in a manner that is different than suicide. Once you have made that, make the demonstration that this change is worst for human flourishment. So far, your attempts have been very insufficient and mostly dismissible as fallacious slippery slopes and fearmongering.

[brewerb]

You continue to miss the point because you are defending the idea and not addressing any of the arguments against it. You are focusing on the individual while I am talking about fundamentally changing society in a trajectory toward the cheapening of life. We have evidence of this already as euthanasia and assisted suicide laws are becoming more expansive in the countries that were early adopters. I couldn't ask for better evidence to back up my point.

QUESTION: Do you think assisted suicide should be available for non-terminal chronic pain, mental illness, or depression?

bold: If this is correct I suspect it's what their population/society desires. I doubt it's the downfall of man that's promoting the changes, even though man's downfall seems to be more satisfying you.

I suggest that you don't live there.

[Rhythmcs]

Respecting human dignity will erode the social ethos leading to the death of human dignity. Got it.

[Minimalist]

SteveII Wrote:

[url=https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/showthread.php?pid=451052#pid451052][/url]QUESTION: Do you think assisted suicide should be available for non-terminal chronic pain, mental illness, or depression?

Yes.

[SYZ]

...We had hardly any nursing homes 100 years ago...

More bullshit.  Of course we did.      

When Europeans colonised North America in the 1600s,
they brought their concept of almshouses with them. If
someone couldn't be taken care of by family or neighbours,
then they were put in an institution that was locally-run
by the county, village or by an independent charity.

Almshouses continued as the main option for the elderly
without money or family, but toward the end of the 19th
century, another model popped up. These were called old
age homes.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

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.

That agenda is what drives him here.

[Cavebear]

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.

You continue to miss the point because you are defending the idea and not addressing any of the arguments against it. You are focusing on the individual while I am talking about fundamentally changing society in a trajectory toward the cheapening of life. We have evidence of this already as euthanasia and assisted suicide laws are becoming more expansive in the countries that were early adopters. I couldn't ask for better evidence to back up my point.

QUESTION: Do you think assisted suicide should be available for non-terminal chronic pain, mental illness, or depression?

Yes.  The real question is "quality of life".  I'm only 74, but I have frequent muscle cramps in my calves, ankles, thighs and ribs.  My fingers clench frequently.  My knees are often out.  And sometimes I go back to bed in mid-afternoon due to back pain.

Many other people have problems that are much worse.  But that's not the point.  I think I control my own existence.  I am not owned by society or the government.  At 74, I've lived a long full life and experienced about as much as I ever will.

I saw my parents die in their 80s/90s.  One from Parkinsons and her fingers were curled up painfully like claws.  She sufferred muscle cramps all over constantly.  She shook unconcantrollably.  She died begging for someone to just kill her.

My Dad lived longer, but demented.  A hospital called me one day and said I had to take him away.  I took care of him for 2 years while he went from "difficult" to "impossible".  One day, while he was standing next to me, he asked why I was in the backyard.  And that was at the beginning of his decline.  It got much worse.

I don't want to go through that.  And I should have a right not to have to.  I have had a few cats that had to be euthanized for old age problems.  It would have been actually cruel to force them to live in confusion and pain.  The Vet sent them to "The Bridge" calmly and without ant pain.

Why I don't have that same right?  I know the answer.  Most of society says "Only God has the right to decide when you die".  Bullshit on that one.

When my physical condition gets too hard, why shouldn't I just end it.  A couple of Vet-like shots and I'll be gone.  I sure won't know I'm dead afterwards.

Don't worry, I'm not planning any drastic action soon.  I can deal with current problems and I have cats to care for (which keeps me mentally and physically active).  But I see a day coming when I can't manage my daily life or bodily pains.  I want to be able to choose to end my life then in peace and calm.

[Paleophyte]

In no way can a person assign others or themselves intrinsic worth.

Then where does it come from? In a secular society worth is what we assign to ourselves and each other.

It cannot diminish due to circumstances.

OK, let's assume for the moment that human life has an intrinsic value. Let's also assume that human suffering has intrinsic value and that it's negative. At the end of the day a person tallies up their net worth and finds that it's in the red and never likely to get better. Their existence is less than worthless. Congrats, all you've managed to do is demonstrate the intrinsic morality of suicide.

The impasse here isn't a moral, rational, or ethical one. It's the simple fact that you personally want human life to be valued so far above everything else that the negatives can never outweigh it for reasons that I won't bring up because that would be saying the quiet part out loud. The rest of us disagree and you haven't provided any evidence on that point. If the negatives of suffering outweigh the positives of existing then ending that existence becomes a rational option.

Recognizing someone’s dignity means treating them as an end in themselves—worthy of respect and care—rather than reducing them to what they can or cannot do. Everyone in the nursing home, regardless of the condition of their diapers, is owed dignity.

Would that dignity and respect include respecting their wishes to end their own existence? Or are you now going to say, "Oh yeah, respect and dignity are all well and good up to a point, but respecting a person's wishes to die with dignity crosses a line and now I'm not going to respect that and force them to die pissing themselves screaming out their last Earthly breath."

