V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Atheists have no “dogmas”.
- Status
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
As I said before, the person receiving the morphine has already started to die. I don’t even think the morphine is necessary, and maybe they will quit doing this at some time. Most of these dying people are not even in intense pain. The process of dying is strangely the same as giving birth. There is a waiting period, some death pains, usually a lucid moment at the end, and then the death.Just like when you shoot a terrorist to prevent the detonation of a dirty nuke. Or when you cut the fallopian tube which will kill the zygote. The unintended consequence is in regard to the intended result. The intended result is to lessen the pain. It is the same problem as: “is the glass half empty, or half full?”.
Is the intent to lessen the pain or to hasten the death? Of course this kind of analysis proves that the “principle of double effect” is highly hypocritical.
In any case, the morphine drip may hasten death or not, may lessen the pain or not, but it is not the same as assisted suicide, nor the far-fetched examples you provided.
D
davidv
Guest
One was written in post #146.
Will this assertion be defended, or should it be concluded that it was a bad case of irrationality?
S
spiderweb
Guest
I’m glad you both agree that it isn’t a good idea to shoot grandpa, but something that you both missed is that that was grandpa’s autonomous choice. While you both found that idea repulsive, you have both argued that it is his choice and his decision should be supported.
Some people think that strapping a bomb to themselves and then blowing it up in a crowded place is a heroic and dignified way to die. So the phrase “death with dignity” is a meaningless phrase because it is subjective to each person.
Actually I’m quite serious. The basic premise of voluntary euthanasia is that I have the right to choose to end my life and legally have another person assist me in doing so. On what basis could you oppose any manner in which a person chooses to do so other than your own personal preference, or what you personally find acceptable or repulsive? Rationally, how can you say it is legal for a doctor to assist in intentionally ending another person’s life with an injection, but say that it is illegal for a friend to put a plastic bag over their head, if that is the person’s choice. If you want to draw that line, “autonomous choice” sounds nice, but it has no meaning. Any law that puts restrictions on the manner of death would basically be unenforceable if anyone wanted to seriously challenge it.
For the sake of argument, assume grandpa is paralyzed and can’t click the button himself and increase the age of the child to 17. Would you have a problem with a 17 year old clicking the button if he was willing to do it? Please clarify what “responsibility” you wouldn’t want on the child.
Actually this is a pointless question because there is no foundation to base these restrictions on. Any specific rules would simply be arbitrary rules decided upon by some people. If I wanted to, I would use the exact same arguments that you are using in favor of legalizing voluntary euthanasia to challenge whatever restriction I didn’t like. It is my choice and my decision. How can you decide when I have the right to choose it, and when I don’t have that right? To try to enforce any restrictions once it is legalized makes “autonomy” a meaningless buzz word. You want to legalize it based on autonomy, and then place restrictions that deny my autonomy. You can’t tear down the Hoover Dam and expect leaving a few token boulders in place to stop the water. The water would just flow around them and sometimes move one of them out of the way until there are no restrictions remaining.
I think that if you could see into the future after 100 years of legalized voluntary euthanasia, you would be horrified at what it looks like. When young children are being voluntarily euthanized now, I don’t think that bodes well for where it will go in the future.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Irrational atheists have no reason for their dogmas. They simply feel that way. One cannot argue with the way another feels.
Irrational atheists’ dogmas tend to be negative.
No God.
No absolute moral evil acts
No (fill in e.g., right to life)
Atheists are rational and irrational.
Theist are rational and irrational.
Rational theists can debate only with rational atheists using the common ground of reason.
Rational theists cannot debate with irrational atheists as no common ground exists.
One who is irrational lacks reason.
The natural law is based on reason.
One who is irrational cannot know the natural law.
Infants are irrational.
Infants do not know the natural law.
T
tonyrey
Guest
dogma = “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.”
The British Humanist Association has the following dogmas:
- The universe is a natural place and can be understood best through science.
- There is no higher power and life has no meaning.
- We should promote atheism because no religions are true and governments should act accordingly to tell people so.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Scary when you see it laid out that way. Atheists have a very evil agenda.
B
Bradski
Guest
First up, this is not a debate about the means by which someone can arbitrarily decide how they want to end their life. If voluntary eutanasia means it wouod be legal to hang someone or beat them to death or blow their head off if they so decided, then it doesn’t get my vote. We are discussing death with dignity.
And the age of the person assisting is not the deciding factor. It is the maturity of the person and whether they consider it to be the right thing to do.
And rules will need to be in place. Rather obviously. And equally obviously they wouldn’t be perfect. So one would err on the side of caution. A minimum age. An agreed medical position that death was unavoidable and imminent. The agreement of those closest to the patient.
I’m sure you’d like to add a few.
T
tonyrey
Guest
S
spiderweb
Guest
When you are legalizing the intentional killing of someone, the manner in which it happens must be included in the discussion by necessity. If it is not, than euthanasia, by definition the intentional killing of someone, could not take place. They are one and the same issue.
