Mental pain and physical pain are really not that different at all. This must be what you are not not realizing. In fact, mental pain is often far worse.
There are debilitating physical illness that cannot be cured, and can only degrade with time. Mental pain, on the other hand, can be debilitating as well, but there's at least ALWAYS a possibility to recover from it. That's the difference you appear to not be realizing.
with an equal possiblity of not recovering
Exactly. And the main point is that people should have a choice as to whether or not they WANT to suffer for an indeterminate amount of time before the chance - not promise - of recovering is realized. That is really the WHOLE point.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable" Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable" Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable" Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
17 yr olds can join the military and go to war with parental approval.training to kill with a real possibility of being maimed or killed OR with TBI or PTS, is this that much different?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
Of course yours isn't arbitrary. Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary. Don't worry I know how this works.
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
Of course yours isn't arbitrary. Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary. Don't worry I know how this works.
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
Of course yours isn't arbitrary. Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary. Don't worry I know how this works.
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.
I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
Of course yours isn't arbitrary. Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary. Don't worry I know how this works.
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.
I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?
I already answered that, above. I did not claim that a 16 year old's brain is fully developed, which is why I specifically said developed "enough". A human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25. Surely nobody is going to argue that someone can't have control over their own bodies until they're 25.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
Of course yours isn't arbitrary. Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary. Don't worry I know how this works.
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.
I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?
I already answered that, above. I did not claim that a 16 year old's brain is fully developed, which is why I specifically said developed "enough". A human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25. Surely nobody is going to argue that someone can't have control over their own bodies until they're 25.
You answered it by saying you think it's developed enough. That's not really any sort of proof or data-based decision there for me to know if it seems like a logical choice. It really does seem arbitrary.
If we are talking about allowing people to make the decision to end their life when they do not have a fatal disease...well then I think determine the age is very important and I would lean more towards science. So I'm not certain that it's crazy to say a 25 year old cannot make that decision.
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
Of course yours isn't arbitrary. Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary. Don't worry I know how this works.
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.
I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?
I already answered that, above. I did not claim that a 16 year old's brain is fully developed, which is why I specifically said developed "enough". A human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25. Surely nobody is going to argue that someone can't have control over their own bodies until they're 25.
You answered it by saying you think it's developed enough. That's not really any sort of proof or data-based decision there for me to know if it seems like a logical choice. It really does seem arbitrary.
If we are talking about allowing people to make the decision to end their life when they do not have a fatal disease...well then I think determine the age is very important and I would lean more towards science. So I'm not certain that it's crazy to say a 25 year old cannot make that decision.
Obviously it's my opinion. Please tell me we're not back to this, where you're suggesting I have to literally qualify what I'm saying is an opinion, even though it is blatantly obvious that's what it is. But an opinion is not necessarily arbitrary. Arbitrary means no defined or logical reason. I stated a defined reason. Whether or not that's just my opinion or not is besides the point, but I based that opinion on my own preexisting knowledge of brain development. I'm not offering scientific data for your sake. I just wish that every time I take a strong stance on something and disagree with someone you didn't turn it into a character flaw while conveniently forgetting every single thing I've ever said that shows your mean conclusions about me aren't true. I think it's really unfair of you.
As for the second point, well, that's just your opinion, lol. Obviously I disagree. And I'm not going to attack your character over it.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
Of course yours isn't arbitrary. Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary. Don't worry I know how this works.
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.
I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
Of course yours isn't arbitrary. Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary. Don't worry I know how this works.
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.
I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?
did she say a 16 brain was adult?
No and I didn’t say she did. I said I posted an article that talked about when science would say a humans brain has reached adulthood. And then asked her why she said 16 was old enough to decide to kill yourself.
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
Of course yours isn't arbitrary. Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary. Don't worry I know how this works.
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.
I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?
I already answered that, above. I did not claim that a 16 year old's brain is fully developed, which is why I specifically said developed "enough". A human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25. Surely nobody is going to argue that someone can't have control over their own bodies until they're 25.
You answered it by saying you think it's developed enough. That's not really any sort of proof or data-based decision there for me to know if it seems like a logical choice. It really does seem arbitrary.
