(June 10, 2015 at 8:12 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: I had to disagree.
It’s difficult to watch a loved one suffer, especially when there’s no hope that they will ever experience anything else. I speak from experience because I was there when my grandmother was dying of cancer in a nursing home. She tried to pull the tape off her iv. I held her hand to keep her from doing that. She looked at me so piteously that I really didn’t know if I was doing the right things.
Emotionally charged scenarios aside, at the end of the day, will human rights be at issue when the decision for euthanasia is made? Nine times out of ten, the decision will be based on the financial concerns of those who are not suffering.
If someone is coerced into confessing to a murder he didn’t commit, he can tell the jury “Hey they beat me over the head with a phone book to make me confess.” But, once dead, the patient will not be able to tell how the doctors and his great niece made suicide sound so reasonable until he thought about it some more, but then it was too late.
no one said it would be easy. And money is a valid issue. I wouldn't wanna suck the funds from my family to keep a broken bag of a man alive. That's an unfair burden. I don't want people wiping my ass and sucking the money dry to get it done. And yes, there will be "innocent victims" but we get to choose where. In something like this what kind of error rate would you settle for? 1%? 0.5%? Look at homes today, the failure rate is much higher in worthless suffering. In the end, rational people can assess the situation rationally. well, I think anyway.
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity
