Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Oh, the social media thing is one aspect of this discussion I can comment on, because it's utterly ludicrous.While I do think there has been a huge shift in attitudes toward technology, and I don't think that a lot of it is exactly healthy, I also don't think you can make a statement that social media causes depression without looking misinformed.Social media has caused some people to view relationships differently, yes. But those who were so greatly affected probably didn't have a healthy outlook on life to begin with. If you allow your online life to take over your real life, that is a choice. Nobody made you do it. The internet is not the devil. It was, and is, a tool, one of many things we have at our disposal in the 21st century. People need to stop acting entitled, and stop depending on it with their lives. We survived without it before, and could do so again, even though it would cause huge societal changes that wouldn't be so easy to bounce back from.The point is, if you think you're depressed because you're using social media too much, then delete your accounts. Or if the things that people are saying to you on said accounts are causing you stress, again, get rid of them. They're not oxygen, you'll be fine without them. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=244035#p244035 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Thunderfist799 wrote:The reason why people are in depression in todays world is because of social media. Social media has torn entire families apart. Besides there's the obvious issue of social networking websights such as facebook, twitter etc. In the old days, people used to communicate in far closer distances. However, now you could be communicating with your Brother, who is two blocks away on internet! That would cause problems. If people weren't as depressed, today's politicians would be unable to control entire nations.I find it funny that for someone who explicitly stated that he doesn't trust wikipedia, you sure are making a lot of blanket statements without any scientific evidence. You don't really have to provide it, but I just had to say it nonetheless because it really caught my attention. The above is a pretty good example. I'm sure families have been torn apar t due to social media, but families have been torn apart by so many things. Undoubtedly there are articles which will back up your claim, but I'm quite sure there are also articles stating the contrary... But one thing I fail to accept is that there was hardly any depression before social media existed.As to the rest of the discussion, my opinion would differ highly based on the situation. There's also a pretty big difference between a person committing suicide completely on his own, and somebody receiving help from another person in order to kil themselves. I think there's not very much that can be done about the former. What're you going to do, put the person who tried but failed to kill himself in jail? It's probably being done somewhere, but it doesn't seem at all productive to me because it doesn't actually solve anything. Some cases of suicide I personally find rather difficult to wrap my head around, but just because I personally do no t feel certain very strong emotions doesn't mean no one else should either so who am I to judge them.People with disabilities... Again, it really depends. When it comes to assisted suicide it really should only be a last resort thing, the suffering has to be very severe and there are no hopes of improvement. This is the problem with depression. It's perfectly possible to recover from it, though not everyone manages to do so. And of course there's the problem with assisted suicide where the helping person manages to sometimes subconsciously influence the other person's decision to kill themselves. I actually have been talking about this a few weeks ago in one of my criminal law classes, there were cases where the other person felt slightly compelled to actually kill themselves because somebody already bought/gave them objects with which you can commit suicide. That's something which should be avoided at all costs IMO. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=244012#p244012 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Nah, marriage doesn't do anything for anyone anymore, save those who are truly committed to it. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243720#p243720 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life TLDR: "If you want something done right, well, too bad."life is always worth living, even if it doesn't feel that way at the moment.Is that true, though?I grant that people are bad about catastrophizing during temporary crises. (You may recall that I suggested that there absolutely be at least a year-long application process to avoid this kind of mistake). And yes, most people who survive a suicide attempt go on to regret the attempt. (Well, actually, I think the phrasing I've always encountered is "regret it", which has an ambiguous anticedent. -.- but I always took it as people regretting the suicide attempt.)But, so far, people have finite lifespans, and a number of nasty situations can both shorten them and make that time less worthwhile. (You know, I tried looking up the life expectancy of blind people, but I could hardly find any information.)We're in a wor ld where there aren't adequate means to learn from mistakes, rather than let something one did as a minor dictate the direction of one's life. Even then, people don't stop making mistakes just because they're older; they just ideally make fewer of them. There's this phrase that gets tossed around: the concept of a "safety net". That is, a "social safety net" (presumably this means friends/family/etc one can count on for support), a "financial safety net" (anything ranging from careful planning to Insurance to wellfare, AIU), etc. What happens when you don't have those? (Of course, being forced to rely on those without any realistic way to improve is pretty depressing, too.)We're in a world where we simultaneously complain about leaches and bums, but also tell people that suicide is not the answer. (The only answer's people seem to offer instead are "choose to improve", therapy, medication, religion, and occasionally some "brave cynic" will suggest alcohol or some other dangerous coping strategy. The first one is particularly infuriating because it implies that, at every step of the process, one actively decides "OK, now I'm going to do something risky without thinking about it, and absolutely refuse to try and fix it if it goes wrong! Bwahahaha!")Although, I feel like I'm just playing hot-potato with blame, and the important part is not whose fault it is, so much as whether or not there is a solution which can be implemented.Everyone always, always says "it gets better". When it turns out that it nigh always gets worse, one begins to doubt that anyone knows what they're talking about.I think I am going to turn it around and pull a Pascal here, though. What I want is to live, in the figurative sense. While being stuck with the literal sense is awful, it has much better opportunities for improveme nt than being dead. This sorta feels like a rephrasing of what you said, except it's more like "Life might or might not be worth living, but death is worthless and is currently permanent." but then you have to ask about seeking immortality, since dying willingly for anything other than a heroic sacrifice would be effectively equivalent to suicide, were life extension viable. And I notice this weird thing where people who strongly oppose suicide also oppose immortality, and people who strongly support immortality tend to support keeping in the option of suicide for those inescapable torment scenarios. (At our current levels of technology, the anti-suicide anti-death, anti-immortality approach almost always results in old people having slow and painful deaths. Would that there were better alternatives than "you will live your allotted time, no more, no less", suicide, and cryonics. The first one kills people. The second one kills people even sooner. The third one is expensive and has way too many easy paths to failure to be all that worthwhile, never mind this weird disgust reaction people have to it for reasons beyond my comprehension.)My second incident was in my first year of university, in which I had no friends, was barely interested in what I was studying, and was failing courses. Again, I knew that even though my life was horrible then, it was still worth living, and I was going to push through that struggle while learning as much about myself as possible.Hey, me too! Except it was the first two years for some reason.I could not figure out what changed precisely enough to come up with what to do after I left and things went right back to hell, so I went back and rated each time period on all the factors I could think of. I was actually trying to figure out how diet/exercise/sunlight/air quality affected outcomes, but turns out, the only things that made a dent long-term were people, having the demo version of Jaws rather than the full version or NVDA, and having some unsubvertable limitations making it impossible to spend all day on the internet. Wouldn't you know it, I can't do anything about those things. Not for lack of trying, mind you. URL:
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life I don't understand why whether or not animals intentionally kill themselves is relevant. I think condemning people for thinking of suicide and telling them they'd be selfish to do it is not only wrong, it displays a disgusting lack of understanding and empathy for what they're going through. As someone who has very nearly gone through with it twice, I can say from experience that being in that place is absolute hell, and would not wish it on anyone. It's really something that has to be experienced before it is truly understood, and it angers me to no end how people can so casually blow suicidal individuals off as selfish or cowardly. Sure, some people will make suicidal gestures to get attention, but in those cases they don't actually intend to die, so I consider it a different issue. Sorry for the rant, I'll shut up now. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243650#p243650 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life No need to appoligise for a rant like that.Thank you for reminding me that I don't think we should use animal behavior as a basis for human morality.I, personally, don't think suicide is selfish, nor is it often cowardly, although I suppose there are some suicides that could be considered cowardly, like somebody who hangs themselves right before a court trial, or something like that. Generally, what I would say to a suicidal person is exactly what I believe: life is always worth living, even if it doesn't feel that way at the moment. I've been through two very dark times in my life. The first was after I lost my vision. Then, I held onto the idea that even though my physical condition might be permenant, my emotional condition didn't need to be. It took 3 very long years, but I eventually pulled myself out of that. My second incident was in my first year of university, in which I had no friends, was barely interested in what I was stud ying, and was failing courses. Again, I knew that even though my life was horrible then, it was still worth living, and I was going to push through that struggle while learning as much about myself as possible. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243684#p243684 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life That animal suicide page doesn't mention actual suicide, just behaviors that are akin to suicide. It should be noted that every behavior listed there that results in the death of the actor also results in protection or preservation of peers or children, so that page should rather be called animal self-sacrifice. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243647#p243647 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life I think that the only reason animal suicide came up is because Thunderfist rather ignorantly, in my opinion, drew a comparison between depressed humans and animals. If I didn't respect this forum and the way it's run, I would have quite a few choice words for him.the only other reason I'm furiously grinding my teeth rather than saying what I think, is that clearly there are some significant cultural differences here. I don't think that anyone in the western world would believe that marriage boosts morale by default, for example, nor that it is the only way to advance the human race. That implication is...sickening, to say the least, on way too many levels to even begin to tackel, even if I wanted to. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243692#p243692 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life K Jones,,, this is the last comment I'm going to make on this subject, because I don't want a flame war to erupt. I'm not saying you would do that, please don't get the wrong messag.Ah, well, then. I do not want to start a flame war, either. So let it stand that our disagreement runs so deep that we might as well be from different worlds, and not for the obvious reasons. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243478#p243478 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Yeah, what Cae said about different worlds. A new perspective is always interesting though. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243545#p243545 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Hi Wanderer,Firstly, I would have to agree with you. An argument isn't going to benefit anyone.Secondly, you ask a very good question. One should want to get married,as this prevents harms such as fornication befalling society and pushes community closer together. There is also the most important benefit, love between a man and a woman is strengthened during marriage more than living together or separately i.e. being indipendent. Also marriage has ways of reducing stress. That's not to say I'm denying that marriage comes with hardships as well.K Jones,,, this is the last comment I'm going to make on this subject, because I don't want a flame war to erupt. I'm not saying you would do that, please don't get the wrong messag. I don't think a dog, for example, would think of committing suicide. It could have leaped to run away, which is what dogs do anyway when they're terified. Again, what you're saying is v ery subjective because everyone has a different definition of suicide. Yes, animals have free will. But they don't have the same level of self control as humans do. For example, a human could become angry and then he will calm. A lion, on the other hand, if he is angry, he'll eat you. He has know controling instincts. This is why animals cant commit suicide, because there behavior, while learnt, is not like ours. Ours is more controlled.Best regards,Thunderfist URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243463#p243463 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life What if one doesn't wish to share their life with another person? What if they want to live a life of travel, with friends or by them self? No disrespect intended, but I believe it's very wrong to say someone should! want something because society thinks it best.I assume you've read most of the posts in this topic so I won't rehash them, but consider: if suicide makes a person lower than an animal, what of the terminally ill and severely depressed? Are these people disgusting and selfish because they can see no other way out and wish to end their pain? Plus, telling a depressed person who is probably suffering greatly already that their perceived option for escape would make them a terrible person would most likely make their emotional situation even worse. