The Voice of Time wrote:You can't seriously be asking me whether I'm religious if you've ever read anything I've written here on this forum, and I've been here for quite a while now. You should know I'm quite anti-religious.
I have given my reasons, which you seem to have neglected to read since you need to ask.
But if you want more personal reasons I believe we live for the sake of peace (I've written extensively about this across the forums using other more descriptive words and more complicated language), and I believe we all exist to complement each other's lives and bring peace to each other and happiness, but in order to experience peace and happiness we must first be alive to experience it. So, at every test I've ever done in trying to see if "voluntary euthanasia" could be justified according to these rules, at every single test it fails completely. And no, pain is not "negative happiness", so there's no way you can calculate a happy-sum with negative integer values supposedly "taking away happiness", that's a logical fallacy. Happiness only accumulates or does not accumulate per moment as an experience that is either true or false for each moment. All our emotions run in parallel and have no necessary identity relationship in the realm of value of such sorts.
Nothing can justify "voluntary euthanasia" without breaking the principles mentioned above, except when we risk our lives to fight for each other in which case we do a calculated risk to make our shared future a better place. But even in those situations it will rarely summarize to a better situation, which is why the 21st century is such anti-war century and why the anti-war sentiment around the world is so strong, because we are getting familiar with the extreme cost of a life and how this loss negatively affects our future and the quality and security of our future.
Well I find your lack of sympathy for those in extreme agony about to die immoral, and ethically unsound, as does the legal power Drs and nurses have to ease suffering agree, now I am not saying that makes it right, but it is at least more humane than watching a person spend his last moments in such agonizing pain that he is gibbering and deranged.
Coup de grace, a blow meant to put someone who was about to die out of their misery and spare them the pain the last few minutes their life would be. Seems likewise much more moral, it strikes me as ghoulish and morbid to let people die in agony and stand by and watch for some misplaced sense that somehow they should experience death in all it's horrible pain; it seems actually quite cruel and malevolent, the sort of thing a torturer or sadist might enjoy, but meh, each to their own, as I said though your reasoning is immoral in my view.
Let's be clear here we're not talking about people who might recover we are talking about people in the terminal stage of incurable diseases. Likewise those who have been eviscerated and no amount of medical attention can save are best off not being left to die a death that is so agonizing their screams can be heard from a mile away.
Hari Kiri ritual suicide aka as Sepuka sure those sorts of senseless honour derived suicides seem pointless. But then even when they ritually killed themselves because of dishonour their was a deeply altruistic reason, they wanted to spare their familly the reflected shame of the dishonour they had accrued by disloyalty and or treason. For example a well known story is a Samurai fell off a cliff and was knocked unconcious and about to drown as the tide came in, a loyal soldier threw himself off the cliff to wake the Samurai to save his life, a life for a life; he earned his family great honour and they were raised to the noble class as Samurai, one simple act of nobility begat several peoples lives to be lived more amicably. People make such large assumptions about even cultural suicides that ones done to assuage suffering are seen in a misguided light. You don't have to be religious to get that, on the contrary I find the morality of the Atheist more humane than the inane idea that suicide rather than face unendurable suffering is somehow immoral. Don't get me wrong the Japanese system of honour seems to outsiders to be quite immoral, but at its core is a deep respect for life, and a deep appreciation for honesty and integrity and honour.
That does not mean I think Kamikaze pilots lit. divine wind were right to do what they did or that Samurai should have been so concerned with shame that they should end their life, it is pretty irrational at least by Western standards, but it is culturally at least logical. Likewise the maxim do no harm, is rightly employed in our culture if it is to ease the suffering of those who are in such pain they cannot face the last few days of their life in such a state.
Let me make this clear the admission of palliative care to ease pain is not euthenasia, although it is a fine line, patients are given control over their pain management by means of equipment called syring drivers, which can increase or decrease the amount of di-morphine as they see fit by pressing a button that delivers a bolus of heroin as and when they feel it most necessary, often those in the most pain are given two and allowed to chose when they want to administer pain relief, sometimes the doses can be fatal but the patient is carefully monitored at all times to ensure that he is not just committing suicide through depression or whatever, it frees the patient to hence decide how he wants to end his life and at what time, to some extent within carefully monitored guide lines, I think that is ethically sound more so than watching some scream kill me at the top of their lungs for several days. I am sure you can see the fine line that is being walked but I find that to be more moral than the alternative.