Extending euthanasia to minors

[festive1]

Sure, walking around is easier than an electric wheelchair, but does it really constitute death? In this case, Stephen Hawkins and Helen Keller all should commit suicide. I think both of those cases is ridiculous.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that all people with debilitating illness should be euthanized. Rather, that the choice of how one dies should be made by the individual.

I read this the same as "sometimes, using a bad means to get to a good end is acceptable". Suicide does have an appeal, which is why people do it. Suicide will stop the pain, whatever type. It is not, however, rational in and of itself. You also stop the good. Pain isn't fun, yes, but you can be in pain and be happy at the same time. Ask any mother. Well, not while they're having the baby, they're a little flustered.

Bad comparison. Labor pain is pain which serves a valid purpose. A woman's uterus contracts to open the cervix and expel a baby. The pain of a terminally ill person is very different to the temporary pain of childbirth (which I'd rate at a 6 for my first child and an 8 for my second, neither of which were as painful as my busted tailbone last winter).

I'd like to differentiate between "obligated" and "forced". I do not mean to force them to do anything (its not my morality) but I will call people out for not meeting perfection (and I expect them to do the same to me).

You're correct this isn't about what Tex feels people should do. That'd be extremely arrogant. My position is more to the extent of "this is the way, this is off the path" and "the way" is not subjective to my feelings. I "feel" that men should open doors for ladies, but I have no basis to include that in some sort of moral system. =) The moral system revolves around reason, objective.

And finally, you are correct it is not irrational to want to live out your final days without pain. I'm not pro-suffering or any strange masochism crap, and if pain meds work, by all means, use them. When they don't, while death does remove the pain (because the individual no longer exists), but to cause the death is "off the path". It is good to end the pain, but the means used also must be good. Here, we're killing an innocent, and there is really no way someone can call that good.

How is legislating your version of morality and expecting others to follow it anything less than arrogant? Just because you say it as "they aren't following 'the path'" doesn't mean anything other than "this is what I think is right and people should follow it." Not everyone subscribes to your version of morality.

Hedonism at it's finest. If this were true, the person's assertion "I want to die" or "I want to live" is meaningless. Its only about pleasure and pain. If this moral system is true, we can euthanize the young and old without consent. Consent no longer matters because there is no dignity.

The problem I have with this is that people can be in great pain and still be happy. It seems more like there is a distinction in happy and pleasure as well as suffering and pain. I know many rich, successful, highly praised celebrities that have all sorts of pleasure in their lives, but are suffering.

There are people who are dying, painfully, and are happy. You are correct. But there are also people dying, painfully, who are not happy. It's about the freedom of being able to choose one's death, not about "Hey there, Mr. Cancer patient. Your tumor is inoperable, so we're just going to put you down." Some people grow from their suffering, others are trapped by it and cannot escape it. Why shouldn't they be afforded the right to make up their own minds about it? Very similar to abortion... Personally I don't think I could have one, but far be it for me to make that decision for someone else.

The action wasn't to cause his death. The action of euthanasia is to use death as a means to end pain. The action of samson was to collapse the building in order to squish his captors. His death was involved, but it is not the means nor the end.

So... suicide is A-Okay as long as it serves some greater purpose. So if we were to legislate that all euthanasia patients must donate their bodies to science in an effort to cure whatever terminal illness they're dying from, those deaths would be justified if doctors can find a cure. Right? I'd be happy with this proviso, so long as I don't have to die a vegetable or in horrible agony.