01 Mar 05
Originally posted by mikkipMikkip: "The infanticide law doesn't exist, it is only a protocol which is now being discussed to become law some day."
The infanticide law doesn't exist, it is only a protocol which is now being discussed to become law some day.
"more judicial security in performing their profession" If the criteria are not applied the dying of a child cannot be called "euthanisia" afterwards. So the protocol only gives room to end a life which applies to the criteria and does not provi ...[text shortened]... nyone. But one has to do best in the interest of the patient not in the interest of anyone else.
I'm aware of that.
Mikkip: " If the criteria are not applied the dying of a child cannot be called "euthanisia" afterwards. So the protocol only gives room to end a life which applies to the criteria and does not provide judicial security on anything other than that."
I wish it was true.
Mikkip: "Aftercare applies to the doctors and parents who have to decide on this difficult issue. Maybe you don't know that euthanisia is always a tough decision for everyone involved. It is not for the fun of anyone. But one has to do best in the interest of the patient not in the interest of anyone else."
I see. The patient is dead and the aftercare is for the doctors and parents. Fair enough I guess.
01 Mar 05
1 edit
Ivanhoe, your constructive reply on my post reinforces my conviction to seperate between theoretical and practical arguments for or against euthanisia.
So can you reply to my earlier question? Ivanhoe: it seems that you only oppose the practical difficulties for implementing euthanasia in the law. Does this mean that you do agree with Darvlav's position in the first post?
If not maybe it is useful to seperate practical and theoretical arguments.
01 Mar 05
3 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanStarrman: "Euthanasia wasn't even part of the Third Reich's practices, being as it is a way of helping people who wish to die, do so. "
We are not talking about eugenics here, do not try and turn some sort of horror story scare tactic into a reasonable reality. I'm attempting to encourage you to clarify your position on euthanasia so that I can further assess whether the ...[text shortened]... ing form the subject in an attempt to support a failing arguement.
My advice to study the rise and fall of the Third Reich still stands and looking at what you wrote about the Third Reich and euthanasia it is not a bad advice at all.
There is a Nazi-propaganda film called "Ich klage an" made in Germany 1941, director Wolfgang Liebeneiner and it is about a woman suffering from multiple sclerosis who has the wish to die. Euthanasia, in German "Der Gnadentod", was meant to be a privilege that was reserved for the Herrenrasse itself.
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by StarrmanStarrmann: "I really want to hear a constructive theory on euthanasia from you ... "
We are not talking about eugenics here, do not try and turn some sort of horror story scare tactic into a reasonable reality. I'm attempting to encourage you to clarify your position on euthanasia so that I can further assess whether there is any merit in your stance. All you are doing here is talking in imaginative leaps. What "New Order"? What "Id ...[text shortened]... ar as I can see, you are straying form the subject in an attempt to support a failing arguement.
.... and maybe you want an explanation of the String theory as well ?
You are asking too much Starrman.
If you want to present one ... don't let me stop you.
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeOnce again you are skirting the issue, I admit I am not well versed in the practices of the Third Reich, but it is plainly obvious that this form of euthanasia is vastly different from the subject at hand. The Third Reich were a morally incapable movement whose goals were totally removed from our current society. The idea that this film justifies modern euthanasia practice as a creation of, or process linked to, the eugenical practices of the Third Reich is grasping at straws. Let us forget about Nazi Germany for a second and discuss the real life concept of euthanasia and how it impacts modern society. Once again I ask you to lay out your objections to euthanasia rationally.
Starrman: "Euthanasia wasn't even part of the Third Reich's practices, being as it is a way of helping people who wish to die, do so. "
My advice still stands and looking at what you wrote about the Third Reich and euthanasia it is not a bad advice at all.
There is a Nazi-propaganda film called "Ich klage an" made in Germany 1941, director Wol ...[text shortened]... n "Der Gnadentod" was meant to be a privilege that was reserved for the Herrenrasse itself.
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf it is too much for you to muster, why are you taking part in this debate?
You are asking too much Starrman.
I refer you to my original post on page one which sets out my basic beliefs on the subject. I have attempted to clarify them during further discussion, is there anything you would like me to go over or elaborate on?
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by StarrmanStarrman: "Once again you are skirting the issue, I admit I am not well versed in the practices of the Third Reich, but it is plainly obvious that this form of euthanasia is vastly different from the subject at hand."
