Extending euthanasia to minors

[Minimalist]

Euthanasia is glorified suicide and is just as immoral.

So says your stupid-assed god, huh?

How do you suppose this woman feels after having a bunch of fuckwits who listen to catholics sentence her to a continual life of pain?

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2013042...C3V01.html

DUBLIN (AP) - A paralyzed Irish woman who wants to die cannot legally commit suicide with her partner's help, Ireland's Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case that moved some in the courtroom to tears.

The seven-judge court said nothing in the country's Catholic-influenced 1937 constitution could authorize the deliberate taking of a life on humanitarian grounds. It said lawmakers could pass such a law to permit 59-year-old Marie Fleming to die at a time of her choosing, but no such statute existed yet.

Fleming, a former University College Dublin lecturer who is unable to move from the neck down because of advanced multiple sclerosis, testified that her life had been reduced to irreversible agony and that she feared choking to death because she couldn't swallow.

I imagine you don't care about such things...as long as your blood-thirsty god gets his pound of flesh.

[KichigaiNeko]

Euthanasia is glorified suicide and is just as immoral.

You know what's immoral?

Keeping someone alive who has no idea who they are and who is suffering in pain every single day. Keeping someone alive who does not want to live anymore as they wake up every morning in agony. Keeping someone alive who will never recover from a condition that makes their life hell every fucking second. Keeping someone alive who is in such a condition, who has in their own view nothing to live for, and who wouldn't survive otherwise without the use of extensive medical equipment.

That's fucking immoral.


Shove your fucked up morality up your ass.

One can only hope that Tex will be in this situation of perpetual agony some day Nap.


Yeah I haz der ebil

---

I think extending it to minors is a good idea...shit we haven't got it here in Oz yet for the elderly!

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Summary

1) The bible is silent on suicide.
2) The bible is silent on life being a gift of god.
3) The bible is silent euthanasia.
4) The bible is silent on abortion.

Therefore it is necessary for believers to admit their prohibitions are human inventions, that they are promoting a human created morality.

[Napoléon]

If a person requests euthanasia, regardless of circumstance, the request should be denied. If there is lots of pain, you give them morphine. If all the morphine in the world doesn't stop the pain, you look for a way to stop the pain that doesn't involve killing the person. Granting people's wish does not make it moral.

And you have the right to make that choice for them, why exactly? (Predicting, CUZ BIBLE SAYS SO...)

[L.A.F.]

Shouldn't this extension to minors also include some sort of parental agreement, if possible?

That is, in my opinion, a condition that should be included in the Act.
But nothing is certain at this moment.

[downbeatplumb]

Extending euthanasia to minors

Thatcher tried this in the eighties.


Oh you said minOrs not minErs.

[Minimalist]

Summary

1) The bible is silent on suicide.
2) The bible is silent on life being a gift of god.
3) The bible is silent euthanasia.
4) The bible is silent on abortion.

Therefore it is necessary for believers to admit their prohibitions are human inventions, that they are promoting a human created morality.

They'd rather slam their balls in a car door than make such an admission, Mouse.

[Anomalocaris]

Summary

1) The bible is silent on suicide.
2) The bible is silent on life being a gift of god.
3) The bible is silent euthanasia.
4) The bible is silent on abortion.

Therefore it is necessary for believers to admit their prohibitions are human inventions, that they are promoting a human created morality.

They'd rather slam their balls in a car door than make such an admission, Mouse.

They should be applauded for improving the future of the human gene pool by slamming their balls in a car door.

[Tex]

If someone is living and we go out of our way to halt their life, it is called "murder".

False. Murder is the unlawful taking of a life, which is precisely what this issue is about. Should assisting someone in their death be lawful?

I was using murder without invoking positivism, but I wasn't very clear. My apologies. I'd define murder as "unjust taking of life" rather than "unlawful" because morality is independent of a government.

"Murder" is bad. We want to avoid "murder". If they do it by themselves, it is called "suicide". "Suicide" is also bad. We don't want that either.

Can you prove suicide is bad, or is that just your opinion?

Suicide harms the self by causing death, harms others by permanently severing relationships, and is offensive to God by rejecting the life he gave. Truly, the desire to commit suicide is due to a disordered thought process stemming from the general "It'd be better if I were not alive". This includes physical pain, emotional pain, and the feeling that the elderly get if their kids tell them they are a burden to the family.

Instead, a better option is to find the problem and fix it.

Better for who? The person suffering?

Yes.

If we don't know how to fix it, we figure out how to fix it. For every person that is in pain and just says "Fuck it, I'm done" is one more person in pain later down the road for the same reason.

So, someone should have to suffer through unimaginable pain so we can experiment on them, and that person should be obligated to partake?

