Euthanasia: Compassion or Contempt?

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Re: Euthanasia: Compassion or Contempt?

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 30 by Bust Nak]
You have a problem with seeing death as preferable to life, therefore no one is allowed to prefer death to life?
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.
And had my judgment actually reflected on the condition of my own life, you'd prefer that I suffer though the reminder of my life rather than let me end it at a time of my choosing?
I cannot stop you from killing yourself. 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.
Never mind those who are suffering eh? They just didn't put in enough hard work or were not dedicated enough.
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, "to you." Shouldn't it matter more whether it is hope to the person whose life we are discussing?
Euthanasia isn't hope to anybody.
Yes, as it was the right decision for her.
OK, but again, you might be convicted of a felony for encouraging a person to commit suicide.
You seem to be ignoring those whose top priority is not stopping suicide, you don't think they count as "trained professionals?"
No. I'd call them "trained, professional killers."
That still doesn't tell me if you think there absolutely cannot be any possible cases where euthanasia is clearly justified.
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.
Then you contradicting yourself when you stated "one should not be force to under go treatments" earlier?
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. If the dying person was able to tell me that she didn't want me to resuscitate her, then I wouldn't.
A side point - hope is subjective, someone either feels hope, or they don't. Which means if one feels hopeless, then there is no hope, regardless of the actual chances of survival.
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. I'm glad you're beginning to see it my way!
Since you asked, a person with contempt for the elderly, sick, or the dying, might be waiting for them to die a slow and painful "bad" death. She or he would be delighted with the banning of euthanasia.
You sure have a flair for twisting reality. So now the sadistic people are those who want others to live? George Orwell, where are you now that your prophecy of double speak has come to pass!

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8630
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Euthanasia: Compassion or Contempt?

Post by Bust Nak »

Jagella wrote: 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?

User avatar
Peter
Guru
Posts: 1295
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:46 pm
Location: Cape Canaveral

Post by Peter »

If there is such a thing as a "natural" right then it is the right of an individual to say "No More" and end their own life. Who am I to force another to live just to assuage my conscience?
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Post by Jagella »

Peter wrote: If there is such a thing as a "natural" right then it is the right of an individual to say "No More" and end their own life. Who am I to force another to live just to assuage my conscience?
Welcome to the discussion, Peter!

Obviously you take the euthanasia position. I hope you are not planning to harm yourself. If you are, then please get help!

Can you provide more details about your position? Do you think it's a right for anybody under any circumstances to commit suicide? Do you have some real-life experiences that make you feel that way, or are you relying on what you think is best for those who say: "no more"?

User avatar
Peter
Guru
Posts: 1295
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:46 pm
Location: Cape Canaveral

Post by Peter »

Jagella wrote:
Peter wrote: If there is such a thing as a "natural" right then it is the right of an individual to say "No More" and end their own life. Who am I to force another to live just to assuage my conscience?
Welcome to the discussion, Peter!

Obviously you take the euthanasia position. I hope you are not planning to harm yourself. If you are, then please get help!

Can you provide more details about your position? Do you think it's a right for anybody under any circumstances to commit suicide? Do you have some real-life experiences that make you feel that way, or are you relying on what you think is best for those who say: "no more"?
It's my opinion that the only right we have simply by being alive is the right to ultimately end that life and it's not for anyone else to make that decision. It can be debated forever when a person is justified in their decision to end their own life. No I have no immediate plans to end my life. Thanks.
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Re: Euthanasia: Compassion or Contempt?

