Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

What Is Dignity?

Recommended Posts

Just so to be clear......

 

The TITLE says it all.  What is dignity?

 

The real issue in the OP of the now-locked thread,  was completely ignored.

 

Quote

 

My issue is with the term,  "dignity." 

Here are the definitions of dignity (Merriam):

1 : formal reserve or seriousness of manner, appearance, or language
2 : the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed
 
 
 

Are we saying a person loses his dignity when he gets ill, or maimed?  He loses his worth?  He's no longer esteemed?

 

 

  To imply that one loses dignity when he becomes dependent on others, is at the very least, insensitive towards the disabled who doesn't share that kind of mind frame.   Not all disabled people share the same sentiment that just because they depend on others for their basic needs, that they've lost their dignity!  I pointed to some who still contribute to society despite their condition.

 

Some jumped the gun at the use of the modern slang  for perseverance, "suck it up."  This statement was taken out of context.

 

Quote

 

When I think of dying with dignity - I think of someone bravely, or trying to be courageous in facing the inevitable.  A cold medicine ad on tv sums it up:

"SUCK IT UP."

 

 That's how I associate the term having dignity - being courageous, or persevering in a difficult situation or condition. 

The cold medicine ad I see everyday on Vision TV came to mind.  "Suck it up!"

 

 

Some think this is about religion. 

Although it can also be about religion - I don't think I've used religious belief as an argument.  I've given the reasons why there are protests being made against assisted suicide - sources were provided. Religion was not among them.

 

 

I do understand the position of some that do not want to go on living, waiting in pain til the end.   Like one poster had said, we won't know how we will react unless we end up in the same shoes.

 

 

Have you noticed that I didn't post this under Religion and Politics?   Because it's not meant to be about religion. 

 

 

 

It is frustrating to see the same old arguments being given by some of the left -wing,  the same old accusations that we see in every topic - they inevitably make it about Christianity and Christians! 

It's like deja-vu of the gone poster who kept bringing up the evils of the west, and the WTC conspiracy theory....in every darn topic! 

 

 

 

I wince every time someone associates dignity with having to depend on others for basic needs -

"depending on others like a child," they say. 

And yet  even a child, has dignity.

 

Having dignity doesn't necessarily have to be tied up with dependence.  Although some disabled people may see it or feel that way.....there are others who don't. 

Why can't we think of those others who don't think illness (and the consequences of being ill),  had stripped them of their dignity?  It's not like as if they're not facing the same difficulty - do we need to heap more on top of it?

 

 

So.....my angle is coming from the standpoint of those dependent disabled who don't think they've lost their dignity despite of it! 

It probably is the most difficult of all  struggles of the human spirit - and yet they still go on. 

Indeed....... just to be an inspiration to others, is a tremendous contribution that anyone can ever give.

 

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some might consider being confined to a bed in pain with people changing your diapers as a life without dignity that is not worth living.

They should have the privilege of deciding their own fate for themselves. You should not have the privilege of deciding it for them.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

Some might consider being confined to a bed in pain with people changing your diapers as a life without dignity that is not worth living.

They should have the privilege of deciding their own fate for themselves. You should not have the privilege of deciding it for them.

I can understand where those who want assisted suicide are coming from.

But  I can also understand the fear of the disabled people who are protesting against it - they feel very vulnerable.

 

Everything starts out for a good reason, or what may seem that way.  It's the slippery slope that makes people wary.

 

 

Edited by betsy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Everything starts out for a good reason.  It's the slippery slope that makes people wary.

 

 

Ah yes, the old slippery slope. Like with gay marriage, when we were all going to be marrying our dogs by now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Ah yes, the old slippery slope. Like with gay marriage, when we were all going to be marrying our dogs by now.

No, with gay marriage - the pitch was that they simply just want to marry  and be given the same benefits that are given to heterosexual married couples.  

 

No one said anything about  forcing people to go against their conscience.  But we see it happening now.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One should never refrain from doing the right thing due to a potential slippery slope.  It's the same with assisted suicide.  We're all going to be murdering family members with headaches so we don't have to buy aspirin, and stuff like that.

If there's a slope, deal with the slope.

Edited by bcsapper
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the slope.  It's easy to say "deal with the slope," but not so easily done when it's been established.

 

The bigger slope that one has to be wary about with assisted suicide, is the fact that there will be those who will use their power to impose what they think is best for a person, or for society.  

 

As for depending on the system to do the work......we can't even deal with neglect and abuse right now in our retirement and nursing homes......so, there.   People with dementia are all lumped together with the rest! Violence has become prevalent in these places!

 

Quote

Marketplace

'It's a horror movie': Nursing home security footage provides raw picture of resident violence problem

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/long-term-care-marketplace-1.4501795

 

Quote

Violent or abusive incidents between long term care home staff and residents have jumped 150 per cent in just six years in Canada.