Unless selfishness is a virtue, this is a great thing to choose. If I had some strange disease that caused me to be in great pain, I would not choose death because the experimental therapy done to be could help the next person to get this strange disease. It is good. To choose death is not good. I would prosecute a doctor for assisting the suicide. The patient who desires suicide gets a psych doctor.

The people in pain can have whatever pain medication will help, but never can we facilitate death. Those people are still valuable.

Regardless of the fact that pain medication can be wholly inadequate to deal with human suffering, only the person living that life can determine whether their life is valuable enough to continue.

The person denying the value doesn't make the value go away. The value is objective.

We should not destroy them.

You are simply using emotion in an attempt to bolster your argument here. We are not "destroying" them. We are helping them facilitate their own death.

What is death? Is it not destruction? I will not facilitate their own destruction nor sit back and let others do it.

If a person requests euthanasia, regardless of circumstance, the request should be denied. If there is lots of pain, you give them morphine. If all the morphine in the world doesn't stop the pain, you look for a way to stop the pain that doesn't involve killing the person. Granting people's wish does not make it moral.

There comes a point where if you give someone enough medication to dull the pain, they will be so out of it they might as well be dead (or actually die from an overdose of painkillers).

The pain meds cannot be used as a means to kill them either. If we want to induce a coma or something, I don't have a problem, but any sort of action where we kill someone should not be considered permissible.

Instead, a better option is to find the problem and fix it. If we don't know how to fix it, we figure out how to fix it.

...and that doctors must be certain the pain they are suffering, whether physical, psychological or both, is caused by a serious and incurable condition, and is constant, unbearable and cannot be mitigated.

Bolding mine

Maybe you missed this part?

All diseases are serious and incurable before they are cured. Leukemia was something like an 80% death rate, and because of experimental therapy, the survival rate is now something like 80%. If everyone that got Leukemia just committed suicide, our ability to cure it would still be abysmal. The patients not only lived through pain, but agreed to have more pain in order for a chance to cure their cancer. I guarantee you that, while most probably only wanted to cure themselves, there were some who knew they would not be cured, but saw that the experiments done on their body were beneficial to others like them. The biggest example I can think of is when we first started doing vaccines. Some people had to take the dead viruses for the first time and see if they would get polio, small pox, or whatever it may be.

Funny, I don't think the bible mentions much on the ethics of suicide, at least directly. I get this from logic.

Well why don't you use your logic to realize that talking about owning and beating slaves (and that doesn't even scratch the surface of other disgusting things) disqualifies it from using it as a moral guideline.

Red herring. This has nothing to do with the argument. Please keep on topic.

Euthanasia is glorified suicide and is just as immoral.

So says your stupid-assed god, huh?

Says logic, who actually is my God (Logos), but whatever.

How do you suppose this woman feels after having a bunch of fuckwits who listen to catholics sentence her to a continual life of pain?

Probably feels pain, but hey, at least she's feeling. If you deny that she has an objective value, you may as well also deny that her will to live or die is just as arbitrary. Logically, there is no voluntary euthanasia, but there is human dignity and there is active involuntary euthanasia.

DUBLIN (AP) - A paralyzed Irish woman who wants to die cannot legally commit suicide with her partner's help, Ireland's Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case that moved some in the courtroom to tears.

The seven-judge court said nothing in the country's Catholic-influenced 1937 constitution could authorize the deliberate taking of a life on humanitarian grounds. It said lawmakers could pass such a law to permit 59-year-old Marie Fleming to die at a time of her choosing, but no such statute existed yet.

Fleming, a former University College Dublin lecturer who is unable to move from the neck down because of advanced multiple sclerosis, testified that her life had been reduced to irreversible agony and that she feared choking to death because she couldn't swallow.

I imagine you don't care about such things...as long as your blood-thirsty god gets his pound of flesh.

My God likes people alive, last I heard. He even is going to take all the dead and give them brand new awesome bodies.

Summary

1) The bible is silent on suicide.
2) The bible is silent on life being a gift of god.
3) The bible is silent euthanasia.
4) The bible is silent on abortion.

Therefore it is necessary for believers to admit their prohibitions are human inventions, that they are promoting a human created morality.

1) Bible issues no command on suicide, but portrays it negatively every time (and samson is not suicide).
2) Bible does not use the phrase "gift of God", but it does tell us we purposefully were given life.
3) Biblical times do not have a euthanasia capability. The word "euthanasia" means "good death" in greek, but that is a courageous death in war, or living to a ripe old age and dying with loving family. It does not include being killed by a doctor.
4) Bible speaks on abortion in Exodus 21:22-23, as well as hints at it in other sections.

[wwjs]

Well why don't you use your logic to realize that talking about owning and beating slaves (and that doesn't even scratch the surface of other disgusting things) disqualifies it from using it as a moral guideline.

Red herring. This has nothing to do with the argument. Please keep on topic.

No, it does have to do with this topic. You oppose euthanasia because it's "sinful" according to the book which supports far more wicked things.