HOME | DD
Avalik — I support the right to die
Published: 2009-07-30 06:49:31 +0000 UTC; Views: 14606; Favourites: 394; Downloads: 69
Redirect to original
Description
So, I support the right to die. That is, euthanisia... for humans. I couldn't find another stamp similar to this, and I think it is an important human right that should be common but is rarely given legal rights to. I am an active activist for this right, and in the correct communities you can easily find me supporting this right. As such I receive many e-mails and mails a day asking for help or advice to end their life. Some of these are very earnest and my heart goes out to these people, but the laws in this world would equate my assistance with lethal or immoral action, and my ability to respond to such requests is restricted to deleting or crumpling their mail without a response. And this brings me to tears that the backwards world we live in threatens my liberties to even communicate and to help, and it makes me feel so incredibly selfish when I do not... I can respond, but my own fear of being imprisoned prevents this. I wish I could be more brave, like the real heroes of this world who fought in the past for human rights even at the risk of death or life imprisonment. I do hope to get rid of this cowardice of mine._________________
Many people outright are hostile to the idea, and believe people should live in pain up until their last breathe; they should fight and struggle for years on end, and if they give up are cowardly selfish beings, despite that perhaps the idea of forcing a person to live for your own benefit is the selfish idealogy. Others are more receptive to the idea, but only under conditions such as for those who are terminally ill or could only live by assistance from machines. I believe the right should be extended to those who are physically sick, mentally ill, and even those who are simply bored of life.
We euthanize pets on the basis that they "are living in pain", and yet we force a human to go through every available resource to keep the flicker going, even if they don't want to do this anymore. If they don't want to be hooked up to a machine or if daily living is unbearable, they should "be brave, suck it up!" but why? Why, other than the common "the people around you will be sad if you die."
Does NO one think of the person who is in pain? When someone is murdered, everyone looks out for the victim's right. When your pet is in incurable agony, it would be inhumane to impose that pain on them simply because you would be sad when they die. It's sadistc, it's inhumane, it's torture; to inflict pain, to refuse to help relieve pain, or to ridicule people who aren't steel and can't take the pain... for your own benefit, or for anyone else's benefit.
It truely is a sick society when we feel compelled to kick people who are down and is in fact IMMORAL to NOT punish these people, and that the slightest weakness should be looked down upon.
I care about the earth in which we live. I care about the quality of life for all living beings - like yourself - and I care about the life of the slug I found outside or the chickens on the farm or the elephant in Africa, and the cats and dogs we feed every day. The many wild rodents, the birds and insects, and the abundant flora, in which we humans provide a peaceful means to escape if in pain, exempt one species of billions.
I want the competent to have a means of living and dying which is self-determined, self-empowering, and gracefully executed according to compassionate and responsible principles I associate with intelligent and mature human values. This includes clear adult communications about methods to end one's life in a predictable and timely fashion.
From the words of another, "Euthanasia and assisted suicide are covert and unregulated in the Canada of today. Also, their accessibility has more to do with "connections" than with need. They must become available within an open, regulated and equitable system.
People who are suffering intolerably from an incurable condition must have an adequate level of information and support with respect to every one of their options — including, though not limited to, the option of a hastened death." - Right to Die Society of Canada.
"I chose the way I lived my life, I should be able to choose how to end my life." - unknown.
"Quality over quantity. It applies to life itself, too." - my own words.
_________________
I'll be creating another one of these with a hemlock in the background, as I feel that'd be more symbolic. That'll be explained on the next one.
If you support any aspect of the right, feel free to still use it... you aren't obligued to use it only if you support it to my extent.
And to those who disagree with it, feel free to voice your opinions but I will respond and more than likely I will not be agreeing.
_________________
As for the artistic aspect of the actual stamp, the background is quite simply an eye with gaussian blur applied and a little tinkering. The eye is the key to the soul, and such and such, and is important in many cultures regarding to death so that's why I used it.
Medium: Digital
Program: Ole' Gimpy.
Time: an hour.
RESOURCES
Background: Eye Stock V by ~grace-stock
Font: Smudger LET Thin
Size: 99 x 56 pixels
ART USAGE TERMS for I support the right to die
I support the right to die is copyright to Adele "Avalik" Johnson. Please use I support the right to die according to the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License, and no other way. Please also review the stock image's Terms of Use: [link]
Legalese translation: You may use this anywhere on deviantART and out, however derivative works or commercial gain is prohibited.
