Ok, but who would be of sound mind to choose a homeopathic option over an empirically tested one? In the case of the euthanasia patient; They apparently know what they want, and the method is effective for achieving their desired result. In the case of the homeopathic patient; They know what they want, and the method is ineffective for achieving their desired result. Possibly the depressed patient has his goals confused, but the homeopathic patient definitely has his options confused. The result of death is effectively the same in either case.
Given the following; It’s more apparent that the cancer patient is being deluded by the effects of the cancer, or they were never competent enough to make a decision, than that the depressed patient is being deluded by their depression or that they were never competent enough to make a decision. In this case; Cancer and depression BOTH affect the mind and it’s decision making capabilities. Just because cancer isn’t categorized as a mental illness doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a greater effect on the mental competency of the individual than depression.
I don’t see how you could let one doctor effectively help kill a cancer patient who more obviously doesn’t want to die, but not allow another doctor to effectively help kill a depressed patient who apparently wants to die.
"Assuming an adult person of sound mind who is fully informed of the available choices... yes, you have a right to refuse medical treatment in many/most circumstances. Even if that means your death."
Why wouldn’t you consent to,
“Assuming an adult person of sound mind who is fully informed of the available choices… yes, you have a right to euthanasia options in many/most circumstances.” ?
Why would you require the person in the second statement go through so much more empirical treatment, and why wouldn’t you require the same rigorous trial of empirical options for the person in the second statement before trying homeopathic options when the results are effectively the same? I would be more inclined to want intervention in the first case than I would in the second. The first case we can be more sure doesn’t want to die.
“Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusions - they’re known for refusing blood transfusions even if the alternative is certain death.”
Yes, that’s unfortunate, but they will still accept alternative empirical options. I’m more concerned with patients who are led towards ineffective treatments, and away from effective ones.
I have trouble believing that with Robin Williams’s money, and his acting ability, he couldnt have found a better, less painful, and less traumatic way to end his life that hanging himself with a leather belt. Suicide has a huge traumatic effect on ones family but there has to have been a better way to do it.
Maybe an “accident” that really wasnt? Maybe travelling to a country like Switzerland which has assisted suicide?
Because I draw a distinction between not intervening which allows a death vs. actively killing someone. “Euthanasia” is a pretty word for “deliberately killing a human being”. “Suicide” is a pretty word for (depending on how you look at it) “deliberately killing yourself” or “murdering yourself”.
I do not ever think killing someone is a good thing. Never. At best it is the lesser of two evils.
If someone is refusing medical treatment you can continue to try to persuade them. Once you kill them they are dead. There is no going back from that.
You asked me about my personal morality. When it comes to killing I am very strongly reluctant to justify anything other than killing in self-defense. That includes killing the ill and crippled, and certainly includes killing yourself as a bad thing. As I said, at best it is the lesser of two evils and is a bad thing. Always.
I suspect in some cases refusal of medical treatment is a form of self-elimination.
Some of those “empirical treatments” you mention come with some horrific side effects. Someone suffering from cancer might decide that the chances of “curing” their disease are too low to justify suffering both the short term and long term effects of chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation, as an example. I’m OK with that refusal so long as they continue to have access to palliative care to relieve suffering.
I am fully supportive of prosecuting quacks for fraud. If you’re selling snake oil claiming it’s a cure and it’s not then that’s fraud and should be pursued just as any other crime.
There are suicides who seem to choose a deliberately agonizing end. Maybe some people feel a need to suffer on their way to death. I can’t say, it’s not a mindset I understand.
"“Euthanasia” is a pretty word for “deliberately killing a human being”
Well, it’s a word for doing that in case of extreme suffering.
Yea, this is my opinion as well.
There is a point of no return in both cases.
I’m only advocating it cases of extreme suffering.
I agree with that justification, but don’t see how it makes a difference if the end result is the same as in the euthanasia case.
When you say you think the act of killing is usually wrong except in self defense; It sounds like you’re saying you believe that an act can be inherently wrong regardless of outcomes. This is deontological reasoning.
How does this float your boat, “In deontological ethics an action is considered morally bad because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is bad.”?
It doesn’t have to be an exact description. I’m not a utilitarian in a perfect sense, but I’m close enough that it has explanatory power over me.
I don’t advocate it at all. I am never in favor of it. f the person calls for it then maybe we sit down and talk but I assure you that I am very much against euthanasia.
Why do I then say I will consider it in some cases? Because there is bad, and then there is worse. There are situations worse than a swift death.
Well, if the end result is the same why would it make a difference if the demise is painful and drawn out vs. quick and painless? The person still winds up dead, right?
