Am I right in saying that prisoners aren't generally allowed to commit suicide, and are strictly monitored if they are likely to do so? I remember hearing recently on the news about an increase in prison suicides. The implication was that the prison 'suicide watch' was not doing its job as well as it used to.
Also, in the UK at least, a large proportion (I think the majority) of doctors will do the following if a terminally ill patient requests it: keep giving them morphine to numb the pain, until inevitably this requires a fatal dose, which kills the patient. Of course this is not the quickest way of putting such a patient out of their misery, it just means the doctor is extremely unlikely to get prosecuted. Those who are opposed to voluntary euthanasia should be aware that it already happens in many countries on a large scale, and is effectively condoned by the medical establishment.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 02
- Moves
- 873440
Originally posted by bbarri was also making the assumption that the prisoner/babies in africa/christopher reeve...could not make a descion for themselves.which is my point...who should make a decsion for the people who cannot decide for themselves?this was the moral dilemma i was trying to put over,as obviously most would disagree on what is a quality of life worth living.perhaps, i shouldn't have made these examples to raise the point,as quite clearly,i have been taken too literally(and contemptuously dealt with).in future i'll try and keep it simple so that the point i'm making isnt lost . peter(sorry about spelling..i suffer mild dyslexia)
Of course I wouldn't force the cyanide pill on the poor tortured prisonser, that would be murder. But the presupposition of the example is that the prisoner asks for assistance to die. I'm assuming that the prisoner doesn't want to go on ...[text shortened]... y were not playing God in that case, so why is this any different?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 02
- Moves
- 873440
Originally posted by StarValleyWyi agree...but what if it stops another sept 11th?this man clearly has no regard for human life ...should he therefore enjoy human rights? taking the moral high ground wont win... maybe its time to throw the gloves off and fight dirty.
I think that torture of a prisoner gets you nothing. It undermines your moral authority and moral authority is the sole argument for the destruction of terror supporting nations. Abide by Geneva all the way and live by our laws, not the laws of our enemies.
Originally posted by peterhIts a tough call. If you prevent another attack by torturing a prisoner, the people saved will be alive and greatful. I still go back to the big picture. If you are not absolutely correct in your moral stance, you devolve into chaos because there ceases to be a "correct" point of view. Correct is defined here as : That point of view which defends the innocent and opposes the tyrant. Another way of saying it is that one tyrant opposing another tyrant does nothing for the innocents who share the playground. To qualify as a real war, one side must be morally able to take the high ground. If neither side can, (and this is the argument of the anti-war movement), then chaos reigns. Maybe we are already into chaos, but in my mind there is a borderline that we must not cross. I don't think we are at that line yet, but buying support from Turkey came real close to the line. I'm glad that the Turkish democracy is able to say no on their terms. If we ever use coersion, (above and beyond normal economic and political capital), we are cooked morally.
i agree...but what if it stops another sept 11th?this man clearly has no regard for human life ...should he therefore enjoy human rights? taking the moral high ground wont win... maybe its time to throw the gloves off and fight dirty.