If I'm in such a bad state I can't even kill myself anymore, you're damn right I want to be allowed to ask for help to do it if that's what I decide.

@Draugnar
Obviously there'd be a lot of legal papers and documents that would come with that and a pretty long procedure.

@Draugnar

I'm in Va Beach.

@TMW, you have a right to die. What you don't have a right to is to assist someone else in their death, because history has shown that "helping" other people to their death is not always done with the other person's free and full consent.

And as I originally brought up the Nazi reference, I will be happy to defend it as relevant to the question. The Nazis (well before WWII and the Holocaust) initiated a program to allow parents to consent to the euthanasia of their disabled children. It was sold as a program to give parents the option of allowing for a merciful death for their children, and was supported by the general population, despite opposition from the churches. It started out as designed, but over time the rules softened, and administrators in various government-run institutions, including orphanages and hospitals, became increasingly involved. It ended up as mass murder, with government bureaucrats forging signatures from parents and putting to death any children that they didn't want to take care of or that belonged to an "undesirable" class.

That's how the slippery slope works: starting with the best of intentions, and then devolving into the most horrific actions, one small step at a time. The only way to absolutely ensure that it never happens is to put in place the strongest controls possible, like the controls we have in place with respect to capital punishment. Proponents of euthanasia talk a lot about the "right to die" and make it out to be a human rights issue, but then they slip up and start mentioning things like limited resources, and at that point it's clear what the real agenda is: population control, with or without the consent of the people whose "population" is being "controlled".

You could make it a constitutional admentment to avoid slipping down that slippery slope.

I don't know about the US but i know in Ireland that only a referendum polling every citizen can change the constitution, thus if you wanted to alter the law by one small step you would have to ask everyone, and any failure at referendum would set back a cause by about 5 years.

If you agree you should have the right to die, then would it not be appropriate to sell lethal doses of morphine over the counter in a pharmacy? that way it's the individual's choice, right?

"@TMW, you have a right to die. What you don't have a right to is to assist someone else in their death, because history has shown that "helping" other people to their death is not always done with the other person's free and full consent."

That's what I'm saying.

@orathaic --

You wouldn't have to make an amendment. You could just make a law reinforcing a citizen's right to die.

@TMW: i mean a right to assist in suicides, that would be illegal at present in most countries.

u can kill urself if you want but to make money off it?

some people are terminally ill and would find it difficult to kill themselves even if it was just a push of a button away.

so providing them with the facility to die with dignity (not be left slowing withering away hooked up to a machine, if they choose otherwise) does not neccesarily mean making money off it, but it does mean making sure that as a human right individuals have their right to die respected.

and again that would require legislation.

I'm living in a country where euthanasia is already legalized. However, personally I've got little to do with it, no suffering or irrevesably ill grandparents. I do come from a tradition which has fought the legislation for decades. As a christian one could say: 'God has the only right to end lives!!' and let the discussion part be over. However, I do 'agree' to letting very sick people (or people with unbearable suffering, a term used here - however, how to define 'unbearable suffering') die in a natural way by for instance letting them sleep and removing the life support system (with their consent ofcourse). This to shorten a painful end.

One thing I want to add to the discussion tho. Ask yourself why there would be a question for the 'right to die'. I mean, very ill and suffering people are just a fraction of the whole population. I haven't thought this up myself I must add, but nowadays in our individualistic society it may happen that an elderly person is lonely, tired of live and perhaps feels himself not worth the cost and energy of keeping him alive. Should we then legislate him to be able to die or is there something fundamentally wrong in the first place?

* irreversably, an otherwise painful end

In principle, I'm firmly of the opinion that the right to choose the time and dignity of your passing should be allowed. I believe you would have probably have to limit it to medical grounds, but having once articulate, lively people degenerate into dribbling, incoherent pain wracked beings, with no awareness of what is going on, who then stay that way for months or years, I can't believe people think that allowing people to die (by their choice) quickly and painlessly is a bad thing.

In practice, I don't think a law could be adequately worded (certainly in the UK or US) that would allow it to occur in the 'correct' way, without loopholes, challenges and the undifying spectacle of families fighting for the 'right' to get their interpretation of the person's wishes applied. Whcih is a shame, because I know I would never like to experience that 'quality' of life, or to put my family and friends through such a thing.

yeah, on some things we allow the family make decisions, but i'm fairly sure we could require a prior consent written and witnessed as a legal document and aoivd the family having a say, like a will, though i'm sure some wills are contested by the family, that doesn't occur until after the family member has died - so i would suggest that as many family members be present, to wittness the declaration, as possible.

@jman: Look into the Death With Dignity Act in Oregon. Lots of great stuff there.

And PLEASE make sure you understand the difference between Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

I'm pretty sure I think Euthanasia is wrong, but Assisted Suicide should be a right of all people.

@orathic: In most U.S. states there is a statute authorizing a set of documents called "Living Wills" and/or "Advanced Directives for a natural death", which give the person who signs those documents a legal right to determine who may have a say in whether or not a person will be able to be taken off life support in case of a critical or terminal illness.

The most restrained versions allow the patient's doctor and his or her spouse and children to have a say, whereas the most liberal versions allow the patient to exclude the spouse and children entirely so long as the doctor believes the patient's condition to be terminal.

These sorts of documents have not as of yet been tested greatly, but it appears that they are less open to controversy than wills or other documents, merely because after the person is dead, the document is meaningless, and there's nothing left to fight over.

thanks FriedOkra, i knew there was something along those lines.

It is probably the cases that you are not currently leagally able to enable a doctor to provide you with a lethal dose of morphine, except in Switzerland, which now has suicide tourists (you can travel there with your loved ones and be provided by a company with the means to kill yourself in a peaceful manner) though people are still liable for prosecution in their home country.

I would like to see the universal declaration of human rights include the right to die at a time, and in the way of your choosing.