Can someone give me a secular argument against euthanasia?

[Zatzat]

Ever put a dog down? Mine lhasa apso had a huge lung tumor which I saw on her x-rays. When she started coughing uncontrollably, I wanted to end her suffering immediately. I KNOW it was the right thing to do, but I still wonder if she may have recovered or lived longer. And she was JUST a dog!

This would be a great analogy if we were talking about Dogs being given the choice to end their lives. Dogs are incapable of making such a choice, hence the need for humans to make that choice for them. Seeing as that isn’t what we’re talking about, it’s a poor analogy.

The topic at hand is about giving a person the right to seek a medical intervention that will bring about the end of their life.

 

[Thing]

I’d disagree. A patient who is on the palliative ward and despite the most aggressive pain management programs is in constant agony and is counting the moments until they starve to death ought to have their wish to be terminated honored. Further saying ‘X is not patient care, it’s X,’ is not really a valid argument; cutting off someone’s hand can be patient care even though it’s still cutting off someone’s hand.

I did not say that, I said it was against their conscience (since I cannot presume to speak for them) but I never said it was against the idea of medicine. You’re welcome to try to read that into my words but it was not my intention in that (or any other) statement.

Listen to yourself, Thomas. The only way you are able to discuss this is to call killing people, termination and to further call it X.
But redefining, renaming, or rethinking will not make killing people, X. It will not make X right nor will it make it easy for you to do.

 

[ThomasToo]

Listen to yourself, Thomas. The only way you are able to discuss this is to call killing people, termination and to further call it X.
But redefining, renaming, or rethinking will not make killing people, X. It will not make X right nor will it make it easy for you to do.

I was not calling physician assisted suicide (‘killing people’ in your terminology), ‘X.’ I was saying that your argument was logically flawed. Saying a thing is itself does not mean it cannot also be medicine. Cutting people open is cutting people open but can be, in the proper context and circumstance, medicine.

Sorry if what I said was confusing, my maths background comes out sometimes and I use the term ‘X’ as an arbitrary variable and forget that not everyone knows what I’m trying to say when I do this.

Did my counter-argument to your claim make sense to you–regardless of whether you agree with me?

 

[Thing]

I was not calling physician assisted suicide (‘killing people’ in your terminology), ‘X.’ I was saying that your argument was logically flawed. Saying a thing is itself does not mean it cannot also be medicine. Cutting people open is cutting people open but can be, in the proper context and circumstance, medicine.

Sorry if what I said was confusing, my maths background comes out sometimes and I use the term ‘X’ as an arbitrary variable and forget that not everyone knows what I’m trying to say when I do this.

Did my counter-argument to your claim make sense to you–regardless of whether you agree with me?

You are getting ridiculous, Thomas. I said to you that killing people is not patient care, its killing people. You were not able to bring yourself to type ‘killing people’ and renamed it X instead. And you proceed to say that X is patient care. It is obvious to a child tha killing a patient is not patient care, its getting rid of the patient. And ‘getting rid of’, or killing, the patient is not Medicine.

 

[ThomasToo]

You are getting ridiculous, Thomas. I said to you that killing people is not patient care, its killing people. You were not able to bring yourself to type ‘killing people’ and renamed it X instead. And you proceed to say that X is patient care. It is obvious to a child that killing a patient is not patient care, its getting rid of the patient. And ‘getting rid of’, or killing, the patient is not Medicine.

I didn’t rename it ‘X’, I said that your argument was of a given form (‘X is not medicine, it is X’ for an arbitrary activity X). To be frank, I am not sure you actually read through and considered what I said.

I said that saying a given activity is not patient care but is itself is not an argument. I’ve given you two possible examples of situations that despite being harmful on their face are still patient care. I would say that killing someone can be patient care; I know there are situations in which I would not want to go on living. The reason I do not use the phrase ‘killing someone’ is because it brings up images of John Wayne Gacy and John Allen Muhammad and not of a person who can no longer not feel agony let alone eat. It’s not because I’m trying to weasel out of the fact that human life is special and not to be discarded lightly but because I want to draw on an image pragmatic of the situation and not one that’s not.

It is obvious to a child that cutting off someone’s hand is not patient care, it’s cutting off his or her hand. And [it is further obvious to the child] ‘cutting off his or her hand’ is not medicine. This argument simply doesn’t work; children don’t understand the intricacies of adult situations and frankly it’s somewhat foolish to assume that a child’s view of the situation is a full and accurate accounting of it.