Once again you are skirting the issue, I admit I am not well versed in the practices of the Third Reich, but it is plainly obvious that this form of euthanasia is vastly different from the subject at hand. The Third Reich were a morally incapable movement whose goals were totally removed from our current society. The idea that this film justifies modern e ...[text shortened]... pacts modern society. Once again I ask you to lay out your objections to euthanasia rationally.
You admit knowing nothing about it but at the same time you are convinced that "it is plainly obvious that this form of euthanasia is vastly different from the subject at hand."
If you would dig into this you would see this is not the case. I wish the film "Ich klage an" was to be broadcasted in every country where there is a euthanasia discussion. But this is a taboo. This will not happen.
Starrman: "The idea that this film justifies modern euthanasia practice as a creation of, or process linked to, the eugenical practices of the Third Reich is grasping at straws. "
I didn't say that. The situation is a bit more complicated than that.
Starrman: "Once again I ask you to lay out your objections to euthanasia rationally."
Rationally ? I'm sorry. I did what I could but apparently you are not satisfied with my answers.
01 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanIn your first post you are stating what you believe. You are a pro choice advocate.
If it is too much for you to muster, why are you taking part in this debate?
I refer you to my original post on page one which sets out my basic beliefs on the subject. I have attempted to clarify them during further discussion, is there anything you would like me to go over or elaborate on?
I believe in pain relief measures and taking care of the patient in a loving way, comforting him, supporting him. If you give him the best possible care the patient is not that easily inclined to ask to end his life. We should work on making the pain releaving measures more effective instead of promoting a choice for death to end suffering.
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by Starrman
If it is too much for you to muster, why are you taking part in this debate?
I refer you to my original post on page one which sets out my basic beliefs on the subject. I have attempted to clarify them during further discussion, is there anything you would like me to go over or elaborate on?
I can only find your first post ..... am i missing something here ?
Did you read the whole thread, Starrman, all the posts ?
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by darvlay
Alright, Ivanhoe. This is the first time I've checked in since my last post in this thread. You really took the horns on this discussion. I'm looking forward to reading through it. Alas, it will have to wait till lunchtime today...
I hope eating and reading will not interfere with eachother .... erm .... what I wanted to say is, please don't choke ...... 😛 😀
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI don't think I am asking too much, Ivanhoe. I am asking you to
You are asking too much Nemesio.
I could refrase the question and ask you why it is morally permissable to kill in order to put an end to suffering.
provide your argument for this precise situation. I've given very
specific boundries which prevent the slippery slope. By rephrasing
the question, what you are actually doing is asking a separate
question which pushes the boundries in question and begins the
descent down the slope.
I am saying, given these fixed boundries, why do you believe
that it is morally impermissible for parents, who are or would be
otherwise responsible for every decision for the child's welfare, should
be not permitted to, in the case where the child would otherwise be
in unrequiting pain for the rest of its definitively short life, choose to
'give the child peace?' Keep in mind that the very pain medications
which in an adult would provide some relief would very likely
kill the child in doses which would be physically useful.
I realize that it is a difficult question, but if the answer is so obvious
to you, it should be a question you are able to answer with reason.
Nemesio
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioI advocate pain releaving measures and taking care of the patient in a loving way, comforting him as much as we can.
I don't think I am asking too much, Ivanhoe. I am asking you to
provide your argument for this precise situation. I've given very
specific boundries which prevent the slippery slope. By rephrasing
the question, what you are actually doing is asking a separate
question which pushes the boundries in question and begins the
descent down the slope. ...[text shortened]... er is so obvious
to you, it should be a question you are able to answer with reason.
Nemesio
You want to discuss a constructed case in which you hold all the trumps. This is called "game theory". I never participate in it because I find it to be manipulative and misleading. Sorry.
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI admit I have not, I will do so and return to the debate later.
I can only find your first post ..... am i missing something here ?
Did you read the whole thread, Starrman, all the posts ?
In the meantime, I will say that I think we agree on pain relief, the object is to make the patient as comfortable as possible and yes this may limit the likelyhood of wanting to die. The difference in our positions is that I want a mechanism in place for dealing with the potential failure of this pain relief and indeed other situations which might arise from a degenerative disease and lead to the consideration of death.