Oh no--you can love death as much as you want to. In addition to death, you have a right to love anything including flies and excrement.
Loving it is one thing, you don't think I should be allowed
to kill myself though.
I cannot stop you from killing yourself.
You say that but you also said you would resuscitate without regard to my wishes, you also said you would want the police to shoot my spouse for trying to help me.
I'm guessing that you'll never do it, though. Like the vast majority of other people you'll learn to live with any suffering you experience. Old age and disability while unpleasant, rarely extinguish the spark of the will to live in all of us.
Yes, but what about that tiny minority?
I was referring to all of our obligations to work hard to make the world a better place. Euthanasia does seem like a lazy way out of working to improve people's lives.
Again, offering people option would not prevent anyone from working hard to make the world a better place. Euthanasia is not an alternative to improving people's lives.
Euthanasia isn't hope to anybody.
Who are you to assign what kind of hope people are allowed to have?!
OK, but again, you might be convicted of a felony for encouraging a person to commit suicide.
I am not worry about that, I might go to count, but I won't be convicted.
No. I'd call them "trained, professional killers."
Okay, but they also prevent some suicides, that should count for something?
I'm not sure if there are any cases in which euthanasia is justified. Since I'm uncertain, then I cannot answer yes or no.
You were asked if you were certain that there are no cases where euthanasia is justified. Here you are saying you are uncertain, so why would you say you cannot answer yes or no, when you've answered with a clear no, you are not certain, in the very same paragraph?
I don't normally think of resuscitating a person as medical treatment. I can perhaps resuscitate a person by helping her breathe. I think it's a stretch to call that medical treatment.
Well resuscitation counts as medical treatment to me, but I don't want to get into semantics.
If the dying person was able to tell me that she didn't want me to resuscitate her, then I wouldn't.
That was the whole point of my question, I explicitly mentioned instruction to do not resuscitate, you first said you would resuscitate and a day later you say you wouldn't. What gives?
Yes, since "hope" and "hopeless" are so subjective, then it's folly to base critical decisions on deeming a person's case to be hopeless.
That's where the trained professional, those "killers" as you called them, comes in.
I'm glad you're beginning to see it my way!
Again, no one is proposing a free for all euthanasia, it is a critical decision that should be based on more than just feelings.
You sure have a flair for twisting reality. So now the sadistic people are those who want others to live?
That was not what I said, so much for your accusation of twisting reality. I explicitly limited my comment to those who want people to suffer.
Sadistic is a great word to describe those who want others to suffer through a long and painful death, that's was what I actually said. Go on, tell me that's twisted reality - state for the record that wanting people to suffer through a long and painful death counts not as contempt but as compassion in your book.
George Orwell, where are you now that your prophecy of double speak has come to pass!
Ironic that you would bring up Orwell, given you are the one who wants to control the one most fundamental aspect of other people's life - that is life itself. Tell me, if wanting assisted suicide made legal is such a great evil in itself, why do you feel the need to blur the difference between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, or to present blatant strawmen?