absolutely, let it be done by qualified professionalswithout any kind of oversight
and how do you balance these concerns? at what point would you say it's too risky, or that the system is being abused?the potential sanctioning of suicide by people whose conditions - physical and/or mental - could improve with care, time, etc
You could help me out by explaining exactly what you find "dystopian" about the concept of legalized euthanasia, rather than just saying "well it's jolly dystopian, don't you think".well apparently the basis of our conversation
you dont think it's more likely if it is state sanctioned?absolutely, let it be done by qualified professionals
just like abortion
people won't stop doing it because it's illegal, they'll simply turn to less qualified, and possibly unsavory, sources of help
what you're doing is ensuring is that more people will either suffer because they can't get help, or suffer because that help is unqualified and botches the job
Dignitas has been running for a few decades now. As far as I know, there haven't been any cases of people being tricked or bullied into assisted suicide under the auspices of the organisation. So it sounds like Swiss law has probably got it about right. I don't think it's the impossibly knotty ethical and legal problem you think it is.and how do you balance these concerns? at what point would you say it's too risky, or that the system is being abused?
obviously. that's what you seek to minimize with regulation.you dont think it's more likely if it is state sanctioned?
the fact that you think this is a straightforward issue is symptomatic, imvDignitas has been running for a few decades now. As far as I know, there haven't been any cases of people being tricked or bullied into assisted suicide under the auspices of the organisation. So it sounds like Swiss law has probably got it about right. I don't think it's the impossibly knotty ethical and legal problem you think it is.
so the fact that you can add "oversight" of something that was going to happen anyway via state management isnt really that impressive, if you're causing it to occurobviously. that's what you seek to minimize with regulation.
there is no perfect answer to the issue. everything is a trade-off.
these aren't exactly insurmountable concerns you're bringing up.
that's not what we're talking about, that's what you're talking aboutso the fact that you can add "oversight" of something that was going to happen anyway via state management isnt really that impressive, if you're causing it to occur
Dignitas has been running for a few decades now. As far as I know, there haven't been any cases of people being tricked or bullied into assisted suicide under the auspices of the organisation. So it sounds like Swiss law has probably got it about right. I don't think it's the impossibly knotty ethical and legal problem you think it is.
The moral issue of suicide has usually been stated in terms of whether suicide is morally permissible under any circumstances. For instance, Michael Cholbi puts the question this way: Are there conditions under which suicide is morally justified, and if so, which conditions? This formulation assumes a major premise: that it is the suicidal person who must justify his refusal to live, rather than the community being required to justify the action of forcing him to live.
Of what? That I want it to be easy for wicked governments to dispose of people, or something?the fact that you think this is a straightforward issue is symptomatic, imv