Related content
Comments: 233
Sorry but I'm having a bit of a hard time understand you, is English not your first language? I'm confused about the,
"But then problems asume in,you not supposed to play god and e' only gives you what you can handle.
But there again by keeping there person alive and playing god also and might be pushing a person to where they can't handle it. "
The best I can translate it to is:
"But then problems arise, such as you're not supposed to play God -- He only gives you what you can handle. But then again by keeping that person alive and playing God also might be pushing a person to where they can't handle it"
But that doesn't make much sense either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Crap! Sorry about typos and mispellings *faceplams* and no english is my first language. And I used e's becuase no one sure god's male or female. Aaand lastly I was in a hurry.
Okay now that I read it over it sound like gibberish,I was anaylizing things and putting it in subtle. What I meant by it was;
Either way were being inhuman or someone's going to heck (if it even exists.) I want what's best for someone yet I worry about there afterlife. (?) That's why I'm torn.
...And again sorry that was my bad it's just that I didn't want to come off as a jacka--.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To that argument, while you are perfectly right to worry about their afterlife,
a. not everyone is religious, and shouldn't be held to those standards when they themselves don't believe in such. Eastern religions don't condemn suicide.
b. In regards to Christian religion, suicide has never been outright condemned in the Bible. Followers say they are breaking "thou shalt not murder" or that they are taking away what God gave them. But it hasn't been outright condemned, so we don't know. Also, even if it is, the person who committed suicide may not always be fully right in their mind; and thus not one-hundred-percent morally culpable.
c. Some people view Jesus as having committed suicide, similiar in the way people today commit suicide by "death by cop". Just putting that out there.
I don't know, it's hard to argue the religious argument. I myself am not religious, but I think we should worry about the life we're in as best we can and morally acceptable as we can, not worry about the one that might not even exist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Pheeew
A. Your right no one should be held to standards they don't believe in. Honestly I just want what would make them happy so if that what would make them happy then it's fine by me. Though it won't stop me from worrying,and I don't expect my worring to change there decisions.
B and C: When you put it that way it actually doesn't seem pretty bad.
I know...in truth I'm really not all that religous it just seems to be in this subject though. Yeah I'd accept what there doing it's there life and there right. Lastly if there is no god then they were out through pain for no reason... So in the end it really is only there choice.
...And I know the is out of contex but how old do you think I act? (...xD)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well let me tell you, suicide is not what makes a person happy. Suicide is basically because they feel there is no other option and sometimes there really isn't -- what every suicidal person really wants is for something to change, to get better, but a lot of the times it's largely out of their power. I'm a part of a suicide discussion forum, and once inawhile someone will ask, "if [so and so] happened to you (such as winning the lottery) would you still suicide" and pretty much everyone says no, they wouldn't, they'd give this new life a try. That's why so many attempts fail - they intended them to fail (even subconsciously), but to be thought of seriously, and thus people will try to help them; "save" them.
It's hard to tell your age... at lowest, 16, at highest 25. I'm going to guess 19. What is it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Right,I think I got what your saying. ^^ Though I have one disagreement my aunt was a very happy person when she died and she commited suicide. They were cutting of her limbs because of diabtes and so she decided right then she die by eating the things she hadn't ate in a long time.
...Uh but yeah most of the time in the sitution like you said they just want things to get better. or the person see's no other way out.
---
Actually I'm lowest age allowed on this site;13.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"They were cutting of her limbs because of diabtes and so she decided right then she die by eating the things she hadn't ate in a long time."
I'm not really sure if that counts as suicide, rather than just giving up on your health, unless like it killed her right away. Regardless. Don't you think she'd have rather the situation be that they decide not to cut off her legs, and she subsequently manage her diabetes and becomes healthy, than to kill herself? It seems to me she thought it was her only choice and it wasn't going to get better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Someone is in awful pain and is gonna die in the very near future because of a medical problem, yeah, ok, give em painkillers and put them in a coma until their death. Someone is sad/depressed and they kill themselves, it's the easy way out, if they are lazy and cowardly, i guess thats what they do, even although they should keep going through the temporary problem of sadness. people who are simply bored of life should come under the "mentally ill" bit, if you have lost the self preservation instinct you need help, Not death.
Human life is sacred though, best not to take it for granted. no sane person would want to give up their life, especially if they were aware that there *may* not be anything after.
anyway, yeah... people have the right to die, but in certain circumstances it's damned ungrateful.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
What if the abuser is the only person you have any contact EVERY SINGLE DAY?
What if the suicider doesnt's have any friends to support them?
