Comments on: Should Assisted Suicide Be Broadcast Live on TV?

By: Natalie Bennett

Natalie Bennett — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:22:41 +0000

The Green Party has taken this on politically – it supports a law for voluntary euthanasia with all of the usual safeguards. Yes it is considered “brave” because of all of the religious fuss – but actually, is only in line with general public opinion (which surveys generally show run 75%-plus in favour.)

By: Andrew Ian Dodge

Andrew Ian Dodge — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:46:47 +0000

This sort of knowing self-righteousness is what makes this debate so difficult. How judgemental can you possible be? DVL has similar methods.

This is about choice for the individual.

Mike as a former cancer patient (last year) and trial guinea-pig I can tell you making people in terminal painful shape live in such a state to serve as test-beds for future cancer sufferers is cruel. I was glad to help, however people should not be forced to do so against their will.

There is a very fascistic view from some about the dying. Because of religious conviction you feel that you are willing to use the force of government to make some live through pain and suffering at the end of their life. And yet you claim to be doing it from a position of compassion?

By: deguello

deguello — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:53:18 +0000

Why not? This is the nation that made eminem a millionaire,considers Obama profound,gave us jerry springer,and will buy/sell anything.Hey!I got a concept that will be an instant hit with feminazis, how about televising late-term abortions?

By: mike

mike — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:30:15 +0000

How far would medicine have progressed if all of the people dying with cancer over the past fifty years had decided to end their lives. Don’t we owe dying to those who come after us, in the same way those who died before us contributed greatly to cures? You didn’t really think all medicine for disease came from tiny little animals running around in a cage.

By: David W. Lincoln

David W. Lincoln — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:20:16 +0000

Far be it for me to want to be crass, but is Craig Ewert the only person on the face of the earth with what is afflicting him? What about others who have not given up, like he has.

Take a look at the differences and learn.

By: Ann

Ann — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:28:08 +0000

The broadcasting of the event doesn’t make it any more real (except in perceptions). The broadcasting is not a problem in and of itself. Another example: the broadcasting of pornography is a problem secondary to the filming of pornography and the abuse that occured during production. We are not required to experience or directly deal with all forms of crap in life, but we are perhaps wise to not spend a lot of energy trying to act like it doesn’t happen.

I’m afraid (being a conservative Christian myself) that much of the anger at the broadcast is driven by the fear of being forced to face what suicidal individuals are choosing. Nobody’s being forced to watch it.

I apply these principles to my own tv-watching and, as a result, watching less than 7-8 hours a week. Nothing there I want to see.

By: Andrew Ian Dodge

Andrew Ian Dodge — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:41:19 +0000

CY: Agree with you on all points.

By: Cole Younger

Cole Younger — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:13:27 +0000

Yes, suicide should be broadcast…as should the execution of convicted criminals…and as should combat. Most people have never seen real violence…they’ve seen movies, TV shows, docu-dramas, even file footage of Nazi death camps & the Killing Fields…but none of it seems real…Generally speaking, the blood is fake and the actors get up and walk away when the director calls ‘cut’!

Seeing real death may have the effect of sobering the blood-thirsty and foolish among us.

TVs have tuners. If a person doesn’t want to watch s/he may change the channel, but all adults should see the death of another before allowing anger, hate & rage to color their world view. One caveat: when combat is televised don’t expect to see many Americans die…our troops are good at what they do: they’re merciless and without pity in combat…effective and efficient; but true humanitarians to their vanquished foes. Captured enemies are treated fairly — if not gently; enemy wounded receive the same care our wounded receive; and the basics of life support are promptly provided — food, water, shelter and protection…There is a lesson there for us all. Life is always hard, sometimes brutal…but even in the worst of times, being humane is what makes us human.

By: Andrew Ian Dodge

Andrew Ian Dodge — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:54:26 +0000

Taking political ramifications into consideration is not heartless but realistic. It never ceases to amaze me, and is probably why I am a libertarian, how badly abused laws are by certain parties.

An abuser of laws that springs to mind is the RIAA. Their actions are so bad a leading constitutional scholar has declared their misuse of the law unconstitutional.

By: Dave D

Dave D — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:05:50 +0000

andrew, yes i watched it. It doesn’t change much for me though, because I already understood the arguments pro or con. As for displaying it, it honestly can’t be worse than watching saw IV. This is shown not to be gratuitous, but to make a point.

I’d say to him if i were his brother that it’s in no means suffering to me to have you alive. That i’d do whatever is needed or whatever it takes so that you can have the best life possible. If anything, we should enable more and better hospice care and less financial burden arising from such.

It may seem heartless, but in addition to the personal side, we have to consider the political ramifications of the act as well. It’s possible to have the best motives in passing legislation only for it to turn into something corrosive.