You still haven't provided a compelling argument for granting the state or any similar social construct the authority to regulate when our life ends.

[Paleophyte]

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.

OK, but ditto for their suffering. Most foods, cosmetics, and hygiene products have been tested on cuddly little animals because we don't value their suffering nearly as highly as we value our own. If human existence has intrinsic worth then it's pretty much axiomatic that human suffering must have intrinsic worth and that that worth would be negative.

I think that this entire argument can be summed up as a simple opposition:

Existence <-----> Suffering

Some people maintain that this must always be:

Existence <-----> Suffering

Others disagree with that view and maintain that, given the wrong circumstances the opposition becomes something more like:

Existence <-----> Suffering

Since there isn't a cold, hard metric that we can use to compare these two opposing values, we're left with a personal and subjective determination. Under those conditions an individual must have the right to make their own choice and follow their conscience accordingly.

[Mathilda]

Anyone can kill themselves.

Not everyone can. It's also really difficult to kill yourself. Is your death going to traumatise someone else? e.g. jumping in front of a train. Or even kill them (landing on their head when jumping off a building). Do you really want to subject a loved one to discovering your brains splattered all over the living room wall?

Then there's the risk of getting interrupted or failing to kill yourself and leaving yourself alive with even less quality of life.

And for some people, it's not even physically possible. e.g. paraplegics, prisoners or those otherwise institutionalised.

[Paleophyte]

Anyone can kill themselves.

And many do. Some botch it, others leave an ugly surprise for the poor bugger who discovers their remains. You want me to believe that that is in any way morally superior to going quietly and painlessly in your own way and at your own time?

The question is should we as a society condone a system where we have other do it for you

Absolutely. This should be a no-brainer, so here are your options:

• Slowly devoured by something agonizing and debilitating.
  
• Staring down the barrel of a 12 gauge in the hopes that this ends it and the knowledge that somebody is going to have to clean up what will be a very nasty mess.
  
• A quiet death at home in bed, with proper safeguards administered to prevent abuse and minimize the suffering of all involved.
  

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.

I'm sorry, do you want us to say the quiet parts out loud for you? Don't sweat it, it's pretty clear that most of us already have and have not arrived at a non-secular answer. In Canada, public support for MAID stands around 85%, with 78% support for increasing its scope.

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

More according to the data and the rate is expected to climb further. How is that a problem?

[Cavebear]

Anyone can kill themselves.

Not everyone can. It's also really difficult to kill yourself. Is your death going to traumatize someone else? e.g. jumping in front of a train. Or even kill them (landing on their head when jumping off a building). Do you really want to subject a loved one to discovering your brains splattered all over the living room wall?

Then there's the risk of getting interrupted or failing to kill yourself and leaving yourself alive with even less quality of life.

And for some people, it's not even physically possible. e.g. paraplegics, prisoners or those otherwise institutionalized.

I might add that it is difficult to kill yourself because religious society makes it difficult to do so.  Any way to kill yourself easily and painlessly is nearly impossible.

I had the sadness to have 2 dear cats euthanized in 2023.  One was starving to death by (somehow) not being able to eat anymore (at 16+ years).  The other had a horrible first home with pit bulls, and in spite of some seeming recovery for a few months here, returned to unmanageable anger, attacking the other household cats brutally.  A shelter would have caged him for 2 weeks, and it would have been crazing for him (who loved to wander the yard).

So 2 euthanized in 2 months.  But my point is that the Vet gave each a sedative and then a final injection which caused their hearts to stop within seconds.  I was there.  There seemed to be no distress at all.  They were peacefully dead within seconds.

Why don't we have the right to the same?  If I want to stop all the problems why can't I be treated at least as kindly as an elderly cat?  

I know why.  It's because of theists who demand that humans are special creations with souls given to them at creation by some god.  So taking one's own life is somehow different from that of a cat or a dog.

Why?  I don't feel "intrinsic value" myself.  God didn't create me.  We are all just more complex animals than average.  If I can euthanize a cat, shouldn't I be able to have myself be euthanized as humanely?

[Vorpal]

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.

OK, but ditto for their suffering. Most foods, cosmetics, and hygiene products have been tested on cuddly little animals because we don't value their suffering nearly as highly as we value our own. If human existence has intrinsic worth then it's pretty much axiomatic that human suffering must have intrinsic worth and that that worth would be negative.
 
Since there isn't a cold, hard metric that we can use to compare these two opposing values, we're left with a personal and subjective determination. Under those conditions an individual must have the right to make their own choice and follow their conscience accordingly.

All your points here are valid.  One thing hospital staff in the ICU have ready in their script is "the patient will have little chance to recover (to normal) and is in pain so we recommend hospice."  This can be said about a wide range of people in varying conditions.  What these professionals fail to try to do is qualify the current level of consciousness and qualify the level of pain. Questions regarding these qualifications are met with a blank stare. They give lip service to the idea that this is an individual decision, but then admit I would not want to live like that (and neither should the patient.)

