A Secular Case Against Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

[SteveII]

You are making a category error here. (1) There are rights that you haves simply by being human. Examples: certain inalienable rights--to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. (2) There are rights you have because you live in a particular society. Examples: education, healthcare, social safety net, justice system.

My comment was: No one was able to show that some sort of right of bodily autonomy required institutionalizing an EAS regime.

Bodily autonomy rights are in category 1.  EAS rights are in category 2. You can't make the case that they belong in 1, because:

Criticism of the Counterarguments
In discussions on EAS, the claim that it is the ethical thing to do is often framed in terms of a "right to die." However, if such a right were truly intrinsic, it would be a purely autonomous right—one that does not require external validation, medical conditions, or approval processes. Yet, in every legal framework where EAS is permitted, there are requirements for medical evaluation, approval, and procedural oversight. This suggests that what is being asserted is not merely a right to die, but a right to be relieved of a perceived future suffering through external assistance in dying.

Read that last sentence again. In no way is this an inalienable right.

And you're making an artificial distinction where none reasonably exists. The patient is exercising their right to die. The assistance is there to keep things humane and tidy. The paperwork exists to prevent abuses and protect against nutjobs.

They only have a very limited "right to die". It is not an inalienable nor intrinsic right because in this case, the limit pulls any inalienable/intrinsic justification off the table.

By your reasoning, life would cease to be an intrinsic right the moment that it required any assistance to maintain it. The right to religious freedom would be an extrinsic right given that you need a church, scripture, and all the other trappings. Rights aren't defined by what goes around them.

The right to religions freedom is a negative right. See my discussion/distinction on that above with Danu.

[SteveII]

Are you seriously saying that a right to a, narrow does not begin to describe it, government regulated regime is analogous to a right a human being has as it passes through the normal arc of development that every human ever has passed through?

Let's count the ways it is not.

1. Natural vs. Artificial: Pregnancy is the default biological process. EAS requires an extraordinary intervention by specialized professionals.
   
2. Negative vs. Positive Right: Continuing to develop in the womb is a negative right (freedom from being killed), while EAS demands a positive right (obligation for someone to assist in ending life).
   
3. Non-Action vs. Action: In pregnancy, not intervening allows the natural process of growth. In EAS, an active step—administering lethal means—terminates life.
   
4. I'm being consistent, not 'making Ad Hoc' exceptions: In both cases, I favor not disrupting the process of life. It’s the same principle applied to different contexts.
   

Your logic suggests that I should have died at 18 due to a ruptured appendix.  A medical intervention saved me.  That was a biological event.  How is a pregnancy all that different?

I'm not getting into that again here. You can read through the 1312 posts in the Abortion Thread if you want to understand the difference.

[Dānu]

None of which has anything to do with the original distinction you were making.  If an intrinsic right must be self-actualized, as you claimed, then the fetus has no such right either.

I’m not claiming that all intrinsic rights must be 100% self-fulfilled—just that the so-called ‘autonomous right to die’ can’t be truly autonomous if it always depends on someone else actively causing death.

The critical difference (and what makes the abortion issues disanalogous) is in the positive-negative right distinction. I said just above:

Negative vs. Positive Right: Continuing to develop in the womb is a negative right (freedom from being killed), while EAS demands a positive right (obligation for someone to assist in ending life).

A positive right adds a complexity to the claim of a right. In the EAS case, this layer actually undercuts the original basis to claim the right: that of bodily autonomy. If bodily autonomy was sufficient to justify the right, it seems that the right should be autonomous. In other words, it would look like the ability to get assistance to end your own life at will, no questions asked. It is not. In fact it is substantially restricted.

The right to life, as a negative right, is truly intrinsic. It does not have the baggage of relying on some other underlying right. It simply requires non-action.

Actually they're both positive rights in that sense as the fetus depends upon the mother taking certain actions and refraining from others.

Now, unless you want to relitigate the abortion argument, which you apparently do not, I suggest you drop it.

[Paleophyte]

They only have a very limited "right to die". It is not an inalienable nor intrinsic right because in this case, the limit pulls any inalienable/intrinsic justification off the table.

No right is inalienable, Your right to life can be taken away quite easily by a despotic state.

The right to religions freedom is a negative right.

They only have a very limited "right to religion". It is not an inalienable nor intrinsic right because in this case, the limit pulls any inalienable/intrinsic justification off the table. I mean sure, if they want to enjoy a very private religion within the confines of their head they're free welcome to it, but anything organized will involve other individuals and is potentially corrosive to society...

Regardless, you can't go pitching rights out simply because they aren't positive rights. If you examine the relationship of right/duty it's between the patient seeking assistance and the doctor providing it. The state has no role within that except to provide reasonable safeguards and protections. Proscription is nothing more than meddling by the state where it doesn't belong.

[epronovost]

 It is not an inalienable nor intrinsic right because in this case, the limit pulls any inalienable/intrinsic justification off the table.

That's a remarkably stupid argument. There is not such thing as a "limitless" right to anything. Yes, even inalienable, intrinsic fundamental rights have limits, caveats and conditions to their expression and to the institutions designed to enforce and protect them. It's not because you have a right to property that you can own anything and everything without conditions. It's not because you have a right to freedom you can say and do whatever you want whenever you want. It's not because you have a right to life and safety that you will be protected, defended and healed of absolutely everything that might present a risk. A limit might exist for the simultaneous enjoyment of other rights or other people's rights or for practical purpose. This if of course true for EAS.

PS: Also, the fact that EAS is often extended to wider category of people would make it more and more inalienable/intrinsic or at least support that this was the intent all along and the very cause behind this extension of the service once its popularity and effectiveness has been established.

[SteveII]

 It is not an inalienable nor intrinsic right because in this case, the limit pulls any inalienable/intrinsic justification off the table.

That's a remarkably stupid argument.

Imagine for a minute that I have explained this point at least 5 times using many hundreds of words and a summary is not an 'argument'.

There is not such thing as a "limitless" right to anything. Yes, even inalienable, intrinsic fundamental rights have limits, caveats and conditions to their expression and to the institutions designed to enforce and protect them. It's not because you have a right to property that you can own anything and everything without conditions. It's not because you have a right to freedom you can say and do whatever you want whenever you want. It's not because you have a right to life and safety that you will be protected, defended and healed of absolutely everything that might present a risk. A limit might exist for the simultaneous enjoyment of other rights or other people's rights or for practical purpose. This if of course true for EAS.