I would, as humbly as possible, encourage to go back and read what I was writing with an open mind; while I disagree with you I have tried to understand what you’re saying and not set up straw men of your position, I would respectfully ask the same of you.

 

[Thing]

I didn’t rename it ‘X’, I said that your argument was of a given form (‘X is not medicine, it is X’ for an arbitrary activity X). To be frank, I am not sure you actually read through and considered what I said.

I said that saying a given activity is not patient care but is itself is not an argument. I’ve given you two possible examples of situations that despite being harmful on their face are still patient care. I would say that killing someone can be patient care; I know there are situations in which I would not want to go on living. The reason I do not use the phrase ‘killing someone’ is because it brings up images of John Wayne Gacy and John Allen Muhammad and not of a person who can no longer not feel agony let alone eat. It’s not because I’m trying to weasel out of the fact that human life is special and not to be discarded lightly but because I want to draw on an image pragmatic of the situation and not one that’s not.

It is obvious to a child that cutting off someone’s hand is not patient care, it’s cutting off his or her hand. And [it is further obvious to the child] ‘cutting off his or her hand’ is not medicine. This argument simply doesn’t work; children don’t understand the intricacies of adult situations and frankly it’s somewhat foolish to assume that a child’s view of the situation is a full and accurate accounting of it.

I would, as humbly as possible, encourage to go back and read what I was writing with an open mind; while I disagree with you I have tried to understand what you’re saying and not set up straw men of your position, I would respectfully ask the same of you.

Your argument is that one must look on life from a distance and decide clinically, and from a distance, if this person or that person is in a condition in which the person should be terminated, permanently.
My argument to you is that death is not, in humans, a distant and clinical thing. To kill a person you must sit beside them, look into their face, see them in their eyes the full and awful humanity of them and then kill them with your own hands and with your mind you may try to distance yourself from the act of killing - it is a procedure, medicine, any other arbitrary value you may tell yourself, but not killing a person.
Sometime you need to see as a child if only to catch yourself from becoming less human while you explore the possibilities arguments present to you.
I am willing to bet that a child has more humanity than either of us, she will not kill as a solution, but help instead to ease the suffering as best she can. That is the human way.

 

[Thing]

Goodbye

 

[vera_dicere]

My 103 year old grandma shattered her hip for the third time, only that time, there was nothing that could be done for her. She died naturally and in terrible agony. But hey it was natural and it only took 12 days horrific days where her every waking moment was gut wrenchingly horrific.

I cared for a gentleman in the same situation. He was taken to surgery for a stablisation of the fracture, basically they just cement the whole hip and remove teh shards of bone.

He was 108, there was a discussion that he could die in surgery, or that his mild chest infection would end his life, regardless, the surgery was to remove the discomfort and if he died during, then that was simply a natural occurance.

The surgery worked, and he passed away a few days later, peacefully and without discomfort.

Your grandmother’s situation is not common, and it sounds like it was managed poorly, as is the case in a lot of these situations.

But hard cases make bad laws.

Not to mention, what if euthanasia was legal, and your grandmother was given these mercy killing narcotics, and she was allergic to something, or they didnt’ work properly. Then what, put an axe through her skull as she turns blue, her skin blisters and her throat closes over as her lungs fill with fluid?

 

[vera_dicere]

Doctors are legally obliged to help provide abortion.

Not really.

Of course, it depends where they are, I understand there is no “conscience clause” in Canada, and so doctors and nurses have to assist in abortions when requested, of course, I could be wrong.

In most American states there are conscience clauses which prohibit someone forcing a doctor to provide an abortion.

In my own country the same conscience clause exists protecting pro-life medical professionals.

The only time where that conscience clause is mooted is if a woman comes in suffering the ill effects of a shonky abortion and requires emergency care, in which case, a doctor may be required, medically, to finish the aboriton - of course, at this point, the foetus is likely to be dead.

 

[cecilia97]

This would be a great analogy if we were talking about Dogs being given the choice to end their lives. Dogs are incapable of making such a choice, hence the need for humans to make that choice for them. Seeing as that isn’t what we’re talking about, it’s a poor analogy.

The topic at hand is about giving a person the right to seek a medical intervention that will bring about the end of their life.

I understand that. You think that family members involved in that decision don’t later have guilt or doubts about it?

 

[ThomasToo]

Not really.

Of course, it depends where they are, I understand there is no “conscience clause” in Canada, and so doctors and nurses have to assist in abortions when requested, of course, I could be wrong.

