Well, by preserving life in the technical sense, you cheapen it in the bigger definition of the word. Do you also think DNR documents are bad?
There’s no such thing as inherently immoral. Morals are personal judgements. What is immoral for you or your church may not be for me. It’s not your church’s business to make decisions for people that don’t believe your religious beliefs have value.
Fine. Then don’t euthanize anyone. Your opinion has nothing to do with the rest of the world.
In the US, the stipulations are so strict that healthy,viable people aren’t going to be euthanized. You can’t pressure someone into it. It requires a doctor’s statement that the person won’t live for more than 6 months, etc. I think it’s too strict, but hopefully that will change.
Right. What’s wrong with that? If you’re too scared to go, you can choose excrutiating pain over death. Your business…your choice.
Well, I don’t know about you…but I’d have to be feeling pretty shitty for someone to convince me that death is the way to go. Do you really think the people who choose euthanasia went through a big arm-twisting session with their families? You’re talking like a christian here.
It isn’t always about the pain. It’s about a life that is no longer productive in that person’s opinion. And that’s really the only opinion that counts.
Not necessarily. I said before that there is a time when we have to let people die. In that case I don’t think DNR documents are bad. In cases where they are used to stop resuscitation of people that would otherwise continue living, then I think they are not a good thing.
Sophistry. You can justify doing anything by saying that MY moral code allows it. For instance “you think murder is immoral, fine, don’t murder anyone”. If we are to live as a society we need to come up with some common laws of behaviour. I think euthanasia is wrong (in my moral judgement) and therefore I think it should be illegal.
If you seriously think that you can’t pressure someone into euthanasia, then I think you seriously need to open your eyes and see what is happening. Have a look at what is happening in Holland where even the government admits that doctors are euthanising people without their consent.
The problem is in a lot of situations all of the power lies with the doctors. Doctors decide the diagnosis of the patient. Doctors recieve the “request to die”. Doctors evaluate the seriousness of the patient. Doctors then carry out the euthanasia. After the fact you can’t ask the patient what they wanted, because they are dead. In a lot of ways there is little to stop the doctor doing whatever they like.
And that is the point. They are NOT the only options open to people. There are in essence three choices. One is euthanasia, one is excruciating pain, and one is palliative care allowing people to die relatively comfortably. In legalising euthanasia without making decent palliative care available to all who want it then what we are doing is NOT providing people with choice. All we are doing is pressuring people into killing themselves. If you WERE all about “choice”, then you should be advocating for more palliative care.
Have you ever been seriously ill? Ever been terminally ill? If not then I suggest you may not have a good grasp on the issues and emotions involved. You can use all sorts of subtle emotional pressure on people, and you can do it even do it subconsciously. So for instance what about the person who wants to live, but feels that they are a burdeon on their family? Their family only comes to visit them out of habit, not because they want to see them. The patient feels unloved. And whenever the family do show up they make some snide offhand remark about how much their care is costing them. You don’t think that sort of pressure may convince people to do things that they otherwise would not do? What do you see happening, someone going up to the patient and asking them “are you dead yet” until they agree to be euthanised?
You want to see why disability groups are almost universally against euthanasia, it is statements like this.
Now you are getting WAY beyond euthanising the terminally ill. This statement can be used to justify euthanising anyone who wants to die. Doesn’t matter if they are sick or not, in your mind it is about the productiveness of the person’s life. So that would mean that logically if a healthy 18 year old wanted to kill themselves, then they should be allowed to and recieve help? If THEY think their life is unproductive then by your logic they should be euthanised. Of course then you get to the mentally ill, many of whom cant themselves form an opinion on whether their life is “productive” or not. Are they “productive”, or should we just kill them all anyway since living an “unproductive” life is such a terrible burden?
As I said before all life, regardless of how “productive” you may think it is, is inherently valuable, and worthy of protection. You can’t just say “it is up for the individual to decide” because in the end, unless they try to commit suicide without your knowledge, you either have to support their choice by your inaction, or not support it by trying to preserve their life.
As a citizen of my country the laws of my country ARE my business, as they are the business of all other citizens.
You can resuscitate nearly anyone and prolong their physical life. The point is, most people don’t want to live in a physical state without any quality of life. That’s why DNRs exist.
People without any real moral standards of their own do this anyway. We’re talking about a standard of life that, due to physical illness, no longer meets that person’s expectations of what life truly means. You’re right. We do have common laws of behavior, but when those common laws infringe on personal rights, you’re playing god. It’s not up to you to decide what standard of life is adequate for me. And you complicate matters by bringing your religious beliefs into my decision-making process.
You make it sound like elder murder is running rampant in Holland. When you say “doctors” do you mean MOST doctors? A handful of doctors? What exactly are you saying?
They may need better standards to make sure the patient is in control. In the US, a doctor will determine that the patient is terminal. The patient begins an internal decision-making process and, information is weighed so they can make the decision while they’re still capable. I don’t believe that most doctors are in the business of state-sponsored murder here.
I never said I wasn’t for better palliative care. You can dope someone to the brink of death (same thing as euthanasia, really…I’m pretty sure they nudged my mom over the edge) or you can let a person determine that sooner is better than later. Hopefully they’re allowed to make that decision before they are so wracked with pain or doped that they can’t think clearly.
Most families don’t hate their terminally ill relatives. Your scenario is not the norm. My mother would wake up and say she had hoped she wouldn’t wake up again. She would have chosen euthanasia, but unfortunately, it’s illegal to put someone out of their misery in Illinois.
There’s a difference between euthanasia as a medical option and euthanasia as strictly “assisted suicide.” I don’t believe a person who has the blues should have anyone pushing the plunger for them; however, information on how to end your own life, for whatever reason, should be readily available.
It’s not how productive “I” think it is…it’s a personal decision that every human being should have the right to make.
You might want to consider that personal human rights, basic control over one’s body, have nothing to do with the group as a whole. It’s not up to you to decide for me any more than it’s up to me to decide for you.