PS: Also, the fact that EAS is often extended to wider category of people would make it more and more inalienable/intrinsic or at least support that this was the intent all along and the very cause behind this extension of the service once its popularity and effectiveness has been established.

For the, let's call it the sixth time, if you believe the right to EAS is some sort of basic right, then you are doing so on the basis of a bodily autonomy argument. But the fact that EAS, this 'basic right,' is significantly limited undermines the rationale for it being as 'basic right' because when you place limits (which are different in each jurisdiction) on a bodily autonomy argument, it undermines it. So you are left with two choices: (1) that the concept of basic bodily autonomy is not intrinsic or (2) that EAS is not correctly understood as a purely bodily autonomy argument and cannot trade on its intrinsic nature. Which one is true?

Your "PS" seems to be a post hoc rationalization. Something cannot become "more and more inalienable/intrinsic". You either need (a) an argument that it always was or (b) it never was.

[epronovost]

For the, let's call it the sixth time, if you believe the right to EAS is some sort of basic right, then you are doing so on the basis of a bodily autonomy argument.

EAS is not a basic right. It's an institution/service that allows for a basic right (and the right is called "freedom" not "bodily autonomy") to be actualized. It's just like how a class on herpetology is an institution/service that allows for a basic right (education) to be actualized. It's not the only one and the right to education and freedom exists without such institutions/services, but their absence, if noted and problematic, might very well reclaim it as something essential and something their are "due" because they have a right to freedom and education. Afterall, why shouldn't I be able to take class on herpetology if I have a fundamental right to education, knowledge and learning? If I have a fundamental right to life, safety and freedom, why can't I demand aid to die when the pain of my existence is too much to bear for me?

But the fact that EAS, this 'basic right,' is significantly limited undermines the rationale for it being as 'basic right' because when you place limits (which are different in each jurisdiction) on a bodily autonomy argument, it undermines it.

 

All rights no matter how basic have limitations either due to the nature of human interraction or the equilibrium between the rights themselves. EAS has limits and requirements because it's a medical service, not a right. It's a medical service which, like all medical service, serves to actualize human rights to life, safety and/or freedom (and possibly others). A limit to a service is in no way undermining a fundamental right and all fundamental rights have limits on their application and actualization for various reason. The limits of EAS can be due to a variety of factors that include safety as to avoid a non-rational actor from getting hamed accidently or limiting the service to people who don't have the physical capacities necessary to kill themselves (to name just a few reasons).There is no such thing as an "unlimited right" in the first place either.

So you are left with two choices: (1) that the concept of basic bodily autonomy is not intrinsic or (2) that EAS is not correctly understood as a purely bodily autonomy argument and cannot trade on its intrinsic nature. Which one is true?

Neither. You keep making hte same category errors and constantly misunderstand and misuse the concept of human rights.

Your "PS" seems to be a post hoc rationalization. Something cannot become "more and more inalienable/intrinsic".  You either need (a) an argument that it always was or (b) it never was.

That's the point I was making. This doesn't make any sense. A right is inalienable/intinsic when suppressing such right is criminal/immoral in nature. It has nothing to do with potential restrictions and limitation to its application which all rights have to various degree and for different reasons like institutional or technological limitations for example.

[Paleophyte]

For the, let's call it the sixth time, if you believe the right to EAS is some sort of basic right, then you are doing so on the basis of a bodily autonomy argument.   But the fact that EAS, this 'basic right,' is significantly limited undermines the rationale for it being as 'basic right' because when you place limits (which are different in each jurisdiction) on a bodily autonomy argument, it undermines it.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. The fact that a right can be limited tells you bugger all about the nature of that right itself. Freedom of expression and religion are limited in many countries today. The right to life has been limited in the USA via the death penalty, often unjustly.

The argument that MAID requires the actions of another individual to exercise it makes more sense, and in that respect it could well be viewed as a negative right. It does not reside exclusively within the individual itself. Neither does it reside within the state. The right/duty/responsibility relationship exists exclusively between the patient and the doctor.

If you're going to start arguing against negative rights then I have some very bad news for you regarding your freedom of religion:

• The freedom of religious belief that occurs exclusively within your head is a positive right. It requires no outside participants.
  
• The freedom of organized religion that occurs between individuals is a negative right. It requires any number of faithful, and when they withdraw their consent your right is revoked. See the Reformation and Thirty Years War for examples. If nobody believes as you do then you have no such right.
  
• The freedom to indoctrinate minors, even your own children, is a negative right and questionable at best. In cases where harm has been demonstrated it's been revoked. I know that you'd like to think that you have this right but I expect that you'd view it differently if you found an Imam instructing your kids.
  
• The freedom to evangelized at non-consenting victims is nonexistent. That's why Saturday morning door-knockers have to piss off when I tell them to. My rights to property and peace of mind beat whatever they imagine they have without ever getting up off the couch.
  

[SteveII]

For the, let's call it the sixth time, if you believe the right to EAS is some sort of basic right, then you are doing so on the basis of a bodily autonomy argument.

EAS is not a basic right. It's an institution/service that allows for a basic right (and the right is called "freedom" not "bodily autonomy") to be actualized. It's just like how a class on herpetology is an institution/service that allows for a basic right (education) to be actualized. It's not the only one and the right to education and freedom exists without such institutions/services, but their absence, if noted and problematic, might very well reclaim it as something essential and something their are "due" because they have a right to freedom and education. Afterall, why shouldn't I be able to take class on herpetology if I have a fundamental right to education, knowledge and learning? If I have a fundamental right to life, safety and freedom, why can't I demand aid to die when the pain of my existence is too much to bear for me?

But the fact that EAS, this 'basic right,' is significantly limited undermines the rationale for it being as 'basic right' because when you place limits (which are different in each jurisdiction) on a bodily autonomy argument, it undermines it.

 

All rights no matter how basic have limitations either due to the nature of human interaction or the equilibrium between the rights themselves. EAS has limits and requirements because it's a medical service, not a right. It's a medical service which, like all medical service, serves to actualize human rights to life, safety and/or freedom (and possibly others). A limit to a service is in no way undermining a fundamental right and all fundamental rights have limits on their application and actualization for various reason. There is no such thing as an "unlimited right".

So you are left with two choices: (1) that the concept of basic bodily autonomy is not intrinsic or (2) that EAS is not correctly understood as a purely bodily autonomy argument and cannot trade on its intrinsic nature. Which one is true?

