Judge bans suicide show

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Grendal: You seem to be changing your tone a bit considering in your first post you said, and I quote "I support the right to die, and the right to televise it"

Well, I think the issue wasn't highlighted then, so I spoke generally and not specifically. I mean, there are the things you can only show on cable. This would certainly be one of them -- and only where NC-17 or X rated stuff could be shown, I'd think. As it is, it is a webcast.

My big rant here is about personal freedom. It irks the hell out of me that everytime I get in my car some "command-and-control" freak somewhere smiles inside, knowing I have to strap on a seatbelt I don't want to wear. I mean, I think most facial piercings are disgusting -- perhaps as disgusting as assisted suicide (I'll note I have a pierced ear, btw) when we're talking about 13 eyebrow-studs and such -- but, it's not my place to make them illegal. It is my place to think ill of the person sporting such headgear, but I'm not about to tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies.

However, as I said, I'm still struggling with where to draw the line.

Making suicide illegal is an abuse of my right to own myself. Of course, so is making slavery illegal, now that you mention it. Hmmm.... *ponders where to draw the line of distinction*

I mean, clearly not EVERYTHING you can do with yourself should be legal. I'm still pondering....

[Timber Loftis]

BTW, this is NOT within the assisted suicide law. However, suicide itself is illegal. I think a smart DA would pinch members of the band and charge them with Conspiracy to Commit a Crime or Obstruction of Justice. That's my thought on how the law is meant to deal with the matter. As always, why write new laws when the old ones work fine.

[Chewbacca]

I neither fear nor abhor death. I imagine, if asked, I would bear witness, with as much peace and compassion I could muster, to a persons voluntary discorporation if it was the decision they made to end the terminal pain of their body. Of course since any and all suicide is illegal, my hypothetical choice to bear witness to such an act would probably in and of itself be a crime. But not disgusting or immoral in any way IMHO.

But that is not really the issue in this case. I doubt the suicide broadcast was going to be real in the first place. The real goal was raising awareness for the right to die and giving a local band some national publicity.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I am just as disgusted by the notion that these people are doing this as you guys are. But, I'm not about to bend the band members to MY value judgments. I choose not to watch. It's that simple. You, however, choose to enforce your idea of decency. Let's hope you're prepared for the consequences when the notion of what is "decent", as dictated by a moral majority, turns its guns at YOU. They're doing this in part to support Euthenasia, you know. And, in many parts of the world, there exists a right to die. Perhaps what they're trying to show is that voluntary suicide doesn't look much different than simply going to sleep. Why don't you guys climb down from the high horse for just a moment and simply TRY to see the other side's point of view?

I understand where you're coming from. You are attempting to draw a balance between personal morality and the state's right to intervene - and you are arguing on the right of increased freedom over one's own body. It is an admirable position to take.

Having said that, one should also consider that society has already decided upon a moral code of conduct and enshrined it within the law in order to retain a stable society. For example, we do not allow sexual intercourse to take place within a public area and we generally do not authorise street prostitution and public nudity is generally controlled to a few select areas.

Society decides what is acceptable behaviour and legislates accordingly - and no-one has the right to unilaterally ignore the will of the people. Fake a suicide on stage by all means - but don't break the law to make a point: that is not the exercise of free speech, it is the advocation of anarchy.

There are other issues to consider too. I am unaware of the manner in which the suicide was to take place - but I imagine it to be by injection? If you allow it this time, the next act might be slashing wrists or by putting a gun to the 'performers' head. Still a nice idea? Then comes further problems - what if bands begin to offer large secret 'cash payments' for on-stage suicides?
What if people are coerced into suicide?

Society has an obligation to draw a line in the sand that seeks to balance the rights of the individual while protecting the interests of the majority. I believe that allowing euthanasia in private and banning it in public addresses that balance.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, skunk, as I said I am still pondering where to draw the line.

However, to turn to your point about allowing broadcasted suicide now leading to payments for suicide later: it is valid. However, the notion of procuring suicide also can come into play in euthenasia in private. Granny is sick, she's bed-ridden -- or hospital-bound and bed-ridden. If euthenasia is legal, won't her decision to be euthenized be driven in part by the OBLIGATION she feels to her family members, whose lives are being disrupted by her illness?