It seems clear to me that they have other pressures. Staff get burnt out on caring for very disabled patients, and hospital costs need to be kept down.  These are relevant concerns, but should not be cloaked under an inauthentic shield of selflessness and neutrality.

[epronovost]

  One thing hospital staff in the ICU have ready in their script is "the patient will have little chance to recover (to normal) and is in pain so we recommend hospice."  This can be said about a wide range of people in varying conditions.  What these professionals fail to try to do is qualify the current level of consciousness and qualify the level of pain. Questions regarding these qualifications are met with a blank stare. They give lip service to the idea that this is an individual decision, but then admit I would not want to live like that (and neither should the patient).

As that actually a wide sprayed problem is this a prejudice born out of a bad personal experience and then applied to ICU and hospital staff in general. From my experience with doctors and nurses, they do not work off a script.

[Vorpal]

  One thing hospital staff in the ICU have ready in their script is "the patient will have little chance to recover (to normal) and is in pain so we recommend hospice."  This can be said about a wide range of people in varying conditions.  What these professionals fail to try to do is qualify the current level of consciousness and qualify the level of pain. Questions regarding these qualifications are met with a blank stare. They give lip service to the idea that this is an individual decision, but then admit I would not want to live like that (and neither should the patient).

As that actually a wide sprayed problem is this a prejudice born out of a bad personal experience and then applied to ICU and hospital staff in general. From my experience with doctors and nurses, they do not work off a script.

This opinion is derived by an experience with staff at only two different hospitals, but further supported by medical literature on how to handle family members in denial.

[Rhythmcs]

I want to be able to choose to end my life then in peace and calm.

Imma try to get myself lost at sea.  I figure there are plenty of shady ass fishing charters that would take an old man out if he payed enough.  So, you know, good luck to the nuts who want to put a cop in every hospital hallway so they can monitor other peoples life choices to ensure appropriate levels of jesus.

[Cavebear]

I want to be able to choose to end my life then in peace and calm.

Imma try to get myself lost at sea.  I figure there are plenty of shady ass fishing charters that would take an old man out if he payed enough.  So, you know, good luck to the nuts who want to put a cop in every hospital hallway so they can monitor other peoples life choices to ensure appropriate levels of jesus.

OK, one big inhalation of water would be quick. But the few people who have been recovered from drowning probably wouldn't say it was pleasant. I'm in favor of being blitheringly sedated first and then medically having my heart stopped with a 2nd shot while I can't sense anything.

I had a elderly cat once dying of kidney failure. The Vet said he thought the sedation was enough to send him to The Bridge. But he did the 2nd shot "just to be sure".

That's how I want to go... Not even knowing.

[mordant]

Anyone can kill themselves.

Not everyone can. It's also really difficult to kill yourself. Is your death going to traumatise someone else? e.g. jumping in front of a train. Or even kill them (landing on their head when jumping off a building). Do you really want to subject a loved one to discovering your brains splattered all over the living room wall?

Then there's the risk of getting interrupted or failing to kill yourself and leaving yourself alive with even less quality of life.

And for some people, it's not even physically possible. e.g. paraplegics, prisoners or those otherwise institutionalised.

Yes and there's the nonzero possibility that you just go from the frying pan to the fire ... now you're a paralyzed drooling faceless idiot who survived a gunshot to the head. It's not that easy to kill yourself. I read recently of a British woman who became one of Hitler's mistresses, who became distraught when war was officially declared between Germany and Britain, and put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger ... and survived, for several years, until the bullet, which was too dangerous to remove, became infected and she died of meningitis.

Say you get the correct medication in pill form to end your life (the semi-mythical "peaceful pill"). You have to administer that with proper dosage of an anti-emetic or you are likely to just vomit it back up; your body knows what you're trying to do. It takes experience and will to do such things correctly. That is the whole reason for physician assistance in these matters.

The best way is what Cave Bear termed a "veterinarian-like" intravenous cocktail to put you to sleep and then decisively stop your heart. Administered by a professional in a clinical setting, not by some amateur executioner in a state prison.

The next best way is a properly constructed tent or plastic bag infused with an inert gas like helium or nitrogen which will cause you to lose consciousness and pass within a minute or two from asphyxiation ... without the discomfort (although not without some body spasms that occur after you lose consciousness that can seem alarming to observers -- the so-called "death struggle").

The idea of helping people with such things is to make it less stressful and fraught for themselves any any present and supportive loved ones so they can focus on the simple question of whether, and when, they want to continue having new experiences or not, given their circumstances -- without having to become a Dr Kevorkian sort of expert in the mechanics of going about it.

[Cavebear]

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.

You continue to miss the point because you are defending the idea and not addressing any of the arguments against it. You are focusing on the individual while I am talking about fundamentally changing society in a trajectory toward the cheapening of life. We have evidence of this already as euthanasia and assisted suicide laws are becoming more expansive in the countries that were early adopters. I couldn't ask for better evidence to back up my point.

QUESTION: Do you think assisted suicide should be available for non-terminal chronic pain, mental illness, or depression?

Yes.