Neither. You keep making hte same category errors and constantly misunderstand and misuse the concept of human rights.

Your "PS" seems to be a post hoc rationalization. Something cannot become "more and more inalienable/intrinsic".  You either need (a) an argument that it always was or (b) it never was.

That's the point I was making. This doesn't make any sense. A right is inalienable/intinsic when suppressing such right is criminal/immoral in nature.

As always, definitions help us think clearly about things (including myself).

1) Basic Right
A basic right is a fundamental entitlement deemed essential for individual freedom and well-being, recognized or established through social consensus or legal frameworks. It typically serves as a foundational guarantee that protects core human interests.

2) Intrinsic Right
An intrinsic right is an inherent moral claim arising from a being’s very nature or dignity, independent of external recognition or legislation. It is often viewed as universal, inalienable, grounding its authority in the inherent worth of persons rather than in societal or legal endorsements.

3) The Interplay Between the Two
In many moral philosophies, societies choose to codify these intrinsic rights as basic rights, but the two ideas are conceptually distinct.

You say that EAS is not a basic right, but then you say that EAS facilitates a basic right. There is no meaningful difference when you are discussing the nature of the right. If you want to claim either of those things should be a "basic right," fine, that is your position--it has become such in several countries (<5% of the world's population).  What it is not is "intrinsic" -- which is my point. Why does this matter? Because under no ethical system, does your argument compel me to agree with you.

Education is a good example and analogous because it requires society to form an institution to deliver it. There is a compelling argument that it should be considered a basic right. But it is an intrinsic right? That brings in the concept of negative and positive rights.

Negative Right:
• A right that only requires others not to interfere with you.
• Example: freedom of speech, religion, property, seizures or detention without due process
• No special approval or extraordinary action from another person is needed—just non-action.

Positive Right:
• A right that requires someone else’s active cooperation or assistance.
• Example: education, healthcare, welfare, EAS, legal counsel, other public services
• This is more than just leaving you alone; it’s an affirmative service.

Why Positive Rights are not Intrinsic Rights
Historically, only negative rights (freedom from interference) are viewed as truly intrinsic, while positive rights (claims on others’ resources or actions) arise through social contracts or collective agreements. It's hard to show an absolute, inherent moral obligation to actively serve others, especially when resources are scarce or personal liberties might be constrained. Positive rights inherently raise questions of who must provide the service, how to distribute costs, and what level of service is required. Because these are messy policy questions, philosophers say positive rights aren’t intrinsic but rather "institutional" or "derived from social context."

At the end, EAS regimes are not based on anything close to a moral imperative (stemming from an intrinsic-based argument). I did not just say it was not a moral issue, just that it is not an moral imperative. As such any number of objections are sufficient justifications to oppose it. My four original argument are moral in nature and the concerns they bring up are sufficient grounds to oppose EAS from being considered a 'basic right'.

[epronovost]

Negative Right:
• A right that only requires others not to interfere with you.
• Example: freedom of speech, religion, property, seizures or detention without due process
• No special approval or extraordinary action from another person is needed—just non-action.

Positive Right:
• A right that requires someone else’s active cooperation or assistance.
• Example: education, healthcare, welfare, EAS, legal counsel, other public services
• This is more than just leaving you alone; it’s an affirmative service.

All rights have positive and negative frammings and aspects. Let's take education. Did you know you can learn things by yourself and for yourself? That would require no intererence by anybody; making education a negative right because you can educate yourself through experiments and observation is thus possible. But, you can also learn things from others which would be positive. Is it possible to live a human life without people teaching you things? Absolutely not; even a society attempting to restrain the right to education as much as possible will have to tolerate the concept of people educating other people. Life and safety also has positive and negative frammings.  

Why Positive Rights are not Intrinsic Rights
Historically, only negative rights (freedom from interference) are viewed as truly intrinsic, while positive rights (claims on others’ resources or actions) arise through social contracts or collective agreements. It's hard to show an absolute, inherent moral obligation to actively serve others, especially when resources are scarce or personal liberties might be constrained. Positive rights inherently raise questions of who must provide the service, how to distribute costs, and what level of service is required. Because these are messy policy questions, philosophers say positive rights aren’t intrinsic but rather "institutional" or "derived from social context."

Rights have positive and negative frammings and application. It's not because rights are limited by political pressure or some circumstances that they stop being inherent and fundamental. Take housing or food for example. Since we recognize a right to life and safety and that humans need shelter and food to live, be safe and healthy, we morally recognize the fact that those things are absolutely essential and that society should provide those services to all of its members. Society does not do so and this is widely perceived as morally wrong. Moral arguments have been made against the principle of homelessness; especially in developped countries where enough wealth is generated to make sure everybody has a home. It doesn't mean its illegal to starve or be without shelter or to place someone in a situation where they lose their shelter and/or their access to food. Not letting people the choice to kill themselves when they believe their life has ran its course is immoral. It's just as immoral as letting someone sleep under a bridge for extended period of time, but it doesn't mean its something that doesn't or couldn't happen. We do have the resources necessary to implement EAS just like we have the resources to make sure everybody has a home; you cannot deny those things based on scarcity or feasability.  

Social contracts and collective agreements determine what is legal and what is not. It determines what is; not what should be. Your moral obligations may extend well beyond the social contracts and collective agreements since rights can extend well beyond their codification in the law. Equality, freedom, justice, life, safety, education, property all rights with codified meanings in social contracts, but what they are and how one can appeal to them extands well beyond the codification.

At the end, EAS regimes are not based on anything close to a moral imperative (stemming from an intrinsic-based argument). I did not just say it was not a moral issue, just that it is not an moral imperative. As such any number of objections are sufficient justifications to oppose it. My four original argument are moral in nature and the concerns they bring up are sufficient grounds to oppose EAS from being considered a 'basic right'.

EAS regimes are based on a moral imperative. You completely ignored it in my last post and that of others. You have a moral obligation to let people control their lives. They are free. Freedom is good. If they think their suffering is unbearable and their life to an end and they want to ask help to die (and there are people willing to help), then you must. You must because you value their freedom and their dignity and their ability to make choices about themselves and for their own benefit. People have expressed that wish; the means to execute their wishes exists (some assholes might even consider EAS as a way to save money and medical resources as killing someone very sick might be a lot cheaper than keeping them alive for a few months/years); doctors and nurses are willing to help such people realize their wishes. In places where EAS doesn't exist it's because the law explicitly exclude it. We positively restrict this rights. EAS is not illegal in many places because nobody wants to die in such a way nor because nobody wants to help someone to die in such way, but because the States actively prevents and punishes severely anybody who would do it.

