Woman in Florida left to die in hospital

[David Floyd]

Yes. That seems clear to me. WIth the qualifier "ongoing."

I think our view of rights, then, fundamentally differs. To me, the benefit brought about by exercising a right is irrelevant - it's really none of anyone's business (unless of course I am hurting someone). If I want to, say, take a bath in Coca-Cola, I'm free to do so, even though that clearly provides no "long term ongoing benefit".

Sure you benefit. Freedom of Speech means that I do not have the right if I were in a position of authority to chop off your head for expressing your opinion. Speaking your mind freely is an ongoing benefit of freedom of speech.

That doesn't make any sense. You first said that a right must provide an ongoing benefit to me. I pointed out that insulting you doesn't benefit me, and you responded that the benefit is that my freedom of speech isn't infringed.

So great, then we agree! Surely you'll also concede, then, that the benefit provided by the "right to die" is simply that my right to die isn't infringed.

I'm looking at the definition of a right. What makes something a right, like liberty, life, speech, and religion? One of the common qualities shared by all of these rights is the ongoing benefits provided when exercised. Therefore, the right to die does not stack up nor qualify as a right like the others.

I'm pretty sure your own argument has refuted your own argument, but I'll bring up another issue.

You mentioned the "right to life". Now, do you think that means simply "the right to be alive", or does it mean "the right to your own life"? You see, there's a fundamental difference. If all it means is "the right to be alive", then the only limitation on our behavior is that we can't kill each other. Might makes right would be the highest law, with the minor caveat that the mighty still can't commit murder. Now, you might claim that the right to liberty still prevents this, but does it? Where would the right to liberty come from? Certainly not out of a vaccuum? No, the right to liberty is simply derived from the right to life, as is property and everything else. An assault on liberty or property, then, is also an assault on your life, because the REAL meaning of the "right to life" is "the right to your own life".

And this definition, which makes far more sense that the one you seem to be using, easily extends to the right to ending your own life.

Ongoing benefit. Read my definition again.

It's a flawed definition, but in that case, the ongoing benefit is that (assuming they are Christian) they get to enter heaven that much earlier

No. If he proves untrustworthy in one, he ought not to be trusted with the other.

Interesting. My original post on this thread was something along the lines of "fine, if her parents don't want to respect her wishes, then let them, not Michael, be responsible for her". Sounds like you are agreeing with me yet again, however, if she ever wakes up, I don't imagine she would be too pleased with her parents.

Terri has been well provided for in a fund, so I doubt Michael Schiavo has had to use a red cent of his money in order to care for Terri.

Well this brings up another interesting point. What incentive has Michael to lie about Terri's wishes? If he isn't being financially burdened by keeping her alive, why should he not want to keep her alive? If he wants to disassociate himself, he can always just get a divorce, so that argument won't work.

No, maybe he REALLY IS trying to carry out the wishes of the woman he loves - because other answers really don't make much sense given the financial situation.

Ah, but that is what we are debating, is it possible for one to legitimately feel it is better? I would say that it is evidence that the person suffers not that he or she ought to end their life.

Why would suicide be the right option for anyone? Why make this distinction between physical and mental suffering?

Remember on 9/11, when the people were jumping out of the windows on the top of the WTC? They were trading a quick death for a painful death, right?

Do you condemn these actions, too? They are certainly not any different from a terminally ill patient, in a great deal of pain, deciding just to die quietly by their own hand.

Tough. I believe people have the duty to care for others, and this includes those who are suffering either from physical or mental distress. If they want to kill themselves, we have a duty to help them see otherwise.

Really? And from where do you derive these duties?

It's also worth point out that these so-called duties conflict with the rights to liberty and property, and thus, by extension, conflict with the right to life. What this means, then, is that you are saying that our duty to others is something that is more important than our own freedom. Do you make that claim?

You are a libertarian, and again fall into the trap of not caring for others.

That's not true at all.

I would gladly pay money if it meant someone would not kill themselves. This treatment ought not to be forced, but encouraged.

But you claimed a duty to do so, and a duty implies force, rather than encouragement. So which is it? Do you think that we SHOULD help these people, or do you think that some duty says that we MUST help these people?

Confusing the points here. I would not advocate taking away someone's gun unless there was substantial cause to believe that the person planned to kill himself with the gun.

OK, so you believe in taking away the person's gun. A simple "yes" would have sufficed.