It's when the "right" to die starts to slip down the slope into the "obligation" to die that euthenasia becomes a problem. If her decision is based on anything at all other than her desire to end suffering, then aren't we looking at a coercion issue?

Just a thought.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I've been fed up with government telling me what I can do with myself and my body for sometime now.

The victim of suicide is those left behind. Not the person who commits the suicide.

I have had three people I've known commit suicide. One very close to my ex-wife. That suicide in particular was a reactive result of his mothers suicide.

Another was a professional associate of mine that destoryed a number of people close to me. Another was a school friend.

In every case, the victims are those left picking up the pieces after the person has gone. Had I my way, I would raise the friend of my ex-wife and kick his arse.

As such, efforts to make it illegal protects these victims.

It is a mistake to presume we are islands whose actions do not affect those around us.

Additionally do we not owe something back to society? Criminally minded people, perpetually jobless and homeless people are often found to feel like society "owes them" for some reason.

Yet I believe it is the other way around. Were it not for others, you would not have lasted a week on the planet. We owe our very lives to those around us.

Our knowledge and lifestyles come from accumulated knowledge, not self discovery alone. We build our understanding on the understanding of those that have gone before. The more educated we are, the more we owe to others.

I believe great happiness and satisfaction comes from "giving back". The realisation that we are part of a collective, that even a small gesture has powerful repercussions we may never see the effect of.

Suicide therefore is the ultimate insult to everyone around you. The ultimate selfish act. The vocalisation that everything anyone has invested in you means nothing. It can completely devastate a small community, or in Michael Hutchence or Kirk Cobain's cases vast numbers of people.

These are the victims. Those left behind.

We are not islands.

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, I know where you're coming from, but you've just taken away our ownership of self. You've made us the property of the greater society, and in effect the State. Who can now presumably tell us what job we must do, where we will live, how much we can eat, and who we'll marry. It is a slippery slope indeed.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, I know where you're coming from, but you've just taken away our ownership of self. You've made us the property of the greater society, and in effect the State. Who can now presumably tell us what job we must do, where we will live, how much we can eat, and who we'll marry. It is a slippery slope indeed.

No, just provided parameters. There are limits on what we can do with ourselves. We cannot drink and drive, murder, bash our spouses or kids, lie about our finances and many other things. Limits on personal freedom are what laws are all about.

They are also what relationships are all about. If I want to remain happily married, I need to restrict my personal freedom to sleep with whoever I want, or yell at the slightest provocation. Harmonoius relationship takes that sort of self edditing.

Additionally, relationships make oneself co-owned if you like, with other people. Using the marriage entity, two become one. Both partners have a "share" in the other, for decisions and actions of one directly effect the other. Once you have a child, you lose further freedoms to be a parent.

These are simple realities. We can choose to leave all these things. We can choose to be vagrants and be disconnected from relationship. Choosing to end your life is altogether different.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, I know where you're coming from, but you've just taken away our ownership of self. You've made us the property of the greater society, and in effect the State. Who can now presumably tell us what job we must do, where we will live, how much we can eat, and who we'll marry. It is a slippery slope indeed.

You do have a point though. I do see your side. On the other extreme, I've seen people become "yes people", feeling that they have to please everyone. Living their life for everyone BUT themself. Tricky business. Finding balance is not an easy thing.

[ 10-17-2003, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Night Stalker]

Yorick

I too see where you are comming from, but I tend to agree with Timber. The examples you cite, murder, spousal abuse, ect, are cases where personal freedoms infringe on another person. I have always been an advocate of my freedom ends where another's begins.

I know how you feel about suicide's victums being those left behind. I had an uncle that did it when he was 22 (I never knew him) and it cast a shadow over my family for decades. But how is suicide any different than any "untimenly" death? Those left behind always have to deal with the shock. Taking away a person's right to die is just selfish of society. To me, medical technology os more to blame. They have come up with many advances that allow the extension of life long after what would considdered natural. It has also removed societies ability to deal with death and dying.

Take the case in Florida right now. There is a woman who has been on life support for a decade now. The huband claims his wife never wanted to be kept alive with extreme measures and has fought many legal battles for the hospital to "pull the plug". Her parents don't want to loose their daughter so they keep fighting to keep her alive. Now they claim that the marriage was bad and that he doesn't have their daughter's intrests at heart. Who is the cruel party here? Who is the selfish one?

Is the person that commits suicide selfish? Or is society?