Resource Regarding legality (a legitimate reason but is dependent on other reasons)

[TAW122]

In one of my previous threads talking about the roadblocks towards legalizing voluntary euthanasia, legality is one such roadblock. However, this thread will focus more on the specific concept about 'legality' being a reason, factor, or an answer to a question. While legality is indeed a legitimate reason for whether something is allowed or disallowed, prohibited or permitted, it is an dependent reason. By this, I mean the reason alone doesn't just exist on it's own, but there is another reason for it (in other words, it is dependent on another reason for it to hold).

Note: This thread is to emphasize and point out that legality itself is a legitimate reason, but only exists because of another independent reason itself (or in rare cases dependent reasons - but for the sake of this thread we will keep it simple).

Examples:
1. The speed limit posted for a particular road is 30 mph (or approximately 50 kph), and it is the traffic law. Why would one follow/obey the speed limit? Most people would follow it because it is the law, but there is a reason why the speed limit is the speed limit. The reason could be because of the area (more residential, curvy, winding roads, other hazards, etc.). So by having a low speed limit, it makes that particular road 'safer' to drive and allows whoever is on the road to be safer. Therefore, the reason for a law to exist or for legality to hold is because it is dependent on another reason.

2. Theft is wrong because it is illegal. Why is it illegal? Because theft deprives another person or entity of a particular object (property). By deprivation of another person or entity of their property, the person or entity suffers harm (damage and loss) from said action, and we established that objectively, harm is a negative.

3. Why can nobody but the US Treasury print money? Because it is illegal. Why is it illegal? Because no one has the authority to do so except for the Treasury and by doing so, it undermines the value of the currency leading to inflation, hyperinflation, and also fraud, abuse.

There are many, many more examples that can be given, but these are just examples of things that are not allowed because they are illegal, but have a reason to be illegal.

So how does this relate to voluntary euthanasia? Voluntary euthanasia is illegal in most countries and jurisdictions, hence why most medical professionals (besides personal and moral reasons) are not willing to carry out the deed for fear of legal consequences and repercussions that follow. That is a legitimate reason, but we (especially critical thinkers) know that there HAS to be some underlying root reason/cause for voluntary euthanasia to be illegal, whether it is economic, moral, ethical, and/or irrational ones.

Thus, in conclusion, legality itself, while it may be a reason, is dependent on other independent reasons to exist as a reason/factor for something permitted or prohibited. Similar to how symptoms do not exist on their own, but are the result of a (root) cause(s).

I hope this thread makes sense and that my point is clear. I want to summarize and condense a point that not many people delve into or think about in detail, so hopefully after reading this thread, people may be able to see things in more detail and think critically.

 

[jodes2]

I think the reason VAD is still illegal in most places is a hangup from religious times which also affected doctors oath to do no harm. Relieving suffering is not a good enough reason, but why? I think it's just been handed down through the ages thanks to religion. Which in my eyes makes it irrational

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think the strongest reason for laws- whether they be governmental or religious is to maintain order and to protect life. We are born into and spend our lives paying into systems that (are supposed to) keep us safe- whether we want that or not.

As 'jodes2' just said, I think the laws against assisted suicide stem greatly from religion and the idea of the 'sanctity of life.' I think these ideas alone will be difficult to overcome on a global scale. I suppose to fit your observation of a 'dependent' religious reason on why assisted suicide is outlawed is to protect your immortal soul from going to hell.

I agree- it's highly debatable whether hell/ God even exists and it's not absolutely black and white in all religious texts that this is the outcome (as far as I'm aware). Still- like 'jodes2' said- it's a hangover from when the Church and the Crown walked hand in hand.

I suspect at some point, there will come a time when assisted suicide of the terminally ill will be more accepted and widespread. It seems to be the one condition that (probably) the majority of people are sympathetic to. How can there be any 'good' in prolonging the life of someone who is suffering, can't be helped and wishes to go themselves?

However, I believe physical illness with possible cures and mental illness in general will continue to cause debate. I think there will always be this idea that life should be preserved if it can't be written off as incurable.

The problem I see with mental health is- if you are deemed to be infirm- your life suddenly needs to be something that is protected by the state. You can be sectioned involuntarily afterall. Free will seems to go out the window when it is decided upon that you don't know your own mind.

I guess to fit your description of a 'dependent' reason here for not allowing assisted suicide would be- 'but we can make you better' (whether they can or not) or 'you're not in the right frame of mind to be able to make this decision for yourself... so- we need to protect you from yourself.'

Actually- I find the terminology 'euthanasia' and 'suicide' as used by these clinics interesting:

Does DIGNITAS offer euthanasia?
A: No. Euthanasia implies putting down someone on his or her request. This is prohibited in Switzerland. However, Swiss law allows for assisted / accompanied suicide.

I would have thought requesting to be euthanized would be the same as requesting help in suiciding. It's interesting that they make the distinction. Maybe because you physically drink the N, it is considered assisted suicide- and obviously- you are aware of what will happen.

I suppose the point I was actually trying to make is- if someone is considered infirm- so- without the mental capacity to understand what they mean when they are requesting assisted suicide- then- it would have to be considered euthanasia- which I suspect will be MUCH harder to legalise because it is MUCH harder (I imagine) to prove that is wasn't murder.

 

[TAW122]

I want to clarify that this thread is more about why laws and legality itself is a dependent reason rather than a standalone since it can only exist due to other independent reasons. (X is not allowed because it is against the law can be used as a reason, but it is not the 'real' reason because there is a reason to why X is against the law.) I used the 'symptoms' analogy to illustrate my point, since they are similar.

(I'm posting a reply because I can no longer edit my original thread.)

Anyways, to address @jodes2 and @Forever Sleep
I agree with jodes that a lot of the laws that are in effect, especially banning and prohibiting voluntary assisted death (voluntary euthanasia, assisted suicide, etc.) is indeed a hangover from the old religious times which also influence the doctors' oath of doing no harm. So that would be the cause for the criminalization of assisted suicide in many jurisdictions.

Regarding Forever Sleep's post on laws itself, I think that is a good cause for the legality and illegality of things in the world, it is to preserve order (civility which separates us from most, if not all other animal species) and preserve life. I do recall a former friend (who went on to become a lawyer) once said our justice system (speaking of the US specifically) is generally optimistic and leans towards preserving life, or something to that effect. So in a sense, we could consider that the legal system is skewed to pro-life. Also, it is interesting that Switzerland makes a distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia. Personally, I think voluntary euthanasia (with many checks and balances) should be legalized and that practitioners (who follow the proper protocol, obtained patient/person's consent, etc.) should be immune to legal action.

 

[jodes2]

I dunno, the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide is dubious to me. I don't get the difference. It's virtually the same thing! Crazy imo.

God, I am so sick of anyone claiming I don't know my own mind. Just because I have mental health problems doesn't mean I don't appreciate death for what it is. It doesn't mean my gripes are curable. And even if they are, it's my god damned body. Fuck! Anyway. That comes off the back of my rejection by Pegasos VAD last month