Originally Posted by Vera_Ljuba
Certainly. But our number one duty is toward ourselves.
Just think about the announcement on every flight about the possible loss of cabin pressure. The stewardess tell you: as soon as the little yellow “cup” appears, put it unto your own face, and only when you are secure should you worry about others, even if that “other” is your young child. Your number one responsibility is toward yourself – and everything else is secondary.
You cannot compare emergency protocols to voluntary euthanasia. Emergency protocols are intended to preserve the life and safety of all people involved as much as possible. Which life is being preserved with voluntary euthanasia? That analogy does not work because there is no comparison. A more accurate analogy using a similar circumstance is that the pilot who loves to fly, decides to die in the air. So he commits suicide on the plane with a hundred passengers on board. Would you be ok with his acting on his decision about his life in this regard?
And to equate the physical harm with emotional distress is simply incorrect. No one should be held responsible for someone else’s emotional reaction to your act, even if that act is suicide.
In some incidences, I would agree with you. However, the court systems routinely disagree. Emotional harm often times has physical manifestations similar to PTSD that can last for years or even for the rest of a person’s life. People are awarded restitution for loss of income, therapy sessions, medications, etc … due to the emotional harm caused to them by another person. The courts have set precedents in this regard for many years. Why should voluntary euthanasia be legally exempt from this? Why should the “assister” not be responsible for their choice to help take another person’s life?
There are already laws on the books against defamation, slander, etc… and they are sufficient. No need for protecting against anything and everything that someone else might find emotionally distressing.
There is no “might” about it. Death is always emotionally distressing. Untimely deaths and unexpected deaths are the most distressing. Imagine the person getting the phone call that their mother died because she chose to be euthanized. She chose not to inform her children of “her decision”, and neither did the doctor due to patient confidentiality. Defamation, slander, etc… does not even come close to describing the emotional distress that person would feel.
But if it is ok to cause emotional distress to someone in the case of voluntary euthanasia then are you prepared to remove all laws that protect others in this regard? All discrimination laws should be removed from the books. Also laws for slander, defamation……actually all laws. I should have the autonomy to do whatever I want because it is my choice for myself regardless of how it may harm anyone else. “My number one duty is towards myself”.
Since you (or anyone else) didn’t answer, I’m going to ask the question again:
“Why should any government make it legal for a person to harm other people when we have other laws that are based on the opposite premise to protect those same people from harm?”
