Arguments needed against voluntary euthanasia

[Johnpeter073]

Friends I need some help. I am trying to help one of my friend to develop some arguments against Peter Singer’ argument supporting voluntary euthanasia. Here I quote Singer’s arguments:

Why do we consider killing an innocent person to be wrong?

The answer is twofold.

First, killing someone is a violation of their autonomy. But in the case of voluntary euthanasia, a person’s autonomy is not taken away but supported.

Second, killing an innocent person deprives them of the good things in life they would have otherwise experienced. At this juncture, Singer makes an important qualification. He is not an “absolutist” about autonomy. If a healthy young person is lovesick or depressed, they may temporarily feel that life is not worth living. However, there is much reason to suspect these feelings will pass.

Any arguments to refute it?

 

[Mike_Dye]

Friends I need some help. I am trying to help one of my friend to develop some arguments against Peter Singer’ argument supporting voluntary euthanasia. Here I quote Singer’s arguments:

Why do we consider killing an innocent person to be wrong?

The answer is twofold.

First, killing someone is a violation of their autonomy. But in the case of voluntary euthanasia, a person’s autonomy is not taken away but supported.

Second, killing an innocent person deprives them of the good things in life they would have otherwise experienced. At this juncture, Singer makes an important qualification. He is not an “absolutist” about autonomy. If a healthy young person is lovesick or depressed, they may temporarily feel that life is not worth living. However, there is much reason to suspect these feelings will pass.

Any arguments to refute it?

Try the Fifth Commandment.

 

[Stephen_says]

Can we be certain that the victim’s autonomy was not violated?

Is it possible that said victim could have been coerced by family, friends, society, or their own distressed emotions?

Also, this gentleman’s argument are his own opinions. It is NOT wrong to kill someone else because it is a violation of their autonomy or because it deprives them of good things they might experience. It IS wrong because a human is inherently valuable and worthy of life, literally the most valuable thing in the world is a human being, which is a hard argument to make, but is a pathway worth exploring.

 

[Joe_5859]

Friends I need some help. I am trying to help one of my friend to develop some arguments against Peter Singer’ argument supporting voluntary euthanasia. Here I quote Singer’s arguments:

Why do we consider killing an innocent person to be wrong?

The answer is twofold.

First, killing someone is a violation of their autonomy. But in the case of voluntary euthanasia, a person’s autonomy is not taken away but supported.

Second, killing an innocent person deprives them of the good things in life they would have otherwise experienced. At this juncture, Singer makes an important qualification. He is not an “absolutist” about autonomy. If a healthy young person is lovesick or depressed, they may temporarily feel that life is not worth living. However, there is much reason to suspect these feelings will pass.

Any arguments to refute it?

Well, first, I would point out that Singer is assuming these are the only two reasons that killing an innocent person is wrong. But that is not the case. Instead of playing into Singer’s argumentation by attempting to come up with reasons why euthanasia violates autonomy and/or deprives them of the good things in life, you might try formulating some of the other reasons that killing an innocent person is wrong.

But even if we did limit ourselves to Singer’s parameters, I think a strong case could be made that voluntary euthanasia does not necessarily support personal autonomy. In cultures where euthanasia is allowed, the elderly feel pressure to choose death in order not to be a burden. This is them succumbing to cultural pressure, not making a free, autonomous choice.

We could also make a choice about being deprived of good things. More time with family and friends is a good thing, even if suffering is also involved.

But, again, I wouldn’t feel inclined to accept at face value that Singer has exhausted the reasons for why killing is wrong.

 

[Deus_tecum]

There may not be an argument that can change the mind of the secular folks, because “the things of the Spirit are anathema to the natural man.”

 

[Kanade]

Friends I need some help. I am trying to help one of my friend to develop some arguments against Peter Singer’ argument supporting voluntary euthanasia. Here I quote Singer’s arguments:

Why do we consider killing an innocent person to be wrong?

The answer is twofold.

First, killing someone is a violation of their autonomy. But in the case of voluntary euthanasia, a person’s autonomy is not taken away but supported.