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243476#p243476 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Hi Wanderer,Regarding in cases of depression, it would not be a good idea to say that. The best thing in that case would be to encourage them not to commit suicide. As I said, suicide or assisted suicide is another disguise for murder, whether one does want to or does not want to clasify it it as murder is besides the issue. The reason why people are in depression in todays world is because of social media. Social media has torn entire families apart. Besides there's the obvious issue of social networking websights such as facebook, twitter etc. In the old days, people used to communicate in far closer distances. However, now you could be communicating with your Brother, who is two blocks away on internet! That would cause problems. If people weren't as depressed, today's politicians would be unable to control entire nations. Regarding marriage, people do need to marry. Children need to be produced, good moral needs to be strengthened, and sexual desires need to be fulfilled. Not to say that's the entire point of a marriage, but it is one reason that it is necessary. Especially in a day and age like today, where too many young people go on spam websites, gam bling and drug industries. If the male, ffor example, marries a good woman, then she can prevent him from doing those things just by her character.Best regards,Thunderfist URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243530#p243530 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life As for wikipedia, I wouldn't really trust wikipedia...Bah, make me waste five more minutes, why don't you?1. Maschwitz, U. and E. Maschwitz, 1974. Platzende Arbeiterinnen: Eine neue Art der Feindabwehr bei sozialen Hautflüglern. Oecologia Berlin 14:289–294 (in German)2. C. Bordereau, A. Robert, V. Van Tuyen & A. Peppuy (1997). "Suicidal defensive behavior by frontal gland dehiscence in Globitermes sulphureus Haviland soldiers (Isoptera)". Insectes Sociaux 44 (3): 289–297. doi:10.1007/s000400050049 .3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e O'Hanlon, Larry (10 March 2010). "Animal Suicide Sheds Light on Human Behavior" . Discovery News. Retrieved 16 August 2013.4. Maudsley, Henry (July 1879). "Alleged Suicide of a Dog". Mind 4 (15): 410–413.5. ^ Jump up to: a b c Palmer, Brian (16 November 2011). "Hairy-Kiri: Do animals commit suicide" . Slate. Retrieved 16 August 2013.6. "Why have so many dogs leapt to their deaths from Overtoun Bridge?" . Daily Mail. 17 October 2006. Retrieved 16 August 2013.7. Lendon, Brad (22 September 2010). "74 whales beached in northern New Zealand" . CNN. Retrieved 16 August 2013.8. AFP News (16 November 2011). "61 whales die in New Zealand mass stranding" . Yahoo! News Singapore. Retrieved 16 August 2013.9. Mail Foreign Service (28 August 2009). "Scientists baffled as 'suicidal' cows throw themselves off cliff in Switzerland" . Daily Mail. Retrieved 16 August 2013.10. "Turkish sheep die in 'mass jump'" . BBC News. 8 July 2005. Retrieved 16 August 2013.11. ^ Jump up to: a b Preti, A (1 June 2011). "Animal model and neurobiology of suicide". Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry 35 (4): 818–30. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2010.10.027 . PMID 21354241 .12. Malkesman, Oz; et al. (April 2009). "Animal Models of Suicide Trait-Related Behaviors" . Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 30 (4): 165–173. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2009.01.004 . PMC 2788815 . PMID 19269045 . Retrieved 16 August 2013.13. Shaoni Bhattacharya (August 31, 2005). "Parasites brainwash grasshoppers into death dive" . New Scientist.14. F. Thomas, A. Schmidt-Rhaesa, G. Martin, C. Manu, P. Durand & F. Renaud (May 2002). "Do hairworms (Nematomorpha) manipulate the water seeking behaviour of their terrestrial hosts?" . Journal of Evolutionary Biology (Blackwell Science Ltd.) 15 (3): 356–361. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00410.x .15. Webster, JP; McConkey, GA (2010 Jun). "Toxoplasma gondii-altered host behaviour: clues as to mechanism of action". Folia parasitologica 57 (2): 95–104.PMID 20608471 16. Webster, J. P. (2007). "The Effect of Toxoplasma gondii on Animal Behavior: Playing Cat and Mouse" . Schizophrenia Bulletin 33 (3): 752–756. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbl073 . PMC 2526137 . PMID 17218613 .17. PMID 17218613 18. Lederer, Muriel. "Return of the Pied Piper". The American Mercury, Dec. 1953, pp. 33–4 .19. Blum, Geoffrey. 1996. "One Billion of Something", in: Uncle Scrooge Adventures by Carl Barks, #9.20. snopes.com: White Wilderness Lemmings Suicide Categories: EthologySuicideAntipredator adaptationsExploding animals URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243393#p243393 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @Thunderfist I could also post a long response but will refrain from doing so as well; I think these are things we will have to agree to disagree about. I will ask, however, what do you say to women (or men, though I get the feeling you're putting the responsibility of caring for children mostly on women) who have no desire to marry or have children? What if a person wants to remain independent, and not conform to a role society has made for them? Btw Wikipedia is not a reliable source itself, but most articles specifically site primary references from which the article was written; just look at those if in doubt. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243377#p243377 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life As for wikipedia, I wouldn't really trust wikipedia...1. Maschwitz, U. and E. Maschwitz, 1974. Platzende Arbeiterinnen: Eine neue Art der Feindabwehr bei sozialen Hautflüglern. Oecologia Berlin 14:289–294 (in German)2. C. Bordereau, A. Robert, V. Van Tuyen & A. Peppuy (1997). "Suicidal defensive behavior by frontal gland dehiscence in Globitermes sulphureus Haviland soldiers (Isoptera)". Insectes Sociaux 44 (3): 289–297. doi:10.1007/s000400050049 .3. O'Hanlon, Larry (10 March 2010). "Animal Suicide Sheds Light on Human Behavior" . Discovery News. Retrieved 16 August 2013.4. Maudsley, Henry (July 1879). "Alleged Suicide of a Dog". Mind 4 (15): 410–413.5. Palmer, Brian (16 November 2011). "Hairy-Kiri: Do animals commit suicide" . Slate. Retrieved 16 August 2013.6. "Why have so many dogs leapt to their deaths from Overtoun Bridge?" . Daily Mail. 17 October 2006. Retrieved 16 August 2013.7. Lendon, Brad (22 September 2010). "74 whales beached in northern New Zealand" . CNN. Retrieved 16 August 2013.8. AFP News (16 November 2011). "61 whales die in New Zealand mass stranding" . Yahoo! News Singapore. Retrieved 16 August 2013.9. Mail Foreign Service (28 August 2009). "Scientists baffled as 'suicidal' cows throw themselves off cliff in Switzerland" . Daily Mail. Retrieved 16 August 2013.10. "Turkish sheep die in 'mass jump'" . BBC News. 8 July 2005. Retrieved 16 August 2013.11. Preti, A (1 June 2011). "Animal model and neurobiology of suicide". Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry 35 (4): 818–30. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2010.10.027 . PMID 21354241 .12. Malkesman, Oz; et al. (April 2009). "Animal Models of Suicide Trait-Related Behaviors" . Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 30 (4): 165–173. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2009.01.004 . PMC 2788815 . PMID 19269045 . Retrieved 16 August 2013. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243393#p243393 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life As for wikipedia, I wouldn't really trust wikipedia...And scientificly there are disorders that stop one from eating properly or overeating. That's not suicide. Suicide is when you willingly take your life away.Best regards,Thunderfist. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243370#p243370 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life As for wikipedia, I wouldn't really trust wikipedia...1. Maschwitz, U. and E. Maschwitz, 1974. Platzende Arbeiterinnen: Eine neue Art der Feindabwehr bei sozialen Hautflüglern. Oecologia Berlin 14:289–294 (in German)2. C. Bordereau, A. Robert, V. Van Tuyen & A. Peppuy (1997). "Suicidal defensive behavior by frontal gland dehiscence in Globitermes sulphureus Haviland soldiers (Isoptera)". Insectes Sociaux 44 (3): 289–297. doi:10.1007/s000400050049 .3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e O'Hanlon, Larry (10 March 2010). "Animal Suicide Sheds Light on Human Behavior" . Discovery News. Retrieved 16 August 2013.4. Maudsley, Henry (July 1879). "Alleged Suicide of a Dog". Mind 4 (15): 410–413.5. ^ Jump up to: a b c Palmer, Brian (16 November 2011). "Hairy-Kiri: Do animals commit suicide" . Slate. Retrieved 16 August 2013.6. "Why have so many dogs leapt to their deaths from Overtoun Bridge?" . Daily Mail. 17 October 2006. Retrieved 16 August 2013.7. Lendon, Brad (22 September 2010). "74 whales beached in northern New Zealand" . CNN. Retrieved 16 August 2013.8. AFP News (16 November 2011). "61 whales die in New Zealand mass stranding" . Yahoo! News Singapore. Retrieved 16 August 2013.9. Mail Foreign Service (28 August 2009). "Scientists baffled as 'suicidal' cows throw themselves off cliff in Switzerland" . Daily Mail. Retrieved 16 August 2013.10. "Turkish sheep die in 'mass jump'" . BBC News. 8 July 2005. Retrieved 16 August 2013.11. ^ Jump up to: a b Preti, A (1 June 2011). "Animal model and neurobiology of suicide". Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry 35 (4): 818–30. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2010.10.027 . PMID 21354241 .12. Malkesman, Oz; et al. (April 2009). "Animal Models of Suicide Trait-Related Behaviors" . Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 30 (4): 165–173. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2009.01.004 . PMC 2788815 . PMID 19269045 . Retrieved 16 August 2013.13. Shaoni Bhattacharya (August 31, 2005). "Parasites brainwash grasshoppers into death dive" . New Scientist.14. F. Thomas, A. Schmidt-Rhaesa, G. Martin, C. Manu, P. Durand & F. Renaud (May 2002). "Do hairworms (Nematomorpha) manipulate the water seeking behaviour of their terrestrial hosts?" . Journal of Evolutionary Biology (Blackwell Science Ltd.) 15 (3): 356–361. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00410.x .15. Webster, JP; McConkey, GA (2010 Jun). "Toxoplasma gondii-altered host behaviour: clues as to mechanism of action". Folia parasitologica 57 (2): 95–104.PMID 20608471 16. Webster, J. P. (2007). "The Effect of Toxoplasma gondii on Animal Behavior: Playing Cat and Mouse" . Schizophrenia Bulletin 33 (3): 752–756. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbl073 . PMC 2526137 . PMID 17218613 .17. PMID 17218613 18. Lederer, Muriel. "Return of the Pied Piper". The American Mercury, Dec. 1953, pp. 33–4 .19. Blum, Geoffrey. 1996. "One Billion of Something", in: Uncle Scrooge Adventures by Carl Barks, #9.20. snopes.com: White Wilderness Lemmings Suicide URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243393#p243393 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life As for wikipedia, I wouldn't really trust wikipedia...1. Maschwitz, U. and E. Maschwitz, 1974. Platzende Arbeiterinnen: Eine neue Art der Feindabwehr bei sozialen Hautflüglern. Oecologia Berlin 14:289–294 (in German)2. C. Bordereau, A. Robert, V. Van Tuyen & A. Peppuy (1997). "Suicidal defensive behavior by frontal gland dehiscence in Globitermes sulphureus Haviland soldiers (Isoptera)". Insectes Sociaux 44 (3): 289–297. doi:10.1007/s000400050049 .3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e O'Hanlon, Larry (10 March 2010). "Animal Suicide Sheds Light on Human Behavior" . Discovery News. Retrieved 16 August 2013.4. Maudsley, Henry (July 1879). "Alleged Suicide of a Dog". Mind 4 (15): 410–413.5. ^ Jump up to: a b c Palmer, Brian (16 November 2011). "Hairy-Kiri: Do animals commit suicide" . Slate. Retrieved 16 August 2013.6. "Why have so many dogs leapt to their deaths from Overtoun Bridge?" . Daily Mail. 17 October 2006. Retrieved 16 August 2013.7. Lendon, Brad (22 September 2010). "74 whales beached in northern New Zealand" . CNN. Retrieved 16 August 2013.8. AFP News (16 November 2011). "61 whales die in New Zealand mass stranding" . Yahoo! News Singapore. Retrieved 16 August 2013.9. Mail Foreign Service (28 August 2009). "Scientists baffled as 'suicidal' cows throw themselves off cliff in Switzerland" . Daily Mail. Retrieved 16 August 2013.10. "Turkish sheep die in 'mass jump'" . BBC News. 8 July 2005. Retrieved 16 August 2013.11. ^ Jump up to: a b Preti, A (1 June 2011). "Animal model and neurobiology of suicide". Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry 35 (4): 818–30. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2010.10.027 . PMID 21354241 .12. Malkesman, Oz; et al. (April 2009). "Animal Models of Suicide Trait-Related Behaviors" . Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 30 (4): 165–173. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2009.01.004 . PMC 2788815 . PMID 19269045 . Retrieved 16 August 2013. