Originally posted by Great King RatAgain, withdrawing life support is different from actively killing them.
1) So a man gets brought into the ER with a heart attack. He needs CPR - this will most probably will save his life – but carries a DNR. The doctor respects this wish and does not give CPR. The man dies.
You agree with this decision?
Do you find it a morally difficult choice? Do you feel the doctor should respect the wish but should also feel ba ...[text shortened]... one sentence when the subject is of such complexity. You never shut up, no reason to start now.
Why can't you get this through that rat brain of yours?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOriginally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, if God didn't want people to commit suicide, he should've just made them immortal.
Well, if God didn't want people to commit suicide, he should've just made them immortal.
He did; in the Hebrew, "Neshamah": the 'breath of life' [soul life] is imparted to biological life the moment a fetus emerges from the womb at birth and human life begins. The physical/material self [body] is temporal; immaterial soul life is eternal.
Edit Note: Here's a site link to the definition of "Neshamah": http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5397.htm
Medical Ethics » AMA Code of Medical Ethics » Opinion 2.211
Opinion 2.211 - Physician-Assisted Suicide
"Physician-assisted suicide occurs when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act (eg, the physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide).
It is understandable, though tragic, that some patients in extreme duress--such as those suffering from a terminal, painful, debilitating illness--may come to decide that death is preferable to life. However, allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.
Instead of participating in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. Patients should not be abandoned once it is determined that cure is impossible. Multidisciplinary interventions should be sought including specialty consultation, hospice care, pastoral support, family counseling, and other modalities. Patients near the end of life must continue to receive emotional support, comfort care, adequate pain control, respect for patient autonomy, and good communication. (I, IV)"
Issued June 1994 based on the reports "Decisions Near the End of LifePDF FIle," adopted June 1991, and "Physician-Assisted SuicidePDF FIle," adopted December 1993 (JAMA. 1992; 267: 2229-33); Updated June 1996.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion2211.page?
Doesn't give him the right because just being diagnosed with Parkinson's disease doesn't put him in the face of death. He can still live through life with this disease as you can with many other diseases and even beat it.
but if someone is seriously suffering an undisputable diagnosis then yes I believe it's in the families best interest to have a say. If Robin Williams has lived life with Parkinson's I don't find that disease allows termination. He's not in pain, there's alot of rough circumstances in life, but if it's not life threatening then you shouldn't allow it, it's a very tough question, but it should only be allowed circumstantially.
Originally posted by gortBut everyone knew that Robin had his "demons". In other words, mentally he could have been suffering much like a cancer patient with severe physical pain.
Doesn't give him the right because just being diagnosed with Parkinson's disease doesn't put him in the face of death. He can still live through life with this disease as you can with many other diseases and even beat it.
but if someone is seriously suffering an undisputable diagnosis then yes I believe it's in the families best interest to have a say. If Rob ...[text shortened]... shouldn't allow it, it's a very tough question, but it should only be allowed circumstantially.
So who is to blow the "suffering" alarm and put a pillow over his face if he requests it?
Originally posted by whodeyMost of this "conversation" has been about euthanasia, not AS. But alright, you're also against AS.
I believe I answered that.
Can you explain why you are against receiving help in any form when wanting to commit suicide?
So far, you've offered two more or less reasons, 1) because it would be like playing god (why is that bad?), 2) because it might result in people being euthanised against their will (but then why allow people to "unplug the machine"?).
Is that all, or am I missing something?
Originally posted by whodeyNice Whodeylanguage. A doctor recognizing a patients suffering and respects his wish to die is "putting a pillow over his face".
So who is to blow the "suffering" alarm and put a pillow over his face if he requests it?
You understand the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide, right?
Originally posted by whodeySaving someone's life is as much "playing Imaginary Friend In The Sky" as ending it when it gets requested.
There will always be those who wish to play God, especially those that don't believe he exists. For them, the job is vacant, so they naturally assume the position.
It is simply your bias that chooses to call the one good and the other bad.
Based on one of your previous posts, you are not against the Death Penalty.
"Playing IFITS" is perfectly acceptable when it's a criminal?
You always talk about how the state should have far less influence over the life of the common man (I paraphrase, correct me if it's worded completely wrong) and how more and more laws appear that suppress our freedom.
Is this at odds with your viewpoint that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be FORBIDDEN BY LAW?
Originally posted by Great King RatWhodey has said that a law banning murder reduces freedom. Likewise, a law banning assisted suicide and euthanasia also restricts one's freedom, although whodey is in favour of such a ban. Could it be that whodey's notion of "freedom" is a bit inadequate?
You always talk about how the state should have far less influence over the life of the common man (I paraphrase, correct me if it's worded completely wrong) and how more and more laws appear that suppress our freedom.
Is this at odds with your viewpoint that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be [b]FORBIDDEN BY LAW?[/b]