As I stated earlier, “death with dignity” is a completely subjective phrase. You argue for the right to die a “dignified death” but only within the boundaries of what you or some lawmakers believe qualifies for being dignified. And because what is “dignified” is subjective, that boundary could always be arbitrarily moved by the next round of lawmakers. We already have precedent of people dying from dehydration and/or starvation when feeding tubes are removed even thought that is all they need to survive. Do you believe that dehydration or starvation is a dignified way to die? How do you justify making the decision of what is or what is not dignified for someone else?
Since you are opposed to someone choosing a quick and painless death of a gunshot to the head, if voluntary euthanasia is legal, what would be your arguments against it if that was their choice?
Have you ever made a decision that you “thought” was the right thing to do, but in hindsight later on discovered that it was not the right thing to do? Anyone in the Pro-Life movement knows that many people that participate in abortions, directly or indirectly, thinking that at the time it was the right thing to do, later on realize that it was not and experience unforeseen consequences of their actions. It deeply affects them personally and socially. We also know that euthanasia has similar affects on some doctors and family members regardless of their maturity level or how “right” they thought it was at the time. Since society is made up of individuals, laws that have a negative impact on individuals will also have a negative impact on society as a whole. The legalization of something should be a good thing and not cause harm just by participating in it regardless of maturity level.
In an earlier post you recognized the difficulty of this in regards to the “slippery slope”. You know that any “rules” in this regard are simply arbitrary and could very easily and quickly change. There is no foundation for the rules to stand on, so they don’t mean anything except that they might help you sleep better at night.
Some children are born with a hole in their heart and usually only live a few weeks or months. Why do they have to suffer just because they don’t meet the “minimum age” rule and can’t make the decision for themselves? Or the 6 year old dying of cancer who could make that decision for themselves at least on some level? Do you honestly believe that a minimum age rule would hold up to a serious challenge?
Regardless of what arbitrary timeline you place as the “rule”, it would crumble the first time someone challenged it because it is completely arbitrary. All medical people agree that death is unavoidable and imminent for everyone . Why should a person have to suffer many years from a painful illness that may never kill them (something like crippling arthritis)? Do you honestly believe that an arbitrary timeline of “imminent death” would hold up to a serious challenge?
The agreement of those closest to the patient? I thought this was the individual’s autonomous decision. If they have a living will, by existing law the dissent of those closest to the patient is irrelevant. Why would it be relevant in this case?
Regardless of what rules are in place, they have no foundation to stand on. With legalized voluntary euthanasia it is completely unavoidable, it’s just a matter of time until someone decides to challenge any given rule. And when seriously challenged, the rule will not stand.
I would just like the one reasonable rule of “this is not legal” period.
B
Bradski
Guest
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Spidey. But I’m not inclined to carry on a discussion with someone who argues that blowing a man’s head off with a shotgun could seriously be considered as a method for euthanasia.
T
tonyrey
Guest
If the principle of double effect is highly hypocritical we are not justified in choosing the lesser of two evils. In other words there is moral anarchy and no rational basis for euthanasia of any description - or any other decision regarding right or wrong. The expression “death with dignity” is a subjective judgment and in the materialists’ scheme of things human rights are merely human conventions that can be ignored with impunity. If only matter exists nothing matters!Just like when you shoot a terrorist to prevent the detonation of a dirty nuke. Or when you cut the fallopian tube which will kill the zygote. The unintended consequence is in regard to the intended result. The intended result is to lessen the pain. It is the same problem as: “is the glass half empty, or half full?”.
Is the intent to lessen the pain or to hasten the death? Of course this kind of analysis proves that the “principle of double effect” is highly hypocritical.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
What makes injecting someone with a lethal poison so dignified in your mind? That they go quietly and submissively?
J
josh987654321
Guest
What’s ‘dignified’ about just intentionally killing someone because they asked you to? I don’t see any dignity in that.
Will not happen and if it does, cannot last, the premise is faulty, as spiderweb so eloquently put it.“You want to legalize it based on autonomy, and then place restrictions that deny my autonomy.”
The argument is based on autonomy, on one hand your arguing for it because of autonomy, and on the other hand your denying someone’s autonomy by placing restrictions on it (Such as only the terminally ill). That’s hypocrisy. Once it’s legalized, just like abortion, it logically expands, until with abortion right up until birth. As Rob Pyne and others argue for in Australia.
It starts out as something compassionate in the ‘tough’ cases, then it shows it’s true colors as it expands and lines are increasingly blurred.
I hope this has helped
God Bless
Thank you for reading
Josh
J
josh987654321
Guest
Amen. well said. Thank you.
The only thing I would add on top of all this, is how open to abuse assisted suicide is too.