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243393#p243393 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life As for wikipedia, I wouldn't really trust wikipedia...1. Maschwitz, U. and E. Maschwitz, 1974. Platzende Arbeiterinnen: Eine neue Art der Feindabwehr bei sozialen Hautflüglern. Oecologia Berlin 14:289–294 (in German)2. C. Bordereau, A. Robert, V. Van Tuyen & A. Peppuy (1997). "Suicidal defensive behavior by frontal gland dehiscence in Globitermes sulphureus Haviland soldiers (Isoptera)". Insectes Sociaux 44 (3): 289–297. doi:10.1007/s000400050049 .3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e O'Hanlon, Larry (10 March 2010). "Animal Suicide Sheds Light on Human Behavior" . Discovery News. Retrieved 16 August 2013.4. Maudsley, Henry (July 1879). "Alleged Suicide of a Dog". Mind 4 (15): 410–413.5. ^ Jump up to: a b c Palmer, Brian (16 November 2011). "Hairy-Kiri: Do animals commit suicide" . Slate. Retrieved 16 August 2013.6. "Why have so many dogs leapt to their deaths from Overtoun Bridge?" . Daily Mail. 17 October 2006. Retrieved 16 August 2013.7. Lendon, Brad (22 September 2010). "74 whales beached in northern New Zealand" . CNN. Retrieved 16 August 2013.8. AFP News (16 November 2011). "61 whales die in New Zealand mass stranding" . Yahoo! News Singapore. Retrieved 16 August 2013.9. Mail Foreign Service (28 August 2009). "Scientists baffled as 'suicidal' cows throw themselves off cliff in Switzerland" . Daily Mail. Retrieved 16 August 2013.10. "Turkish sheep die in 'mass jump'" . BBC News. 8 July 2005. Retrieved 16 August 2013.11. ^ Jump up to: a b Preti, A (1 June 2011). "Animal model and neurobiology of suicide". Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry 35 (4): 818–30. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2010.10.027 . PMID 21354241 .12. Malkesman, Oz; et al. (April 2009). "Animal Models of Suicide Trait-Related Behaviors" . Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 30 (4): 165–173. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2009.01.004 . PMC 2788815 . PMID 19269045 . Retrieved 16 August 2013.13. Shaoni Bhattacharya (August 31, 2005). "Parasites brainwash grasshoppers into death dive" . New Scientist.14. F. Thomas, A. Schmidt-Rhaesa, G. Martin, C. Manu, P. Durand & F. Renaud (May 2002). "Do hairworms (Nematomorpha) manipulate the water seeking behaviour of their terrestrial hosts?" . Journal of Evolutionary Biology (Blackwell Science Ltd.) 15 (3): 356–361. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00410.x .15. Webster, JP; McConkey, GA (2010 Jun). "Toxoplasma gondii-altered host behaviour: clues as to mechanism of action". Folia parasitologica 57 (2): 95–104.PMID 20608471 16. Webster, J. P. (2007). "The Effect of Toxoplasma gondii on Animal Behavior: Playing Cat and Mouse" . Schizophrenia Bulletin 33 (3): 752–756. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbl073 . PMC 2526137 . PMID 17218613 .17. PMID 17218613 18. Lederer, Muriel. "Return of the Pied Piper". The American Mercury, Dec. 1953, pp. 33–4 .19. Blum, Geoffrey. 1996. "One Billion of Something", in: Uncle Scrooge Adventures by Carl Barks, #9.20. snopes.com: White Wilderness Lemmings Suicide Categories: EthologySuicideA URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243393#p243393 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Suicide, assisted or non assisted, is an incredibly disgusting act. It is an act that makes one even lower than an animal with the acception of children, of course, as minors are not capable of making propperly informed deicisions. Minors being those whom are below the age of puberty. I have never heard of an animal committing suicide before. Those who are against suicide have the right idea. The damage that suicide could cause is extreme. Families are torn apart, crime increases, hatred increases. People need to grow a brain and realise that this world is not heaven. This world is never perfect, it shouldn't be, and will never be. There are going to be wars, misunderstandings, etc etc. Especially in this day and age, it is especially vital to keep patient. Yes, we do lash out, frequently, rarely, but those are minor compared to such a breech in human morals.Regarding abortions, the law needs to be tightened on them... Too many women are too career obsessed to consider the ramifications of abortion... By aborting a child, you are essencially killing a human being. Yes a human being not just some fetus. You would rather sacrifice a loving relationship for nothing - not directed at you by the way. It's like when the woman has sex out of wedlock and has a child, or maybe in wedlock as well, she goes, "no! I can't have this!" Women need to realise that they have specific roles. There is nothing wrong with a woman working and doing good, provided she has the permission of her husband. The main job of the woman is to cook and clean the household anyway... I guarantee you that were we to switch back to the old functionalist society we had back in the day, crime, stress, etc would be reduced by a great deal. I'm not suggesting that the woman should be treated like a toy, that is wrong indeed. However what both genders need to realise is that both have rights over each other.. It is the man's right that he should be obeyed in all things, accept when he is doing an immoral thing, such as gam bling, in which case the Wife should advise him and if that doesn't work then can she withdraw from him. At the same time, men should realise that women need to be loved, treated with honor, and that their opinions count as well. For example, if the Husband decides to rent several properties, and his Wife has given her opinion to him, he should consider it. Women do have valuable insites and they shouldn't be ignored. What we really need is a loving balance in society where a strict moral code is observed. There is nothing wrong in a woman having abortion if she feels her life is in danger. Indeed, sometimes it is necessary if she is a Mother and has several children that need looking after. Best regards,Thunderfist URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243337#p243337 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life I have never heard of an animal committing suicide before.Allow me to change that:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicideI don't know why I immediately looked for sources rather than remembering my friend's monitor lizard who stopped eating.The damage that suicide could cause is extreme.I hear that the damage includes death and lots of paperwork, which sound pretty extreme to me--Families are torn apart,Yeah, true. The one suicide victim I ever "knew" was a mother of two, and I'd already glimpsed things that made me kinda worry about where that family would end up. But what about people who... ur... don't have families to tear apart? I'm pretty sure that, if I died, people wo uld cry for a few days, then go about their lives as though nothing happened. My net contribution to humanity is pretty much what I post on this forum, and a small handful of emails and IM conversations from a decade ago.crime increases,Is this true? I've never heard of a link between crime and suicide, with the exception of mass shooters and suicide-by-cop people, and those have less to do with suicide and more to do with building up this media circus around mass shootings so that everyone seems to be getting the idea to go out that way these days (seriously, stop giving suicidal people even worse ideas, CNN!).hatred increases.Wait what how why when huh?People need to grow a brain and realise that this world is not heaven.I think you're missing a word or two that would make this sentence slightly more coherent in context. Maybe insert "supposed to be" before "Heaven", since suicidal people will already agree that it is very clearly not Heaven.This world is never perfect, it shouldn't be, and will never be.Oh, well, this makes more sense.I'm going to outright disagree with "it shouldn't be [perfect]". What should we strive for, if not making the world closer to perfect? I mean, your argument is that suicide is bad for society. Improving society is part of making the world more perfect. Why shouldn't the world be perfect?That isn't to say that it isn't exactly as stupid as we already agreed it is to expect the world to be Heaven by default. Perfection is not something one attains in a mere century, let alone without lots of struggles along the way. Maybe we're just quibbling over what "shouldn't uot; means?(However, I feel the need to clarify that I am, in fact, aware that most people who have big ideas for how to improve the world aren't quite so good at it as they thought they would be. Obvious historical example is obvious.)There are going to be wars,I rather doubt that most people who commit suicide for war-related reasons do so without a much stronger connection to the war--either people who lived through it, or are caught up in it and want to avoid a worse fate, or even just people who get it in their heads that suicide as a form of protest is a viable strategy. I guess wars could contribute to depression for people not directly involved, but I suspect those people were already in a bad place and the wars are just one of the negative things they wind up ruminating on Also, war is on the decline. Aside from terrorism, we're pretty close to just plain winning the war on war. Of course, who knows how long that will last? It's also pretty likely that terrorism is the result of people wanting to fight wars realizing they can't actually win a conventional war, so I dunno.Especially in this day and age, it is especially vital to keep patient.Oh, my, yes! This part is pretty important in general. We've spent the past 60 years getting a lot of things for cheaper and cheaper, quicker and quicker, and I worry that it's eroding patience among people in general. (I count myself in all this. Internalizing patience--but not complacency--is a struggle, but one worth winning.)Too many women are too career obsessed to consider the ramifications of abortion...Contraception helps. I suspect that people capable of focusing on their career in this way are more capable than average at using contraception or abstaining, but I haven't checked for actual statistics.By aborting a child, you are essencially killing a human being. Yes a human being not just some fetus.This is pretty much the entire crux on which the abortion debate hangs. Pro life says that feetuses are effectively humans and abortion is murder. Pro choice says that it isn't quite human until some later point. There is really no point in debating abortion when what people are really debating is when personhood begins.Women need to realise that they have specific roles.How did we go from debating suicide to a sexist rant about gender roles?Yeah, I'm just going to outright disagree with you here. To the death. Gender roles have had their purpose, especially in the sort of society where physical strength, mobility, hunting, farming, and large families are an important p art of survival (so basically just agrarian societies). I
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life I have never heard of an animal committing suicide before.Allow me to change that:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicideI don't know why I immediately looked for sources rather than remembering my friend's monitor lizard who stopped eating.I wrote a 7KB response, but then I realized I really, really shouldn't post it. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243347#p243347 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Could a child under the age of 12 possibly have the maturity to decide if the rest of their life is not worth living?Should someone be allowed to be euthinised immediately after obtaining a debilitating condition? URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243256#p243256 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Could a child under the age of 12 possibly have the maturity to decide if the rest of their life is not worth living?Should someone be allowed to be euthinised immediately after obtaining a debilitating condition?Ontario gvmt’s expert panel wants euthanasia for children 12 and under URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=243256#p243256 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @TheoAre you unable to read?I rather explicitly argues that permitting assisted suicide will set back disability rights for which he is fighting.And no, his objection to legalization of assisted suicide is not merely that temporarily depressed will commit suicide but rather that the practice will make it harder for his political endavors.This isn't really hard to comprehend.But fortunately the wind is blowing stronger in support of personal freedom.Read these reference from Google News:Socialite who lost her 'sparkle' has the right to die, court rulesThis is really an interesting case, in the UK you can now attempt to kill yourself and even if the attempt fails, you can then refuse medical treatment and get 'lucky' by letting nature take its course.And provided that you retain capacity to decide the issue which is a legal term of art under the Mental Health Act and strictly construed by The Court of Protection, you can now at least if you are a sane adult be allowed to commit suicide.Another great case of which UK readers should be cognizant is the case of Kerrie Wooltorton.Humans aren't slaves of society or their grasping families but free autonomous individuals. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=242654#p242654 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life gellman wrote:he rather explicitly connects his fight for disability rights with the setback he fears will ensue from recognizing a right to assisted suicide.But what does this have to do with inclusion? URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=237366#p237366 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life I submit to you that, in fact, some lives may not be worth living, and though some of those might have some positive impact on others, someone taking a few seconds out of their week to be happy that you exist is heavily outweighed by being trapped in a life that is overall negative.Knowing a little about how depression works, I would still favor a screening period--at least a year, since the worst depressive episodes tend to last for months--before permitting anything. After all, most who attempt suicide and survive tend to be glad they survived.But, no, seriously, life can be just that bad, with no plausible way to improve anything. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=237357#p237357 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @NocturnusYes, but then we should also ban extramarital sex and gay marriage (just in case it might damage others spiritually).Disclaimer: I don't advocate prohibition on these acts, but if I ought to buy your premise that individual rights should be restricted where these might influence others spiritual health, let's at least apply these religiously derived principles to other situations.My problem with most religious/spiritual arguments against respecting the right to die is that most proponents don't act or live consistent with their own avowed tenets but insist on recreating God's law on earth.It would be more convincing if they would just foresake modern medicine, technology rather than demand that others must conform to their religion.Your logic applied consistently would also demand that abortion should be banned.All the same arguments against assisted suicide could be made with equal or even gr eater force against abortion or gay marriage.