blike Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Euthenasia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I'd say so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I think blike should be euthanized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo_maya Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 http://www.spinaweb.ie/showcase/2001/spin1116/spinaweb/textonly/euthanasia.htm [just being helpful] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Euthenasia? Yep. The arguments against it are weird... "I'm suffering intractable pain. My condition is terminal, please...I want to go now, with some dignity!" "Sorry, it's against my priciples to assist you to die, so you'll have to put up with the pain, and put up with being fed and changed like a baby for as long as I can keep you breathing" It's a cruel and unusual punishment for an innocent person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 fafalone said in post #3 :I think blike should be euthanized. Is he in pain? I voted "yes", but I accept that should I ever be in a position where such a decision is on my shoulders, and someone I care about is suffering, I might have to consider things a lot more carefully. It's easy to be morally superior when you are not in the situation yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted October 16, 2003 Author Share Posted October 16, 2003 It's easy to be morally superior when you are not in the situation yourself. words of wisdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 When a person wishes to carry out Euthanasia when they have a terminal illness, the arguement is that even if they have a small amount of time to live, a cure may be found. The person could then be saved and live a normal and happy life once again. how did they make an argument out of this It's easy to be morally superior when you are not in the situation yourself indeed. however, the decision should be up to the patient, and left to the physician. The family themselves should have no say in the issue, since it's also to order the continued life of someone, when you don't have to suffer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo_maya Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 So, what now - my life's miserable and don't want to live antmore in this dirty and ugly world - I should commit suicide? How can u people even think of letting someone commit suicide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo_maya Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 I think we have just started travelling backward in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 Committing suicide and requesting euthanasia are not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 exactly. Suicide comes about when one is severly depressed, most of the time it's non-avoidable, depression sucks a lot. Euthanasia is someone requesting to die because they're terminally ill and have little time to live, and are usually in a hugely great amount of pain. Do you think it's actually easy to request yourself to be killed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted October 18, 2003 Share Posted October 18, 2003 neo_maya said in post #9 :So, what now - my life's miserable and don't want to live antmore in this dirty and ugly world - I should commit suicide? You have that option (where most terminal cases in intractable pain don't). How much right do you think I should have to deny you that option? How can u people even think of letting someone commit suicide? By what right do we have the power over their lives and decisions to stop them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 The same right we have to stop people from doing other self-destructive things like drugs, prostitution, etc. The government thinks its laws are the absolute moral higher ground and what consenting adults choose to do with their lives is subject to their morals. In the US, there are actually laws against suicide, and people have been formally charged for attempted suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 and the penalty for attempting suicide: DEATH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 ^thats stupid. I don't know what to say about euthenesia, i could definately agree with passive euthenesia, but active doesn't feel right. Largley due to my religous beliefs, which i don't think are wrong. At the same time, certain conditions would really suck to be in, i'm not sure what i'd want if it was me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 fafalone said in post #14 :The same right we have to stop people from doing other self-destructive things like drugs, prostitution, etc. The government thinks its laws are the absolute moral higher ground and what consenting adults choose to do with their lives is subject to their morals. In the US, there are actually laws against suicide, and people have been formally charged for attempted suicide. True. We used to have that law (a long time ago), and attempted suicide was actually punishable by death. However, your examples are not really comparable; whilst drug abuse may be self-destructive, the objective of the abuser is not self destruction. I suspect the laws surrounding drug abuse are more to do with controlling colateral damage (theft, robbery and murder etc.) that is associated with the drugs trade. With regard to to prostitution (the oldest profession) it's arguable whether that's self-destructive at all. It's interesting to note that fatalities in both (drug abuse and prostitution) more related to financial status than behaviour. In general, the rich drug abuser is significantly less likely to die, or even suffer significant problems through their habit than are poor drug abuser. The same applies to prostitution; the rich prostitutes have a much lower risk of being beaten or killed or infected with some terminal STD than the 'street walkers'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 The point was that the government is legislating morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Yes, and I think that's a problem. Societal morals are constantly in flux. This means that any moral legislation would have to be 'elastic' to accommodate them. I can't see how that can work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Glider said in post #17 : I suspect the laws surrounding drug abuse are more to do with controlling colateral damage (theft, robbery and murder etc.) that is associated with the drugs trade. That hardly seems reasonable, since is the illegal aspect that increases the crime factor I wildly assert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 You may have a point there, however, it is generally those who cannot afford to sustain their addiction that need to resort to burglary and robbery. Those who can afford their habit, don't need to commit (further) crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Well, I don't have anything specific to back it up, know there's stuff out there but haven't looked Wouldn't take the those who can afford their drugs argument too far either. If they aren't out robbing someone themselves, they're still supporting the traffickers and cartels, if more indirectly, and their happy ways. Legalize it, tax it, and open a new Betty Ford clinic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 there's a drug legalization discussion inside the legalizing prostitution thread in GD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 MishMish said in post #22 :Wouldn't take the those who can afford their drugs argument too far either. If they aren't out robbing someone themselves, they're still supporting the traffickers and cartels, if more indirectly, and their happy ways. Of course they are, and I wouldn't suggest otherwise. I was pointing out that the emphasis of the laws concerning illegal drug use was on the 'illegal' aspects associated with it (illegal trade, robbery, burglary, posession, posession with intent to supply, etc.) and not directly concerned with self-destruction, as laws against suicide are. As for those who can afford their drugs, it is known that in general, financial status is a significant predictor of health and well being amongst drug abusers. For example, the rich abuser can afford 'better quality' drugs (lower risk of contaminants), they don't have to share needles (in the case of IV drug abusers). They are more able to afford 'discrete' private care if necessary. They are less likely to have to try to rob others to maintain their habit (a dangerous persuit in itself). They are more able to maintain a habit without having to compromise personal necessities (i.e. housing, diet etc.). In general, they can maintain a habit whilst keeping themselves removed from collateral dangers (they can even get others to obtain the drugs for them, thus even avoiding direct personal contact with 'drug dealer types'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Dudde's hint that we're unnecessarily rehashing an old topic, or at least doing so in the inappropriate venue, aside... All of those points you mention would apply as well, with minor exception (eg health care would still be more available to the rich,) seems to me, if drugs were legalized I maintain the laws against both drugs & euthanasia are based on extending specific concepts of morality to private decisions rather than having any basis in protecting public good Minor aside, I have inadvertently subscribed to this thread (another as well) How do I unsubscribe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now