Originally posted by ivanhoewhat card? I asked a simple question. And if anyone is trying to paint the other as a monster it is you - you took that question and turned it to mean that I wanted to kill people to solve societies problems, and that I advocated free abortion, especially of handicapped children who I saw as monsters. You also talk of cases where society is killing a 3rd party, whereas I am primerily talking about a person who themselves wishes to die. Let's keep to the subject here, which I believe is "killing/letting a person die is never justified". Let me know if you disagree with or want to change this title.
You're playing the "compassion" card again, thus stating that if I do not agree with you then I'm a monster.
I'm advocating the relieve of pain and suffering by using the modern releaving pain methods and taking care of people by being there for them and not abandoning them. We should take care for those who suffer and we should releave their pain as ...[text shortened]... of killing unborn children as monsters.
Talking about turning the world upside down.
Yes, use drugs and compassion and medical knowledge to aleviate pain wherever possible. But if you advocate the use of pain relieving drugs as a 'fix all' then you have little knowledge of their limitations - I was refering to the level of pain and quality of life people are left with once painkillers etc have done their best. How about the guy who has intestines so distorted that you can see their peristaltic movements pushing through his skin like a dolphin breaking water. He is in immense pain and always will be. Drugs don't help (doses large enough to even just lessen the pain for any time would kill him) and no surgery is possible - should he be forced to live on even though he experiences pain that doctors have compared to child birth every day, all day?
And that's just physical pain. What about mental pain/incapacity? There is a group of people who have been severly handicapped by a faulty batch of drugs which destroyed part of their brain, the same part that Parkinson's disease attacks. With no drugs they had no control of their movements and thrashed around uncontrolably. The only drugs that worked sufficiently to control this has the unfortunate side effect of causeing massive halucinations; one man constantly saw flaming snakes coming through the walls and burrowing into his skull. Not a nice way to live.
What about emotional pain? Should someone be forced to continue living when no matter what they do they are miserable? Imagine the most fun you can have (keeping it clean please). Now imagine doing that activity and it not being fun, not because you don't like that activity but because you are mentally incapable of having fun. That's a pretty miserable existance. Again, use drugs & counselling & compassion but these are not magic cures. Anti-depressants don't sudden;ly make people happy people. The most common complaint I hear about them is that they numb your senses, making it even harder to feel happy or sad, turning people into zombies, not improving their lives but reducing them do they don't make a fuss - isn't that a case of 'solving societies problems'.
I don't advocate killing people at the drop of a hat to make things easier for the rest of us. I totally agree that every other avenue should be explored first. But I also don't believe that there is never a time to let go, when the best option is to die.
nb. Varg - suicide was legalised in the UK in the 1970's. The fact that suicide is still illegal in the US causes immense problems. It is my understanding that if someone tells you that they are feeling suicidal or have had suicidal thoughts, then if they do kill themselves you are guilty of aiding their crime. This is especially true if you are person in a position of responsability such as a doctor, teacher or psychiatrist. These people have a obligation to have you sectioned, which means that you can't talk to exacly the people you need to talk to when you are at your lowest ebb.
nb2. can you explain what you mean by "giving meaning to suffering". I'll agree that some suffering is worthwhile & has meaning, such as childbirth. But Grandpa taking 6 weeks to die in pain in the final stages of cancer when he would prefer it to end now doesn't have any worthwhile meaning that I can see
These are difficult questions. I can give my opinion about these subjects, but I don't have any final answers, so I won't. I don't believe that anyone has them. This is not a matter of right and wrong as some people want us to belief. It depends on your beliefs (do you belief in God for example), on your experiences and also for a great deal on your culture. Where did you grow up? And even then it is just an opinion that can't be proven right or wrong.
Just leave each other in its value and try to see each other point of view. Then we are able to learn form each other.
Ad.
And for you, Ivanhoe, it is clear that you are against abortus and ending life in general. I read some of your other posts, so I could not miss the message 🙂. That is fine with me, but be careful that you do not become deaf for other opinions and arguments. It might be that you are wrong (at least in some individual cases). How do you know what is best for other people? You are not in the same situation and you are not the same person.
I also suppose that a lot of your opinions are coming from your belief in God. Now take away God (for most people it is not proven that he exists), do you still feel the same about everything? Can you still use the same arguments? I don't think so.