@TheoMay I suggest that you reread his letter, he rather explicitly connects his fight for disability rights with the setback he fears will ensue from recognizing a right to assisted suicide.I don't think that his intentions could be made more clear. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=237354#p237354 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @NocturnusYes, but then we should also ban extramarital sex and gay marriage (just in case it might damage others spiritually).Disclaimer: I don't advocate prohibition on these acts, but if I ought to buy your premise that individual rights should be restricted where these might influence others spiritual health, let's at least apply these religiously derived principles to other situations.My problem with most religious/spiritual arguments against respecting the right to die is that most proponents don't act or live consistent with their own avowed tenets.Your logic applied consistently would also demand that abortion should be banned.All the same arguments against assisted suicide could be made with equal or even greater force against abortion or gay marriage.@TheoMay I suggest that you reread his letter, he rather explicitly connects his fight for disability rights with the setback he fears will ensue from recognizin g a right to assisted suicide.I don't think that his intentions could be made more clear. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=237354#p237354 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @TheoRead this:"I am writing to plead with you to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms and override the monstrous Supreme Court[of Canada’s] decision to strike down the nation’s law against assisted suicide. It will be consistent with your previous support for a National SuicidePrevention Strategy that received unanimous support of Parliament in October of 2012. The high court’s odious decision threatens to set back advances indisability inclusion forty years that I and others have fought hard to gain."SO there you have his argument that allowing people to end their lives will set back disability inclusion.And is that a legitimate argument for depriving people of the right to personal autonomy, even assuming that some disabled would rather kill themselves than support inclusion?I don't think so.@NocturnusYou wrote:"If we accept the idea that even the humblest of souls can touch others, then I freely confess that I have a problem with the idea that anyone has the rightto die."Sure, and let's apply the same logic fairly to church going, overeating and having sex outside marriage. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=237332#p237332 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @gellman,Your previous statement suggests to me that you didn't want opinions on the right to die so much as support for your opinion. Often times it seems people want the right to do anything without the idea of repercussion or consequence, but the fact is that we are all inescapably linked in a world full of paradox and enigma, a world where one action is capable of triggering tons of events which in turn trigger more actions. We want the right to dictate rights, but we don't want others to react to the dictation. We want the ability to tell people what we ourselves are capable of doing without being questioned. We want to believe that our motives alone are clean and innocent. We want to tell people that something should not be tolerated while in the process being intolerant ourselves, even if it is that we are only not tolerating intolerance, and the vicious cycle continues. Luckily for you and I, I'm not in charge of suc h a right, for you because it seems to hurt your pride, and for me because I honestly don't know that I have the mental capacity to make such a decision anyway. That still doesn't change the way I feel about it. For the record, while I'm fully aware you will more than likely not believe me, I'm speaking with a past intact in which I woke up for days on end and found myself with the lack of a will to live. When I was told that my hearing would eventually reach a point I would more than likely not care for, I found myself wondering why I even bothered. Yes, I still believe, that as long as our lives are capable of touching the lives of others, I cannot see how anyone has the right to die. If that makes me naive, so be it. If you want to call me a hate mongering Christian because I have previously gone through my fair share of toils, some physical, some emotional and, yes, dare I say it, even spiritual, you're free to do that as well, I suppose. The greatest feeling for me personally as someone who has contemplated dying in the past is that, against all odds including the dangerous and insane corrupted hellhole that is my mind, I am still alive. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=237340#p237340 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life I don't have much to say that hasn't been said already, except that with regards to the affect suicide would have on others, I think it could be argued that's the case with any decision in life, so just by being born a being with free will who has interactions with other such beings that point isn't so clear; any action, whether good or bad, is usually going to affect people in some way if it's on the scale of normal human interaction. I'm also dealing with hearing loss, and I've come to peace with the decision that once my hearing reaches a point where I can no longer use it with practicality, I'm done. That simple. I hit a pretty low point a couple months ago, lower than I've ever been, and honestly thought I was going to do it, the only things preventing me being some much-needed travel and the words of some Internet strangers. I dealt with thoughts of the effect my loss would have on family and friends, and ultimately came to terms with it. That may be selfish, but IMO there comes a point when an individual must decide what's best for them self with matters such as these. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=237345#p237345 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Gellman, so my bad, he mentioned inclusion once. That doesn't by any means indicate that's the main thrust of his letter. His personal story is about how life is worth living, even if sometimes it doesn't feel that way. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=237349#p237349 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Just found this letter written by a disability rights proponent:http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/ … d-suicide/ Really stupid and wrong on so many counts:Because he wants inclusion, disabled should not have an easy exit because they must be kept around for social experimentation like human Guinea pigs.And what's so great about inclusion?If it's so great, disabled would never even contemplate ending their lives because they might fell unwelcome.The fact that so-called disability rights activists are so afraid of assisted suicide in any form reveal much about their own lack of faith in their own abilities and sense of reality.If there was an easy get out clause which allowed every disabled to end his/her life, maybe they themselves would be tempted having their self deception shattered.My personal rule of thumb is that the more a disabled talks about inclusion, the less capable he is. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=237170#p237170 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life If we accept the idea that even the humblest of souls can touch others, then I freely confess that I have a problem with the idea that anyone has the right to die. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=237228#p237228 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Where in that article did you get inclusion? His main thrust has nothing to do with inclusion, and everything to do with not letting people end their life out of depression. He talked about his life, and how in 1984 he had no idea his life would turn out as happy as it has. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=237210#p237210 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life I am a firm believer in the idea that if we have a right to live our lives, that we also have the right to decide when that life has reached its logical conclusion for whatever reason. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=237211#p237211 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Hi all.[[wow]] another interesting issue filled topic for the masses, one of the reasons I like this great forum.Ok so my view.I agree if you are old and sick and have no hope of life you should be allowed to die.I also agree that if you are born ie without a brain or with disabilities so bad that your quality of life, scratch that, your life or chances there of are basically nill.I have a friend born autistic, hole in the head, basically a child.Can't walk well not far, can hear, and see but may as well can't, can't speak.Dumb as and with no future.Her parents split up after her birth.Her mum has thought about suiside many times and has headakes and such the effort to care for this person is such that it is needed constantly both finantially and otherwise.There is no future, yet she can not be allowed to die either at birth or now.She has rights that she can never use.Its worse keeping her aliv e.I have another story about someone a friend knows through their vocational activities that is fed on a tube.He has no life! what right do we have to keep him alivve?On the other side I see the issue of who has the right.In the early days round when I was born in the early 80s we had just come into mainstream for school etc.And at that time there were people that said all disabled should be killed at birth or abborted.While at face value anything not normal should die really does leave a lot out of the picture.If everyone can die, we need to make sure it can't be abused.There are various countries like china and I think india according to the news that still kill children because they are not the right gender etc.And while that may be on the extreme end, closer to home, imagine if you have a disabled child and are affraid or ashamed of stigma or simply wanting to not bother with it.You could have the situation where p eople just kill what is not normal and thats a problem.Also if the disabled can be killed, why have rights at all, just kill them all!We don't want this.We don't want 1 or 2 people to make a decision either especially if the person can't choose to die themselves.And if it is misused that person should be punnished for not following the procedure.I stop at saying someone being done for murder but maybe the equivilant to doing something without the concent like in the case of rape or information misuse or something.This could cause argument in the family to but we would have to have some systems in place to stop things going to far.I have read articles on disabled giving birth, who should die, etc.And I guess if you are brain dammaged in such a way you have no hope of life or can never live a life that you should just die.If you can't walk, or move your arms and have to be fed and attended to because you can 9;t do it your self maybe you should be allowed to die.But I would think you whould have to be a multi disabled person to even qualify to have the right to die.We don't want a single disabled person to die unless its the brain ofcause and vary bad.I have autistic friends with various issues, they can still function though.And so we need a line somewhere.Thats my view anyway.In reality will this ever get solved?Probably not in our lifetime.There are what I mentioned and then there is the religious folk.Now being born a christian myself though I don't go to church I know the basics.Sadly weather your a christian, muslam or worshiper of evil or something whatever race you are what ever religion you are there are extremeists.And to be honest there are a lot of them, quite a few are in america and maybe there are others.There are a few dodgy people round this country, probably in every country.There w ill be those that think that the status quoe should continue.Others that wouldn't have any issue knifing a disabled.Point is we need to make sure the right people get in and handle this and not some nutter!Also, if a person has disabilities themselves, they shouldn't have the right to decide.I don't mean totally all of us handycaps but those with mental disorders may not be the best.Also those of us with bias towards that person etc.Another and the biggest issue will to convince the outside people on the issue.We may have to face it that it may never be resolved totally.That is yes a solution will be found out, no it will not convice everyone its wrong or right.There will be loopholes, and many will fall through the cracks such as they are in any new system.And the system will probably totally fail at some point and we will have to rebuild it.As with everything that exists in this world.This issue has never gone away and it comes up and drops back and it will continue for a while yet.No one has full solutions, though evedence can be produced for both sides.Now there are countries allowing this right allready not in the west though.On the other side of this though are animals.If your dog is sick it can cost as much to get it sorted as it does a human.On