It makes a difference in my ethics. If it doesn’t in yours, well, then, we don’t share the same ethics and I sure as hell would never want you to make medical decisions on my behalf because I wouldn’t trust you not to kill me out of some misplaced “mercy”.
Yes, killing a human being is inherently wrong. Sometimes it’s the lesser of two wrongs, but it is always a wrong on some level.
So?
It’s not that consequences aren’t important - that’s why sometimes you can justify killing - but you say that like it’s a bad thing. Or that my ethics have to be wholly in one camp or the other. While I might in a general sense say what makes the most people happy is best (utilitarianism) I think that is best served by observing some rules as being hard and fast. Otherwise, the majority can vote to eliminate the minority based on increasing overall happiness. Sorry, I can’t buy into that.
It’s possible that he was in such pain (emotional and mental) in that particular moment that he snapped. Or having gotten the Parkinson’s diagnosis, it ate away at him and he couldn’t take it for another minute and his depression wasn’t allowing him to see beyond the horizon and was only seeing the bad
No I was using your ethics as an example to find contradictions within them; Not mine. I don’t see how, if life is what’s important to you, you would allow one to die and the other to live.
In my ethics; pain and suffering are the only factors. Life and death are irrelevant. This doesn’t mean I don’t value a life that is happy, or will experience more happiness than suffering. Given the logical obligations of my ethics; I must value it. I won’t impose my ethics onto other people due to my moral
This sounds pretty ad hominem. I’m not sure how else to understand that statement.
There is no “so”. It was an observation.
“my ethics have to be wholly in one camp or the other.”
In my opinion; They kind of need to be. Otherwise you are going to have contradictions within your ethics. Differently held ethical values can conflict with one another. I see this as a recipe for a disaster that could end up satisfying neither value.
I’m not saying your morals (emotional reaction to a proposition) can’t conflict with your ethics; They will, but it’s much easier to separate morals from ethics than to deal with an ethical system that holds different values. Morals tend to be contradictory themselves so it’s best to have at least one solid framework to draw from, and let morals guide you when relating to people on an emotional level.
Although life is extremely important to me it is not the only important thing.
That’s just skippy for you - to me life and death ARE relevant.
It means I disagree with your ethics.
Life, and reality, are messy. I believe there can be exceptions to any rule, therefore, and ethical system has to make allowances for outliers and unusual situations.
One other point I’d like to bring up again: when it comes to making life or death decisions it is important that a person do so with a clear mind. When a person is suffering mental illness asking whether or not the brain is healthy enough to function properly in making such decisions is a legitimate question. That would not be the case with someone free of mental illness making a life or death decision, who would have a properly functioning decision organ.
I just think it’s messy because we can’t account for all of the variables. I don’t think it’s irrational to assume the picture we have now isn’t in contrast to a complete picture of reality. If that were the case, then we wouldn’t be justified in doing anything. Outliers, if properly quantified, should still be able to be assessed by a consistent ethical framework. People’s morality should be accounted for in this assessment as well. It may possibly be the case that euthanasia is not in the greatest good. I don’t see it to be the case, but I can’t rule it out as possibly conflicting with utilitarianism.
Morally I agree with you that people should be in a clear mind when making this decision. It’s something that should be accounted for, but not an “absolute” requirement in my opinion.
In the case of a person not suffering mental illness; I’ve already explained how an illness like cancer can make your brain function irrationally.
I don’t expect us to actually do that within my lifetime, if ever. Meanwhile, there are decisions that must be made in the here and now, not in the future.
The problem with outliers is that they are rare events, sort of like Black Swans. We can’t/won’t allow for them in advance, and when they’re upon us we don’t always have the luxury of waiting until we can account for every single variable. If it’s the first time the problem comes up we have no way to really know the potential consequences and impacts of a particular course of action. That’s why test cases are so important, and why how society deals with a particular problem might change over time.
Meanwhile, we do the best we can.
Well, sure - that’s where even where voluntary suicide/assisted suicide is legal for terminal illnesses there is a “cooling off” period between the initial request and receiving the means to do the deed. Time alone can moderate a shock like the knowledge you have a terminal condition and change your view of what time is left.
Beyond that - cancer and metastasize to the brain, a terminal liver condition can alter a person’s mental status, there are a lot of things that can throw the brain out of whack.
Yes, but I was speaking in regard to homeopathic patients. Hope can actually be a bad thing sometimes, and drive patients towards “alternative treatments”. If an empirically inclined oncologist is telling someone they have a 20% chance to live, but another “doctor” doesn’t mention chance at all; Then excess hope can drive that patient towards the latter. It’s not generally “black and white” breaches of the law either. The cons who do it are smart enough to cover their asses. You can’t even call them “white collar” criminals because technically they aren’t breaking the law.