14 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrMy position was that you are advocating Nazi ideas. My claim was that your ideas and the Nazis' about the mercy killing of disabled people are fundamentally the same.
No, I was simply curious if you were ready to withdraw your allegation, or if you would prefer to search around for some other proposition with which to make your case. Anyway, take your time. Of course I would never expect you to apologize for likening people to Nazis. Without such rhetoric, you'd have to actually present and defend a position.
I claimed the ideas were fundamentally the same. I never claimed they were exactly the same. I also claimed you dress up the same old ideas about killing disbled human beings in a new ideological jacket ..... and that is exactly what you have been doing in this thread. My claim stands as it stood before.
Because you have changed the jacket, the wrappings, it doesn't mean these ideas aren't the same. They certainly are and disabled people who are not able to exercise their own autonomy will be killed. That was my point.
*****************************************************
Anyway, you did not once refer to a very important add on to my proposition, the part of the inalienable Human Right to Life.
What is your comment about the inalienability of the most fundamental Human Right, the Right to Life ?
14 Jun 07
2 edits
[i]Originally posted by vistesd[/i]Here comes the usual misunderstanding. We ( .... I ?) are not talking about that. The state ordered killing of disabled people, the Nazi euthanasia "programs", did not start until 1940/41.
Okay, I’m rambling now—but all of this seems to me to be a far cry from state-mandated elimination of those whose life is seen as not sufficiently contributing to the collective well-being.[/b]
Just for the record we are not talking about killing terminally ill disabled human beings. We are not even talking about killing ill disabled human beings.
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by bbarrThis means that your criterium of "Lives not worth living" doesn't necessarily entail severe and unrelenting pain.
With the following modifications, you will have an accurate account of my position:
1) There is no need for the modal operator "possible", since I think there are actual cases where the circumstances are such that euthanizing a DH is the compassionate thing to do.
2) The pain and suffering you mention in condition (i) must be severe and unrelenting, u ...[text shortened]... n obligation to abide by their wishes despite the absence of severe and unrelenting suffering.
Correct ?
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf my ideas are fundamentally the same as the Nazis, then it should be easy for you to find a proposition that we both would agree on. Pardon me for being unimpressed at empty accusations of "similarity". All propositions are similar to each other according to some metric of similarity or other.
My position was that you are advocating Nazi ideas. My claim was that your ideas and the Nazis' about the mercy killing of disabled people are fundamentally the same.
I claimed the ideas were fundamentally the same. I never claimed they were exactly the same. I also claimed you dress up the same old ideas about killing disbled human beings i ...[text shortened]... our comment about the inalienability of the most fundamental Human Right, the Right to Life ?
As you know I do not think there is an inalienable human right to life, if that means a right to life that we have simply by vitue of being human organisms. Being human is neither necessary for having the right to life (consider Spock) or sufficient (consider a largely brain-dead human without even the capacity for mentality). But even if we're talking about the inalienable right to life that a person has, I do not think it is more fundamental a right than that of having one's interests be taken into consideration in decisions that will effect one's future or well-being. This is why I think that if there are good reasons for thinking that a person wouldn't want to continue living, compassion and respect may dictate that we euthanize. In the absence of such information, of course, we ought to err on the side of caution.
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeIn none of my own writing do I ever use a notion like "life not worth living". It is you that has foisted this notion upon me because you think it is of a piece with my claim that there may be fates worse than death. I would never presume to claim of a life that it is "not worth living", but I do think there are conditions under which one can suffer a fate worse than death. Not all of these conditions involve sever and unrelenting pain. My mother, in her living will, specified that she would prefer to die than to mentally deteriorate to a point where she could no longer recognize her family. What constitutes a fate worse than death will depend on individuals, on what they take to be valuable, and on their conception of life and the narrative of their own lives. In the absence of knowing how people conceive of their lives and what they value, we cannot if they are severely disabled determine whether compassion and respect recommend euthanasia. The reason why the "severe and unrelenting" pain condition is included in the account above is that it is the clearest sort of case where we can make determination about what compassion and respect recommend. Who would prefer to live if their life consisted solely of pain that encompassed thier inner life, making even trains of thought impossible, which was unmanageable by medicine? But just so you are aware of how conservative my view here is, even under the condition of severe and unrelenting pain, we still need agreement by those who know the person and have their best interests at heart that the person would not want to continue living.
This means that your criterium of "Lives not worth living" doesn't necessarily entail severe and unrelenting pain.
Correct ?
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat would be contingent on Ivanhoe's willingness to participate in the discussion. Since he's only
Was this issue resolved?
willing to toss about accusations with no substance, naturally it's not resolved, except inasmuch as
we have further evidence of his paranoia and mental incapacity.
Nemesio
25 Jun 07
Originally posted by NemesioUnfortunately, his signal failure to respond only confirms these regrettable opinions.
That would be contingent on Ivanhoe's willingness to participate in the discussion. Since he's only
willing to toss about accusations with no substance, naturally it's not resolved, except inasmuch as
we have further evidence of his paranoia and mental incapacity.
Nemesio