Second, killing an innocent person deprives them of the good things in life they would have otherwise experienced. At this juncture, Singer makes an important qualification. He is not an “absolutist” about autonomy. If a healthy young person is lovesick or depressed, they may temporarily feel that life is not worth living. However, there is much reason to suspect these feelings will pass.

Any arguments to refute it?

It’s a difficult argument. Religious opposition would tend to focus on the dignity of the human being created in God’s image but the ultimate sovereignty of God to decide when life ends.

The secular argument also values individual dignity but usually holds the person as supreme sovereign over their own life, from which the decision to end that life naturally flows.

It’s like debating in two different languages. I suppose, within this framework, I would ask if a decision to end one’s own life can ever be truly autonomous.

 

[spiderweb]

Be very cautious about accepting the argument from the standpoint of “the good things”. From a secular mindset, a persons value is largely based on their ability to have or experience “good things”. If a person can no longer experience these things, than there is no longer a reason to live, hence euthanasia.

I would reject the “good things” argument because what we have or what we experience in no way affects the value of life. The starving child living in a mud hut has the same value as a wealthy person living comfortably. Sorry I’m not good at making that argument myself (I’m sure others can), but that is the argument that needs to be made.

 

[Joe_5859]

Be very cautious about accepting the argument from the standpoint of “the good things”. From a secular mindset, a persons value is largely based on their ability to have or experience “good things”. If a person can no longer experience these things, than there is no longer a reason to live, hence euthanasia.

I would reject the “good things” argument because what we have or what we experience in no way affects the value of life. The starving child living in a mud hut has the same value as a wealthy person living comfortably. Sorry I’m not good at making that argument myself (I’m sure others can), but that is the argument that needs to be made.

This is a very important point. For many secular atheists like Singer, life boils down to “experience pleasure, avoid pain” wherein good is measured by pleasure and evil by pain and suffering. Pinning the value of life on a person’s capacity for pleasure with a minimum of pain is a dangerous tack to take. It’s what leads to “putting down” the weak and disabled and the ones who determine who is weak are those with the most power.

 

[psalm90]

The idea of suicide or assisted suicide was thrust on me many years ago, when I took some employment as a hospital orderly.

Walking off the street into a hospital is about the same as really being abducted by aliens, when I saw the suffering that took place there. A Catholic man, the father of a girl I was acquainted with in high school, was dying of bladder cancer. His was a form of cancer that IS painful, and the man looked to be “beyond” contact with his surroundings from the pain.

There were other people who died in the hospital, of course, and not quickly, at that. I later worked in a nursing home as an orderly, where in addition to pain, suffering, isolation from family, etc. people had to just lay there and wait for “it” to happen. It’s not pretty. It’s not dignified. The atheistic protagonist in the TV series “House, MD” would spout off about his atheism and that there was no such thing as “death with dignity.” Christ was stripped of all dignity. He was “cut off out of the land of the living.”

In one of his books (Love in the Time of Cholera), Gabriel Garcia Marquez makes a detour to talk about a man who commits suicide on his 70th birthday, as a rejection of the deterioration and such that he saw ahead of him – gerontophobia – the fear of getting old.

There are seven suicides in the Bible – like Saul and Judas Iscariot, Sampson (I think), and some others. I wasn’t in the US military, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some personnel are given suicide pills to take in case of impending capture or death. Years ago, in Catholic school, I think the nuns said that would be OK, but today such talk is not politically correct in the Church.

Fr. Ron Rolheiser has written about suicide in his online and print columns. He says the church treats suicides less judgmentally than in the past. I’ve never understood him to approve of suicide, but to speak charitably and forgivingly towards those who have departed that way – like the Church right now is altogether more “merciful” towards those women who have had an abortion. (They didn’t talk much about husbands’ culpability for abortion.)

Yada, Yada. I think a dying person should be supported as much as possible with pain medication and tranquilizers to easy their suffering. My argument: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Bradski]

It’s what leads to “putting down” the weak and disabled and the ones who determine who is weak are those with the most power.

The question is about voluntary euthanasia. Let’s not lose sight of that.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The question is about voluntary euthanasia. Let’s not lose sight of that.