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life I dont have the time nor energy to write a lengthy post about my opinion, but I can say that I think people have a right to death as well as life...Ill just recommend a documentary called Choosing to Die, made in 2012 by Terry Pratchett (R.I.P.). URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=223480#p223480 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @themadviolinistYou write:It is a short road from accepting simple disability as a legitimate reason for ending ones life to applying pressure to the disabled to do so in pursuitof savings, less bother for the temporarily able, who are often very good at ignoring the likelihood of their own eventual disability. Im not certainwe want to give society permission to think that disability could be a state of being for which death is the only solution.No, thats no more a counterargument against an unconditional right to die than fighting poverty is a strong argument against permitting abortion.If someone due to individual circumstance no longer thinks life is worth living, he or she should not be deprived of his liberty just because his continued existence may aid the promotion of policies in support of the disabled.Thats like saying that abortion ought not be legal because terminating unwanted children may have detrimental consequences for fighting poverty or that genetic testing for children with Downes Syndrome should not be permitted because these children are needed to promote happiness.The fallacy in the argument that there is a short road from permitting disabled to die to pressuring them to die by cutting spending is that society can already make life unplesent for the weak simply by cutting welfare and mask it sindifference by supposedly neutral concerns for fiscal responsibility.Also in most countries, you dont have an unconditional and judicially enforceable right to healthcare or a minimal wage.Your concern would make more sense if there was already clearly established enforceable bargain between the individual and society stating that you dont have an unconditional right to decide to end your life, but society will in turn guarantee an absolute and nonnegotiable minimal wage and legal recourse in case of inaccessible establishments and services.But such a bargain does not exist, and if society does not guarantee absolute accessibility and equal accomodation for the disabled, it has forfeited its right to compel people to live with conditions that a majority would not find acceptable, or that at least my opinion.And even if there was such a bargain, it would likely not guarantee absolute equality and accessibility in public accomodation.It would likely be riddled with loopholes allowing establishments and the government itself to scale down its commitment to reasonable rather than absolute accommodation.This is already the case with the American with Disabilities Act and other legislation.Thats much easier than creatingacomodations, taking universal design principles into account, even funding disabled people to help us live in the main stream world. Thats a dangerousprecedent to set.This may be your preference, but why should political activism serving the collective preclude the individuals choice in this matter?I mean if the individual finds the entire premise of equal acommodation unsatisfactory, either because the accommodation is only partial, or because he thinks that the disability movement is only a sham, should he legally speaking be kept on life support just for the greater good?As I get older, the notion of absolute rights comes into conflict for me with the notion that we have responsibilities to the society as a whole to helpthose less fortunate, to allow each to maximize their own liberty, even at some expense to our own. It is all well to articulate an absolute liberty argumentabout the right to die, or any other issue. (remember I am disposed to agree with this argument.) This liberty interest exists in tension with a societalinterest in promoting life, in choosing to develop medical, legal and design protocols to bring those of us with disabilities into the fold.Sorry, but preserving or promoting life a without regard for individual autonomy is not even a valid interest in itself.If that was so, why not keep everyone on artificial life support for as long as the heart could be kept beating.People have a recognized legal a right to refuse medical treatment or to smoke, drink and expose themselves to danger even when the behavior is likely to shorten their lives.If restricting individual liberty is so easy, because promoting life is a legitimate interest, a lot of behavior can and perhaps should be restricted even when the directly injured party is only the individual itself.Therefore the only tension I perceive in the right to die is between the individuals autonomy and a rather fascist or totalitarian desire to keep them around for social experimentation.By social experimentation I mean policies which are purported imposed to help the individual but are either not proven to work or are mere sham justifications for other agendas. A world withoutStephen Hawking is certainly a lesser place. A world where Franklin Delano Roosevelt is dead rather than President may see a different outcome to WorldWar II. What would be lost to the world
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @themadviolinistYou write:It is a short road from accepting simple disability as a legitimate reason for ending ones life to applying pressure to the disabled to do so in pursuitof savings, less bother for the temporarily able, who are often very good at ignoring the likelihood of their own eventual disability. Im not certainwe want to give society permission to think that disability could be a state of being for which death is the only solution.No, thats no more a counterargument against an unconditional right to die than fighting poverty is a strong argument against permitting abortion.If someone due to individual circumstance no longer thinks life is worth living, he or she should not be deprived of his liberty just because his continued existence may aid the promotion of policies in support of the disabled.Thats like saying that abortion ought not be legal because terminating unwanted children may have detrimental consequences for fighting poverty or that genetic testing for children with Downes Syndrome should not be permitted because these children are needed to promote happiness.The fallacy in the argument that there is a short road from permitting disabled to die to pressuring them to die by cutting spending is that society can already make life unplesent for the weak simply by cutting welfare and masking its sindifference by supposedly neutral concerns for fiscal responsibility.Also in most countries, you dont have an unconditional and judicially enforceable right to healthcare or a minimal wage.Your concern would make more sense if there was already clearly established enforceable bargain between the individual and society stating that you dont have an unconditional right to decide to end your life, but society will in turn guarantee an absolute and nonnegotiable minimal wage and legal recourse in case of inaccessible establishments and services.But such a bargain does not exist, and if society does not guarantee absolute accessibility and equal accomodation for the disabled, it has forfeited its right to compel people to live with conditions that a majority would not find acceptable, or that at least my opinion.And even if there was such a bargain, it would likely not guarantee absolute equality and accessibility in public accomodation.It would likely be riddled with loopholes allowing establishments and the government itself to scale down its commitment to reasonable rather than absolute accommodation.This is already the case with the American with Disabilities Act and other legislation.Thats much easier than creatingacomodations, taking universal design principles into account, even funding disabled people to help us live in the main stream world. Thats a dangerousprecedent to set.This may be your preference, but why should political activism serving the collective preclude the individuals choice in this matter?I mean if the individual finds the entire premise of equal acommodation unsatisfactory, either because the accommodation is only partial, or because he thinks that the disability movement is only a sham, should he legally speaking be kept on life support just for the greater good?As I get older, the notion of absolute rights comes into conflict for me with the notion that we have responsibilities to the society as a whole to helpthose less fortunate, to allow each to maximize their own liberty, even at some expense to our own. It is all well to articulate an absolute liberty argumentabout the right to die, or any other issue. (remember I am disposed to agree with this argument.) This liberty interest exists in tension with a societalinterest in promoting life, in choosing to develop medical, legal and design protocols to bring those of us with disabilities into the fold.Sorry, but preserving or promoting life a without regard for individual autonomy is not even a valid interest in itself.If that was so, why not keep everyone on artificial life support for as long as the heart could be kept beating.People have a recognized legal a right to refuse medical treatment or to smoke, drink and expose themselves to danger even when the behavior is likely to shorten their lives.If restricting individual liberty is so easy, because promoting life is a legitimate interest, a lot of behavior can and perhaps should be restricted even when the directly injured party is only the individual itself.Therefore the only tension I perceive in the right to die is between the individuals autonomy and a rather fascist or totalitarian desire to keep them around for social experimentation.By social experimentation I mean policies which are purportedly imposed to help the individual but are either not proven to work or are mere sham justifications for other agendas. A world withoutStephen Hawking is certainly a lesser place. A world where Franklin Delano Roosevelt is dead rather than President may see a different outcome to WorldWar II. What would be lost to the
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @themadviolinistYou write:It is a short road from accepting simple disability as a legitimate reason for ending ones life to applying pressure to the disabled to do so in pursuitof savings, less bother for the temporarily able, who are often very good at ignoring the likelihood of their own eventual disability. Im not certainwe want to give society permission to think that disability could be a state of being for which death is the only solution.No, thats no more a counterargument against an unconditional right to die than fighting poverty is a strong argument against permitting abortion.If someone due to individual circumstance no longer thinks life is worth living, he or she should not be deprived of his liberty just because his continued existence may aid the promotion of policies in support of the disabled.Thats like saying that abortion ought not be legal because terminating unwanted children may have detrimental consequences for fighting poverty or that genetic testing for children with Downes Syndrome should not be permitted because these children are needed to promote happiness.The fallacy in the argument that there is a short road from permitting disabled to die to pressuring them to die by cutting spending is that society can already make life unpleasent for the weak simply by cutting welfare and mask it sindifference by supposedly neutral concerns for fiscal responsibility.Also in most countries, you dont have an unconditional and judicially enforceable right to healthcare or a minimal wage.Your concern would make more sense if there was an enforceable bargain between the individual and society stating that you dont have an unconditional right to decide to end your life, but society will in turn guarantee an absolute and nonnegotiable minimal wage and legal recourse in case of inaccessible establishments and services.But such a bargain does not exist, and if society does not guarantee absolute accessibility and equal accomodation for the disabled, it has forfeited its right to compel people to live with conditions that a majority would not find acceptable, or that at least my opinion.And even if there was such a bargain, it would likely not guarantee absolute equality and accessibility in public accomodation.It would likely be riddled with loopholes allowing establishments and the government itself to scale down its commitment to reasonable rather than absolute accommodation.This is already the case with the American with Disabilities Act and other legislation.Thats much easier than creatingacomodations, taking universal design principles into account, even funding disabled people to help us live in the main stream world. Thats a dangerousprecedent to set.This may be your preference, but why should political activism serving the collective preclude the individuals choice in this matter?I mean if the individual finds the entire premise of equal acommodation unsatisfactory, either because the accommodation is only partial, or because he thinks that the disability movement is only a sham, should he legally speaking be kept on life support just for the greater good?As I get older, the notion of absolute rights comes into conflict for me with the notion that we have responsibilities to the society as a whole to helpthose less fortunate, to allow each to maximize their own liberty, even at some expense to our own. It is all well to articulate an absolute liberty argumentabout the right to die, or any other issue. (remember I am disposed to agree with this argument.) This liberty interest exists in tension with a societalinterest in promoting life, in choosing to develop medical, legal and design protocols to bring those of us with disabilities into the fold.Sorry, but preserving or promoting life a without regard for individual autonomy is not even a valid interest in itself.If that was so, why not keep everyone on artificial life support for as long as the heart could be kept beating.People have a recognized legal a right to refuse medical treatment or to smoke, drink and expose themselves to danger even when the behavior is likely to shorten their lives.If restricting individual liberty is so easy, because promoting life is a legitimate interest, a lot of behavior can and perhaps should be restricted even when the directly injured party is only the individual itself.Therefore the only tension I perceive in the right to die is between the individuals autonomy and a rather fascist or totalitarian desire to keep them around for social experimentation.By social experimentation I mean policies which are purported imposed to help the individual but are either not proven to work or are mere sham justifications for other agendas. A world withoutStephen Hawking is certainly a lesser place. A world where Franklin Delano Roosevelt is dead rather than President may see a different outcome to WorldWar II. What would be lost to the world if everyone who thought