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 32 by Bust Nak]
Who are you to assign what kind of hope people are allowed to have?!
It's my opinion that death is hopeless, but if there's life, then there's hope.
I am not worry about that, I might go to count, but I won't be convicted.
You may wish to read: Michelle Carter guilty of manslaughter for texts urging boyfriend's suicide. I agree that she is guilty of manslaughter.
Again, no one is proposing a free for all euthanasia, it is a critical decision that should be based on more than just feelings.
That sounds nice, but things can quickly get out of hand. Just ask Michelle Carter.
I explicitly limited my comment to those who want people to suffer.
But how does wanting suffering people to live constitute sadism? You keep posting non sequiturs. Wanting suffering people to live is wanting hope that they can live and live well. That's the very opposite of sadism.
Sadistic is a great word to describe those who want others to suffer through a long and painful death...
Who wants that? I believe that there is hope for people to live and that we can alleviate their pain in the bargain. The first step is making sure doctors are well trained in pain management. Many have not been well trained, and there's always room for improvement.
Go on, tell me that's twisted reality...
OK, that's twisting reality. The reality is that killing people is not a cure for their suffering as any sensible person knows. Just check your favorite search engine. You'll find heaps of pain remedies and research to find better ones.
...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.
I'm not going to lie. I have said repeatedly that I don't want anybody to suffer. I want them to live. I'm sorry if you equate life with suffering, but that's your problem. I again urge you to get help. Chances are, you can learn to live with anything you are going through. There are resources. Look for them.
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...
I'm glad you asked. There is a very thin line between the two. Going from "voluntary" to involuntary euthanasia is just one crazy act by one crazy person who hopes to murder and get away with it by calling it a "good" death.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8630
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Euthanasia: Compassion or Contempt?

Post by Bust Nak »

Jagella wrote: It's my opinion that death is hopeless, but if there's life, then there's hope.
We are not talking about your hopes, we are talking about someone else's. They and only they have any say in that.
You may wish to read: Michelle Carter guilty of manslaughter for texts urging boyfriend's suicide. I agree that she is guilty of manslaughter.
That does not worry me one bit.
That sounds nice, but things can quickly get out of hand. Just ask Michelle Carter.
That's why there are these trained professional, so called "killers," to stop things from getting out of hand. Cases such as Michelle Carter are great reasons for supporting legalized euthanasia. Conrad Roy, Carter's boyfriend, would still be alive had legal euthanasia been easily accessible to him. He would have been vetted as someone not mentally stable enough to be making that decision.
But how does wanting suffering people to live constitute sadism?
Wanting suffering people to continue to live constitute sadism when one derives pleasure form said suffering. How is that a non sequiturs? It's how sadism is typically defined.
Wanting suffering people to live is wanting hope that they can live and live well.
Right, a very different reason to wanting people to suffer though, wouldn't you say?
Who wants [others to suffer through a long and painful death]?
Sadists, presumably.
I believe that there is hope for people to live and that we can alleviate their pain in the bargain. The first step is making sure doctors are well trained in pain management. Many have not been well trained, and there's always room for improvement.
Good, work on these very important issue. But as I've pointed out time and again, legalizing euthanasia does not mean one should slack on medical treatment, research or end-of-life care. You have presented the same old red herring, it's like fearing legalized abortion would somehow negatively impact on antenatal care.
OK, that's twisting reality. The reality is that killing people is not a cure for their suffering as any sensible person knows. Just check your favorite search engine. You'll find heaps of pain remedies and research to find better ones.
That was not what you were asked to do. You were asked to dismiss my claim that "sadistic" describes those who want others to suffer through a long and painful death as twisted reality.

As for your point, pain remedies is not 100% effective, you've acknowledged that much when you pointed out there is research to find better ones. Future remedies is not going to cure present pain. Perhaps more importantly, pain is just one (granted, major) aspect of the quality of life. Someone might still not want to be hospitalized for long period without a realistic prospect of recovery.
I'm not going to lie. I have said repeatedly that I don't want anybody to suffer. I want them to live.
Again, that was not what you were asked to say, you were asked to say: "wanting people to suffer through a long and painful death counts not as contempt but as compassion." You won't do it. My point is made.
I'm sorry if you equate life with suffering, but that's your problem. I again urge you to get help. Chances are, you can learn to live with anything you are going through. There are resources. Look for them.
You are once trying to downplay the amount of work, thought and research that a person like Brittany Maynard went through. You think she took her decision lightly without due diligence, that she failed to look up resources that could help? You won't say it, but that's what you are implying.

More to the point - you've let slip that there are exceptions when you choose the words "chances are..." What if I am one of those who can't live with what they are going through? You would stop me from getting the only kind of help I want.
I'm glad you asked. There is a very thin line between the two. Going from "voluntary" to involuntary euthanasia is just one crazy act by one crazy person who hopes to murder and get away with it by calling it a "good" death.
Which is text book slippery slope argument. Consent is not a thin line, it's the difference between work and slavery, the difference between rape and sexual relationship. When one crazy act by one crazy person happens, we deal with it as we do other crazy acts by crazy people. Is there any reason why you would think systematic involuntary euthanasia would be the next step from regular euthanasia?

A side note, why is "voluntary" in quote marks in the first place? you are suggesting that there is no such thing as voluntary euthanasia?

Finally, I am still interested in knowing why the apparent flip-flop re: resuscitating someone in a suicide attempt with instruction to do not resuscitate.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Re: Euthanasia: Compassion or Contempt?

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 37 by Bust Nak]
That does not worry me one bit.
Michelle Carter probably felt the same way.
But as I've pointed out time and again, legalizing euthanasia does not mean one should slack on medical treatment, research or end-of-life care.
I disagree.
Again, that was not what you were asked to say, you were asked to say: "wanting people to suffer through a long and painful death counts not as contempt but as compassion." You won't do it. My point is made.
I won't avow what I don't believe.
What if I am one of those who can't live with what they are going through? You would stop me from getting the only kind of help I want.
Suicide prevention is a moral tenet of our society. I agree with that tenet. I'm not going to do nothing to stop a suicide if I believe it's immanent. Sorry. I guess I just value life. I wish others would value it too.
Is there any reason why you would think systematic involuntary euthanasia would be the next step from regular euthanasia?
Involuntary euthanasia may not be only one step from voluntary euthanasia, but there are way too few steps for me. I posted a real-life example in Michelle Carter's pushing her boyfriend to commit suicide. That's good evidence of the dangers of allowing suicide. There is indeed a very thin line between "voluntary" and involuntary euthanasia. If we play with fire, then we can burn ourselves up easily enough.
A side note, why is "voluntary" in quote marks in the first place? you are suggesting that there is no such thing as voluntary euthanasia?
Not really, but my point is that to call something voluntary is not to make it so.
Finally, I am still interested in knowing why the apparent flip-flop re: resuscitating someone in a suicide attempt with instruction to do not resuscitate.
Again, I'm not sure about the ethics of a DNR.

I should have pointed out earlier that I'm no stranger to pain. I've lived with pain and disability for almost 40 years, although my pain is more emotional than physical. I was badly injured in an accident in 1977. I almost died several times. I've lived with those debilitating injuries ever since. I was never able to live a normal life as a result--I never married or had children although I always wanted to. I was never fully employed either. There have been times I wanted to die, and I did attempt suicide in 1987. I used to think that euthanasia was the "solution" for not only my problems but for other disabled people's problems as well.

What changed my mind? I learned that a lot of disabled people strongly oppose euthanasia. I wasn't sure why they opposed it until one day I read in a disability-rights magazine that euthanasia is prejudicial. It targets the disabled as having a "right to die" while such a wonderful right is denied to those whom we value! Euthanasia and the right to die are just expressions of bigotry dressed up in nice words that are actually a way to rid the world of those society sees as worthless.

So yes, I see this whole issue from the inside. I see the real-life examples of great people who value their lives despite what society imagines as unlivable. I see these people every day, and I know that they and their lives are way too valuable to throw away. I want all of us to be protected from the threat of euthanasia, and that includes you.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8630
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Euthanasia: Compassion or Contempt?