God Bless You
Thank you for reading
Josh
S
spiderweb
Guest
As you are very well aware, I do not support any method of euthanasia. My intention is not to be offensive, but to realistically and objectively look at the arguments and what they logically lead to. The supporters of Roe vs. Wade never argued for partial birth abortion or abortion after birth, yet both of those “methods” were legalized under the umbrella of “legalized abortion”. I won’t describe what happens in those methods, but if those methods can be legalized for killing children, you seriously need to consider where voluntary euthanasia could potentially go for killing adults under the umbrella of “legalized voluntary euthanasia”. You are trying to contain the discussion to your personal vision of euthanasia, but you are not just arguing for “your vision” of legalized voluntary euthanasia, you are also arguing for where it will go in the future once it is legalized according to any other “vision”.
For the sake of the discussion I will drop that aspect there, but the remainder of my points still stand.
B
Bradski
Guest
Suggesting that people could have their heads blown off as a means of ending a life with dignity is not my idea of being realistic.
And arguing against something simply because you can personally envisage that at some future time it would devolve into something unacceptable is, in itself, simply unnaceptable. We are discussing firstly whether it should be allowed and secondly, if so, under what conditions.
If you don’t think it should be allowed in the first instance then anything you raise in regard to what it might become is a non sequitur.
And as to whether I consider a quick and peaceful death more dignified that a long drawn out painfull and distressing death, well, the answer is obviously yes.
I will again go back to the point I made about putting a dog down. If I simply stopped giving it water and food in an attempt to speed his death and kept this up for days on end, I would be considere cruel and inhumane. Why on earth didn’t I take him to the vet and a simple injection would end his life quickly and painlessly.
But to do that to a person who has actually asked for the means to hasten their own demise?
Hell no. It’ll take as long as it takes, buddy. You will suffer whatever agonies your body can take. Man up, can’t you?There is apparently something to be said for suffering. It’ll do you good.
J
josh987654321
Guest
It’s an extreme analogy, but based on the arguments for voluntary euthanasia, it stands.
Consider a terminally ill man, who has been a shotgun collector, all his life loved shotguns and would like to go out of this world with what he has always loved, a shotgun. He even has a friend of his who has no qualms whatsoever with pulling the trigger for him, why would you deny that? you may personally dislike that way, but what right do you have to deny them?
Your arguing for it based on their autonomy, but then your talking about conditions, it’s illogical to put conditions that restrict someone’s autonomy in this regard, when the whole premise to legalize it in the first place was to give them their autonomy when it comes to this issue.
If it had morphine, you would not be considered cruel or inhumane, and again humans are not dogs, I’m glad humans are not treated as if they were dogs to be put down.
We do not intend for anyone to suffer, and people make great strides in the medical field of easing suffering, death is not the solution to suffering. Not to mention the pressure that the Doctor will say “Most people who contract this disease at your age opt for voluntary euthanasia at X stage” thus no help is offered or sought other than euthanasia, that becomes the treatment.
And not to mention how easy it would be to murder someone and claim they wanted euthanasia, or someone previously writing they wanted euthanasia and then you can just murder them when you wish, or the one who says (I think I might end it today) and it turns out tomorrow their granddaughter gave birth and was bringing their newborn to surprise them.
You can deal with that sort of thing much better when they ‘passed away’ rather then if they ‘decided to leave now’, one way takes their life naturally and there isn’t really anything you could do about it, the other is a decision made by fallible creatures.
I hope this has helped
God Bless
Thank you for reading
Josh
B
Bradski
Guest
Good grief. ‘Euthanasia shouldn’t be allowed because people might want to have their heads blown off’. So much for a sensible discussion.
And I also argue for for speech, but there are limits. I am also pro choice, but there are limits. I also support relaxing drug laws, but there are limits. To suggest that one cannot impose limits in the case of euthanasia is nonsensical. Anybody who supports is knows full well that there must be limits.
And as I said, I’m not the slightest interested in where you think the situation MAY end up if you have alteady declared yourself to be against it in the first instance. You have already excluded yourself from the discussion of how it should be controlled.
J
josh987654321
Guest
I said it was an extreme analogy, it probably wont be a shotgun, but maybe something else distasteful, but ‘distasteful’ does not hold water, especially given the argument. nevertheless, you haven’t put forward an argument against it.
If he wants to be assisted in killing himself by his favorite shotgun, what right do you have to deny it? on what grounds would you say ‘no’? Just because you personally find it distasteful?
This is the irony, your pro-choice with limits, but that position is wholly nonsensical, either the child in the mothers womb is a human being and worthy of protection, or it’s not and thus able to be killed at any stage within the womb, you can’t have it both ways.
It’s kind of like when they objected to the sale of body parts from aborted children, but not the abortion, which was nonsense of them, if the abortion wasn’t wrong, it would be madness to waste those body parts, if it was, abortion should be stopped as well as the sale of body parts from them.
Same when they tried to argue it should be ‘rare’ if it’s not wrong, why rare?
Where are the limits? and on what grounds? 4 weeks? what about the next case where the child in the mothers womb is 5 weeks, but at the same level of development (probably even less) then the 4 week old you aborted just yesterday?
I hope this has helped
God Bless
Thank you for reading
Josh
- Status