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @themadviolinistYou write:It is a short road from accepting simple disability as a legitimate reason for ending ones life to applying pressure to the disabled to do so in pursuitof savings, less bother for the temporarily able, who are often very good at ignoring the likelihood of their own eventual disability. Im not certainwe want to give society permission to think that disability could be a state of being for which death is the only solution.No, thats no more a counterargument against an unconditional right to die than fighting poverty is a strong argument against permitting abortion.If someone due to individual circumstance no longer thinks life is worth living, he or she should not be deprived of his liberty just because his continued existence may aid the promotion of policies in support of the disabled.Thats like saying that abortion ought not be legal because terminating unwanted children may have detrimental consequences for fighting poverty or that genetic testing for children with Downes Syndrome should not be permitted because these children are needed to promote happiness.The fallacy in the argument that there is a short road from permitting disabled to die to pressuring them to die by cutting spending is that society can already make life unplesent for the weak simply by cutting welfare and masking its sindifference by supposedly neutral concerns for fiscal responsibility.Also in most countries, you dont have an unconditional and judicially enforceable right to healthcare or a minimal wage.Your concern would make more sense if there was already a clearly established enforceable bargain between the individual and society stating that you dont have an unconditional right to decide to end your life, but society will in turn guarantee an absolute and nonnegotiable minimal wage and legal recourse in case of inaccessible establishments and services.But such a bargain does not exist, and if society does not guarantee absolute accessibility and equal accomodation for the disabled, it has forfeited its right to compel people to live with conditions that a majority would not find acceptable, or that at least my opinion.And even if there was such a bargain, it would likely not guarantee absolute equality and accessibility in public accomodation.It would likely be riddled with loopholes allowing establishments and the government itself to scale down its commitment to reasonable rather than absolute accommodation.This is already the case with the American with Disabilities Act and other legislation.Thats much easier than creatingacomodations, taking universal design principles into account, even funding disabled people to help us live in the main stream world. Thats a dangerousprecedent to set.This may be your preference, but why should political activism serving the collective preclude the individuals choice in this matter?I mean if the individual finds the entire premise of equal acommodation unsatisfactory, either because the accommodation is only partial, or because he thinks that the disability movement is only a sham, should he legally speaking be kept on life support just for the greater good?As I get older, the notion of absolute rights comes into conflict for me with the notion that we have responsibilities to the society as a whole to helpthose less fortunate, to allow each to maximize their own liberty, even at some expense to our own. It is all well to articulate an absolute liberty argumentabout the right to die, or any other issue. (remember I am disposed to agree with this argument.) This liberty interest exists in tension with a societalinterest in promoting life, in choosing to develop medical, legal and design protocols to bring those of us with disabilities into the fold.Sorry, but preserving or promoting life without regard for individual autonomy is not even a valid interest in itself.If that was so, why not keep everyone on artificial life support for as long as the heart could be kept beating.People have a right to right to refuse medical treatment or to smoke, drink and expose themselves to danger even when the behavior is likely to shorten their lives.If restricting individual liberty is so easy, because promoting life is a legitimate interest, a lot of behavior can and perhaps should be restricted even when the directly injured party is only the individual itself.Therefore the only tension I perceive in the right to die is between the individuals autonomy and a rather fascist or totalitarian desire to keep them around for social experimentation.By social experimentation I mean policies which are purportedly imposed to help the individual but are either not proven to work or are mere sham justifications for other agendas.For example, bringing disabled into the fold is frankly not an aim I consider very compelling; if individuals want it, they should be free to pursue that with all their might, but universalizing that to a societal
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @themadviolinistYou write:It is a short road from accepting simple disability as a legitimate reason for ending ones life to applying pressure to the disabled to do so in pursuitof savings, less bother for the temporarily able, who are often very good at ignoring the likelihood of their own eventual disability. Im not certainwe want to give society permission to think that disability could be a state of being for which death is the only solution.No, thats no more a counterargument against an unconditional right to die than fighting poverty is a strong argument against permitting abortion.If someone due to individual circumstance no longer thinks life is worth living, he or she should not be deprived of his liberty just because his continued existence may aid the promotion of policies in support of the disabled.Thats like saying that abortion ought not be legal because terminating unwanted children may have detrimental consequences for fighting poverty or that genetic testing for children with Downes Syndrome should not be permitted because these children are needed to promote happiness.The fallacy in the argument that there is a short road from permitting disabled to die to pressuring them to die by cutting spending is that society can already make life unplesent for the weak simply by cutting welfare and masking its sindifference by supposedly neutral concerns for fiscal responsibility.Also in most countries, you dont have an unconditional and judicially enforceable right to healthcare or a minimal wage.Your concern would make more sense if there was already a clearly established enforceable bargain between the individual and society stating that you dont have an unconditional right to decide to end your life, but society will in turn guarantee an absolute and nonnegotiable minimal wage and legal recourse in case of inaccessible establishments and services.But such a bargain does not exist, and if society does not guarantee absolute accessibility and equal accomodation for the disabled, it has forfeited its right to compel people to live with conditions that a majority would not find acceptable, or that at least my opinion.And even if there was such a bargain, it would likely not guarantee absolute equality and accessibility in public accomodation.It would likely be riddled with loopholes allowing establishments and the government itself to scale down its commitment to reasonable rather than absolute accommodation.This is already the case with the American with Disabilities Act and other legislation.Thats much easier than creatingacomodations, taking universal design principles into account, even funding disabled people to help us live in the main stream world. Thats a dangerousprecedent to set.This may be your preference, but why should political activism serving the collective preclude the individuals choice in this matter?I mean if the individual finds the entire premise of equal acommodation unsatisfactory, either because the accommodation is only partial, or because he thinks that the disability movement is only a sham, should he legally speaking be kept on life support just for the greater good?As I get older, the notion of absolute rights comes into conflict for me with the notion that we have responsibilities to the society as a whole to helpthose less fortunate, to allow each to maximize their own liberty, even at some expense to our own. It is all well to articulate an absolute liberty argumentabout the right to die, or any other issue. (remember I am disposed to agree with this argument.) This liberty interest exists in tension with a societalinterest in promoting life, in choosing to develop medical, legal and design protocols to bring those of us with disabilities into the fold.Sorry, but preserving or promoting life without regard for individual autonomy is not even a valid interest in itself.If that was so, why not keep everyone on artificial life support for as long as the heart could be kept beating.People have a right to right to refuse medical treatment or to smoke, drink and expose themselves to danger even when the behavior is likely to shorten their lives.If restricting individual liberty is so easy, because promoting life is a legitimate interest, a lot of behavior can and perhaps should be restricted even when the directly injured party is only the individual itself.Therefore the only tension I perceive in the right to die is between the individuals autonomy and a rather fascist or totalitarian desire to keep them around for social experimentation.By social experimentation I mean policies which are purportedly imposed to help the individual but are either not proven to work or are mere sham justifications for other agendas.For example, bringing disabled into the fold is frankly not an aim I consider very compelling; if individuals want it, they should be free to pursue that with all their might, but universalizing that to a societal
Re: Right to die and quality of life
2015-07-07
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Off-topic room : themadviolinist via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life Let me begin by saying that I am in sympathy with those who believe in an unconditional right to die. It is a logical extension of the liberty which is at the heart of at least the American mythology of government.Now let me push back against the overwhelming tide of discussion in this thread.It is a short road from accepting simple disability as a legitimate reason for ending ones life to applying pressure to the disabled to do so in pursuit of savings, less bother for the temporarily able, who are often very good at ignoring the likelihood of their own eventual disability. Im not certain we want to give society permission to think that disability could be a state of being for which death is the only solution. Thats much easier than creating acomodations, taking universal design principles into account, even funding disabled people to help us live in the main stream world. Thats a dangerous precedent to set.As I ge t older, the notion of absolute rights comes into conflict for me with the notion that we have responsibilities to the society as a whole to help those less fortunate, to allow each to maximize their own liberty, even at some expense to our own. It is all well to articulate an absolute liberty argument about the right to die, or any other issue. (remember I am disposed to agree with this argument.) This liberty interest exists in tension with a societal interest in promoting life, in choosing to develop medical, legal and design protocols to bring those of us with disabilities into the fold. A world without Stephen Hawking is certainly a lesser place. A world where Franklin Delano Roosevelt is dead rather than President may see a different outcome to World War II. What would be lost to the world if everyone who thought they might want to die because things were hard was kicked through that door.I will certainly take this route if I should ev er find myself in a medically untreatable condition where I have no quality of life, and after I have consulted with my family and they are at peace with that decision. I will do so whether its legal or not. But I do think it incumbent on us to make sure that the barriers to making that choice cause us to hesitate and dont encourage the eugenic cleansing of the gene pool by a too ready resort to state-assisted death. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=223114#p223114 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Before I lost my vision, I always said that Id rather be dead than blind, but now that I am blind, I find that committing suicide is the farthest thing from my mind. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222920#p222920 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life I personally believe that anyone should be able to do whatever they like with there own lives. I find it extremely offensive that many people believe that they should have the right to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own lives and bodies, whether it be abortion, suicide, or something else. Noone should have that right. Not family, not the government, not even the goddamn president. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222946#p222946 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life I personally believe that anyone should be able to do whatever they like with there lives. It is extremely offensive to me that many people believe that they should have the right to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own lives and bodies, whether it be abortion, suicide, or something else. Noone else should have that right. Not family, not the government, not even the goddamn president. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222946#p222946 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Right to die and quality of life