If we are talking about allowing people to make the decision to end their life when they do not have a fatal disease...well then I think determine the age is very important and I would lean more towards science. So I'm not certain that it's crazy to say a 25 year old cannot make that decision.
Obviously it's my opinion. Please tell me we're not back to this, where you're suggesting I have to literally qualify what I'm saying is an opinion, even though it is blatantly obvious that's what it is. But an opinion is not necessarily arbitrary. Arbitrary means no defined or logical reason. I stated a defined reason. Whether or not that's just my opinion or not is besides the point, but I based that opinion on my own preexisting knowledge of brain development. I'm not offering scientific data for your sake. I just wish that every time I take a strong stance on something and disagree with someone you didn't turn it into a character flaw while conveniently forgetting every single thing I've ever said that shows your mean conclusions about me aren't true. I think it's really unfair of you.
As for the second point, well, that's just your opinion, lol. Obviously I disagree. And I'm not going to attack your character over it.
It’s literally exhausting.
Your definition of “arbitrary” is pretty weird. You call someone’s suggestion arbitrary and then provide not reason for yours. So either both are arbitrary or you are just saying they didn’t think about it, but of course you did. So which is it? Both arbitrary or are you saying that the other person is not thinking about it as much as you?
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
Of course yours isn't arbitrary. Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary. Don't worry I know how this works.
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.
I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?
I already answered that, above. I did not claim that a 16 year old's brain is fully developed, which is why I specifically said developed "enough". A human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25. Surely nobody is going to argue that someone can't have control over their own bodies until they're 25.
You answered it by saying you think it's developed enough. That's not really any sort of proof or data-based decision there for me to know if it seems like a logical choice. It really does seem arbitrary.
If we are talking about allowing people to make the decision to end their life when they do not have a fatal disease...well then I think determine the age is very important and I would lean more towards science. So I'm not certain that it's crazy to say a 25 year old cannot make that decision.
Obviously it's my opinion. Please tell me we're not back to this, where you're suggesting I have to literally qualify what I'm saying is an opinion, even though it is blatantly obvious that's what it is. But an opinion is not necessarily arbitrary. Arbitrary means no defined or logical reason. I stated a defined reason. Whether or not that's just my opinion or not is besides the point, but I based that opinion on my own preexisting knowledge of brain development. I'm not offering scientific data for your sake. I just wish that every time I take a strong stance on something and disagree with someone you didn't turn it into a character flaw while conveniently forgetting every single thing I've ever said that shows your mean conclusions about me aren't true. I think it's really unfair of you.
As for the second point, well, that's just your opinion, lol. Obviously I disagree. And I'm not going to attack your character over it.
It’s literally exhausting.
Your definition of “arbitrary” is pretty weird. You call someone’s suggestion arbitrary and then provide not reason for yours. So either both are arbitrary or you are just saying they didn’t think about it, but of course you did. So which is it? Both arbitrary or are you saying that the other person is not thinking about it as much as you?
My definition of arbitrary comes out of the dictionary, lol. I have already explained my reasoning. Maybe you feel exhausted because you tend to pinpoint relatively irrelevant little details and then try to tear them apart, post after post, for no better reason, apparently, than to whine about how someone tried to make their point.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
Of course yours isn't arbitrary. Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary. Don't worry I know how this works.
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.
I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?
did she say a 16 brain was adult?
No and I didn’t say she did. I said I posted an article that talked about when science would say a humans brain has reached adulthood. And then asked her why she said 16 was old enough to decide to kill yourself.
So - where did I say she said 16 was an adult?
you didnt, just wondered the relevance of being "adult", we see so called adults making dumbfuck decisions all the time, re:the precedent. and young people making very astute well thought decisions.
what does that really have to do with the ability to weigh the pros and cons and make a reasonably informed decision?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
Of course yours isn't arbitrary. Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary. Don't worry I know how this works.
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.
I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?
did she say a 16 brain was adult?
No and I didn’t say she did. I said I posted an article that talked about when science would say a humans brain has reached adulthood. And then asked her why she said 16 was old enough to decide to kill yourself.
