People should have the legal right to terminate their lives if they have a terminal illness causing them great pain.
People should have the legal right to terminate their lives even if they do not.
People should have a legal right to injest whatever substance they want: food (healthy or unhealthy), alcohol, marijuana, drugs they've decided they need under advice from the medical source of their preference, whatever.
People should have the legal right to skydive or bungee jump.
People should have the legal right to ride their motorcycles without helmets.
People should have the legal right to engage in whatever sexual practices they want, as long as all persons participating consent. (We're assuming, of course, that we're talking about people who legally can consent, here.)
People should have the legal right to donate their organs in the event of their death.
People should have the legal right to donate their organs even if they don't die.
People should have the legal right to give or sell their organs to the recipient of their choice.
People should have the legal right to leave directives which must by law be followed in the event of their incapacitation.
People should have the legal right to stay in New Orleans whether it is a danger to themselves or not.
Some of those are cut and dried "yes" answers. Some of them have caveats that need to be added. For instance donating an organ to who ever you want should have a medical rider. Some of them are matters of interpretation, or conscience, or even morality. All subjective.
You still have to live under the laws of the land.
However, all those lines really start with an unstated "I think". Which is fine and dandy.
Sure, someone should have a legal right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet but that poses an interesting dilemma. Some feel that society has a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, such as with medical expenses. If an indegent mother cannot afford pre-natal care, the argument asserts that by society providing her with such care, we lower long-term costs by ensuring a more healthy baby.
However, what about the motorcycle rider? Should society bear the costs of his voluntary activity? I would argue that I shouldn't have to pay for someone else taking risks. The same goes for skydiving, bungee-jumping, etc. However, that really becomes a slippery slope. An indigent mother choosing to have a child and thus further impoverishing herself and the child can certainly, by some, be considered "voluntary risky behavior." It's a tricky ethical question.
What I think it all comes down to is pretty simple: there's no "natural" way these issues can be resolved. People argue all the time about what's right or what's wrong and they ignore the fact that the more complicated something is, the less likely we can pigeonhole the activity. Thus, we're forced into a series of compromises that no one is quite happy with. In our current state of affairs, the motorcycle rider who seriously injures himself and sits in a hospital for months without paying is driving everyone's medical bills up. Do we tell the doctors to just let him die?
Note that I'm pretty much a "it's nobody's damn business what I choose to do" sort of guy, but I do realize that my voluntary activities impact others, so I'm not making an argument one way or another here. I'm just discussing differing viewpoints.
Re:Almost agree, but ...
jdavidb on 2005-09-07T19:45:45
I recognize and agree with your point that there are occasionally complex issues. However, I have simple answers to some of the ones you raise.
:) Some feel that society has a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, such as with medical expenses.
Those who feel that moral obligation should bear the burden of carrying it out, rather than legislating their morality onto anyone else.
:) In our current state of affairs, the motorcycle rider who seriously injures himself and sits in a hospital for months without paying is driving everyone's medical bills up. Do we tell the doctors to just let him die?
I would think that after what happened to Terri Schiavo, it would be easy to do so. I'm certainly more in favor of letting a person who left an end of life directive, or a person who engaged in a potentially lethal risk without proper precautions, die than I was to let Terri Schiavo die, who did not do either.
Note that I'm pretty much a "it's nobody's damn business what I choose to do" sort of guy, but I do realize that my voluntary activities impact others
And I'm in favor of restriction the moment a person's behavior impacts others without their consent. And I realize that occasionally gives us fuzzy lines: should a pregnant mother be forbidden to drink alcohol? I do not have the answer to that question.
Re:Almost agree, but ...
sigzero on 2005-09-07T20:07:14
should a pregnant mother be forbidden to drink aclohol?"
No, but that doesn't stop me from talking to her about how bad drinking (and smoking) is to her unborn child.
proof of insurance
gizmo_mathboy on 2005-09-08T04:25:17
I'm fine with people not riding without helmets. I would impose two legal requirements:
1) proof of health insurance
2) be an organ donor
I would say the same for those that feel the need to not use seat belts.
Freedom to fuck your life up as much as you want is fine. Imposing a burden on society for your actions needs to be somehow amerliorated.
If one wants to belong to a group for certain benefits then you need to go along with the group's rules.
I suppose if a helmetless rider signs a document that he won't be given medical aid in the event of an accident I suppose that's ok, too. Harsh but reckless behaviour needs some limits.