CBC News has never-before-seen video of verbal and physical abuse — plus our hidden cameras capture personal support workers complaining to a government inspector that they are so short-staffed, they don’t have the time to bathe or feed the most vulnerable

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/violence-and-abuse-in-long-term-care-homes-1.4504831

 

Quote

40 Ontario nursing homes with the highest rates of reported abuse

http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/blog/40-ontario-nursing-homes-with-the-highest-rates-of-reported-abuse

 

I believe the stories!  I've worked in retirement homes - and I'd seen inspector(s) looked the other way!  How couldn't the inspector not see when the problem was so visible? I don't know if corruption was involved.  I actually sent an anonymous letter to the Ministry detailing what's been happening, and how unsafe the premises was (fire hazard) - we're talking possible explosions!  I couldn't just look the other way.

 

Furthermore, how can you trust a system that cannot function properly? 

Especially in socialist-leaning nations where universal healthcare is the norm - how do you deal with the ageing population - and other groups of people that aren't "productive"  -  with dwindling resources?

The very system that we trust, could very well have the motive why it favors assisted suicide!  

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The movie, "Soylent Green," comes to mind.

 

 

 

....but I don't imagine it will be as fancy, as how it's shown in the movie. 

 

If it happens....the first ones to go will be those without any relatives....or anyone who cares enough to come for visits.  Those who are alone in this world.

Edited by betsy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing.   Could this be the answer for those who are waiting in a long line for.........organ donors?

 

Don't think that just because the scenarios are depicted only in fictional books and fictional movies, that it can't or won't happen in real life.    Truth is stranger than fiction.  Sometimes what actually happens is more bizarre than what we can only imagine.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

if there's a slope, deal with the slope.

I think the death of slippery slope as an argument is a result of us challenging a lot of old (and bad ideas), and being optimistic about being able to manage it.

 

Gay marriage is here, and the generation that are still agitated about that are merely dying, and so they can be ignored.  This means that there's a short time window for old values to be passed on to younger folks, and if it isn't picked up then change will come.  

It would be worthwhile to examine other value sets that are changing with younger people, compared to the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if those who wished to determine their own time to go were freely permitted to, there would be more resources for those who preferred to take the longer way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps if those who wished to determine their own time to go were freely permitted to, there would be more resources for those who preferred to take the longer way.  

They could.  We hear of suicides, don't we?  Even without permission from anyone.

 

Why do we need the permission of anyone if we truly think we have the individual right to end our own life?  

If anyone really want to die now, what's stopping them?  Afraid they'll botch it without a doctor?  Who's to say the doctor won't botch it either.  Don't we hear of doctors getting sued for malpractice?  It happens. 

 

Who cares what the system thinks if I'm already dead, right?  Does it really matter anymore what people say when you're gone?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps if those who wished to determine their own time to go were freely permitted to, there would be more resources for those who preferred to take the longer way.  

Resources from that would be a pittance.  If we want to increase dwindling resources....it'll take drastic measures.  Thorough screening and vetting of those entering Canada, is one way - so we don't have to pay millions to terrorists.  But that's another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, betsy said:

Why do we need the permission of anyone if we truly think we have the individual right to end our own life?  

 

Some people are suffering and incapacitated and unable to do anything for themselves, including suicide.

Some people are too considerate to make a family member or stranger experience the shock of finding their dead body unexpectedly.

I have a friend who is an train engineer who has experienced more than one suicide firsthand. It's actually quite a cruel thing to do to someone.

How is your capacity for empathy? Does that make sense to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, betsy said:

Resources from that would be a pittance.  If we want to increase dwindling resources....it'll take drastic measures.  Thorough screening and vetting of those entering Canada, is one way - so we don't have to pay millions to terrorists.  But that's another story.

Maybe, maybe not.  If ~80% of Canadians support legally assisted suicide, that suggests to me that a lot of people would use that option themselves.  For each person who chose that option, someone else could use those resources.  With the increasing population of elders and increasing cases of dementia and other slow-killing diseases, those freed-up resources could be more substantial than you think.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/08/28/77-of-canadians-support-assisted-suicide-poll-shows.html

http://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/advance_consent_assisted_dying_poll

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/84-of-canadians-support-assisted-dying-new-poll-shows-1.2045085

 

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

Some people are suffering and incapacitated and unable to do anything for themselves, including suicide.

Some people are too considerate to make a family member or stranger experience the shock of finding their dead body unexpectedly.

I have a friend who is an train engineer who has experienced more than one suicide firsthand. It's actually quite a cruel thing to do to someone.

How is your capacity for empathy? Does that make sense to you?