In my opinion one must have very strong arguments to say that all abortion of ending of life is wrong. In what I have read so far in my life, I never saw those strong arguments.
Ad.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell actually I think it could be rather selfish of me to want them to live if they wanted to end their life.
Start answering the question in case your father, mother, brother, sister, wife, son or daughter wants to commit suicide.
But anyway, I was asking what you think, within your moral framework.
Originally posted by belgianfreakWhat card ? The "compassion" card you are playing in this post too. You've played it at least three times in your post. What is your intention otherwise than to picture your opponent as heartless and not caring if he disagrees with you that killing is not an option in these instances.
what card? I asked a simple question. And if anyone is trying to paint the other as a monster it is you - you took that question and turned it to mean that I wanted to kill people to solve societies problems, and that I advocated free abortion, especially of handicapped children who I saw as monsters. You also talk of cases where society is killing a 3r ...[text shortened]... of cancer when he would prefer it to end now doesn't have any worthwhile meaning that I can see
I'm not against passive euthanasia, that means that letting a person die in certain cases can be justified. Prolonging life at all costs is madness.
"killing/letting a person die is never justified".(?)
Killing a person is an attack on life itself, it is a voluntary act of violence and therefore in most cases not justified. In case of selfdefence however killing can be justified.
As you can see the title you have chosen can be rather confusing.
Belgian freak: "nb2. can you explain what you mean by "giving meaning to suffering"."
That is a rather complicated matter. If you are interested in how the Roman Catholic Church looks upon the meaning of suffering and the nature and salvific aspects of suffering, you can take a look on this site:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html
It is a pastoral letter from Pope John Paul II "Salvifici Doloris". It's however not easy to read and the letter is not short. It may help you however to understand the reasons why the Roman Catholic Church is an opponent of ACTIVE euthanasia.
For a person who does not believe in the God of Abraham suffering at the end of a human life has no meaning at all. It is almost impossible to give meaning to suffering other than in a pragmatic way of effort and result.
PS. I'm not talking about you but about the existent abortion and euthanasia practice and the resulting discussions. For instance in the Netherlands there is a bioethicist called Heleen Dupuis, a distinguished member of the Political party VVD, a party represented in the Dutch government, who states that it is all right to kill children with the Down syndrom AFTER they are born.
In the beginning of the euthanasia debate people were assured that there was no such thing as a slippery slope. It simply did not exist we were told by the advocates of active euthanasia when people expressed their concerns about the wellbeing of handicapped people in the future. Three criterions were formulated after, what they called, "very carefull discussion" in order to perform euthanasia . These criterions were 1. the patient has to be terminately ill, 2.the patient has to give his or her consent (very important) and 3. The pain/suffering had to be unbearable.
After a few years of legalised euthanasia practice ALL THREE of these criterions have allready been pushed aside.
For instance children born with the Down syndrom are not safe anymore. They are being denied the right to live. This is discrimination of handicapped persons in the worst possible way. In this instance the "compassion"card is not plaid in the direction of the child, because Down-syndrom does not involve massive suffering at all, no, the "compassion" card is plaid towards the parents of a child with Down Syndrom. "It is a drama for the parents" according to VVD member and bioethicist Heleen Dupuis. In this case the suffering of the parents has to be releaved by killing their child.
.
Originally posted by Varg
Well actually I think it could be rather selfish of me to want them to live if they wanted to end their life.
But anyway, I was asking what you think, within your moral framework.
Helping somebody that has a death wish demands an effort in time and energy on your side, the "risk"of selfishness on the side of those who want to help is not very urgent, is it ?
If you give the message to people who want to commit suicide that it is ok, you give the message: "You are free to do what ever you want. I do not intend to do something about it, because I do not wish to be selfish in stopping you to realise your wishes, and I certainly do not want to be selfish." Varg, this is just a way of trying to silence your conscience and I must admit your doing a good job. In fact your reasoning is very much self-orientated, self-centered. You do not want to be selfish ..... a very ethical attitude ..... you are to be admired for that. Don't you think so ?
.
Originally posted by adjeAdje: "This is not a matter of right and wrong as some people want us to belief."
These are difficult questions. I can give my opinion about these subjects, but I don't have any final answers, so I won't. I don't believe that anyone has them. This is not a matter of right and wrong as some people want us to belief. It depends on your beliefs (do you belief in God for example), on your experiences and also for a great deal on your culture. ...[text shortened]... ue and try to see each other point of view. Then we are able to learn form each other.
