|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 14, 2017 22:10:22 GMT
No, I'm not talking about that.
I'm not sure euthanasia is ethical in 21st century anyway, but I'm no Pope...
Well then, what were you referring to when you said that sounds like "something the pope would say"? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 14, 2017 23:02:18 GMT
No, I'm not talking about that.
I'm not sure euthanasia is ethical in 21st century anyway, but I'm no Pope...
How ethical is withholding an end to incurable suffering? It's perfectly ethical. No one should feel an ethical responsibility to kill anyone else. There's plenty of way people can kil themselves without help. Of course, if it's legal and there's people that want to do it, then so be it, but that's not an ethics issue and there's no need to turn into into one |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 14, 2017 23:05:54 GMT
No, I'm not talking about that.
I'm not sure euthanasia is ethical in 21st century anyway, but I'm no Pope...
Well then, what were you referring to when you said that sounds like "something the pope would say"? The title |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 0:38:56 GMT
How ethical is withholding an end to incurable suffering? It's perfectly ethical. No one should feel an ethical responsibility to kill anyone else. There's plenty of way people can kil themselves without help. Of course, if it's legal and there's people that want to do it, then so be it, but that's not an ethics issue and there's no need to turn into into one Euthanasia does not impose an ethical responsibility to kill someone else. If there are people who are willing to assist in helping someone else to die, but the government withholds it (likely at the behest of religious medievalists), then that is an egregiously unethical state of affairs. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 15, 2017 11:34:52 GMT
Love Letter #876 I know, I know, Snow Globe... You don't do call outs.... You're just talking about him, out of the blue.... again... because.... well..... It's true love. Or maybe because it's less pathetic than crying salty tears, which some posters do after someone else mentiones them, but not by name...  Just blow the guy and get it over with.... |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 15, 2017 11:41:03 GMT
It's perfectly ethical. No one should feel an ethical responsibility to kill anyone else. There's plenty of way people can kil themselves without help. Of course, if it's legal and there's people that want to do it, then so be it, but that's not an ethics issue and there's no need to turn into into one Euthanasia does not impose an ethical responsibility to kill someone else. If there are people who are willing to assist in helping someone else to die, but the government withholds it (likely at the behest of religious medievalists), then that is an egregiously unethical state of affairs. That's almost what I said. However, to say a government is wrong by withholding it is exactly the same thing as saying government has an responsibility to allow it which is incorrect. They didn't have to do anything and a person can off themselves freely without a government sign-off. The person who feels a need to help people like that simply accepts the risk. Likewise, to expect the Pope to comment on it in the form of modern ethicism would in effect put an ethics expectation on it when there is none. If the Pope is against it, there is nothing wrong with that. Of course, the thread title may be non-factual (I couldn't pull up the article) or a play on words, but taking it at face value, it sounds like something a Pope would say and there is no ethical issue in him saying it. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 15, 2017 11:45:53 GMT
I don't expect others to get this(because from a worldly standpoint suffering seems pointless (and naturally it sucks to suffer))... but in the Catholic faith, suffering does have a purpose. ..but to be clear... Catholics don't want people to suffer and should help alleviate their suffering It seems to me that if God gave suffering a purpose, then working to alleviate God's purpose to serve Him is an inherent contradiction. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 15, 2017 11:49:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 15, 2017 11:51:28 GMT
I don't expect others to get this(because from a worldly standpoint suffering seems pointless (and naturally it sucks to suffer))... but in the Catholic faith, suffering does have a purpose. ..but to be clear... Catholics don't want people to suffer and should help alleviate their suffering It seems to me that if God gave suffering a purpose, then working to alleviate God's purpose is an inherent contradiction. I don't know the Catholic meaning, but suffering is inevitable if by no other reason than death, but it's always awesome if you can avoid it. Suffering or not should not have an impact on faith since Christians can bear anything....including terminal illnesses. People have been doing it for centuries. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 15, 2017 12:02:16 GMT
http://you'reasadpatheticjoke.com/sycophant/wantstowearaCineskinsuit
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 15, 2017 13:28:07 GMT
Suffering or not should not have an impact on faith since Christians can bear anything....including terminal illnesses. People have been doing it for centuries. And yet there are plenty of instances of suffering causing a lose of faith, as well as strengthening it. The fact that it can work just as easily both ways suggests that there is no objective confirmation of the role of suffering in reality and it is just what one makes of it. As for Christians always having to bear up under suffering, well, that's not surprising for an atheist for the obvious reason - as well as the fact that I have been assured that God apparently 'does not micromanage'. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 15, 2017 14:06:31 GMT
In my opinion suffering does not have an inherent purpose; but the fact that it exists helps one appreciate times without suffering. So from a utilitarian standpoint, suffering makes people appreciate pleasure.
But this only works if times without suffering are coming. If you die, you don't suffer anymore; but you don't experience pleasure either.