So - where did I say she said 16 was an adult?
you didnt, just wondered the relevance of being "adult", we see so called adults making dumbfuck decisions all the time, re:the precedent. and young people making very astute well thought decisions.
what does that really have to do with the ability to weigh the pros and cons and make a reasonably informed decision?
I was just qualifying the article I found. That talked about brain maturation. They talked about “adult” in the context of brain maturation. Just typing what the article said.
so - you think a 16 year old is mature enough to make a decision to end his/her life? I mean - when a fatal illness is not involved...16? That seems really young to me. I’m sure their is the occasional 16 year old, but in reality most are no where near mature enough to make those kinds of decisions.
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
Of course yours isn't arbitrary. Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary. Don't worry I know how this works.
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.
I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?
did she say a 16 brain was adult?
No and I didn’t say she did. I said I posted an article that talked about when science would say a humans brain has reached adulthood. And then asked her why she said 16 was old enough to decide to kill yourself.
So - where did I say she said 16 was an adult?
you didnt, just wondered the relevance of being "adult", we see so called adults making dumbfuck decisions all the time, re:the precedent. and young people making very astute well thought decisions.
what does that really have to do with the ability to weigh the pros and cons and make a reasonably informed decision?
I was just qualifying the article I found. That talked about brain maturation. They talked about “adult” in the context of brain maturation. Just typing what the article said.
so - you think a 16 year old is mature enough to make a decision to end his/her life? I mean - when a fatal illness is not involved...16? That seems really young to me. I’m sure their is the occasional 16 year old, but in reality most are no where near mature enough to make those kinds of decisions.
well I wouldnt make a blanket statement to that effect. it would depend entirely on the individual, as with most things.
and my not quite 16 yr old sister made that decision on her own. died alone, aspirating vomit into her lungs ,overdosing on prescribed medication. I hope she was numb enough to it to have not suffered, she certainly wasnt able to move.
now the young woman referenced in the article starved herself to death because she was denied the help legally available to others in her country.
which is the crueler societal response.......
assist in end of life or force the seeking of other means? its happening either way.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I totally didn't want to turn this thread into a death penalty debate, sorry. My fault.
Anyway... You don't see the contradiction in it, don't you? You're against death penalty because someone may turn out to be innocent (or not) in the future, BUT at the same time you're ok about letting die a young person that could recover from mental pain (or not) in the future. That tells me you care more about a criminal than you do about an innocent person. Death penalty should be given only if there's 100% evidence of the crime - legal euthanasia should be allowed to a person suffering from mental pain only if it's 100% established that said mental pain is totally incurable (is such thing even possible? I don't think so), or at the very least, after a "reasonable" amount of time has passed since the start of the mental illness/pain, and nothing's changed. In this case, in my opinion, not enough time has passed (six years from the first episode and just three years from the second), not to mention 17 is way, way, way too young.
That's just what I think, free of any politics or religion thoughts (I'm atheist). That's what my mind suggests me. Some of you seem to be very sure that what happened was the best solution for her. I have my doubts.
Someone turning out to be innocent is only one reason of many for why I'm against the DP (at least one other of which, and the most important one, I already stated). But the point in this conversation is that with the DP the government is murdering someone against their will (normally). Suicide is someone choosing to take their own life. So yeah, your statement that the DP and suicide are basically equivalent is utter nonsense, sorry. And look, it doesn't matter if you have your doubts, and it doesn't matter if we think it was the best solution, because the ONLY thing that matters is what SHE wanted, given that she was not insane or mentally incapacitated in any way. That is the entire thing. Others should NOT have a say in what someone (of sound mind) does with their own life/body, assuming no one else is harmed (i.e. this argument doesn't apply to anti-vaxxers because they pose a safety risk to the public). And yes, 17 is old enough IMO. What do you mean "way" too young. Does that mean you think only people over 30 know themselves? What is your arbitrary age limit?? I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable.
Hahahaha, I liked this...
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
I asked him what his is because the didn't specify, while I did. I'm not sure what you are laughing at. Mine isn't arbitrary. I say 16 because that is the age when the brain develops enough for a person to have the self-awareness to make such decisions. Before then, parents should be the ones deciding.