Ad.
Who are those people who want you to believe that ?
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeYet Belgianfreak did present some very important examples of where, I should think, passive euthanasia is not enough because the process of unassisted death in such a case would involve unbearable suffering that we cannot aleviate.
I'm not against passive euthanasia, that means that letting a person die in certain cases can be justified. Prolonging life at all costs is madness.
It seems that a stanse opposing active euthanasia as a matter of principle runs into moral difficulty in many cases. To take a hypothetical example (actually I remember seeing something like this in a movie once):
Consider this scenario - in a war, after a bloody battle is dying down in a forest, you find a soldier pinned down by a fallen tree, still alive. The tree is on fire, and the flames are already licking the legs of the man pinned under the tree. He begs you to shoot him, so that he'll not have to burn to death. You have no means to put out the fire, but you do have a gun. What is the morally correct choise here? Should we let the flames do the deed, because actively participating in the killing of a person is categorically wrong? To me, the answer is quite clear - it would be monstrous not to grant the man a quick death.
It seems clear to me that categorically condemning active euthanasia leads to problems that involve unnecessary passive cruelty.
I also see a problem with avoiding active euthanasia on the basis that suffering has some meaning, based on a specific theist worldview. The dying person may not share your belief that suffering has any inherent meaning, and to have legislation prohibiting active euthanasia based on a particular worldview would be imposing one world view on people who may not share it. By this I do not mean that there can't be any concievable fair argument that would justify prohibiting active euthanasia, I am just saying that if there is such an argument, then that argument should not depend on religious views that are not shared by everyone.
I also see a conflict with the concept of suffering having meaning, and the aleviation of suffering. If suffering is meaningful, then does aleviating, or even removing it by medicine mean that something meaningful was taken away from the suffering person?
What about poor people of the world, people who do not have access to modern medical aleviation of pain, and as a result suffer from horrendous pain when dying of, say, cancer? If such a person pleads for the people around him to take his life, would it not be cruel to force him against his will- on the basis of our ivory-tower morals - to die a slow, terrible death instead?
It seems that arguing against active euthanasia in a way that could possibly appeal to our conscionces requires the presense of highly advanced medicine. Yet if active euthanasia is categorically wrong, then an argument for such a claim should not depend on circumstances.
-Jarno
Originally posted by ivanhoeNow that is playing the "compassion" card! I don't now if it is the same card as you accuse belgianfreak of using, but it definitely is a card!
Start answering the question in case your father, mother, brother, sister, wife, son or daughter wants to commit suicide.
You wrote, and I quote"
If you give the message to people who want to commit suicide that it is ok, you give the message: "You are free to do what ever you want. I do not intend to do something about it, because I do not wish to be selfish in stopping you to realise your wishes, and I certainly do not want to be selfish." Varg, this is just a way of trying to silence your conscience and I must admit your doing a good job."
End quote
Come on, Varg did not say that if someone came to him saying that he wants to commit suicide, that he would only say 'Ok, whatever' and turn around! Again, you are seeing it black and white, right and wrong, while there are many ways in between!
Ad.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm not sure that it's about silencing my conscience - just listening to my conscience. If somebody wanted to commit suicide because they lost their fortune, their wife/husband left them, they were depressed, etc, I certainly would not consider that a "good" reason. People have said to me "yes, but you can't understand how bad it is for them". Even so, I could necer condone that. If someone is going to die in pain or suffering, I think - who am I to dictate to them? Partially because I wonder what I would do in similar circumstances.
Helping somebody that has a death wish demands an effort in time and energy on your side, the "risk"of selfishness on the side of those who want to help is not very urgent, is it ?
If you give the message to people who want to commit suicide that it is ok, you give the message: "You are free to do what ever you want. I do not intend to do something ...[text shortened]... ..... a very ethical attitude ..... you are to be admired for that. Don't you think so ?
.
Originally posted by ivanhoecan we stop talking about cards? I'm trying to be objective. I asked a simple question, which was "is helping/allowing a person to die always wrong".
What card ? The "compassion" card you are playing in this post too. You've played it at least three times in your post. What is your intention otherwise than to picture your opponent as heartless and not caring if he disagrees with you that killing is not an option in these instances.
I'm not against passive euthanasia, that means that letting a perso ...[text shortened]... . In this case the suffering of the parents has to be releaved by killing their child.