Your forgot that people simply can't be strong every single day of their lives. Every single day the same amount of bullshit. EVERY SINGLE DAY!
You just wake up already expecting the bullshit that you know gonna hit you.
Everyone has limits.
Just because YOU never felt depressed during your life, doesn't mean you are any "stronger" or "more normal" than the suicider, it means that you are luckier.
You are luck, because you probably don't need to hear insults every single day, from the moment that you wake up to the moment you go to bed. You are luck, because you probably have supportive friends and family, who really cares about you and help you to deal with bad situations.
Just remember, that not everyone has familiy or friends to help them. And that some situations can be worse than they look. And that "happy endings" is not always a real thing in real life.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Not all depression or mental illness is temporary. Personality disorders, in example, are pervasive and chronic. Munchausen's is thought of to have no cure. Schizophrenia, bipolar are both chronic. Cyclic depression somewhat chronic. Dysthymia life-long.
I agree that people with depression should at least try to get better (as should the other mental illnesses, mind you, as those with chronics might be able to find a way to cope). They have the MOST treatable of the spectrum, and if isn't cyclic they could very well get better. But what if they've been struggling for, say, 15 years? Would you call that temporary? I wouldn't. I think at a certain point... once they've given getting better a good shot, suicide should become an option.
"it's the easy way out"
Assuming that is true, your point? Should people take the hardest route possible? If you had a route to your friend's, one was go around the mountain, the other was over the mountain you'd choose the former. And you'd be called a retard for taking the latter.
Answer me: Why should they suffer for decades and decades? It seems pointless, other than to make other people happy.
"if they are lazy and cowardly"
I fail to see how it has any relation to laziness. Please explain. As for cowardly, while I agree that it isn't brave I would say it is more on the neutral scale. Can I ask, would you be able to take a gun to your head? No? Should I call you a coward then, because you're scared to do something they are doing.
Even if it is cowardly, answer me: Why should they have to "be brave" and stick with their suffering for decades and decades? Again, the answer is for other people's benefit.
"no sane person would want to give up their life, especially if they were aware that there *may* not be anything after."
You've obviously been effected by the media on this one, since that's what the media pushes.
a. not everyone is afraid of the unknown. That doesn't make them insane. Some don't WANT there to be anything.
b. Tons and tons of people are suicidal. The medical term for insanity now a days is usually psychopathy. You really think all these suicidal people are psychopaths?
c. suicide has been documented in dogs, captive dolphins, captive Old World Monkeys, captive Greater Apes and sketchy documents on other animals. Insanity has not been documented in these animals as far as I'm aware, except in Old World Monkeys that were tortured in experiments (i.e. pit of despair).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lazy: the short route, the longer route yeilds greater rewards for one and all.
The brave man perseveres through adversity, the coward gets trampled and "escapes" or lets the adversity triumph.
a gun to my head, no problem, but it wouldn't benefeit me, pulling the trigger crosses the line between courage and stupidity, ending on the stupid side, anyone who thinks it's heroic to shoot themself in the head and has indeed tried it, speak up now.
I dont go near the "media" because all it preaches is make up and celebrities.
Yet again, if they don't want a future/anything after death they need their sanity assessed, all forms of life have the self preservation instinct, if something is in the way of that, it has to be removed.
Yeah, it's for other peoples benefeit to live on, if the case is that you remove yourself to prevent others benefeiting is plain selfish.
The mountain metaphor is redundant, if the freind kills himself while going round the mountain, then he doesn't make it to the other side.
The bible would have been a heck of a short book if adam and eve hung themselves when they got booted from the garden of eden. family trees would also only be stumps if people killed themselves once they were presented with a problem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Expect people to live a life they don't like, only to make YOU happy is sellfish too.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
You sure seem to be severely effected by the media, everything you're saying is fed cookie-cutter ideals and phrases. That or religion.
"if the case is that you remove yourself to prevent others benefeiting is plain selfish."
Wait, so you think people kill themselves to hurt others?
The last half of your post doesn't even make sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Quote some of the media that is just like me, if you can't provide a source, stop trolling.
Second point, Read what i posted or stop replying. note the "IF THE CASE IS"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Excuse me? You're on my deviation. I'm not trolling my own deviation and as it's my page I'll respond as much as I want.