[SteveII]

As always, definitions help us think clearly about things (including myself).

1) Basic Right [or civil/political right]
A basic right is a fundamental entitlement deemed essential for individual freedom and well-being, recognized or established through social consensus or legal frameworks. It typically serves as a foundational guarantee that protects core human interests.

2) Intrinsic Right [aka natural rights, inalienable rights, freedoms, rights of man]
An intrinsic right is an inherent moral claim arising from a being’s very nature or dignity, independent of external recognition or legislation. It is often viewed as universal, inalienable, grounding its authority in the inherent worth of persons rather than in societal or legal endorsements.

3) The Interplay Between the Two
In many moral philosophies, societies choose to codify these intrinsic rights as basic rights, but the two ideas are conceptually distinct.

No they are not necessarily distinct. In Enlightenment philosophy, intrincic rights, natural rights, fundamental rights, basic rights are all synonimous. In such a framming, there are rights (what humans have and should have by virtue of their humanity) and there is law which is the result of human convention and enforcement. Of course it doesn't mean there aren't other philosophies who made different observations and prescriptions as to how rights operate and what they are. For example, freedom is a intrinsic right of humans because it has an inherent value and fundamental to the human experience and dignity and the same can be said for a plethora of otheres. Many laws and acts enshrine that right into the social fabric of human society and allows it to be expressed and protected.

While that is technically true, it is not useful in this discussion. The Enlightenment thinkers would not have used "basic rights" terminology like we do today. They would have used "civil" or "political rights" for the category I called "basic rights". I added the notation in my definitions above. While we are at it, they had different words for what I called intrinsic rights as well (natural rights, inalienable rights, freedoms, rights of man).  BUT, what is true and important to this discussion is that they distinguished between the two no matter what the term used.

What it is not is "intrinsic" -- which is my point. Why does this matter? Because under no ethical system, does your argument compel me to agree with you.

Under my ethical system, that of secular humanism, you are indeed compelled to accept the idea that people have control over their lives which includes the manner of their death because in my ethical system, freedom has a inherent and fundamental moral value. The fact you do not feel compelled to agree with me is purely due to the fact you are not operating and debating under the same ethical system; you explicitly rejected the notion that freedom has an inherent value. This is why everybody disagrees with your argument and finds it terrible. You make the assumption that people are not supposed to be free to decide what to do with their lives and how to end it.

Not true at all for 3 reasons:

1) I accept "freedom has a inherent and fundamental moral value" so our moral systems are not in tension on that particular. I don't agree with your application because of (2) and (3).
2) Your statement entails something you don't presumably believe. If we "are indeed compelled to accept the idea that people have control over their lives which includes the manner of their death," then there are no restrictions on that. Requirements of suffering, impending death, loss of dignity, loss of function, are all things that limit the right and are therefore ad hoc according to your justification. Your error is in the "compelled to accept..." which makes your claim based on a right from the intrinsic category of rights but really what you believe lines up with a [civil or political] right category.
3) You have not bridged the logical gap between an individual's right to control their body and having the right to medical assistance in death. I am not saying that you cannot bridge that gap, but your problem is that once you articulate it, it becomes clear you go from the concept of a negative right (which can be argued is an intrinsic right) to an assertion of a positive right, which changes the whole character of your claim.

Negative Right:
• A right that only requires others not to interfere with you.
• Example: freedom of speech, religion, property, seizures or detention without due process
• No special approval or extraordinary action from another person is needed—just non-action.

Positive Right:
• A right that requires someone else’s active cooperation or assistance.
• Example: education, healthcare, welfare, EAS, legal counsel, other public services
• This is more than just leaving you alone; it’s an affirmative service.

All rights have positive and negative frammings and aspects. Let's take education. Did you know you can learn things by yourself and for yourself? That would require no intererence by anybody; making education a negative right because you can educate yourself through experiments and observation is thus possible. But, you can also learn things from others which would be positive. Is it possible to live a human life without people teaching you things? Absolutely not; even a society attempting to restrain the right to education as much as possible will have to tolerate the concept of people educating other people. Life and safety also has positive and negative frammings.  

No. "The right to...an education" is what the example presents. In 100% of the cases that means that society will bear the cost and responsibility to provide a structured education up until a certain point--a textbook case of a positive right. The closest negative right to what you are describing is freedom of thought, speech, or expression.

Why Positive Rights are not Intrinsic Rights
Historically, only negative rights (freedom from interference) are viewed as truly intrinsic, while positive rights (claims on others’ resources or actions) arise through social contracts or collective agreements. It's hard to show an absolute, inherent moral obligation to actively serve others, especially when resources are scarce or personal liberties might be constrained. Positive rights inherently raise questions of who must provide the service, how to distribute costs, and what level of service is required. Because these are messy policy questions, philosophers say positive rights aren’t intrinsic but rather "institutional" or "derived from social context."

Rights have positive and negative frammings and application. It's not because rights are limited by political pressure or some circumstances that they stop being inherent and fundamental. Take housing or food for example. Since we recognize a right to life and safety and that humans need shelter and food to live, be safe and healthy, we morally recognize the fact that those things are absolutely essential and that society should provide those services to all of its members. Society does not do so and this is widely perceived as morally wrong. Moral arguments have been made against the principle of homelessness; especially in developped countries where enough wealth is generated to make sure everybody has a home. It doesn't mean its illegal to starve or be without shelter or to place someone in a situation where they lose their shelter and/or their access to food. Not letting people the choice to kill themselves when they believe their life has ran its course is immoral. It's just as immoral as letting someone sleep under a bridge for extended period of time, but it doesn't mean its something that doesn't or couldn't happen. We do have the resources necessary to implement EAS just like we have the resources to make sure everybody has a home; you cannot deny those things based on scarcity or feasability.  

No, rights do not have positive and negative framings and application. That is just being sloppy or lazy with your moral claims.