But yes, I do see these issues in black and white. I see most things in grey for sure, but in some cases, that just doesn't work, and this is one of those cases. People need to have complete rights over their own selves, and the state needs to have NO control over people's own lives and bodies (obviously excluding the prison factor, and of course parents have control over their children). Period. I don't believe in wiggle room when it comes to this issue.
Of course yours isn't arbitrary. Only the people that disagree with you and have a different age in mind are arbitrary. Don't worry I know how this works.
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
Oh FFS. I don't give a flying fuck what you think. The way you characterize me is utter bullshit. Plus, I'm not even sure if you know what "grey" means in this context, from that last line.
I just posted an article that says your 16 year old brain isn't an adult... so why do you say 16?
did she say a 16 brain was adult?
No and I didn’t say she did. I said I posted an article that talked about when science would say a humans brain has reached adulthood. And then asked her why she said 16 was old enough to decide to kill yourself.
So - where did I say she said 16 was an adult?
you didnt, just wondered the relevance of being "adult", we see so called adults making dumbfuck decisions all the time, re:the precedent. and young people making very astute well thought decisions.
what does that really have to do with the ability to weigh the pros and cons and make a reasonably informed decision?
I was just qualifying the article I found. That talked about brain maturation. They talked about “adult” in the context of brain maturation. Just typing what the article said.
so - you think a 16 year old is mature enough to make a decision to end his/her life? I mean - when a fatal illness is not involved...16? That seems really young to me. I’m sure their is the occasional 16 year old, but in reality most are no where near mature enough to make those kinds of decisions.
well I wouldnt make a blanket statement to that effect. it would depend entirely on the individual, as with most things.
and my not quite 16 yr old sister made that decision on her own. died alone, aspirating vomit into her lungs ,overdosing on prescribed medication. I hope she was numb enough to it to have not suffered, she certainly wasnt able to move.
now the young woman referenced in the article starved herself to death because she was denied the help legally available to others in her country.
which is the crueler societal response.......
assist in end of life or force the seeking of other means? its happening either way.
Yeah we let a lot of people down in a lot of ways. I would hope it would be easier for people to get the help they need. I’m all for euthanasia for the elderly (quality of life and health issues) and anyone with a fatal disease. They certainly should have the right to go out on their own terms.
i fee terrible for you and your sister and this girl. I just think at that age, perhaps other help is better than helping them to die...and certainly better then letting them live in agony. I can’t stand that people do stuff like this to others and cause this type of pain. Unimaginable how hard that is for someone to deal with.
I'm cautious about weighing in here, because this obviously hits so close to home for many, and I don't want to contribute to anyone's pain.
In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.
Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.
We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.
Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I'm cautious about weighing in here, because this obviously hits so close to home for many, and I don't want to contribute to anyone's pain.
In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.
Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.
We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.
Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.
Thank you for mentioning Noa by name. I posted three times in this thread and mentioned Noa by her name in all 3. It’s been kinda of bothering me that no one else has called her by her name.
I'm cautious about weighing in here, because this obviously hits so close to home for many, and I don't want to contribute to anyone's pain.
In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.
Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.
We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.
Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.
Thank you for mentioning Noa by name. I posted three times in this thread and mentioned Noa by her name in all 3. It’s been kinda of bothering me that no one else has called her by her name.
i did.
Yes, you did when you updated the thread this morning.
I'm cautious about weighing in here, because this obviously hits so close to home for many, and I don't want to contribute to anyone's pain.
In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.
Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.
We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.
Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.
Thank you for mentioning Noa by name. I posted three times in this thread and mentioned Noa by her name in all 3. It’s been kinda of bothering me that no one else has called her by her name.
i did.
Yes, you did when you updated the thread this morning.
ugh too quick for me renfield.
Post edited by catefrances on
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm cautious about weighing in here, because this obviously hits so close to home for many, and I don't want to contribute to anyone's pain.
In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.
Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.
We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.
Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.
Thank you for mentioning Noa by name. I posted three times in this thread and mentioned Noa by her name in all 3. It’s been kinda of bothering me that no one else has called her by her name.
i did.
Yes, you did when you updated the thread this morning.
ugh too quick for me renfield.