Right to die and quality of life One argument in the public discourse about the right to die and assisted suicide happens to involve vulnerable persons -- namely the elderly and disabled.Have any of you read this article from The Atlantic:http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi … ia/397235/ How do you feel about it?- A lot if not most of opponents of assisted suicide are either silent or directly opposed to disability rights legislation and generous welfare benefits for disabled persons.You know Christian conservatives who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage and rage against excessive welfare spending. My own view is that its hypocritical to defend the vulnerable and disabled on the ground that said groups must not die without guaranteeing them an absolute nonnegotiable human right to a quality of life by which I mean public accommodation enforced by law and a minimum income.In other threads, we have debated how callous society often treats disabled persons, and we all seem to recognize that there is no enforceable right to accessibility.So the question becomes why opponents of assisted suicide who otherwise couldnt care less about the poor and the disabled suddently want to protect them by depriving the individual of the right to live or die.I also find it very mysterious that so-called disability rights organizations are against accepting that some people rather want to die than living a disabled life on intolerable conditions.To summarize my own stance, living as disabled is tolerable, but I should have a human right to end my life with dignity when my own physical or economic conditions become intolerable.And this should of course require society to provide us with a minimal standard of living.But what choice do we have if or when the majority suddently wants to spend the money on a bailout of big banks, or lower the taxes?Shouldnt we have a human right to a dignified exit when society becomes too bad? URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222485#p222485 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @ironcross32Shooting oneself with a gun is only a practical possibility if you live in a country where its legal and easy to obtain a handgun.And in most nations private gun ownership is either forbidden or strictly regulated.My point is not about committing suicide which is dependent on physical ability but on the right to end ones life in a dignified and safe way.Suicide is mostly not a crime, but its neither not recognized as a right since the state has made the means difficult to obtain or made it a crime for a third party to help.If its a right like abortion, its not logical that assisting another to end his life is a crime.The debate about assisted suicide is about the legal and safe availability of means to end ones life, not about the possibility that you could jump from a bridge and be lucky not merely to injure yourself.If I have framed the issue ineptly, let me restate the problem -- sh ould disabled persons whom cant get the accommodation they find reasonable have a right to obtain a pill in order to end their life at a safe location?If the answer is no, which is the stance taken by so-called disability rights organizations and Christians, they ought to take responsibility for defining the minimally guaranteed public accommodation to which disabled should be entitled as a matter of law.My problem with the no to assisted suicide camp is that they largely argue from moral superiority that disability is not so bad, and that every human life is worthy, but dont categorically state what accommodation to which the disabled ought to be entitled as a matter of right.Now I expect that some will respond that this aint no problem because you can just take your own life yourself, and society should not make it easily available.But this isnt debatable and not true for some disabled -- a wheelchair bound or parapletic who is (physically) unable to end his own life.Also a blind person will often not be able to do the setup correctly.@GeneWarnerUnfortunately your Supreme Court ruled almost twenty years ago that Americans have no fundamental right to commit suicide or get a third party to assist in the act.You may have a constitutionally recognized right to refuse medical treatment which by implication may encompass a right to starve yourselves to death, but euthanasia like that is the law in Belgium is not yet recognized as a constitutional right.The bottomline is that helping another to commit suicide, or giving him a deadly pill you have reasonable ground to know will be used to end his life is a crime. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222505#p222505 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Greetings all.I fully condone/support euthanasia and as long as you harm no other nor do you ask another to assist you in suiciding unless youre physically unable to perform the action yourself, I have no problem with it. In this case, the being wishing to end their life is thinking rationally and are not under any kind of coercion and theyre not suffering from any mental illness. It isnt an easy decision to make but regarding animals, I do agree that theyre allowed to die with dignity. Why is it so different with people? I think its the modern western mentality coming into play. It used to be that death was celebrated and we interacted with those whove passed on in our various rituals but not anymore. For a human, even contemplating euthanasia is frowned on and discussing it can even get you kicked out of some places. Its truly disgusting in my opinion that were taught to openly ridicule the terminally ill whos consider ing ending it because theyre in too much pain. I always get very angry when I hear of cases like this.So to wrap this up, I do agree with all posts here and as for leaving children, that is beyond my comprehension and I do not feel safe to comment on it one way or another except to say Id either take care of the children myself until such time that theyve grown old enough to leave home and support themselves or give them to other family members or put them up for adoption or put them into care and then end it.Kind regards, Amin Abdullah. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222509#p222509 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @bashueYou write:If the disabled or indeed anyone is in such dire straights that supporting ones self is eitherextremely difficult or impossible then yes they should be allowed to euphonies themselves.This is better than the current societal attitude but still not good enough.First, supporting oneself is a relative experience, and if the government already provides a minimal assistance, -- i.e 60 minutes homecare a week -- and current law stipulates that this is sufficient aid for the disabled whom according to the state now has all the necessary aid to support himself, the individual might still feel that aint good enough.But if the state doesnt want to provide the disabled 120 minutes of homecare, and the individual still feels that there is a gap, he will not be permitted to euthanize himself because the state (according to its own yardstick) has already offered the individual all the aid thats due .Second, there may also be hard limitts to how much state aid or compensation can equalize the -- life activities -- where the the disability either negate opportunity or reduces it to near zero regardless of money. However, such a thing should not be the first resort becausethere could be something you can do. If all avenues have been exhausted and their living conditions are impossible then I see no problem with that.This is very problematic -- or let me say a big loophole , given that the state already imposes struggling to last resort as a qualification for receiving aid.However, if you by last resort and exhaustions of avenues mean that the individual himself should decide when enough is enough ffor availing himself of euthanasia, I agree.I think that only the individual -- and never the state should determine when the right to die is an option.The reason is that the state can never be a neutral arbit er of which life is worthy or when the individual at last resort.The state will always claim to offer the individual all necessary aid, so if you can only exercise the right to die as last resort, and when all avenues have been exhausted, the state can always claim that there is more the individual must do in order to qualify for euthanasia.And this is really not desirable that the exercise of this choice must depend on the whim of a third party who has all the self interest in covering itself.This goes something like this:-- The disabled person asks for aid from the state.-- The state either refuses or only grant partial and insufficient aid or compensation.-- Now the disabled says he wants to die on the ground that the aid is insufficient or unsatisfactory.-- The state responds that yes, this is not good, but you have been granted all the help to which you are entitled as a matter of law, and we consider this sufficient and necessary to support yourself, so no way you cant exercise the right to die. -- The individual might still not be satisfied,but this is of no consequence because the state both gets to define when aid is sufficient and when the individual is ready to exercise his right to die. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222518#p222518 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @ironcross32You are very lucky, let me guess you live in the US in a good red state (smile).I can assure you that getting a handgun legally outside the US is often very difficult due to strict gun control.@bashueMy situation is also okay, but I ponder the question because there is always the risk that society can cut public benefits.And all the aid is contingent on the majority not suddently feeling envy or dislike for welfare recipients whom are often said to get too much.I raise the question because I think its implications are important. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222526#p222526 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Not only do I have a handgun, I could get one in 2 to 3 days, easy, but that wouldnt be legal, if I went the legal route, probably 3 to 5 days. I dont have a criminal record. Getting guns is easy, especially when you *know* the right people. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222523#p222523 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life In the US constitution, it is said that we have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. If we have the right to life, shouldnt we also have the right to choose to end that life if our quality of life becomes untennable?If someone is suffering from untreatable pain, isnt inhumane to force that person to continue to suffer by denying them the right to pass on with some dignity.When we put down an animal because of a debilitating injury or illness, we show more humanity to animals than we do our own kind because we try to deny people the right to end their own life, when that life becomes unlivable.However, I believe that they can pass all the anti-suicide laws they want to. A person who has been brought to the point where they want to end their life isnt going to care one bit if ending their life is legal or not. The only way the illegality of the act will effect them is if they fail the attempt. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222499#p222499 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @bashueYou write:If the disabled or indeed anyone is in such dire straights that supporting ones self is eitherextremely difficult or impossible then yes they should be allowed to euphonies themselves.This is better than the current societal attitude but still not good enough.First, supporting oneself is a relative experience, and if the government already provides a minimal assistance, -- i.e 60 minutes homecare a week -- and current law stipulates that this is sufficient aid for the disabled whom according to the state now has all the necessary aid to support himself, the individual might still feel that aint good enough.But if the state doesnt want to provide the disabled 120 minutes of homecare, and the individual still feels that there is a gap, he will not be permitted to euthanize himself because the state (according to its own yardstick) has already offered the individual all the aid thats due .Second, there may also be hard limitts to how much state aid or compensation can equalize the -- life activities -- where the the disability either negate opportunity or reduces it to near zero regardless of money. However, such a thing should not be the first resort becausethere could be something you can do. If all avenues have been exhausted and their living conditions are impossible then I see no problem with that.This is very problematic -- or let me say a big loophole , given that the state already imposes struggling to last resort as a qualification for receiving aid.However, if you by last resort and exhaustions of avenues mean that the individual himself should decide when enough is enough ffor availing himself of euthanasia, I agree.I think that only the individual -- and never the state should determine when the right to die is an option.The reason is that the state can never be a neutral arbit er of which life is worthy or when the individual at last resort.The state will always claim to offer the individual all necessary aid, so if you can only exercise the right to die as last resort, and when all avenues have been exhausted, the state can always claim that there is more the individual must do in order to qualify for euthanasia.And this is really not desiable, If the However,Id rather grant them citizenship in another country whore more disabled friendly. I also condone the practicing of removing defective ovum and gametesin order to correct them and reduce the chance of getting disabled foetuses on a genetic level thus improving the quality of life for the ones who wouldotherwise be disabled. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222518#p222518 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @bashueYou write:If the disabled or indeed anyone is in such dire straights that supporting ones self is eitherextremely difficult or impossible then yes they should be allowed to euphonies themselves.This is better than the current societal attitude but still not good enough.First, supporting oneself is a relative experience, and if the government already provides a minimal assistance, -- i.e 60 minutes homecare a week -- and current law stipulates that this is sufficient aid for the disabled whom according to the state now has all the necessary aid to support himself, the individual might still feel that aint good enough.But if the state doesnt want to provide the disabled 120 minutes of homecare, and the individual still feels that there is a gap, he will not be permitted to euthanize himself because the state (according to its own yardstick) has already offered the individual all the aid thats due .Second, there may also be hard limitts to how much state aid or compensation can equalize the -- life activities -- wherein disability either negates opportunity or reduces it to near zero regardless of money. However, such a thing should not be the first resort becausethere could be something you can do. If all avenues have been exhausted and their living conditions are impossible then I see no problem with that.This is very problematic -- or let me say a big loophole , given that the state already imposes struggling to last resort as a qualification for receiving aid.However, if you by last resort and exhaustions of avenues mean that the individual himself should decide when enough is enough ffor availing himself of euthanasia, I agree.I think that only the individual -- and never the state should determine when the right to die is an option.The reason is that the state can never be a neutral arbi ter of which life is worthy or when the individual at last resort.The state will always claim to offer the individual all necessary aid, so if you can only exercise the right to die as last resort, and when all avenues have been exhausted, the state can always claim that there is more the individual must do in order to qualify for euthanasia.And this is really not desirable that the exercise of this choice must depend on the whim of a third party who has all the self interest in covering itself.This goes something like this:-- The disabled person asks for aid from the state.-- The state either refuses or only grant partial and insufficient aid or compensation.-- Now the disabled says he wants to die on the ground that the aid is insufficient or unsatisfactory.