|
Post by Big on Mar 14, 2007 15:15:48 GMT -5
With regard to Euthanasia,
I think you have some valid points and I believe exceptions should be made BUT a free pass to give death pills to anyone that wishes to die should not be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 14, 2007 15:21:08 GMT -5
Since Roman Catholic Church cannot possibly be qualified to comment on euthanasia in extreme medical illness cases, I think the Church's euthanasia stance can be taken seriously only for mental/psychological reasons to end one's life.
Should a widow grieving for her dead husband be allowed to take a death pill to end her life because she doesn't wish to live anymore? Things like that.
|
|
|
Post by Spider on Mar 14, 2007 15:24:23 GMT -5
With regard to Euthanasia, I think you have some valid points and I believe exceptions should be made BUT a free pass to give death pills to anyone that wishes to die should not be allowed. Agreed, except that I don't think that legal euthanasia should be an exception. It should be a valid option where appropriate, and while it should not be abused (just like narcotics), it should not be condemned on religious or moral grounds and denied to those who need it.
|
|
|
Post by Spider on Mar 14, 2007 15:30:01 GMT -5
Since Roman Catholic Church cannot possibly be qualified to comment on euthanasia in extreme medical illness cases, I think the Church's euthanasia stance can be taken seriously only for mental/psychological reasons to end one's life. Should a widow grieving for her dead husband be allowed to take a death pill to end her life because she doesn't wish to live anymore? Things like that. This is the "where appropriate" part comes in. I think just as in the case of abortion, the extreme situations on either end of the spectrum are obvious, but the grey areas in between are debatable. I object to a blanket prohibition of euthanasia, but do not endorse death on demand.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 14, 2007 15:30:53 GMT -5
I think we are still better off looking at euthanasia unfavorably than accepting it as normal.
I bet there is a ratio of 1000 to 1 of stupid people wishing to die to that of those that really need it.
|
|
|
Post by Spider on Mar 14, 2007 15:47:33 GMT -5
I think we are still better off looking at euthanasia unfavorably than accepting it as normal. I bet there is a ratio of 1000 to 1 of stupid people wishing to die to that of those that really need it. I don't agree, Big. Euthanasia per se isn't good or bad. It depends on the situation. There are times when it is the correct and preferred treatment, and there are times when it is totally inappropriate. As I said above, I don't believe in death on demand, but I also don't believe that euthanasia should have any stigma attached to it. There is probably a 1000 to 1 ratio of stupid people who would like a gastric bypass to those who really need it, but it is legal and proper to provide it for that one who has a medical need, and it is unethical to do it upon request. Euthanasia should be the same.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 14, 2007 15:53:45 GMT -5
I don't believe a comparison can be established between eating disorders and death.
Consider a spouse giving a death pill to terminally ill husband because she wants to receive his money quicker. She claims he was better off that way.
|
|
|
Post by Spider on Mar 14, 2007 15:55:45 GMT -5
I don't believe a comparison can be established between eating disorders and death. I'm simply making an analogy of how we should view euthanasia. I'm responding to your statement that we should look upon it unfavorably - which I don't agree with.
|
|
|
Post by Spider on Mar 14, 2007 15:58:07 GMT -5
Regarding the spouse who wants the insurance money, euthanasia should be a medical decision with family input (just like any other medical decision).
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 14, 2007 15:59:38 GMT -5
Or consider a terminally ill person wants to take a death pill to relieve his spouse of what he/she believes undue burden?
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 14, 2007 16:01:24 GMT -5
I guess I am just not as optimistic about people's noble intentions as you are Spider.
|
|
|
Post by Spider on Mar 14, 2007 16:03:34 GMT -5
Or consider a terminally ill person wants to take a death pill to relieve his spouse of what he/she believes undue burden? Again, a medical decision. But these are grey areas and not as clearly defined as the terminal, uncontrollably suffering patient. That patient is not a rare commodity and needs the protection of legal euthanasia. I have to go out now, but will be back in a few hours and would be happy to continue the debate. Thank you for your thoughts on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by FloggingSully on Mar 14, 2007 16:22:44 GMT -5
"Consider a spouse giving a death pill to terminally ill husband because she wants to receive his money quicker. She claims he was better off that way." -Wouldn't she already have access to his money if they are married? and couldn't she actually lose money if he died (i.e. money left to others in his will)?
And if thousands of people would want to off themselves but didn't really need it why would they need a doctors help, they could jump of a building, put a gun in their mouth, etc. The people who would need a doctos help would be so disabled by their sickness that they wouldn't have the physical ability to off themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 14, 2007 16:28:04 GMT -5
The will can be written to give money to the spouse. Or it can be patient's daughter/son, or anyone really.
Many people that wish to die for the wrong reasons can have temporary periods of such wishes and they might want only a painless and humane death.
|
|
contini
AA
The Great Contini
Posts: 650
|
Post by contini on Mar 14, 2007 16:40:37 GMT -5
If you're at the dinner table with some guests, and you let out a silent but rancid fart, is it immoral to accuse the dog, or should you apologize and proclaim it to be your own work of art?
|
|