You specifically suggested another poster might have a complete lack of empathy. That is literally “against the man,” and homenim. Your comment has been rightly removed, so hopefully you learn your lesson.
Interesting, but incorrect idea. But I had other reasons. One is from the bible, which speaks of the worms eating your flesh. The other was from a wonderful science fiction book “Heroes must Die” by Stover. He describes a truly horrible torture method (no pain at all!), involving “gently” inserting worms and larvae under the skin of the person to be tortured, and also “gently” covering the insertion point. Pretty vivid picture. Which one is “worse” is in the eyes of the beholder. But there is “Room one-oh-one”, the worst torture imaginable - described in Nineteen-eighty-four.
Under a hypothetical scenario in which a captor is torturing a loved one, yes killing the captor/torturer would stop the torture and allow a rescue that would stop the pain in the long run.
You have that somewhat reversed. We don’t euthanize humans precisely because they are human. Pets are not. Humans are fundamentally different creatures than other animals as we are also rational. Humans get the more humane approach, so to speak.
To allow some human to suffer needlessly, when that suffering cannot be alleviated, is anything BUT humane! We euthanize pets, because we want to stop their suffering. It is not an easy process. I had to go through it, and the experience is very bad. But it must be done - out of LOVE. To allow someone to suffer when you can prevent it is CRUEL. And if the only way to stop it is the “final” solution… we do it. That is LOVE.
We can take reasonable means to prevent suffering, such as drugs. But killing another human being as part of medicine is not a cure, nor is it ever ethically sound. It is inhumane. Sometimes acting humanely and lovingly is very difficult.Wesrock:
To allow some human to suffer needlessly, when that suffering cannot be alleviated, is anything BUT humane! We euthanize pets, because we want to stop their suffering. It is not an easy process. I had to go through it, and the experience is very bad. But it must be done - out of LOVE. To allow someone to suffer when you can prevent it is CRUEL. And if the only way to stop it is the “final” solution… we do it. That is LOVE.
Of course, as long as there is any other solution, that must be done. (I wish I did not have to add this disclaimer…)
Having read that post before it was deleted I don’t believe that that’s true. Apathy doesn’t imply a complete lack of empathy. Apathy is sort of like sin, show me the person who doesn’t have at least some apathy.
That’s true, but it doesn’t negate the point that apathy can make it easier to cope with someone’s suffering.
This has been discussed. But drugs can only go that far. Eventually they become ineffective. And not always available, either. There are several instances when killing is acceptable, even in the Catholic ethical system. But I have never seen any ethical system that would declare that allowing needless suffering to be considered “ethical” - under ANY circumstances.
After considering this argument for awhile, I’m not sure that it’s actually true. Apathy doesn’t imply cruelty or sadism, it implies indifference.
Forgot to say, there are reports of such consolations in near-death experiences.
The way it was being used, yes it does. He was using apathetic to contrast empathetic. (Notice the same Greek root word) He was not using the more common definition of apathetic to mean simply indifferent.
May??? Who said that there cannot be a spiritual counselor present? And why do you assume that the sufferer wants such a counsel? Besides, I am not assuming anything. I was talking about a very specific scenario, when there is a lot of, ever worsening suffering, without any hope to have the suffering remedied. When the sufferer yearns and begs for the mercy of quick and painless death.
Okay but seriously? Worms?Changing the scenario is “lazy”
If it was good for the author of the bible, it is good enough for me.
You have completely misunderstood. The word consolation is not related to counselor or counsel, but to console.
In religious writings, consolation means not only comfort or relief, but also a spiritual experience of love and peace.
Whatever. Words might have several meanings. If the sufferer wants it, let her have it - IF possible. But the decision should belong to the sufferer herself.