On the other hand, if you are terminally ill and do not have access to good palliative care, you won't experience much pleasure either.
The Catholic Church places value on life; possibly calling it a "gift from God". What I don't know is if suffering has purpose in Catholic ethics. I left the church 30 years ago.
Anyway: If Catholics want to influence the laws of a country, they'd better have good arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 15, 2017 19:37:32 GMT
Suffering or not should not have an impact on faith since Christians can bear anything....including terminal illnesses. People have been doing it for centuries. And yet there are plenty of instances of suffering causing a lose of faith, as well as strengthening it. The fact that it can work just as easily both ways suggests that there is no objective confirmation of the role of suffering in reality and it is just what one makes of it. As for Christians always having to bear up under suffering, well, that's not surprising for an atheist for the obvious reason - as well as the fact that I have been assured that God apparently 'does not micromanage'. Yes, people lose faith all the time.
Giving up is not an unusual circumstance of any aspect of life, hence the apparent need for helping in killing oneself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 13:51:26 GMT
Euthanasia does not impose an ethical responsibility to kill someone else. If there are people who are willing to assist in helping someone else to die, but the government withholds it (likely at the behest of religious medievalists), then that is an egregiously unethical state of affairs. That's almost what I said. However, to say a government is wrong by withholding it is exactly the same thing as saying government has an responsibility to allow it which is incorrect. They didn't have to do anything and a person can off themselves freely without a government sign-off. The person who feels a need to help people like that simply accepts the risk. Likewise, to expect the Pope to comment on it in the form of modern ethicism would in effect put an ethics expectation on it when there is none. If the Pope is against it, there is nothing wrong with that. Of course, the thread title may be non-factual (I couldn't pull up the article) or a play on words, but taking it at face value, it sounds like something a Pope would say and there is no ethical issue in him saying it. There's quite an important distinction. When euthanasia or assisted suicide is illegal, then that is a case of the government actively interfering with the bodily autonomy of its subjects. If euthanasia or assisted suicide is legal, then that doesn't mean that you have to kill your next door neighbour just because he asks you to. It means that if your neighbour can find a doctor who is willing to prescribe the Nembutal, the doctor cannot be prosecuted. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 17, 2017 14:26:01 GMT
That's almost what I said. However, to say a government is wrong by withholding it is exactly the same thing as saying government has an responsibility to allow it which is incorrect. They didn't have to do anything and a person can off themselves freely without a government sign-off. The person who feels a need to help people like that simply accepts the risk. Likewise, to expect the Pope to comment on it in the form of modern ethicism would in effect put an ethics expectation on it when there is none. If the Pope is against it, there is nothing wrong with that. Of course, the thread title may be non-factual (I couldn't pull up the article) or a play on words, but taking it at face value, it sounds like something a Pope would say and there is no ethical issue in him saying it. There's quite an important distinction. When euthanasia or assisted suicide is illegal, then that is a case of the government actively interfering with the bodily autonomy of its subjects. If euthanasia or assisted suicide is legal, then that doesn't mean that you have to kill your next door neighbour just because he asks you to. It means that if your neighbour can find a doctor who is willing to prescribe the Nembutal, the doctor cannot be prosecuted. Well, it's an important distinction both ways. The government has to address just about all aspects of life including religion and ethics. However, government legalizing it creates a legal ethical standard it has no business in implementing since it obligates others to accept it when there is no logical reason for them to do so when the country has always been unable to stop suicides from happening. The danger in legalizing it is that if there isn't a doctor willing to kill someone, then how does that person wind up committing suicide? Who pays for it? At what point in time do are doctors and hospital mandated to engage in euthanasia? Even if one feels there is a government responsibility, when the government allows something, it is only a matter of time when someone whines that they need to make access a priority. It's est to just let things be the way they always have been which is people have been killing themselves without bureaucracy for centuries. Don't fix what ain't broke. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 19:14:44 GMT
There's quite an important distinction. When euthanasia or assisted suicide is illegal, then that is a case of the government actively interfering with the bodily autonomy of its subjects. If euthanasia or assisted suicide is legal, then that doesn't mean that you have to kill your next door neighbour just because he asks you to. It means that if your neighbour can find a doctor who is willing to prescribe the Nembutal, the doctor cannot be prosecuted. Well, it's an important distinction both ways. The government has to address just about all aspects of life including religion and ethics. However, government legalizing it creates a legal ethical standard it has no business in implementing since it obligates others to accept it when there is no logical reason for them to do so when the country has always been unable to stop suicides from happening. The danger in legalizing it is that if there isn't a doctor willing to kill someone, then how does that person wind up committing suicide? Who pays for it? At what point in time do are doctors and hospital mandated to engage in euthanasia? Even if one feels there is a government responsibility, when the government allows something, it is only a matter of time when someone whines that they need to make access a priority. It's est to just let things be the way they always