.
I gave 3 real life examples which I thought illustrated that in some cases euthinasia could be a valid option. Yes, they mightbe extreme examples, but I am not asking if euthinasia should be widely practiced, or I am asking if there is [i[never[/i] a case for euthinasia. So let me flip the question:
"there is and never will be a situation where euthinasia/helping somone die/letting someone kill themselves when they want to die should be condoned"
could you please answer the question above. If you think that the statement is true we can discuss why you think that even in cases like I gave (which you yourself have said you'd have to be 'a monster' to disagree with) it is still wrong. If you agree with me, that in some cases euthinasia is a valid option, then we can discuss the much more thorny issues of when euthinasia should be concidered and how it should be policed and governed. (please keep your argument to active euthinasia for now, as all 3 situations were specifically picked because 'passive' euthinasia is not applicable here and is a different issue)
I'm sorry, I am not dismissing your or the Roman Catholics views, but saying that euthinasia is wrong on legal grounds doesn't interest me. If an individual has those same religious convictions then he may well chose to continue to suffer. We are talking about when an individual choses they want to die.
Unfortunatly there are 'distinguished' member of the British National Party represented in the British government, and they argue that Britain is for whites and Jews should be kicked out. Just becasue there are a few people with such views in a govenrment soes not mean that these views will be carried into law. Heleen Dupuis' views have no more value than to show that there are extreemists everywhere, but we can't take their views as blueprints of where we are going in the future. An example - many people look down on vegitarianism, yet there is nothing wrong with it. How about 'fruitarianism', where people only eat fruit that has naturally fallen form the tree - this is medically bad for you. How about those who believethey can absorb energy from sunlight - this has killed people. All 3 don't eat certain food groups because they believe it is wrong, but you can't say that vegitarians are wrong because the extreemists want to live on sunlight.
1. the patient has to be terminately ill,
2.the patient has to give his or her consent
3. The pain/suffering had to be unbearable.
These 3 criteria are very good starting block for euthinasia. The problem is that they are open to interpretation. What is a terminal illness? There may be a cure tomorrow. When a patient gives consent have they been coerced, either directly or indirectly be feeling of guilt of being a burden? At what level is pain/suffering "unbearable"? How do you measure pain & suffering, especially mental or emotional pain? Why should someone who is in unbearable pain but not terminal be forced to live on? These are the problems I see with euthinasia and I'm very willing to discuss the.
You claim that all 3 of these criteria have been pushed aside? When? Can you give an example of when someone has been killed without their concent? Examples of euthinasia, not abortion (different issue)? There might be people and groups who suggest that euthinasia should be taken further, to the extreems you mention of killing disabled children after death but that doesn't mean that it's going to happen, it means that we must safeguard against it happening.
But first, please answer my original question so we can draw a line under it and move on - is there [i]never[/] a case for euthinasia?
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: "This is the transcript of a debate about the moral status of abortion, and both debators are secular!"
Here's something else you might be interested in:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/index.shtml
This is the transcript of a debate about the moral status of abortion, and both debators are secular!
I know that secular people can oppose abortion ánd euthanasia, but I'v never heard that they present themselves as Freethinkers.
You're trying to confuse the issue. Maybe you can find some individual or maybe more who claim to be a Freethinker and at the same time oppose abortion and euthanasia. As a result of that you draw the theoretical conclusion that my claim was wrong. Reality doesn't work like that. Freethinkers are in general advocates of abortion and euthanasia, no matter what some individuals claim.
.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf someone advocates abortion, or euthanasia, they do so independantly from their status as a freethinker. Freethought has nothing to say about such things. Freethought only concerns itself with religion, as is borne out by the definition below:
Bbarr: "This is the transcript of a debate about the moral status of abortion, and both debators are secular!"
I know that secular people can oppose abortion ánd euthanasia, but I'v never heard that they present themselves as Freethinkers.
You're trying to confuse the issue. Maybe you can find some individual or maybe more who claim to be a Freethi ...[text shortened]... s are in general advocates of abortion and euthanasia, no matter what some individuals claim.
.
freethinker, n.: a person who forms his opinions about religion independently of tradition, authority, or established belief.
Whether, or not, there is a high correlation between advocates of freethought and advocates of abortion, or euthanasia, says nothing about freethought itself. As Bbarr correctly point out, there are freethinkers who are opposed to such things.