Maybe, we have to be considerate too, to those others who are in the same vulnerable situation, and look at it from their angle why they fear and oppose this legislation. 

We have to be considerate too, that we do not place an unwanted responsibility (of killing), on anyone. 

  For some, committing murder - for it is murder (a deliberate killing) whether it's for mercy or not, and even requested  - can be a traumatizing experience that will haunt for the rest of his life.  I can't even bear to look when hubby had to finish off a deer that we hit on the road.....and here we are, we're talking murdering humans!

 

Like I said in the post above, I can understand where  BOTH SIDES are coming from. 

Do you feel empathy for those who fear this legislation?

 

We can empathize all we want - but sometimes, to empathize is all we can do.  

 

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, betsy said:

Like I said in the post above, I can understand where  BOTH SIDES are coming from. 

Do you feel empathy for those who fear this legislation?

 

We can empathize all we want - but sometimes, to empathize is all we can do.  

 

I can feel empathy for someone who feels vulnerable, but this legislation need not make people vulnerable. Murder will still be illegal. It wouldn't be hard to put in the appropriate checks and balances to make sure such a system is not abused. Just as we are not marrying our dogs, your slippery slope argument makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

I can feel empathy for someone who feels vulnerable, but this legislation need not make people vulnerable.

But that's simply your view.  That doesn't change the fact!

The fact still remains that there are groups that are opposing this because they feel vulnerable and threatened by it.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

 

Murder will still be illegal.

And so is abuse of the elderly and  assault.

 

Quote

It wouldn't be hard to put in the appropriate checks and balances to make sure such a system is not abused.

So, why are those still prevalent in nursing homes? 

 

 

Quote

Just as we are not marrying our dogs, your slippery slope argument makes no sense.

As proven by my response to you.....it makes perfect sense.  Don't rely on the system - especially a BROKEN system!

 

What doesn't make sense is the determination to bury our heads in the sand.  Either we are in denial.....or we're apathetic about it.

I suppose -  as long as it isn't happening to me, it doesn't matter.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, betsy said:

But that's simply your view.  That doesn't change the fact!

The fact still remains that there are groups that are opposing this because they feel vulnerable and threatened by it.

The fact remains that it would still be illegal to kill someone without their permission, so nothing will be any different.

If you are concerned that the law is not adequate to prevent abuse and assault, how would this law change anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

The fact remains that it would still be illegal to kill someone without their permission, so nothing will be any different.

If you are concerned that the law is not adequate to prevent abuse and assault, how would this law change anything?

It shows,  the  so-called "check and balance" that we want to rely on, can  mean nothing.

 

And......yes, the slippery slope of offing any relative who becomes a burden.....or whose greedy relatives can't wait to be rid off.  

 

Did I forget to mention that it also makes for a good way to cull the population - to get rid of "unproductive" citizens as a way of cutting corners?  They may even call it the "HealthCare Austerity Program."

It solves the problem for shortage of bed spaces, staff and.....nursing homes.

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, betsy said:

And......yes, the slippery slope of offing any relative who becomes a burden.....or whose greedy relatives can't wait to be rid off.  

If someone is willing to kill for material gain or to relieve a "burden", laws against it wouldn't matter.  A law allowing someone to choose to when to die has nothing to do with people killing other people, illegally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

If someone is willing to kill for material gain or to relieve a "burden", laws against it wouldn't matter.  A law allowing someone to choose to when to die has nothing to do with people killing other people, illegally.

IF you can prove that it wasn't really euthanasia.....but plain and simple murder.  Who's to say it wasn't? 

That's the problem.

Edited by betsy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, betsy said:

It shows,  the  so-called "check and balance" that we want to rely on, can  mean nothing.

 

So then what difference does the law make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, betsy said:

IF you can prove that it wasn't really euthanasia.....but plain and simple murder.  Who's to say it wasn't? 

That's the problem.

If a person A signs a document allowing  person B to end his life once predetermined conditions are met, and those conditions are met before person B carries out the assisted suicide, then that would be "euthanasia".  If those conditions aren't met, then there may be a case for murder.

You seem to think that there would be no safeguards, the law would be passed that basically would give carte blanche to anyone to kill anyone for reasons of mercy.   

In Oregon, they have some conditions designed to ensure the person requesting death is doing so of their own free will.  There must be two requests, with a minimim waiting period between them, and a second medical opinion sought from someone neutral among other things.  California has similar requirements, including a requirement that the doctor meet privately with the patient to ensure no coercion.

With these kinds of controls in place, assisted suicide is not going to result in a killing spree of the old and infirm.  

Here's some reading on different countries and how they deal with the issue of euthanasia.

https://lop.parl.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2015-116-e.html?cat=law#a11

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...