No, it is only right when there is consent.Blorg…as an atheist is it in your opinion that euthanasia is right for dementia and incurable diseases.
No.…is the law more for the convenience of lack of economic resources to pay for long term care rather than any lobby from any doctor /s trying to relieve suffering?
No, that’s not what belgium has done.what Belgium has done is basically legalize the execution of children - for being ill. I don’t care if mom and dad have to “consent”…its still morally wrong and anyone with a brain can see that. Anyone with a heart can see that.
Children with Downs or Cerebral palsy cannot give consent.What is to stop them from using this against children with Downs or Cerebral Palsy? What if they say the child won’t have a “good life”?
…This new law is about euthanasia for dementia cases (who obviously cant give consent)and children with incurable illnesses (who cant give consent)…
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.when the abortion laws came in they were meant for rare cases and now look at it! I think that contraception,abortion and euthanasia are measures that have been pushed by the few in politics as a response to bad economics and is used to control population rather than a response to pressure from the public to change policy.
The problem is that if one says euthenasia is wrong is an opinion, and that there are no moral oughts which follow from the way things are, then one has to be consistent and resign oneself to realising that one cannot criticise and say “euthanasia is wrong” is a wrong statement in terms of morality. One cannot have an opinion on it. Therefore the rational atheist would then just withhold opinion, and not support or oppose this legislation. Abstaining would be the only option.The ‘opinion’ that euthanasia is wrong is not an opinion, it’s solid moral fact. Now, one has a choice to conform to reality, or reject it. Calling a wristwatch a pepperoni pizza doesn’t make it a pepperoni pizza, and calling euthanasia ‘health care’ doesn’t make it so, either.
Yeah but these guys say that as long as one chooses to do it it’s permissible. Except that’s a moral value statement which just does not follow. Atheists punt this around but it’s pure and utter nonsense. Besides the idea in many circles is that we don’t even exist and our choices are not even free. This makes the whole thing moot anyway. And how one decides what is a valid choice or not? Do suicidal people count? Do depressed people count?I can choose to like ice cream over cake for dessert - it’s my opinion, my preference, and there’s no moral right or wrong there. But, euthanasia does not open itself up for preference - either it’s the killing of a member of the human community, or it’s not. There’s no neutrality there - either one is for murdering the sick and vulnerable, or one is for caring for the sick and vulnerable. But, one of those choices is objectively wrong. You can choose it, but that doesn’t make it right.
The law to put gays to death is bad of course, but the law to put cripples to death, is not bad. I don’t know how this can be inferred from matter and energy just being there… it’s magic fairy tale thinking.So, you, and everyone else, can accept and conform to reality, or you can reject reality. And what do we call people who do not accept reality? Insane. We are in an insane world, where murder of the most vulnerable members of our community is elevated to so-called ‘law.’
Yes, I do.Lion IRC;11727559:
You don’t know the Belgian situation, Lion.I find it sickening that Belgian law makers have conferred on children the ability to give legal informed consent.
What next?
So you are a proponent of moral relativism?This whole post is your opinion, BiffRuffle, nothing more and nothing less.
This is a contradiction in terms, i.e., you cannot heal and kill.No, Josie, that is an opinion. I agree with your last statement, that we should be spending resources on palliative care or finding cures, but that doesn’t contradict the fact that for some people, palliative care is not enough.
FYI, Dr Wim Distelmans is the head of a palliative day care centre as well as a proponent of euthasia.
Euthanasia has allowed the state via it’s doctors more power over the patient, i.e., about 61% of patients in the Netherlands were involuntarily euthanized.Maybe it’s somewhat high, but at least in the Netherlands, the majority of physiciians support euthanasia.
Yes, illegal practices brought upon by an immoral procedure (that keeps being redefined and pushed by it’s proponents), which the Dutch government has done nothing about. In fact, critics of Euthanasia feared this would happen, i.e., that allowing euthanasia would only put more power in the hands of the physicians/state, wherein they get to decide who lives and dies. And Belgium will go down the same route, i.e., we already are hearing of cases wherein people requesting euthanasia are being euthanized even though they are nowhere near being terminally ill.I think you should be afraid of going to any hospital because what you are describing are illegal practices, which have nothing to do with whatever law.
The law in Belgium tries to counter those practices.
Most atheists tend to show themselves as moral relativists when it comes to morality they disagree with. Morals their brains are “wired for” are however indisputably correct and objectively binding on everyone. So they’ll say - there is no objective morality but it’s ok and they’ll fight for global right for people to decide to kill themselves, because it’s the “right” thing to do and the right thing for people to do to themselves (kill themselves if things get too tough).So you are a proponent of moral relativism?