Let's take housing or food as an example. Does a right to life entail the right to have others provide a person with housing and food? No, because we would word that as a right to basic necessities.  BUT societies around the world have recognized some measure of those things to be "fundamental entitlement[s]deemed essential for individual freedom and well-being, recognized or established through social consensus or legal frameworks" (quoting my definition of basic, civil, political rights above).  So we have made it so in the countries that can afford it (another clue).  EAS is the same in that you are trying to connect it to another, more basic right when you are really just coming up with a new right. In the case of EAS, it is not clear that killing people when they want is even a "fundamental entitlementdeemed essential for individual freedom" as evidence by the fact that the 4% of the countries that have it, significantly restricting it.

Social contracts and collective agreements determine what is legal and what is not. It determines what is; not what should be. Your moral obligations may extend well beyond the social contracts and collective agreements since rights can extend well beyond their codification in the law. Equality, freedom, justice, life, safety, education, property all rights with codified meanings in social contracts, but what they are and how one can appeal to them extands well beyond the codification.

At the end, EAS regimes are not based on anything close to a moral imperative (stemming from an intrinsic-based argument). I did not just say it was not a moral issue, just that it is not an moral imperative. As such any number of objections are sufficient justifications to oppose it. My four original argument are moral in nature and the concerns they bring up are sufficient grounds to oppose EAS from being considered a 'basic right'.

EAS regimes are based on a moral imperative. You completely ignored it in my last post and that of others. You have a moral obligation to let people control their lives. They are free. Freedom is good. If they think their suffering is unbearable and their life to an end and they want to ask help to die (and there are people willing to help), then you must. You must because you value their freedom and their dignity and their ability to make choices about themselves and for their own benefit. People have expressed that wish; the means to execute their wishes exists (some assholes might even consider EAS as a way to save money and medical resources as killing someone very sick might be a lot cheaper than keeping them alive for a few months/years); doctors and nurses are willing to help such people realize their wishes. In places where EAS doesn't exist it's because the law explicitly exclude it. We positively restrict this rights. EAS is not illegal in many places because nobody wants to die in such a way nor because nobody wants to help someone to die in such way, but because the States actively prevents and punishes severely anybody who would do it.

Well, I addressed the first part of this above.

The second part is an interesting point that I don't think helps your argument. In most jurisdictions, except in rare circumstances where your right to life is at risk, taking someone's life is unlawful.  Why? Because of a presumption of a right to life. An intrinsic right (or, if you prefer: natural rights, inalienable rights, freedoms, rights of man). Also of the negative right variety: to be left alone. The overall idea is very much in keeping with my 4 arguments.

An EAS regime upends this by asserting a whole new civil/political right of the positive variety and we are supposed to believe that it is based on a more foundational right? It is not, it is clearly a cheapening of life compared with the 300 years of enlightenment thought on natural rights which the prohibition lines up much better with.

[Paleophyte]

An EAS regime upends this by asserting a whole new civil/political right of the positive variety and we are supposed to believe that it is based on a more foundational right? It is not, it is clearly a cheapening of life compared with the 300 years of enlightenment thought on natural rights which the prohibition lines up much better with.

As much fun as I'm having listening to you pontificate about "the 300 years of enlightenment thought on natural rights" that brought us the Salem Witch Trials and orphans as a cheap source of expendable labour and fuel, let's simply cut to the chase.

You've failed to present a compelling reason why the state should have any right to prohibit MAID. Being fictive entities, states don't have inherent rights, so have fun with that.

You've failed to demonstrate that amateur hour DIY suicide is less harmful and horrible than MAID, which is where prohibition gets you.

In a nutshell, there's no moral grounds for prohibition and it makes the world worse in just about every way.

[epronovost]

2) Your statement entails something you don't presumably believe. If we "are indeed compelled to accept the idea that people have control over their lives which includes the manner of their death," then there are no restrictions on that. Requirements of suffering, impending death, loss of dignity, loss of function, are all things that limit the right and are therefore ad hoc according to your justification. Your error is in the "compelled to accept..." which makes your claim based on a right from the intrinsic category of rights but really what you believe lines up with a [civil or political] right category.

You have an unlimited and unrestricted right to end your life. Don't forget suicide is absolutely legal no matter why you do it. Note that the service for medically assisted suicide is reserved for people which meet certain conditions because it's a specialized service aimed at people who want to die, a rational about this subject and can't kill themselves due to their condition.

3) You have not bridged the logical gap between an individual's right to control their body and having the right to medical assistance in death.

If doctors agree to help you end your life, why should they be threatened with sanctions, including to serious criminal sentences for it? WHy prevent them from doing so? The question is almost never why X should be legalized, but the opposite. Why should X be illegal. Freedom is the norm and the restriction are the exception. You keep making this semantic mistake. 

No. "The right to...an education" is what the example presents. In 100% of the cases that means that society will bear the cost and responsibility to provide a structured education up until a certain point--a textbook case of a positive right. The closest negative right to what you are describing is freedom of thought, speech, or expression.

Except, as I mentioned, a right to education doesn't require a structured education (it certainly help to have such things), but education doesn't mean only structured education. When the right to education was penned down by philosophers during the Renaissance the idea of formal education with schools and textbook was not what they had in mind if only because that's not a structure that was very widespread at the time. IF you read Rousseau, his idea of education is precisely without strong structure, but indeed with the support of a mentor. Education can be acquired without direct outside help on many occasion. That's what observation and experimentation as well as travel and general life experience and trade can provide you.

Note that freedom of thought, speech or expression, while closely related to and intertwined with a right to education also require positive and negative actions to be in effect. In fact, some philosophers did consider education to simply be a function of the freedom of thought, speech and expression. After all, if there is a freedom of expression, one has, by definition, the freedom to listen and learn from it, thus a right to an education.

No, rights do not have positive and negative framings and application.

That's demonstrably wrong. I just did with education. If you can learn by yourself you have a negative right to education; if you can expect someone's help you have a positive right to it too.

Let's take housing or food as an example. Does a right to life entail the right to have others provide a person with housing and food? No, because we would word that as a right to basic necessities.

And here you built a strawman. The right to life entails access to food and housing. How you obtain food and housing is irrelevent, but for your right to life to be real you need to have access to food and shelter. Food and shelter are basic necessities for your enjoyment of the right to life and safety. Any society that fails to provide access to food and housing to all of its members is depriving said members of the right to life and safety and is immoral. Note that you can claim that a society is too poor to provide access to food and shelter to all its members, but this, in itself, is a tragedy and a problem that needs to be urgently resolved since there is a moral imperative to protect and save lives.