You're obviously too immature to have a civil, decent discussion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
hi
your stamp has been featured in my news article
STAMPS TO SUIT EVERYONE, Issue 6
please fave the article and check out the other stamps
and congrats on a great stamp
zara
ps sorry for the delay in this notification
the spam limit stopped me because I was sending so many messages
pps this a tough subject but I totally agree
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I too support the right to die. When I was little one of our dogs had bone cancer and it was terminal. When he wouldn't move or get out of bed anymore we knew it was time to let him go.
I don't see why if something like that happened my own mother she should be denied the same rights our dog had.
We do have a right to refuse treatment, and when cancer came back to my grandmother a third time, she refused to go through treatment again. But she had to lie in bed and suffer in a hospital a long time until she passed away and my grandfather could only watch. It was painful for her and everyone else. She should have been able to die peacefully and painlessly at a time of her choosing, instead of having to let a disease finish ravaging her body first.
I can't say I support it much beyond for the terminally ill, though. Suicide for the non terminally ill is, to me, a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
At any rate, it's nice to see a stamp supporting the right to die. Yours has a very calm, peaceful appearance which is very fitting for the subject matter, I think!
"I'll be creating another one of these with a hemlock in the background, as I feel that'd be more symbolic. That'll be explained on the next one." -- Reference to Socrates, I am guessing?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Never got around to making that other one... yeah, a reference to Socrates. Some big right to die organizations use it as their logo as well.
Thanks for sharing your story.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This subject deserves more recognition. The stragest thing with euthanasia and abortion is that people often don't hear "I want to give you the right to decide for yourself in matters that will change your life, and that of your loved ones forever" but "I want to kill you and your baby, now, and every other persons. I will kill your grandma when she gets old, and I'll get pregnant just to kill the baby"
I think both are very sad and horrible things, that should be avoided as much as one can, but reality is harsh, and sometimes there is just no other option left. We are all going to die one day, this is a fact, we should have the right to go in piece.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I remember in that movie based on the true story of Jack the Doctor of Death who fought for the right to let people die. There were people out with protest boards saying
I want to live
which just made me facepalm because the people he treated demanded and begged to die because they were suffering,
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Never heard of the movie, I should go watch it. Sounds like an old movie.
Yeah, that would make me facepalm. Great, you want to live... we aren't going to euthanize you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is not an old movie actually. It is fairly new, actually.
It is the catalyst that got me to support this right.
[link] <- You can watch it here if you have not already had the chance to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks! I'll watch it soon
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree
If someone consensually wants it for a good reason, why should people deny them this? My feelings are a little torn when it comes to comas, though I still think it should be an available option. Also for animals as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree. If it's all fine and dandy to put down an animal because they are living in pain (and for many other reasons as well that I don't agree with in the slightest), then why is it that as soon as someone suggests that humans have the right to die if they wish, they get all up in arms about the "sacredness of human life" and other such bullshit. It's fine if you believe that human life is sacred, or that committing suicide is wrong or whatever, but that doesn't give you the right to decide what others can and cannot do with their own lives.
However, that being said, I don't think that it should be without regulations, or you risk all kinds of abuse, as well as people killing themselves "for the wrong reasons" so to speak. There should be some kind of psychological evaluation to first of all make sure that the person isn't somehow being coerced into doing it, and that they aren't doing it because of some issue that can be fixed or treated (ie, being bullied, clinical depression, etc.).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree with the the message totally. I wrote an essay about the subject in support of Euthanasia in school, a Catholic one so that didn't go down well.
The "Quality over quantity" quote in your description is genius.
On the stamp itself, I found the "die" kind of hard to see. The background and writing is lovely but it's a bit too blurry so if it was sharpened slightly and/or the word was just a couple pixels up it would be easier to see.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'll fiddle with it to see if I like it sharpened.
Haha, so how did it go down exactly in the school? Did you get a good grade?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My English teacher who I wrote it for loved it and I got an A. My Religion teacher didn't like me at all though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Never heard of a religion teacher 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, okay, makes sense then I guess
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You took words from my mouth! I agree with you. People deserve their right to die!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The only reason people are against the "right to die" is because they are thanatophobic.
In my opinion, it is far more inhumane to force someone to suffer then it is to mercy kill them.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Exactly.
They just fear death.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i believe if someones suffering, and they wan't to die, they should be allowed to die
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is SUCH a hard subject to me. I disagree and at the same time I agree. But I think I agree more than disagree. I mean, for example, I didn't choose to be born, I atleast should have the right to live as I whis and die if I want too. Am I right perhaps? As I said, difficult subject in so many ways.
Discussing it in philosophy class right now, soon I might join a side. We'll see.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hey there. Yes, it is a pretty tough subject isn't it?
