Arguments needed against voluntary euthanasia

  • Thread starter Thread starter Johnpeter073
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CHRISTINE77 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Uh? You can back out any time you like. It would be a bit late if you’d already been injected with whatever was going to kill you, but they aren’t going to strap you down and pump ypu full of chemicals with you screaming ‘No, no!’

The clue is in the name. It’s ‘voluntary’ euthanasia.

Now if you want to debate whether some people might not be in a mental state where they could make rational decisions, then go for it. It’s a valid point.
 
Bradski said:
Uh? You can back out any time you like. It would be a bit late if you’d already been injected with whatever was going to kill you, but they aren’t going to strap you down and pump ypu full of chemicals with you screaming ‘No, no!’

The clue is in the name. It’s ‘voluntary’ euthanasia.

Now if you want to debate whether some people might not be in a mental state where they could make rational decisions, then go for it. It’s a valid point.
Click to expand...
It takes two people to make this “voluntary” decision. One the murderer and one the suicidee.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
It takes two people to make this “voluntary” decision. One the murderer and one the suicidee.
Click to expand...
No. One person makes the decision. And he or she could carry it out on their own or they might ask for help. But you are right in that in many places it would be described as murder. The fact that the person killed actually wanted to die doesn’t make it lawful to take their life.

But that in itself is not much of an argument against it.
 
Bradski said:
Well let’s try really hard to imagine that the rules would be enforced and see where the discussion goes on that basis.
Click to expand...
Thread is about actual suggestions by Singer to implement euthanasia in some way and what arguments might be raised against this; does not make much sense to then assume something totally unrealistic.

But ok, if one presumes the rules would be actually enforced and presumes God does not exist and presumes that human life has no value in itself but just due to its consequences (consequence here broadly; for example personally feeling happy would be in this sense a consequence of oneself being alive), then there is little reason not to ok euthanasia.

But then also there is little reason not to execute certain criminals, having certain forms of involuntary euthanasia with very expensive patients, torture here and there a bit and nuke an enemy nation into oblivion if its military the best plan.

If you drop enough norms, you end up with practically anything being ok under the right circumstances.
 
carn said:
Thread is about actual suggestions by Singer to implement euthanasia in some way and what arguments might be raised against this; does not make much sense to then assume something totally unrealistic.

But ok, if one presumes the rules would be actually enforced and presumes God does not exist and presumes that human life has no value in itself but just due to its consequences (consequence here broadly; for example personally feeling happy would be in this sense a consequence of oneself being alive), then there is little reason not to ok euthanasia.

But then also there is little reason not to execute certain criminals, having certain forms of involuntary euthanasia with very expensive patients, torture here and there a bit and nuke an enemy nation into oblivion if its military the best plan.

If you drop enough norms, you end up with practically anything being ok under the right circumstances.
Click to expand...
👍 Irrefutable! On the slippery slope from morality to amorality there is no logical obstacle. Life is either infinitely precious or worthless…
 
carn said:
Thread is about actual suggestions by Singer to implement euthanasia in some way and what arguments might be raised against this; does not make much sense to then assume something totally unrealistic.

But ok, if one presumes the rules would be actually enforced and presumes God does not exist and presumes that human life has no value in itself but just due to its consequences (consequence here broadly; for example personally feeling happy would be in this sense a consequence of oneself being alive), then there is little reason not to ok euthanasia.

But then also there is little reason not to execute certain criminals, having certain forms of involuntary euthanasia with very expensive patients, torture here and there a bit and nuke an enemy nation into oblivion if its military the best plan.

If you drop enough norms, you end up with practically anything being ok under the right circumstances.
Click to expand...
Voluntary euthanasia. The thread is about voluntary euthanasia. Period.

Forget murder. Forget executions. Forget torture. Is it conceivably possible to discuss the subject itself without wandering off at a tangent?
 
Bradski said:
Voluntary euthanasia. The thread is about voluntary euthanasia. Period.

Forget murder. Forget executions. Forget torture. Is it conceivably possible to discuss the subject itself without wandering off at a tangent?
Click to expand...
We are not wandering. We are marching straight toward the truth!!👍
 
Bradski said:
No. One person makes the decision. And he or she could carry it out on their own or they might ask for help. But you are right in that in many places it would be described as murder. The fact that the person killed actually wanted to die doesn’t make it lawful to take their life.

But that in itself is not much of an argument against it.
Click to expand...
You are too funny! A person who didn’t want to die gets killed!

What would you consider a good argument against it, pray tell?
 
Death is a natural thing that comes to us all and we all have to deal with it. Even natural death can be hard to deal with for the loved ones who remain. But because it is a truth of life, it is generally easier for loved ones to accept a natural death than a person who commits suicide in an “untimely” death.

Often the argument from the secular world is “it’s ok as long as I’m not hurting anyone else.” Suicide not only hurts the individual but also causes emotional and psychological harm to others. This harm could affect a person for the rest of their lives. The effects are a wide range that really can’t be quantified. In effect, voluntary suicide/euthanasia is the choice of the individual at the expense of harming society.

One of the roles of the government is to protect the citizens that it encompasses. No laws should be enacted that allow an individual to ease their own pain and at the same time cause pain to others.