Not really. People can be coerced into “voluntary euthanasia” and they often are. Let’s not lose sight of that.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Friends I need some help. I am trying to help one of my friend to develop some arguments against Peter Singer’ argument supporting voluntary euthanasia. Here I quote Singer’s arguments:

Why do we consider killing an innocent person to be wrong?

The answer is twofold.

First, killing someone is a violation of their autonomy. But in the case of voluntary euthanasia, a person’s autonomy is not taken away but supported.

Second, killing an innocent person deprives them of the good things in life they would have otherwise experienced. At this juncture, Singer makes an important qualification. He is not an “absolutist” about autonomy. If a healthy young person is lovesick or depressed, they may temporarily feel that life is not worth living. However, there is much reason to suspect these feelings will pass.

Any arguments to refute it?

There was no such thing as “voluntary euthanasia” before modern medicine and Dr. Death Kevorkian. It is really a politically correct form of assisted suicide. Suicide is always wrong. It means that the person thinks his life is worthless and he is in despair. It is a mortal sin to commit suicide. God giveth and God taketh away. We are not the ultimate deciders of our fate.

 

[carn]

Any arguments to refute it?

In Holland (or maybe Belgium) they have explicitely codified into law, that any euthanasia not following the rules set down in the law must be reported to the respective prosecutor and is to be dealt with according to the laws regarding homicide.

So it is very, very strict. Ignore one of the numerous rules and all the shelter provided by euthanasia law is gone (maybe the prosecutor/court will settle for a plea deal; maybe a very low sentence, below the legal minimum will be applied, if it was no serious breach; maybe it will only be prosecuted for accidental killing cause the breach of rules was accidental; maybe; but initially you are into the full pleasantness of facing justitia with her sword ready in all its sharpness).

The rules among other things require that inside a certain time limit - four workdays i think - the case with all relevant info has to be reported to the commission formed to evaluate whether the requirements of the law were met; if not, the commission is required to forward the cases to prosecutors.

Since there have been thousands of euthanasia cases since the law was implemented and since humans from time to time make mistakes, dozens or even hundreds of case reports missed the time limit; NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS FORWARDED TO PROSECUTORS.

This might have not been real ill intent; the reasoning was probably that the prosecutor would just scrap the case because prosecuting for homicide just for missing a dead line might be a bit over the top.

Nonetheless, the explicit requirement by the law to report all cases not meeting the requirements to prosecutors is CONSTANTLY VIOLATED. And no one cares.

There was even either in Holland or Belgium (having rather similar laws) were in public the head of an euthanasia “clinic” told the head of the commission required by law to report any infraction of the euthanasia law to prosecutors right into the face, that his clinic deliberately breaches some provisions of the law as the law is an infringement on patient privacy and hence they ignore it to some extent.

The usual result should have been search and seizures of the clinic the next day (and only the next day as that probably was said in the evening; otherwise of course same day); intentionally breaking the law that is the only thing between oneself and a prosecution for homicide is a serious matter and should get police and prosecutors acting quickly to discourage such behavior.

But that of course did not happen. And nobody cared.

The consequence:

One does not have the choice between no euthanasia allowed and very limited and tightly regulated; but only between no euthansia allowed (and a lot of doctors doing it nontheless) and opening the floodgates.

The reason is that the whole philosophy behind euthanasia is based upon ONLY INDIVIDUALLY deciding what is right and what is wrong. And the breach of universal law, bit by bit, drop by drop, is unavoidable when trying to put such mindset into universal law.

 

[carn]

There are seven suicides in the Bible – like Saul and Judas Iscariot, Sampson (I think), and some others. I wasn’t in the US military, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some personnel are given suicide pills to take in case of impending capture or death. Years ago, in Catholic school, I think the nuns said that would be OK, but today such talk is not politically correct in the Church.

Maybe the nuns said this, because the situation might be different.

If a soldier jumps on a grenade to save the other soldiers is that suicide? Obviously jumping on a live grenade is suicide. Is it sinful? Usually not, because the intent and the expected result is saving the others; his own death is a not intended but unavoidable side effect.

The same can be true for deadly pills in case of capture; some soldiers can have valuable information; then taking such a pill instead of capture would be with the intent to avoid breaching one’s duty by spilling out the info after being tortured.