You are attempting to frame rights and freedom in a way where the powerful can have the fruit of their enjoyment without being bothered by the demands of the weak for equal enjoyment of them. This is a vicious and immoral framing of universal right doctrine that also coveniently forgets there is such a thing as a right to justice and equality which demand and compel positive actions as well as negative options. Note that this vicious framing is how political and social conservative of the 19th century attempted to render toothless the ideas of the Enlightenment and Renaissance which inspired the workers' rights movement as well the feminist and cosmopolitanism revolution that used it as foundation. 

In the case of EAS, it is not clear that killing people when they want is even a "fundamental entitlementdeemed essential for individual freedom" as evidence by the fact that the 4% of the countries that have it, significantly restricting it.

Suicide is legal in all society where EAS is legal and suicide is legal under the premise that people have the ultimate authority and possession of their lives. You can do to yourself whatever you want; you simply can't force someone to do anything to you. EAS is simply a service provided to people who already possess the right to end their lives through suicide. The question is why should it be forbidden to help a sane individual to kill themselves when they require help.

The second part is an interesting point that I don't think helps your argument. In most jurisdictions, except in rare circumstances where your right to life is at risk, taking someone's life is unlawful.  Why? Because of a presumption of a right to life.

Except you are not robbing the life of someone; you are helping someone die at their convenience and to help them. You are not compelled to do so either; you help someone if you want to. It would be just as absurd to say that because people have a right to property that you can't accept a gift because it's depriving someone of their property without compensation. If we have a presumption of a right to life; we presume that a person has the right to kill themselves.

[SteveII]

An EAS regime upends this by asserting a whole new civil/political right of the positive variety and we are supposed to believe that it is based on a more foundational right? It is not, it is clearly a cheapening of life compared with the 300 years of enlightenment thought on natural rights which the prohibition lines up much better with.

As much fun as I'm having listening to you pontificate about "the 300 years of enlightenment thought on natural rights" that brought us the Salem Witch Trials and orphans as a cheap source of expendable labour and fuel, let's simply cut to the chase.

You've failed to present a compelling reason why the state should have any right to prohibit MAID. Being fictive entities, states don't have inherent rights, so have fun with that.

You've failed to demonstrate that amateur hour DIY suicide is less harmful and horrible than MAID, which is where prohibition gets you.

In a nutshell, there's no moral grounds for prohibition and it makes the world worse in just about every way.

So you have said.

I am now interested in exploring the technical aspects of rights in general and the logical errors those arguing for MAID make.

[Paleophyte]

I am now interested in exploring the technical aspects of rights in general and the logical errors those arguing for MAID make.

So since the facts don't support your argument you're arguing philosophy. 

Well, then as Epronovost has mentioned, society doesn't exist to take rights away. The correct question isn't why we should have MAID, it's why we should have proscription. Your logical error is seeing a terminal patient and a willing doctor and thinking that you have any right to stick your society between them. Until you can demonstrate some right for society to proscribe MAID it doesn't matter what the technical aspects are, because society has no right, inherent or otherwise.

And FYI, proscription isn't the result of "300 years of enlightenment thinking". It comes from a much older tradition of religious dogma and authoritarianism.

[Paleophyte]

In the case of EAS, it is not clear that killing people when they want is even a "fundamental entitlement deemed essential for individual freedom" as evidence by the fact that the 4% of the countries that have it, significantly restricting it.

If something is morally right or wrong then it is always right or wrong regardless of how many or how few may legislate it to be so. Something isn't right because it's permitted by a certain society at a certain time, as a quick read of some of the darker chapters of our species all too readily demonstrates.

[SteveII]

2) Your statement entails something you don't presumably believe. If we "are indeed compelled to accept the idea that people have control over their lives which includes the manner of their death," then there are no restrictions on that. Requirements of suffering, impending death, loss of dignity, loss of function, are all things that limit the right and are therefore ad hoc according to your justification. Your error is in the "compelled to accept..." which makes your claim based on a right from the intrinsic category of rights but really what you believe lines up with a [civil or political] right category.

You have an unlimited and unrestricted right to end your life. Don't forget suicide is absolutely legal no matter why you do it. Note that the service for medically assisted suicide is reserved for people which meet certain conditions because it's a specialized service aimed at people who want to die, a rational about this subject and can't kill themselves due to their condition.

I didn't ask if you had a right to kill yourself. That is self-evidently the case. We are discussing on what basis one has a right to assistance. You reiterated the limited nature of the assistance (albeit far more generous than most implementations of EAS). But here's the thing, if we "are indeed compelled to accept the idea that people have control over their lives which includes the manner of their death," as the justification for the right to EAS, then it cannot be limited. To limit it is to admit the justification is insufficient in all but a narrow set of circumstances.

3) You have not bridged the logical gap between an individual's right to control their body and having the right to medical assistance in death.

If doctors agree to help you end your life, why should they be threatened with sanctions, including to serious criminal sentences for it? WHy prevent them from doing so? The question is almost never why X should be legalized, but the opposite. Why should X be illegal. Freedom is the norm and the restriction are the exception. You keep making this semantic mistake. 

The answer to that is contained in the answer to why we have restrictions. Why are participants screened for narrow requirements? Why doctors? Why are people put on suicide watch or mandatory 72-hour hospital hold following an attempt? The value of life is so high that we put up barriers to the taking of it. Removing of barriers is one of the most serious moral questions you can contemplate.

Let's take housing or food as an example. Does a right to life entail the right to have others provide a person with housing and food? No, because we would word that as a right to basic necessities.

And here you built a strawman. The right to life entails access to food and housing. How you obtain food and housing is irrelevent, but for your right to life to be real you need to have access to food and shelter. Food and shelter are basic necessities for your enjoyment of the right to life and safety. Any society that fails to provide access to food and housing to all of its members is depriving said members of the right to life and safety and is immoral. Note that you can claim that a society is too poor to provide access to food and shelter to all its members, but this, in itself, is a tragedy and a problem that needs to be urgently resolved since there is a moral imperative to protect and save lives.

I think you are being sloppy which is unhelpful in how we technically think about rights.

According to just about any thinker who thought about it, the right to life is an intrinsic right (aka natural rights, inalienable rights, freedoms, rights of man) and aimed at restricting governments (and obligating them to enforce these rights).  It was clearly a negative right.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) also emphasized individual liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. It included more social dimensions than the US Declaration but still did not explicitly require the state to provide food or housing as fundamental rights.