A possible analogy. An individual can choose to get drunk which could potentially cause him pain (liver failure, falling down stairs, embarrassment, etc), And he is free to inflict this upon himself. However, when the potential is there to harm others (i.e. drunken driving), no you do not have the right to even potentially harm others. Legal voluntary euthanasia basically allows one person to willfully harm (psychologically, emotionally, etc.) other members of society.

While we are trying to stop bullying because of the emotional, psychological and sometimes physical harm it causes, legalized euthanasia makes it a “good and compassionate” thing to cause similar psychological and emotional harm to others.

That’s my rough attempt at a purely secular argument.
 
Bradski said:
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?
Click to expand...
Sure. Assisted voluntary euthanasia is nothing less than suicide by other means.

Advocates of voluntary euthanasia typically contend that if a person:


  1. *]is suffering from a terminal illness;
    *] is unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of her life expectancy;
    *] is, as a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain, or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome (e.g., because the illness has to be treated in ways that lead to her being unacceptably dependent on others or on technological means of life support);
    *] has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die (or has, prior to losing the competence to do so, expressed a wish to be assisted to die in the event that conditions (a)-(c) are satisfied); and
    *] is unable without assistance to end her life,

    plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/#Fiv

    All these conditions are highly subjective. The lack of objectivity in the criteria makes them meaningless and this absence of objectivity especially applies to another who would assist.
    1. We do not know until death that an illness is in fact terminal.
    2. What degree of “unlikeliness” – 95%, 93%, 50.5%?
    3. Pain is tolerable until death by definition. What objectively determines that life becomes unacceptably burdensome or unacceptably dependent?
    4. Wishing to die is entirely subjective. The suicidal will their own death but a disordered will does not justify the act.
    5. Only those who commit suicide prove they were able to end their life w/o assistance.
 
Johnpeter073 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well, if one can apply such logic to voluntary euthanasia, why not all forms of suicide? If we have a “right to die,” why intervene when people try to implement that right outside of a hospital?
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
Well, if one can apply such logic to voluntary euthanasia, why not all forms of suicide? If we have a “right to die,” why intervene when people try to implement that right outside of a hospital?
Click to expand...
We do and you don’t (have a right to die).
 
Mark Langedijk said that his life was full of misery and suffering due to his battle with alcoholism

A doctor in the Netherlands has performed the euthanasia of an alcoholic who claimed his addiction had turned his life into a “cocktail” of misery.

In possibly the first documented case of euthanasia for alcoholism, Mark Langedijk, a 41-year-old father of two children, was given a lethal injection by his GP.

catholicherald.co.uk/news…ing-alcoholic/

I found this over on the World News forum.
 
To encourage suicide, abortion, capital punishment or voluntary euthanasia is to devalue life. It is no longer regarded as an immensely precious gift but just a physical phenomenon we can bring to an end whenever we choose, regardless of the consequences for others. Yet there are exceptions like the mother who allows herself to die so that her unborn baby can live or allows it to die for the sake of bringing up her other children. Once again it is a question of choosing the lesser evil when there is no other alternative. In the case of voluntary euthanasia we should consider the impact of our death on our loved ones, friends and society as a whole before taking such an irreversible step.
 
tonyrey said:
To encourage suicide, abortion, capital punishment or voluntary euthanasia is to devalue life. It is no longer regarded as an immensely precious gift but just a physical phenomenon we can bring to an end whenever we choose, regardless of the consequences for others. Yet there are exceptions like the mother who allows herself to die so that her unborn baby can live or allows it to die for the sake of bringing up her other children. Once again it is a question of choosing the lesser evil when there is no other alternative. In the case of voluntary euthanasia we should consider the impact of our death on our loved ones, friends and society as a whole before taking such an irreversible step.
Click to expand...
Suicide is NEVER okay.
 
The hour of our death is one of the most important moments of our lives - I don’t think suicide belongs in that moment.

No I have not had a moment to consider it - but I am a volunteer with Hospice and have been with many who have passed from this world - not one mentioned the thought of suicide to me and palliative care is to make you as comfortable as possible so that you can die with dignity. I will take that path if I do know of my end - I have seen it with my own eyes. I have seen all kinds of cancers , ALS and other diseases. ALS looked the worse to me - it was hard for me to see - I became best friends with the person I came to know and then I lost him to the disease. I have to admit that was tough for me. But I can tell you without a doubt he did not want to take his own life. He died from a complication of the disease. May he rest in peace - my good friend.
 
I have to add more.

Do you really think they leave you screaming in pain? - no they don’t. You are put into a medical coma when its warranted it so you don’t experience the pain or you are given fentanyl to deal with the pain which puts you to sleep when the dose is high enough and they allow your body to die when it is ready to give up your soul naturally. They also treat the depression with anti anxiety drugs Whats the hurry?

The priest mentioned at mass this morning a reminder the yes we are all going to die - funny how we completely wipe that thought from our minds like its not going to happen to us. Well it is and there is no escaping it - best to prepare for it ahead of time - tell your loved ones you love them - make amends - make your path straight before its to late and it sneaks up on you. It will come like it or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top