have been which is people have been killing themselves without bureaucracy for centuries. Don't fix what ain't broke. In a progressive liberal society which values autonomy; the government ought to take a hands-off approach with respect to personal decisions that do not affect other people. That's kind of what the gay marriage controversy was about as well. Legalising the right to die doesn't force people to like the decision; it simply denies them the power to forcefully impose their religion and/or philosophy on other people who do not share that outlook. I would consider it to be very unlikely that there would be absolutely no doctor willing to write the prescription. If that did turn out to be the case, then I suppose it would end up being somewhat like the abortion issue wherein the doctor would be expected to keep their religious beliefs compartmentalised to their private life and not let it interfere with their job. But I think that it would be unlikely for it to come to that. People have been killing themselves, and mostly failing (25 failed suicides to 1 successful suicide...and that's in the US, where people have access to guns) for centuries. And when they do fail, they can sometimes end up severely disabled for it. And for those who are already severely disabled to the extent that they can't even wipe their own nose much less follow through with a suicide plan; then the law as it stands effectively traps them in a situation that they find unbearable until they die of natural causes. There's no humane justification for such treatment. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 17, 2017 20:08:05 GMT
Well, it's an important distinction both ways. The government has to address just about all aspects of life including religion and ethics. However, government legalizing it creates a legal ethical standard it has no business in implementing since it obligates others to accept it when there is no logical reason for them to do so when the country has always been unable to stop suicides from happening. The danger in legalizing it is that if there isn't a doctor willing to kill someone, then how does that person wind up committing suicide? Who pays for it? At what point in time do are doctors and hospital mandated to engage in euthanasia? Even if one feels there is a government responsibility, when the government allows something, it is only a matter of time when someone whines that they need to make access a priority. It's est to just let things be the way they always have been which is people have been killing themselves without bureaucracy for centuries. Don't fix what ain't broke. In a progressive liberal society which values autonomy; the government ought to take a hands-off approach with respect to personal decisions that do not affect other people. That's kind of what the gay marriage controversy was about as well. Legalising the right to die doesn't force people to like the decision; it simply denies them the power to forcefully impose their religion and/or philosophy on other people who do not share that outlook. I would consider it to be very unlikely that there would be absolutely no doctor willing to write the prescription. If that did turn out to be the case, then I suppose it would end up being somewhat like the abortion issue wherein the doctor would be expected to keep their religious beliefs compartmentalised to their private life and not let it interfere with their job. But I think that it would be unlikely for it to come to that. People have been killing themselves, and mostly failing (25 failed suicides to 1 successful suicide...and that's in the US, where people have access to guns) for centuries. And when they do fail, they can sometimes end up severely disabled for it. And for those who are already severely disabled to the extent that they can't even wipe their own nose much less follow through with a suicide plan; then the law as it stands effectively traps them in a situation that they find unbearable until they die of natural causes. There's no humane justification for such treatment. ^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^ |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 17, 2017 20:31:59 GMT
tpfkar I would consider it to be very unlikely that there would be absolutely no doctor willing to write the prescription. If that did turn out to be the case, then I suppose it would end up being somewhat like the abortion issue wherein the doctor would be expected to keep their religious beliefs compartmentalised to their private life and not let it interfere with their job. But I think that it would be unlikely for it to come to that. The number of "wrongful death" lawsuits would rise astronomically. That highlights conspicuously how few are actually both serious and deliberative. Help to make their lives as enjoyable as possible. If they refuse nutrition or any other treatment then help to make them as comfortable as possible.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 23:17:39 GMT
If the right to die were enshrined into law (i.e. the fact that people can commit suicide does not make it a legally guaranteed right), and every case of assisted dying was properly documented, then those wrongful death lawsuits could go nowhere. I grant that some 'suicide attempts' are neither serious nor deliberative (a teenage girl taking a handful of aspirin from the bathroom cupboard is the archetypical example of this), but many attempts which are both very serious and very delberative can go wrong. Even stepping in front of a train moving at 80mph has been known to fail to kill a person. That is a vile and cruel insult to someone who cannot do anything at all for themselves. And refusal of nutrition is a legal grey area. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 17, 2017 23:48:14 GMT
If the right to die were enshrined into law (i.e. the fact that people can commit suicide does not make it a legally guaranteed right), and every case of assisted dying was properly documented, then those wrongful death lawsuits could go nowhere. Right, and doctors aren't arrested every day, and documenting negligent, fraudulent or criminal reasons would stop all recourse cold. The fact that you think stepping in front of a train is a deliberative way for anything but maliciously making a grisly scene on the way out tells quite a bit. That is just a la-la response. And mentally competent people can refuse both nutrition and treatment, not really grey at all.
Even stepping in front of a train moving at 80mph has been known to fail to kill a person |
|