-- The state responds that yes, this is not good, but you have been granted all the help to which you are entitled as a matter of law, and we conside r this sufficient and necessary to support yourself, so no way you cant exercise the right to die. -- The individual might still not be satisfied,but this is of no consequence because the state both gets to define when aid is sufficient and when the individual is ready to exercise his right to die.In other words, if the state gets to decide, Heads I win, tails you lose.You write:but if neither gene therapy or relocation to a better nation is possible then euthanasia should be possible.Sorry, but I dont understand what you mean.Gene therapy and relocation is not a free lunch, and another nation would not willingly assume the economic responsibility for a disabled whose home nation cant or wont pay for adequate support.Suppose, that a disabled individual from a third world nation wants to die, because his situation is intolerable, and relocation or gene therapy is t he last resort, who should pay and why?Its difficult enough to get sufficient aid for citizens of western nations, so why would these willingly subsidize the relocation or gene therapy of disabled from third world nations? URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222518#p222518 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Greetings Gellman.Unfortunately I have no answers for you. I was however talking about the individual not the state deciding when enough is enough. Having said that, if you turn to the underworld/criminal empire/black market, they may be able to aid in cases like this. Im not talking from experience but throwing out ideas. My situation is different as Im in an okay situation. Not ideal but okay. My reasons for wanting to go are spiritual rather than disability related. I suppose my conclusion to the problem is you have to go outside of the law to get the result you want.Kind regards, Amin Abdullah. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222524#p222524 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @ironcross32Shooting oneself with a gun is only a practical possibility if you live in a country where its legal and easy to obtain a handgun.And in most nations private gun ownership is either forbidden or strictly regulated.My point is not about committing suicide which is dependent on physical ability but on the right to end ones life in a dignified and safe way.Suicide is mostly not a crime, but its neither not recognized as a right since the state has made the means difficult to obtain or made it a crime for a third party to help.If its a right like abortion, its not logical that assisting another to end his life is a crime.The debate about assisted suicide is about the legal and safe availability of means to end ones life, not about the possibility that you could jump from a bridge and be lucky not merely to injure yourself.If I have framed the issue ineptly, let me restate the problem -- sh ould disabled persons whom cant get the accommodation they find reasonable have a right to obtain a pill in order to end their life at a safe location?If the answer is no, which is the stance taken by so-called disability rights organizations and Christians, they ought to take responsibility for defining the minimally guaranteed public accommodation to which disabled should be entitled as a matter of law.My problem with the no to assisted suicide camp is that they largely argue from moral superiority that disability is not so bad, and that every human life is worthy, but dont categorically state what accommodation to which the disabled ought to be entitled as a matter of right.Now I expect that some will respond that this aint no problem because you can just take your own life yourself, and society should not make it easily available.But this isnt debatable and not true for some disabled -- a wheelchair bound or parapletic who is (physically) unable to end his own life.Also a blind person will often not be able to @GeneWarnerUnfortunately your Supreme Court ruled almost twenty years ago that Americans have no fundamental right to commit suicide or get a third party to assist in the act.You may have a constitutionally recognized right to refuse medical treatment which by implication may encompass a right to starve yourself to death, but euthanasia like that is the law in Belgium is not yet recognized as a constitutional right.The bottomline is that helping another to commit suicide, or giving him a deadly pill you have reasonable ground to know will be used to end his life is a crime. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222505#p222505 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @bashueAgree with you, but why should voluntary euthanasia be limited to the terminally ill, and if so whats the logic for not including disabled who are unsatisfied with their accommodation?Suppose that society tomorrow legislates that disabled from now dont get any welfare benefits or pensions, or that in order to be subsidized must accept forced labor for the state.This is not a far fetched possibility in some nations, where there arent no welfare benefits for disabled, or these are very low or you can only obtain these on the conditions that you slave for the state.If society cuts welfare benefits to the poor and disabled, I think that the logical consequence must be that society has foregone the right to determine when the individual can get a third partys help to end his life.The current position regarding disabled and euthanasia is unsatisfactory in that they are neither guaranteed a equal accommodation b y law but are neither guaranteed an absolute right to an exit with dignity if society doesnt keep its bargain.Regarding children left behind, I also agree with all other posts, and thats my reason for not having children. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222511#p222511 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Greetings all.At Gellman, youve definitely given me a lot to consider. If the disabled or indeed anyone is in such dire straights that supporting ones self is either extremely difficult or impossible then yes they should be allowed to euphonies themselves. However, such a thing should not be the first resort because there could be something you can do. If all avenues have been exhausted and their living conditions are impossible then I see no problem with that. However, Id rather grant them citizenship in another country whore more disabled friendly. I also condone the practicing of removing defective ovum and gametes in order to correct them and reduce the chance of getting disabled foetuses on a genetic level thus improving the quality of life for the ones who would otherwise be disabled. Note that Im not condoning abortion or the killing of the egg and spermatozoa but to extricate the defective genes. That could be another way but if neither gene therapy or relocation to a better nation is possible then euthanasia should be possible.Kind regards, Amin Abdullah. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222512#p222512 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life I believe that society plays up this so-called healthy living too far and goes way across the line when it comes to the way they deal with suicide or assisted suicide. My own view is, if someone, for whatever reason, makes the choice that they do not want to continue their existance on the same plane as the rest of us, they can choose to end their life so long as they put no one in danger in the doing of it. For instance buying a gun, or taking your own and discharging it in a heavily populated area, a city, a large apartment complex, a townhouse or duplex, etc. Now you have the separation of law and ethics, which to me is a difficult thing, because a lot of things that are law, I personally see as infringements of privacy. But there is a moral issue here when you leave someone behind, a wife, a child or children, especially children.If you have a child, regardless of the circumstances involved, I.E. it was an accident, unplanned, etc. You enter into a commitment to raise that chi ld, to impart socially acceptable values, to do your best for the child, both physically, and emotionally. So if someone with a child chooses to take their life, I find that to be reprehensible, even though I acknowledge that I support his choice to end his life, under the conditions, he has acted deplorably in that he has left a child behind and most likely caused that child severe psychological issues. So the natural conclusion here is yes, I do support the choice of someone who is infirm to choose to end their existance with dignity. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222496#p222496 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life @bashueYou write:If the disabled or indeed anyone is in such dire straights that supporting ones self is eitherextremely difficult or impossible then yes they should be allowed to euphonies themselves.This is better than the current societal attitude but still not good enough.First, supporting oneself is a relative experience, and if the government already provides a minimal assistance, -- i.e 60 minutes homecare a week -- and current law stipulates that this is sufficient aid for the disabled whom according to the state now has all the necessary aid to support himself, the individual might still feel that aint good enough.But if the state doesnt want to provide the disabled 120 minutes of homecare, and the individual still feels that there is a gap, he will not be permitted to euthanize himself because the state (according to its own yardstick) has already offered the individual all the aid thats due .Second, there may also be hard limitts to how much state aid or compensation can equalize the -- life activities -- where the the disability either negate opportunity or reduces it to near zero regardless of money. However, such a thing should not be the first resort becausethere could be something you can do. If all avenues have been exhausted and their living conditions are impossible then I see no problem with that.This is very problematic -- or let me say a big loophole , given that the state already imposes struggling to last resort as a qualification for receiving aid.However, if you by last resort and exhaustions of avenues mean that the individual himself should decide when enough is enough ffor availing himself of euthanasia, I agree.I think that only the individual -- and never the state should determine when the right to die is an option.The reason is that the state can never be a neutral arbit er of which life is worthy or when the individual at last resort.The state will always claim to offer the individual all necessary aid, so if you can only exercise the right to die as last resort, and when all avenues have been exhausted, the state can always claim that there is more the individual must do in order to qualify for euthanasia.And this is really not desirable that the exercise of this choice must depend on the whim of a third party who has all the self interest in covering itself.This goes something like this:-- The disabled person asks for aid from the state.-- The state either refuses or only grant partial and insufficient aid or compensation.-- Now the disabled says he wants to die on the ground that the aid is insufficient or unsatisfactory.-- The state responds that yes, this is not good, but you have been granted all the help to which you are entitled as a matter of law, and we consider this sufficient and necessary to support yourself, so no way you cant exercise the right to die. -- The individual might still not be satisfied,but this is of no consequence because the state both gets to define when aid is sufficient and when the individual is ready to exercise his right to die.In other words, if the state gets to decide, Heads I win, tails you lose.You write:but if neither gene therapy or relocation to a better nation is possible then euthanasia should be possible.Sorry, but I dont understand what you mean.Gene therapy and relocation is not a free lunch, and another nation would not willingly assume the economic responsibility for a disabled whose home nation cant or wont pay for adequate support.Suppose, that a disabled individual from a third world nation wants to die, because his situation is intolerable, and relocation or gene therapy is th e last resort, who should pay and why?Its difficult enough to get sufficient aid for citizens of western nations, so why would these willingly subsidize the relocation or gene therapy of disabled from third world nations? URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222518#p222518 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life There is this tendency for people to believe that any problem for which someone suggests suicide must be temporary and have some other solution.I suppose the issue would be providing sufficient evidence that the problem is, in fact, permanent, or at least unreasonably burdensome to overcome (for example, requiring millions of dollars in public funds and massive societal change and infrastructure). That latter option runs the risk of being a slippery slope in either direction (No, its not unreasonably burdensome! Just lobby some more! / Itd be too much work to put in wheelchair ramps and audio announcements, so hold still for this lethal injection!).To legally cover everything, it would be necessary to prove that certain situations result in unreasonably severe quality of life reduction, and that there is no hope of this changing within a reasonable time frame.Others have suggested that this be a drawn out process with psychiatr ic evaluations--the typical depressive episode lasts a few months, and most who attempt suicide go on to regret it, so it would take at least a year, just to be safe.Alternatively, build the Matrix already. If society refuses to let terminally miserable people die when they want to, at least find out if simulating a life that isnt awful would satisfy everyone. Well, except people would still complain about funding all this, but these will be the same people who are anti euthanasia and believe that Free Will Magic can solve everyones problems all the time everywhere. (It cant. It really, really cant.) URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222579#p222579 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life I can understand why the state would make assisted suicide a crime, to allow it would open a large loophole to commit murder. It isnt murder your honor, he was in pain and asked me to assist him in ending his life.I dont have to agree with it, but I do understand it.I am not suicidal either, Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222556#p222556 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Right to die and quality of life
Re: Right to die and quality of life Red as in redneck, lol, not as in communist. But yes. And Im not suicidal, nor was I ever, but I do recognize the right of the individual to make their own choice. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/viewtopic.php?pid=222533#p222533 ___ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