And Samson killed hie enemies while killing himself, which is also different; in WW2 some British pilots - required by their oath to protect the British civilian population from German bomber attacks - resolved the problem of running out of ammunition by ramming German bombers; while this might not always be suicide (actually some survived), even if it would be guaranteed suicide, it would not necessarily been sinful, because they honor their promises.

And last, in some circumstances going somewhere or not bowing or not saying something is from the to be expected result not much different from jumping on a live grenade, e.g. when you happen to be named Paul and your new destiny is Rome or when some Roman official orders you to say some short words comprising the name of the current emporer, etc.; that of course is also not necessarily sinful even when you are absolutely certain that death is guranteed.

What makes suicide often sinful is the rebellion against God and/or the egoism it sometimes includes; one intentionally throws of the cross instead of carrying it for however long one has to.

 

[o_mlly]

Friends I need some help. I am trying to help one of my friend to develop some arguments against Peter Singer’ argument supporting voluntary euthanasia. Here I quote Singer’s arguments:

Why do we consider killing an innocent person to be wrong?

The answer is twofold.

First, killing someone is a violation of their autonomy. But in the case of voluntary euthanasia, a person’s autonomy is not taken away but supported.

Second, killing an innocent person deprives them of the good things in life they would have otherwise experienced. At this juncture, Singer makes an important qualification. He is not an “absolutist” about autonomy. If a healthy young person is lovesick or depressed, they may temporarily feel that life is not worth living. However, there is much reason to suspect these feelings will pass.

Any arguments to refute it?

Ask Singer at what point on his sliding scale from the lovesick to the terminally ill that Singer decides its OK for him to murder? Would it be the person who is 40 years of age and has been depressed for the last 10 years? Or the accident victim who as a paraplegic does not want to cope anymore?

The first inclination of the natural law is to conserve being as it is. We share this inclination with every living creature. Suicide and assisted suicide violates this inclination of the natural law.

 

[Bradski]

Not really. People can be coerced into “voluntary euthanasia” and they often are. Let’s not lose sight of that.

Then let’s keep coercion out of the discussion. It’s a complex enough subject as it is without muddying the water.

There is a Voluntary Euthanasia Party in Australia and they define it thus:

‘The VEP regards voluntary euthanasia as involving a request by a terminally or incurably ill person for medical assistance to end his or her life painlessly and peacefully.’

Can we use that definition?

 

[carn]

‘The VEP regards voluntary euthanasia as involving a request by a terminally or incurably ill person for medical assistance to end his or her life painlessly and peacefully.’

Can we use that definition?

And what does that help?

Whenever any nation would try to allow euthanasia according to this definition and would implement rules to ensure that only what is understood under this definition happens, the rules would not be enforced and then in the end nobody would know or care what is actually taking place, the euthanasia allowed or also some non-aalowed stuff (which must not necessarily be involuntary; for example curable ill, but the cure being too harsh from patients POV might also get euthanasia).

 

[Bradski]

And what does that help?

Whenever any nation would try to allow euthanasia according to this definition and would implement rules to ensure that only what is understood under this definition happens, the rules would not be enforced and then in the end nobody would know or care what is actually taking place, the euthanasia allowed or also some non-aalowed stuff (which must not necessarily be involuntary; for example curable ill, but the cure being too harsh from patients POV might also get euthanasia).

Well let’s try really hard to imagine that the rules would be enforced and see where the discussion goes on that basis.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well let’s try really hard to imagine that the rules would be enforced and see where the discussion goes on that basis.

Voluntary euthanasia is actually sanctioned murder. It’s a lot like capital punishment, except the person who is being executed is guilty of no crime. If a person choose to commit suicide by his own hand, at least he can back out a the last moment. This is not possible in assisted suicide.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Ask Singer at what point on his sliding scale from the lovesick to the terminally ill that Singer decides its OK for him to murder? Would it be the person who is 40 years of age and has been depressed for the last 10 years? Or the accident victim who as a paraplegic does not want to cope anymore?

The first inclination of the natural law is to conserve being as it is. We share this inclination with every living creature. Suicide and assisted suicide violates this inclination of the natural law.

Thank you and amen.