Post by Bust Nak »

Jagella wrote: Michelle Carter probably felt the same way.
And that's relevant to whether I would should be worrying about being convicted, how?
I disagree.
Then give you reasoning, why would legalizing euthanasia encourage doctors and scientists to slack in their research or treatment? Last time you were asked, you said a doctor would not be able to improving the life of someone who has successfully suicide. While true, he wouldn't be able to, that's quite a bit different to being too lazy to, right?
I won't avow what I don't believe.
That didn't stop you the first time round, did it? I said a sadist who want people to die slow and painful death reality would want to ban euthanasia. For unknown reasons, you decided to argue against it; and now you want to disown what you said.
Suicide prevention is a moral tenet of our society. I agree with that tenet. I'm not going to do nothing to stop a suicide if I believe it's immanent. Sorry. I guess I just value life. I wish others would value it too.
Values are not all or nothing. Life is valued, just not at the expense of human dignity.
Involuntary euthanasia may not be only one step from voluntary euthanasia, but there are way too few steps for me. I posted a real-life example in Michelle Carter's pushing her boyfriend to commit suicide. That's good evidence of the dangers of allowing suicide.
Again, that particular case is a great reason for supporting euthanasia - the boyfriend could still be alive had he had easy access to euthanasia. Allowing suicide do indeed have its danger, that's all the more reason to get professional people involved.
There is indeed a very thin line between "voluntary" and involuntary euthanasia.
Granted. But what about the line between voluntary (no quote marks) and involuntary? A huge thick bar of a line, if it could be called a line at all, right?
If we play with fire, then we can burn ourselves up easily enough.
So you'd rather ban fire and force everyone to eat raw uncooked food. Great. Surely there are better analogy you can use?
Not really, but my point is that to call something voluntary is not to make it so.
Well then that's moot since we are not talking about "voluntary" but voluntary.
Again, I'm not sure about the ethics of a DNR.
So you are not sure if you would resuscitate that person or not. Yet earlier you said were not going to do nothing to stop a suicide if it is immanent. You sound conflicted. Or perhaps "immanent" suicide implicitly excludes suicide "in progress?"
I should have pointed out earlier that I'm no stranger to pain... I used to think that euthanasia was the "solution" for not only my problems but for other disabled people's problems as well.

What changed my mind? I learned that a lot of disabled people strongly oppose euthanasia. I wasn't sure why they opposed it until one day I read in a disability-rights magazine that euthanasia is prejudicial. It targets the disabled as having a "right to die" while such a wonderful right is denied to those whom we value!
Yet you are the one who is denying that right to people. Had you actually been worried about euthanasia being prejudicial, you'd be arguing that everyone should have that right instead.
Euthanasia and the right to die are just expressions of bigotry dressed up in nice words that are actually a way to rid the world of those society sees as worthless.
Never mind the fact that said expressions comes from the very people who wants the right for ourselves.
So yes, I see this whole issue from the inside. I see the real-life examples of great people who value their lives despite what society imagines as unlivable. I see these people every day, and I know that they and their lives are way too valuable to throw away. I want all of us to be protected from the threat of euthanasia, and that includes you.
That's just the same slippery slope argument form before. "If euthanasia is legal then old and disabled people can be murdered!" What is your reasoning for this fear? Or is it just an "well, it might happen" fear?

If for argument's sake, we can with 100% certainty, rule out involuntary and "voluntary" in quote style euthanasia, leaving just the genuine euthanasia cases. Would you then be able to support legalization of euthanasia?

If not, then this is just another red herring, you won't support it regardless of whether there is any threat of murdering or not.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Post by Jagella »

[Replying to post 35 by Peter]
It's my opinion that the only right we have simply by being alive is the right to ultimately end that life and it's not for anyone else to make that decision. It can be debated forever when a person is justified in their decision to end their own life. No I have no immediate plans to end my life. Thanks.
I'm glad you're not suicidal.

If we have a right to die, then how would we practice such a right? Do you believe that the police and other people should step aside and allow people to jump from tall buildings or jump from bridges to the river below? Should we allow people to shoot themselves hoping that no bystanders take a bullet too? Might businesses sell convenient cyanide capsules to people who wish to end it all? Do you believe that friends and family must stand aside while a loved one slashes her wrists? If paramedics arrive at the scene of her bleeding to death, should they wait until she dies and then contact the coroner?

If you try to answer questions like these, then I think you'll have a better perspective on the issues involved in euthanasia. Euthanasia supporters tend to offer a simplistic, idealized version of death. In the real world, however, things tend to get much more complicated and a lot messier.

Post Reply