In most American states there are conscience clauses which prohibit someone forcing a doctor to provide an abortion.

In my own country the same conscience clause exists protecting pro-life medical professionals.

The only time where that conscience clause is mooted is if a woman comes in suffering the ill effects of a shonky abortion and requires emergency care, in which case, a doctor may be required, medically, to finish the aboriton - of course, at this point, the foetus is likely to be dead.

I think he/she was including referrals in ‘help’ which they are legally required in the United States.

 

[vera_dicere]

I think he/she was including referrals in ‘help’ which they are legally required in the United States.

You know what I find odd about this, and it also shows that the pro-abortion movement has absolutely NO respect for the intelligence of women.

If a woman’s doctor says no he won’t perform her abortion, and no he would refer her on to a doctor who will, the pro-aborts seem to think that that’s the end of her venture to seek an abortion.

Theres this placed called Unplanned Parenthood, and its usually the first port of call for people who are abortion minded.

Its 2010, if your local doctor won’t help you with abortion, then its not hard to find someone who can.

Mind you, if that rat Obama got his way, all medical professionals would be FORCED to help out in abortions.

Anyway, that’s just a little off topic, of course.

 

[ThomasToo]

You know what I find odd about this, and it also shows that the pro-abortion movement has absolutely NO respect for the intelligence of women.

If a woman’s doctor says no he won’t perform her abortion, and no he would refer her on to a doctor who will, the pro-aborts seem to think that that’s the end of her venture to seek an abortion.

Theres this placed called Unplanned Parenthood, and its usually the first port of call for people who are abortion minded.

Its 2010, if your local doctor won’t help you with abortion, then its not hard to find someone who can.

Mind you, if that rat Obama got his way, all medical professionals would be FORCED to help out in abortions.

Anyway, that’s just a little off topic, of course.

I would, as respectfully as possible, ask you to speak with respect about President Obama. I disagreed, very fundamentally, with policies and positions of former President George W. Bush but he was the rightful and legal holder of the Office of the President and deserving of respect as such.

This is very off topic but I’d be happy to discuss abortion with you in the appropriate thread.

 

[rwillenborg]

I haven;t read through all the replies already, so I beg your pardon, but, I’d like to give this answer a shot.
Even while I was an atheist, I was opposed to euthanasia, and here’s why.
People say they have a right to die.
Okay, let’s give a different example than the standard one. Instead of a guy who’s 91, we have a guy who’s 19. His girlfriend is pregnant. He’s on drugs, lots of them. He doesn’t even have a GED. He suffered extensive abuse as a child and suffers from depression, anxiety and bipolar disorder. He realizes that his generous life insurance policy WILL pay out if he overdoses on drugs. He tells you his plans. And, for the msot part, they’re sound. His family would be cared for financially. He’s a drain on them, and he knows it. He’s certainly no father to his child, and no partner to his girlfriend. He also knows that this situation probably won’t change.
And he tells you all of this.

Would you stop him from overdosing, or would you let it happen, knowing that this is his life and his choice?

I pose this question to my secular friends. It hits home - we’ve all been affected by drugs and suicide. They all say, yes, they would stop him.

But some say, well, this is a different situation - he’s not TERMINAL. Isn’t he, though? Kicking mental disorders, drug habits, and abusive childhoods is EXTREMELY HARD, and living with them is EXTREMELY PAINFUL. I would argue that my hero in this story is in just as much pain as the old man, and is just as ‘terminal’, too. And I wouldn’t let him die either.

 

[rwillenborg]

One more thing…when people say ‘It’s MY life’.
Uh, kind of, it’s not.
Again, not even bringing God into this, but…
YOU didn’t create YOU. Two other people did. The oxygen you breathe isn’t your property. YOU ALONE do not sustain yourself.
In addition, you are a brother, a sister, a mother, a father, a friend, a co-worker, WHATEVER it is you are to someone else, you are a PART of that other person’s life and impact them. So, though people think they have a right to tear apart their own lives, they usually tear apart about fifty other people’s in the process.
I used to work with this guy - suffered depression really bad, he was underwater on his mortgage, lost his job, and he walked in front of a truck and that was it. I tell you, I think about that truck driver every day of my life. He’s just driving along, doing his job, and WHAM! he’s now taken a life. How does a person get over something like that?
My friend, he didn’t have the right. He didn’t have the right to take his own life, and he certainly didn’t have the right to destroy this other innocent man’s life either.

 

[StrawberryJam]

You know what I find odd about this, and it also shows that the pro-abortion movement has absolutely NO respect for the intelligence of women.