Another edit?? Ha! All good here. ✌️:) ** I already had seen what you edited 🥴
I'm cautious about weighing in here, because this obviously hits so close to home for many, and I don't want to contribute to anyone's pain.
In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.
Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.
We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.
Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.
Thank you for mentioning Noa by name. I posted three times in this thread and mentioned Noa by her name in all 3. It’s been kinda of bothering me that no one else has called her by her name.
i did.
Yes, you did when you updated the thread this morning.
ugh too quick for me renfield.
Another edit?? Ha! All good here. ✌️:)
i like to be able to edit my head when i think my words might be unnecessarily adversarial.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm cautious about weighing in here, because this obviously hits so close to home for many, and I don't want to contribute to anyone's pain.
In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.
Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.
We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.
Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.
Terrific post. Very well said. It’s a tough topic for sure, but I think you nailed this.
Comments
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"What is your arbitrary age limit??"
then
"I think anyone over the age of 16 is self-aware enough in such dire circumstances to determine if their own suffering is unbearable"
Seems you both have one. I also question if a 17 year old that has severe depression is mentally sound. At the very least I certainly see this issue as a lot less black and white then you it seems.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I'm not sure I've seen a topic where you admit to grey. I don;t have a great memory so perhaps I've just forgotten.
Interesting. Science says it's later than 16.
If we are talking about allowing people to make the decision to end their life when they do not have a fatal disease...well then I think determine the age is very important and I would lean more towards science. So I'm not certain that it's crazy to say a 25 year old cannot make that decision.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So - where did I say she said 16 was an adult?
Your definition of “arbitrary” is pretty weird. You call someone’s suggestion arbitrary and then provide not reason for yours. So either both are arbitrary or you are just saying they didn’t think about it, but of course you did. So which is it? Both arbitrary or are you saying that the other person is not thinking about it as much as you?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
so - you think a 16 year old is mature enough to make a decision to end his/her life? I mean - when a fatal illness is not involved...16? That seems really young to me. I’m sure their is the occasional 16 year old, but in reality most are no where near mature enough to make those kinds of decisions.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
i fee terrible for you and your sister and this girl. I just think at that age, perhaps other help is better than helping them to die...and certainly better then letting them live in agony. I can’t stand that people do stuff like this to others and cause this type of pain. Unimaginable how hard that is for someone to deal with.
In general I'm a strong advocate for medical assistance in dying. I'm pleased that Canada passed the legislation it did, but I want it to be significantly expanded to include the possibility of advance directives, to allow those with degenerative neurological diseases that will eventually rob them of capacity to make their wishes know while capable and have them carried out at a later time. However, I do understand why the current system exists, because the issue of capacity is key.
Capacity to make any medical decision isn't black and white, and capacity does not equate to any particular age, though it is of course roughly correlated with age. Capacity is always specific to the decision being made, which means that for simple or low-risk decisions the bar is lower, but as the complexity rises and the implications of the decision become more serious, the bar rises. The decision to have medical assistance to end your life is, of course, one of the most complex decisions with the most significant ramifications, so the bar for measuring competency should be pretty high. It's not unusual for an adult to not have capacity to make specific medical decisions, either temporarily (while really ill) or permanently, because of cognitive or mental health issues.
We know a fair amount about how human brains develop, including quite a lot about how teenagers view the world and their place in it, and putting this together, I don't believe that the average 16 or 17 year old has the capacity to make a fully informed decision to have their life ended. Teens of that age have a great deal of difficulty foreseeing how things will change for them in the future; they live mostly in the now. Noa made a decision to end her life based on the idea that it would never improve and that her pain would continue at an unbearable level always, but that may very well not have been true, and many things could have improved as her brain matured and she (ideally) had access to more successful treatment. It's possible it wouldn't have improved, of course; now there's no chance. And of course teens and adults may still choose to end their lives, but that's not an argument to open up medical assistance in dying more widely, it's an argument to provide much more robust and evidence based mental health treatment.
Someone brought up why we would allow 17 year olds to go to war but not provide this service. I personally think it's disgusting to allow 17 year olds to join the military, or even worse, be drafted. I honestly don't think anyone should be allowed to join the military before age 21, but that's a different argument.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
** I already had seen what you edited 🥴
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say