So your basic point is that no one wants to die and anyone who claims that they do is "obviously" suffering from some mental illness regardless of how cogent and intellectually sound their reasoning may be? Talk about circular reasoning.
No, that wasn't quite my point, but you're relatively close.
Re:Terry Pratchett on the right to die
by sonofjanoh on Friday August 07, 2009 @03:30PM
(#748372)
Terminal illness as in I can't move, I can't live I can't die and 100% I will not recover from this. I wake up in pain...but not from sleep, I live in pain around the clock.
They can't move, they have to be taken to Switzerland, they can't leave the country by themselves etc. They need help to die...that's what makes the family accomplice and there is the debate because commons sense is gone. The letter of law is taken literally and that's why so many idiots can sue for any dumb reason because the action is taken into account not the motive or the scope.
My thoughts exactly. Pain doesn't have to last forever, especially not mental illnesses with cures. They should no doubt be an exception in any potential law.
It's not "will they suffer for years", it's the same reason they banned capital punishment in the UK: The mistakes they might make which can't be fixed.
Terminal illness is completely different. Except for religious morality, it seems like a very one sided debate.