Originally posted by Nemesio
I want you to reason against what other people think is a right
to decide not to force their terminally ill infant to endure weeks
or months of unremitting pain just to die shortly thereafter.
Nemesio
That is not the issue. Pain releaving methods are so advanced these days that you need not suffer unbearable pains.
One of the issues raised was the "Slippery Slope" phenomenon. I gave some descriptions of the roadmap towards the "Right to Die for All": Euthanasia with consent, then euthanasia without consent, infanticide, killing disabled and handicapped people, and at the end of the ride the so much wanted "Right to Die for All".
The "Groningen protocols" which are as a whole an example of unvoluntary euthanasia is a step of that roadmap towards its final goal.
You present the issue in a way that I would be in favour of suffering of small children. Absolutely not ! Everything must be done to relieve the pain, except deliberate killing of the child. If the child has to die it will die without us imposing our will on the child by killing it.
Besides that, it is not merely a case of children being terminally ill. It is also about children with a handicap who according to the doctors do not have enough "quality of life".
You rebuked me for simplifying the situation, but they tell the same story about you nemesio ..... 😉
Originally posted by no1marauder
You obviously don't know anything about Americans or the American Legal system and have never been in a situation where you were with people wrestling with such decisions. I have and you don't know what you're talking about.
" ..... and you don't know what you're talking about."
.... as usual ... right no1 ? 😀 😵 😀
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes. You are a fanatic and fanatics believe that the world is one way and don't want to consider evidence that clashes with their preconceived notions. Therefore, you are prone to making sweeping assertions with very little basis in fact. From what I can understand of your reasoning, you believe assisted suicide should be illegal because you believe it might conceivably lead to infanticide becoming legal. That's a remarkably huge leap, akin to saying sex should be illegal because otherwise someday rape might be legal. I say human beings should be able to end their lives if they so choose and I'll leave the future issues to the future and let people relieve their own suffering NOW.
" ..... and you don't know what you're talking about."
.... as usual ... right no1 ? 😀 😵 😀
Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes. You are a fanatic and fanatics believe that the world is one way and don't want to consider evidence that clashes with their preconceived notions. Therefore, you are prone to making sweeping assertions with very little basis in fact. From what I can understand of your reasoning, you believe assisted suicide should be illegal because you bel ...[text shortened]... and I'll leave the future issues to the future and let people relieve their own suffering NOW.
Sex leads to rape ..... pass the bottle no1 .... 😀
Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes. You are a fanatic and fanatics believe that the world is one way and don't want to consider evidence that clashes with their preconceived notions. Therefore, you are prone to making sweeping assertions with very little basis in fact. From what I can understand of your reasoning, you believe assisted suicide should be illegal because you bel ...[text shortened]... and I'll leave the future issues to the future and let people relieve their own suffering NOW.
No1,
There is one big difference between you and me and you wouln't believe what it is .... you believe in magic and I don't ..... 😉
You haven't articulated your argument yet, just isolated points of it.
When objections are raised, you bring up auxiliary points which we
didn't know about and couldn't reasonably intuit. This is why I am
asking you to articulate you argument from start to finish for
scrutiny. Otherwise it ends up being a hunt and peck mission for all
parties.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
That is not the issue. Pain releaving methods are so advanced these days that you need not suffer unbearable pains.
First, I can tell you from personal observation that pain-relieving methods
are not so advanced as to remove unbearable pains in adults. With children,
those very medications used on adults can kill them in the doses that are
required to remit the pain.
So, the parents are faced with a choice: give the medication which will kill
their child or let the child live for the remainder of its short life in unrequiting
pain.
One of the issues raised was the "Slippery Slope" phenomenon.
The Slippery Slope phenomenon need not occur with clearly defined and
defended positions. You make the progress from euthanasia with consent
to euthanasia without consent very blithely, asserting that, inevitably, this
is where we are headed. But, with clearly defined positions, this will not
happen. Euthanasia without consent is very easily refuted. It is not nearly
as easy with euthanasia with consent.
So, rather than projecting the direction that the won't go with clearly
defined and defended positions, I suggest we stick to the topic at
hand: euthanasia with consent.
The "Groningen protocols" which are as a whole an example of unvoluntary euthanasia is a step of that roadmap towards its final goal.
As of yet, we've not seen the full list of these protocols. How can we
criticize it?
I don't agree, in any event, that this roadmap exists.
You present the issue in a way that I would be in favour of suffering of small children. Absolutely not ! Everything must be done to relieve the pain, except deliberate killing of the child. If the child has to die it will die without us imposing our will on the child by killing it.
Why should you impose that someone else's child should suffer pain for
the unavoidable consequence of death?
Besides that, it is not merely a case of children being terminally ill. It is also about children with a handicap who according to the doctors do not have enough "quality of life".
You are expanding the scenario in a direction of eugenics. That is not
the topic I am exploring.
I've given a clear definition for what I would call a fathomably permissible
form of euthanasia (again, I'm not so much as taking a position here as I
am exploring the legitimacy of the possibility of it). I want you to provide
me with the justification for believing that euthanasia in this specific case
is not morally permissible.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou are asking too much Nemesio.
You haven't articulated your argument yet, just isolated points of it.
When objections are raised, you bring up auxiliary points which we
didn't know about and couldn't reasonably intuit. This is why I am
asking you to articulate you ...[text shortened]... asia in this specific case
is not morally permissible.
Nemesio
I could refrase the question and ask you why it is morally permissable to kill in order to put an end to suffering.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI wonder why you think suffering is more important than the peace granted by death. Do you think people consider euthanasia willy-nilly? Do you not think that if they could, they would live as long as they wished? If someone has reached a point where death is a serious consideration, do you not think they have good reason to do so?
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.
Why would you have them live on in unmanageable pain or suffering, have you no compassion for people afflicted with such a situation?
Originally posted by Starrman
I wonder why you think suffering is more important than the peace granted by death. Do you think people consider euthanasia willy-nilly? Do you not think that if they could, they would live as long as they wished? If someone has reached a point where death is a serious consideration, do you not think they have good reason to do so?
Why would you have ...[text shortened]... manageable pain or suffering, have you no compassion for people afflicted with such a situation?
You haven't read all my posts in this thread.
There are enough modern pain killing methods to avoid the situation of unbearable suffering.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat is just plainly not true, there are often situations where the amount of drug use required to alleviate the symptoms is too dangerous to continue, especially on long term useage. We are not talking about a couple of days in pain, we can be talking months or years and no-one should have to endure a level of pain for that long, regardless of the temporary alleviation that might be available. On top of that there are other issues to consider including the fact that often living under the effects of heavy medication is no standard of living at all. Also the mental pain of losing, for example, one's dignity, mobility, decision making abilities, the strain you see it taking on your loved ones, can all make life unbearable, it is not just physical pain that these people suffer from. Not to mention the weight that knowledge of unceasable degeneration will carry. If you think that decisions like this can be based on physical pain alone you are missing a great deal of the issue.
You haven't read all my posts in this thread.
There are enough modern pain killing methods to avoid the situation of unbearable suffering.