The right to food and shelter (and other welfare services) did not come about until the 19th and 20th centuries. Some argued the right to life entailed welfare services (as you do). But notice an entailment does not mean it is the same right. Some just argued a separate social justice, human dignity, or the public good case. But it doesn't matter because the new claim was that the government had a positive obligation to redistribute wealth. From this, we can understand the right to basic welfare as:

1. Basic Right [or civil/political right]
A basic right is a fundamental entitlement deemed essential for individual freedom and well-being, recognized or established through social consensus or legal frameworks. It typically serves as a foundational guarantee that protects core human interests.

2. Positive Right:
• A right that requires someone else’s active cooperation or assistance.
• Example: education, healthcare, welfare, EAS, legal counsel, other public services
• This is more than just leaving you alone; it’s an affirmative service.

Of which the right to life is neither.

You are attempting to frame rights and freedom in a way where the powerful can have the fruit of their enjoyment without being bothered by the demands of the weak for equal enjoyment of them. This is a vicious and immoral framing of universal right doctrine that also coveniently forgets there is such a thing as a right to justice and equality which demand and compel positive actions as well as negative options. Note that this vicious framing is how political and social conservative of the 19th century attempted to render toothless the ideas of the Enlightenment and Renaissance which inspired the workers' rights movement as well the feminist and cosmopolitanism revolution that used it as foundation. 

Talk about a strawman.

[SteveII]

I am now interested in exploring the technical aspects of rights in general and the logical errors those arguing for MAID make.

Well, then as Epronovost has mentioned, society doesn't exist to take rights away. The correct question isn't why we should have MAID, it's why we should have proscription. Your logical error is seeing a terminal patient and a willing doctor and thinking that you have any right to stick your society between them. Until you can demonstrate some right for society to proscribe MAID it doesn't matter what the technical aspects are, because society has no right, inherent or otherwise.

Question: why do we "stick your society between them" then? Why do we have very narrow (relatively speaking) limits? It can't be to curb abuses alone, because you can stop abuses without putting limits. Don't give some emotional appeal for the hundredth time. How is it technically working?

[SteveII]

In the case of EAS, it is not clear that killing people when they want is even a "fundamental entitlement deemed essential for individual freedom" as evidence by the fact that the 4% of the countries that have it, significantly restricting it.

If something is morally right or wrong then it is always right or wrong regardless of how many or how few may legislate it to be so. Something isn't right because it's permitted by a certain society at a certain time, as a quick read of some of the darker chapters of our species all too readily demonstrates.

Is it morally right to kill people when they want or is it only morally right in the restricted implementation of a program like MAID? Why specifically?

[epronovost]

But here's the thing, if we "are indeed compelled to accept the idea that people have control over their lives which includes the manner of their death," as the justification for the right to EAS, then it cannot be limited. To limit it is to admit the justification is insufficient in all but a narrow set of circumstances.

Of course it can be limited. EAS is a service not a right. The justification is not limited because you indeed have a right to control your life which includes the manner of their death. You have an absolute right to kill yourself. EAS is a service designed to help people who want to die to do so if they meet certain criteria; for example they must be sane of mind and have a rational and reasonable cause to do so like being in a state of unbearable suffering for example because EAS is a medical procedure and thus has the limitation associated with medical procedures. The restriction on EAS have no impact on the absolute right of an individual to control their lives including the manner of their death. What they can't do though, is compel someone else to kill them. They have to convince them and to do that they must provide some reason and meet some criteria since people have a duty to protect each others.

The answer to that is contained in the answer to why we have restrictions. Why are participants screened for narrow requirements? Why doctors? Why are people put on suicide watch or mandatory 72-hour hospital hold following an attempt? The value of life is so high that we put up barriers to the taking of it. Removing of barriers is one of the most serious moral questions you can contemplate.

We impose restriction because we have a moral duty to positively protect the right to life and safety of people. Here, you make an excellent illustration on how human rights both have negative and positive aspect.  EAS is a medical procedure and to have access to a medical procedure one must be able to provide informed consent. A person in a severely altered mental state cannot do so; a person without information about the nature and consequences of the procedure as well as its risks cannot do so either, etc. It's entirely reasonable to put in place safety mechanism around some services as to avoid people severely mentally ill people being assumed to be sane and reasonable for example. 

Also suicide watch or mandatory 72 hours hospital holds are only binding if the person is not in a sane state of mind; that is to say they are in such a state where they can't be trusted to make clear and informed decision about themselves and for themselves. Not all suicidal people can be held against their will for a period of time. In fact, in many tragic cases, suicidal individual were admitted to the hospital following a failed attempt and then left of their own free will against doctors advices because they failed to meet the criteria to be held against their will.

According to just about any thinker who thought about it, the right to life is an intrinsic right (aka natural rights, inalienable rights, freedoms, rights of man) and aimed at restricting governments (and obligating them to enforce these rights).  It was clearly a negative right.

It's not strictly a negative right. As you clearly mentioned earlier, a right to life includes by necessity a duty of protection of said life and safety. You are morally obligated to lend aid to people in distress unless doing so would put you in similar danger. You must also be minimally considerate in your actions as to place others in situation of danger. In fact, this is so fundamental that there is even an entire class of crime known as crimes of negligence or reckless disregard to adress such issues.

The French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) also emphasized individual liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. It included more social dimensions than the US Declaration but still did not explicitly require the state to provide food or housing as fundamental rights.

You should read les Cahier de Doléances of the French Revolution and the writtings of Louis XVI finance minister Jacque Necker who explicitly mentioned that yes the State has a duty to provide food to the population precisely because the people have a right to minimal amount of protection and prosperity (note that France was at the heart of the Enlightenment philosophy and reading French philosophers and artist is pretty much essential to understand it). That founding ideological documents like the Bill of Rights or la Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme never mention specific policies on how to implement the rights they discuss and enshrine nor what is required to establish them specifically so that they remain pertinent as society and its means change. They are ideological pronounciation, not laws. It's not because some institution is not mentionned that said institution is not vital to the protection and actualization of some fundamental human rights. If one could make the argument that the State doesn't possess the communication and transport infrastructure to insure the complete and universal distribution of basic food items in the 19th century, this might no longer be the case in the 21st century. It can also serve as a justification and impulse to dedicate resources and efforts necessary to produce the changes to the communication and transport infrastructure too; by that I mean we must to X so that Y can become possible for we believe in the fundamental right of Z. 