How long before doctors who disagree with this are forced to kill too? Or refer to be killed? And if you refuse to refer you will be prosecuted no doubt because “human rights” of depressed or person in despair.Euthanasia has allowed the state via it’s doctors more power over the patient, i.e., about 61% of patients in the Netherlands were involuntarily euthanized.
NoSo you are a proponent of moral relativism?
Again, not in your opinion.This is a contradiction in terms, i.e., you cannot heal and kill.
Euthanasia has allowed the patients more power.Euthanasia has allowed the state via it’s doctors more power over the patient, i.e., about 61% of patients in the Netherlands were involuntarily euthanized.
I bolded the important part for you.And Belgium will go down the same route, i.e., we already are hearing of cases wherein people requesting euthanasia are being euthanized even though they are nowhere near being terminally ill.
Yep, sure is. Death helps to overcome lots of problems - sadness, loneliness, deafness, even hiccups can be overcome with death. It really is a wonder-treatment! Beware the side-effects though! No wait a minute - death isn’t a side-effect, it’s the goal! Removing the medical condition was just a side-effect!Palliation is not healing though. Palliation is reduction of pain. It’s perfectly consistent to use death as a form of pain relief.
I agree. It’s just that palliation is not healing, as that would be curative therapy. I merely said it’s consistent, and I disagree with this, on both religious and secular grounds.Yep, sure is. Death helps to overcome lots of problems - sadness, loneliness, deafness, even hiccups can be overcome with death. It really is a wonder-treatment! Beware the side-effects though! No wait a minute - death isn’t a side-effect, it’s the goal! Removing the medical condition was just a side-effect!
I am glad we agree.Palliation is not healing though. Palliation is reduction of pain. It’s perfectly consistent to use death as a form of pain relief.
No, we cannot “know” this. We then can we know that a person who is unable to communicate wants pain relief or not?Does it empower people if they have an option of killing themselves? In a way yes. Does it reduce other options for them? Yes. Is it possible to know that a person who agreed to termination of his/her life under circumstance X still agrees to it at that time where he/she cannot communicate that to us?
If you’re depressed, instead of months of depressed mood and suffering while your anti-depressants kick in you should be able to off yourself. If you’re ugly and know that most people will find you unattractive, well your doctor can kill you. If you’re 13 and your boyfriend dumps you and your world has ended, well that pain should be ended if you so wish with a quick death. Surely.I don’t think it’s possible to know. And how can one know the difference between a depressed person and one who genuinely has a valid reason? How can we gauge others’ pain as we are locked in our own consciousness? I don’t think we have the power to divine these things. If we allow euthanasia we should also allow it for everything.
That’s why a person who chooses death should be fully aware of the consequences.A person who chooses death at some prior time has his options curtailed when he no longer either temporarily or permanently is able to communicate or whose mood/outlook is affected by his condition to longer allow him to change or reaffirm his wishes - such a person is now put on the death list. Certain other treatment options will be restricted, either knowingly or unknowingly.
I don’t know whether somebody else’s pain is bearable or unbearable, and that’s why we have laws to have that decides by the patient himself, not by doctors or anybody else.How do we decide what is la egitimate reason or not? These are all subjective decisions which vary. How do we know that a pain is truly unbearable?
We have ways to assess this, but of course, we are not infallible. That’s why decisions for euthanasia are not taken overnight.And how do we know that that person really wants death but it’s the effect of pain which has that effect? The person is just in despair and has lost hope or had his decision making process clouded by a negative mood.
No, death isn’t the goal. Life is the goal, but it’s not the patient’s fault that this isn’t possible anymore, not is it the doctor’s. It’s nobody’s fault, but that doesn’t mean we should just ignore the problem, which is pain and suffering.Yep, sure is. Death helps to overcome lots of problems - sadness, loneliness, deafness, even hiccups can be overcome with death. It really is a wonder-treatment! Beware the side-effects though! No wait a minute - death isn’t a side-effect, it’s the goal! Removing the medical condition was just a side-effect!
I don’t agree death is a therapy consistent with palliative care because the latter is a medical treatment and Death is not! Intentional Death is a decision to step outside the realm of medical treatment and give up medical treatment in favour of eliminating the patient.I agree. It’s just that palliation is not healing, as that would be curative therapy. I merely said it’s consistent, and I disagree with this, on both religious and secular grounds.