I might be, because this has a few possible interpretations. Since I'm not sure which angle it's going for, I can practically feel the breeze as it goes over my head.
There's a movie called the sea inside or something that is about this issue. Guy in it was in an accident that left him more or less unable to move from the neck down. He was incapable of killing himself.
In this scenario affected parties would be:
-Him
-those who care about him
-the person requested to assist in the suicide.
That said, just because those who care about him would be affected doesn't mean they should have a say, but no one should necessarily be required to kill another person either. Hence, both parties should consent.
Couldn’t he just have stopped eating, or are they force feeding him with a tube? If would be a long and painful way to go, but he could still do it. *im find with assisted suicide I’m just agruing that most people can do it themselves
He was on life support if I remember correctly. He was incapable of moving beyond his face. He wouldn't be able to eat on his own, scratch his nose, sit up, etc etc etc. He had literally lost his ability to live and his ability to die in one accident because assisted suicide was/is illegal, and they wouldn't end his life support
The movie is about his quest to try and get the right to die if I remember right. It's also based on a real person I think
If all parties consent, all should be good.
In this scenario affected parties would be:
-Him
-those who care about him
-the person requested to assist in the suicide.
That said, just because those who care about him would be affected doesn't mean they should have a say, but no one should necessarily be required to kill another person either. Hence, both parties should consent.
The movie is about his quest to try and get the right to die if I remember right. It's also based on a real person I think