Inherently it isn't a bad moral to want people to live. It comes from a good place, I just think that it shouldn't always be applied to everyone.
And yeah I'd have to agree with that. You should have the right to live (already granted) and the right to die under certain circumstances. That would be true freedom I think.
Hope your philosophy class turns out interesting and eye opening. Here's a link to some video's of a philosophy class at Yale relating to death: [link] you might be interested in watching some of them, they cover suicide as well. REALLY long to time to watch all of them though
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sure is.
Yeah and if the human suffer and really truly WANT to be killed and there's no other way out, then he/she/it should be if wished so. The relatives might not be so happy, and his/hers death will cause lots of tradegy. That's one bad side, but on the other hand; an individ should make own decisions over his/hers life/death for sure.
Thank you for the link!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i think that if a terminally ill person is in a lot of pain and want to die before their suffering gets worse, they should be allowed to. i don't think it's any different to putting down a dog that's in pain.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is really kinda werid because I was thinking of this just yesterday. I think its brillant what your doing and hopefully in the future we can make ignorant people see what we see and hear what we hear. People should have the right to die. what is so hard to comprehend out of that?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I guess it's cause you were thinking about it that you perhaps you looked for it. If you simply stumbled on it, then yeah that's pretty weird!
Obviously I agree with what you say 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Excellent stamp.
Either way, I think it's perfectly plausible that people should be able to choose between a quick and comparatively less painful end and a long, drawn-out period of suffering before their body ultimately shuts down.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Okay time to respond!
I've always wanted to take an ethics class, specifically bioethics. Lucky you. Did you do well in it?
I can definitely understand the many people who think from a physician's standpoint. After all most physician's sign a contract of ethics thing which say, "A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception." deal, which would directly conflict with the right to die - and yes, abortion.
But then the Declaration of Geneva has things people might use in favour of the right to die, "I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity; the health of my patient will be my first consideration;" that is health in general not just life. And "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;" could be used for or against... as it doesn't specify quality of life, just to respect it.
But, I suppose, that's why a "Refuse to Kill" right could be of use. Many military-people have been given that right, so if euthanisia was introduced that right could be given to physicians. Or, alternatively, the Geneva convention and so on be altered.
"Some modern philosophers claim you don't have the 'right' to die because from a physician's standpoint, you are interfering with a human's inherent 'right to life.'"
That's another good point... but I personally just don't find much to that part, though it does 'sound good' if you know what I mean. The right to life means another person cannot take it away, usually. Many nations hold the right to dignity above right to life, particularly the ones who already have legalized euthanisia. And then there is the right to liberty... that is, the right to act according to their own will. And not to mention I'm not sure if the whole "you have the right to life, so you don't have the right to die" makes sense... I mean, cannot a person revoke their rights? The right to silence is often broken by the person who has that right. And in example, "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others." the right to property. The right to property doesn't mean you can't "sell" your property. The right to life shouldn't mean you can't "sell", per se, your life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I took Introduction to Ethics as a gen-ed requirement. It seemed fascinating. I was right. 
Well, if I'm not mistaken, I don't think we're disagreeing on anything. I think everyone has the right to live AND to die. It's that person's choice if they want to terminate those rights, as well. What you said here is perfect:
"I want the competent to have a means of living and dying which is self-determined, self-empowering, and gracefully executed according to compassionate and responsible principles I associate with intelligent and mature human values."
It would be a different story to say that a person doesn't have a right to life or to death. For one thing, I don't know someone could exist, anyway, without the rights to live and breathe. Biology determines that, not action. Having an inherent right to life, to me, means a person should also be able to control matters concerning their death.
The only way I think that the physician is more important than the patient is when, like in the case of Terri Schiavo, the patient cannot choose their own fate for his or herself.
If you're interested and haven't read it already, you should check out James Rachels' essay titled "Killing and Letting Die" . We read it in the Ethics class. I think it provides a relevant basis for how and why the patient is the ultimate decision-maker in determining their death, not the physician.
I also conducted a poll on this subject; there are a few interesting viewpoints there, plus mine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Well, if I'm not mistaken, I don't think we're disagreeing on anything."
Yes yes, I was just giving my points on the parts you brought up. I haven't read Killing and Letting Die but I've read other books on the issue. I'll take the time to go pick it up from my library/book store next time I go, then.
I have a poll on it as well, though a little different than yours. Thanks for linking it... I always enjoy reading about other people's thoughts on the matter, particularly on those who are against it just out a matter of curiosity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>