If a woman’s doctor says no he won’t perform her abortion, and no he would refer her on to a doctor who will, the pro-aborts seem to think that that’s the end of her venture to seek an abortion.

Theres this placed called Unplanned Parenthood, and its usually the first port of call for people who are abortion minded.

Its 2010, if your local doctor won’t help you with abortion, then its not hard to find someone who can.

Mind you, if that rat Obama got his way, all medical professionals would be FORCED to help out in abortions.

Anyway, that’s just a little off topic, of course.

Calling our President of the United States of America “that rat Obama”

is offensive. Yet, it is allowable according to this forum.

Christianity. Got to love it. Or else.

 

[Betterave]

I think it would be more like if you got within 100 feet of a KFC you ran a one in four risk of being shot, stabbed, disemboweled, raper or robbed.

Most people who are in a terminal sort of situation are physically incapable of completing a suicide; they want the legal right to die safely (i.e. without the risk of worsening their condition but going on living–a botched suicide attempt can result in quite a horrifying condition), quickly and as painlessly as possible.

Without getting into the abortion debate as such I think that may be a parallel; even when they were illegal women could still find somewhere to get abortion but legalization made them considerably safer and much more accessible.

So are you restricting your advocacy of assisted euthanasia to cases where the subject is incapacitated from committing suicide? (It’s very rare that someone is unable to stop eating, usually a sure-fire method of bringing about death.) Or are you further advocating for a general right to quick-and-painless-as-possible death? You would like to see a generally guaranteed right to safe-, legal-, accessible-, quick-, and painless-as-possible death?

 

[ThomasToo]

So are you restricting your advocacy of assisted euthanasia to cases where the subject is incapacitated from committing suicide? (It’s very rare that someone is unable to stop eating, usually a sure-fire method of bringing about death.) Or are you further advocating for a general right to quick-and-painless-as-possible death? You would like to see a generally guaranteed right to safe-, legal-, accessible-, quick-, and painless-as-possible death?

I think that most subjects, even those who are young and hale, have a difficult time completing a suicide because, frankly, we are–as a species–tough SOBs. Should someone just eat some rat poison? What if they don’t eat enough or take too few pills or what have you and end up further incapacitated?

I think that barring (semi-extensive) psychological counseling to verify that a person is not disturbed (i.e. not just a five minute sit down) and the like safe, accessible, quick and painless-as-possible death is the way to go, legally speaking. I think that the right to a death with dignity is the necessary counterpart, and a necessary extension of, the right to life. I will be honest, I’m not by any means dead set (no pun intended) for the above but frankly it seems to be one of the last fights of freedom of which I am a big supporter. The topic, for me at least, needs further study but only to determine where that line should be placed and why not whether it should exist at all.

 

[Betterave]

Please explain the logic. How do you figure that someone who is afraid of death, would advocate for the right to cause their own death?

That would be like someone who’s afraid of the dark, asking to be locked inside of a dark room.

Thomas is right, I did explain. But yes, that is what it’s like. If they weren’t afraid, they would lock themselves in the dark room, they wouldn’t need someone else to do it for them (obviously they would also need to have some reason for doing so, if the analogy were to really make sense). See the logic?

A better analogy than yours would be someone who is afraid of needles having someone else give them a shot. And maybe someone like this really wants to shoot up with heroine, so they campaign for a legal right to assistance in doing so. And since a doctor might be the most highly qualified kind of person to make sure such an activity is as safe as possible, probably doctors ought to be specially targeted as legally entitled to provide such assistance.

 

[Betterave]

What if your doctor opposes prescribing birth control? What if your doctor thinks AIDS can be managed by diet and doesn’t want to prescribe anti-retrovirals (liferesearchuniversal.com/aids3.html)? At what point does a physician have an obligation to his or her patient, if not to provide, then to refer someone to somewhere he or she can find the medical treatment he or she is seeking?

‘The General Medical Council guidance for doctors makes it clear that a doctor’s personal beliefs should not affect patient care.’ I see this a a fundamental good; if a doctor doesn’t want to do his or her job (i.e. refer someone to a physician who will provide a legal medical procedure) then I think they should find a different job. This allows them to honor their conscience and their oath.

So if it’s legal and typically provided by a doctor, it’s “medical care”? Doh! In the vast majority of cases, prescription of birth control pills is no more “medical care” than an army ration of cigarettes is “medical care.” (From what I understand, people actually used to think smoking was good for your lungs!)