This is also why you must demonstrate the need for the State to forbid the existence of EAS and not the other way around. We have a human right to control our lives; including how such life end. Why should we not allow EAS? We can then discuss the limits, requirements and safety mechanism that should exist for EAS, but these are practical consideration that have no impact on the principle behind EAS: people have a right to freedom and a right to safety; should their continuing existence be unbearable, they have a right to end it.

The right to food and shelter (and other welfare services) did not come about until the 19th and 20th centuries. Some argued the right to life entailed welfare services (as you do). But notice an entailment does not mean it is the same right.

Indeed, as I mentioned before, EAS or publicly funded food banks and distribution centers are not rights. They are institutions and services whose purpose to actualize a right; make a right which exists purely in philosophy, something real and tangible in the "real world". A society which adopts a Declaration of Rights and builds no institution to enforce, protect and allow people to enjoy such rights is, in effect, no different than a society in which human rights are not recognized at all. This is the good principle "of putting your money where your mouth is".

If a service is shown to be within the scope of said right, like food is to life for example, then, using the ethical systems of humanism and the doctrine of human rights, providing that service becomes a moral imperative. Refusing to provide said service becomes acceptable only if it's technically unfeasable or if it presents a clear and pressing danger to some other fundamental right that is so great that it cannot mitigated.

I would also like to note that the concept of food distribution to the poor or even guarantied food for an entire population is older than your own God (which is to say pretty darn old). Famously, the Roman considered that it was the duty of the State to distribute bread to the poor and later to guaranty bread for the whole population of Rome. It even became an official and absolute duty of the Emperor during the reign of Tiberius. Yes, conservative politicians in Rome hated that principle a lot because it was complicated and very costly. You can find within Greek and Roman political philosophies a form of prototypical version of human rights wich led to the creation of such institutions or the concept of a fair public trial for example.

[Paleophyte]

Well, then as Epronovost has mentioned, society doesn't exist to take rights away. The correct question isn't why we should have MAID, it's why we should have proscription. Your logical error is seeing a terminal patient and a willing doctor and thinking that you have any right to stick your society between them. Until you can demonstrate some right for society to proscribe MAID it doesn't matter what the technical aspects are, because society has no right, inherent or otherwise.

Question: why do we "stick your society between them" then? Why do we have very narrow (relatively speaking) limits? It can't be to curb abuses alone, because you can stop abuses without putting limits.

(1) That isn't an answer. Nice dodge. Try again.

(2) Limits exist to curb abuses and protect the patients and doctors involved. I'm not sure what part of that's a mystery to you.

Don't give some emotional appeal for the hundredth time.

You so don't get to complain about any emotional appeal after your "Society will end, the sky will fall!" horseshit. People die in agony and that's the simple fact of MAID. If you don't like it then I suggest that you pick a topic that doesn't have unendurable suffering baked in.

If something is morally right or wrong then it is always right or wrong regardless of how many or how few may legislate it to be so. Something isn't right because it's permitted by a certain society at a certain time, as a quick read of some of the darker chapters of our species all too readily demonstrates.

Is it morally right to kill people when they want or is it only morally right in the restricted implementation of a program like MAID?  Why specifically?

Specifically, because every one of us has a hardwired survival instinct that's very difficult to overcome. When it is overcome then there should be a bloody obvious reason. Restrictions exist to ensure that the bloody obvious reason is there or that we ask some really pointed questions.

You're hooked on this very peculiar notion that MAID can't be a right because it's restricted. All rights are restricted. They exist within a complex interplay of every individual's rights, freedoms, duties, and responsibilities. Your freedom of expression is limited by the means by which you can express yourself (sorry, you don't own a social media platform?) and by restrictions against hate speech, incitement to violence, threats, child pornography, etc. Your freedom of religion is highly restricted by every other person's freedom of religion. Try showing up at a kindergarten and indoctrinating the kids and see how long it takes officers of the law to drag you away for a serious discussion. Your very right to life is similarly limited. You don't have the right to live at the expense of another's life. Start killing people to stay alive and things will Go Badly.

The fact that there are limits and restrictions to MAID that have been carefully formulated and codified only demonstrates that people decided to sit down and give it some thought rather than taking the usual hash of long-worn traditions and slapping the words "Right to" in front of it.

[Paleophyte]

the right to life is

Not what you're arguing. You're arguing for the obligation to live. That begs the question, "obliged to Whom?" And yes, the capital W is appropriate here, because it's pretty clear that you're once again trying to slip Sanctity of Life in through the back door. Funny how you can't make your argument without falling back on your non-secular crutches.

[Paleophyte]

I would also like to note that the concept of food distribution to the poor or even guarantied food for an entire population is older than your own God (which is to say pretty darn old). Famously, the Roman considered that it was the duty of the State to distribute bread to the poor and later to guaranty bread for the whole population of Rome. It even became an official and absolute duty of the Emperor during the reign of Tiberius. Yes, conservative politicians in Rome hated that principle a lot because it was complicated and very costly. You can find within Greek and Roman political philosophies a form of prototypical version of human rights wich led to the creation of such institutions or the concept of a fair public trial for example.

Also because the Roman Senate actually created the problem, or at least made it vastly worse, by creating the vast slave-powered Latifundia, putting all smaller farmers out of business, and creating an idle urban proletariat with a propensity for violence if not fed regularly. The riots got so bad that the bread and circuses became necessary evils.

[Cavebear]

the right to life is

Not what you're arguing. You're arguing for the obligation to live. That begs the question, "obliged to Whom?" And yes, the capital W is appropriate here, because it's pretty clear that you're once again trying to slip Sanctity of Life in through the back door. Funny how you can't make your argument without falling back on your non-secular crutches.

Great observation! SteveII's mental/religious crutches and logic aren't supporting him well here. The question of an "obligation to live" seems strictly religious. "IF God created you, how can you deny Him the right to decide when you die" and all that.

Suicide might be the best expression of "free will". But I'm only mentioning that now in regards to the argument about "obligation to live". I should write that phrase down on a sticky-note. It's a good one.

[Minimalist]

An interesting current case in Spain....where a young woman wants to die and a bunch of religious fuckheads just have to stick their holy noses into someone's life for no good fucking reason than they think their imaginary god wants them to.

Primitive assholes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crrdqdky9gxo

Father tries to block daughter's euthanasia in landmark Spanish case