1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoI believe someone has a right to decide whether they should continue their own life or not. I believe their wishes shouldn't be thwarted by others though I don't think that someone is obligated to assist them in carrying out these wishes if it interferes with the second person's moral/religious/philosophical beliefs.
euthanasia... hm... medically assisted suicide in special conditions (extreme suffering or illness). I guess... it's my just made up definition of euthanasia.
Well, if you think suicide is a right to everyone, so is euthanasia.
I'm clearly pro-euthanasia. About the right to suicide, it's a little tougher, but I haven't given much thought about it.
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree, it's consistent.
I believe someone has a right to decide whether they should continue their own life or not. I believe their wishes shouldn't be thwarted by others though I don't think that someone is obligated to assist them in carrying out these wishes if it interferes with the second person's moral/religious/philosophical beliefs.
But there should be a strong social pressure against that act. Or we would having suicides each time a girl breaks up with a guy.
In the end, life is the most precious thing we have, and is what defines us. I believe there's no reason to terminate life whatsoever, (unless the terminal cases without hope). It's an act there's no return from. Life is just too beautiful.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's a close run thing to suicide in my view; would refusing to stem the blood from a wound be 'refusing medical treatment'?
Acts 15:29: 29 that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, [b]and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well.
It's her life; if she wants to refuse medical treatment that's her right.[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJayNot simply, no.
You call refusing treatment suicide?
Kelly
E.g., a person who has late-stage cancer with a small % chance of survival who refuses what promises
to be a long course of painful treatment is not 'suicidal.'
However, a person who refuses benign treatments (e.g., blood transfusions) that will prevent them
from dying and without which they will die is indeed suicidal.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderIt makes no sense whatsoever - the same person would take aspirin to cure a headache but die from something readily preventable? And the basis is that line of scripture?
I suppose; what's your point?
We do have a law against suicide, however that is the active taking of life. I suppose someone could pine away to nothing, simply refuse to have the will to live.... But we would tend to think of that person has having something missing (apart from the will to live); It is not sustaining, which we are asked to do repeatedly in the bible.
Originally posted by NemesioSurely the intent of person A is to hasten their death while the intent of person B is to comply with their religious tenets even if death results. Person A sounds more "suicidal" to me.
Not simply, no.
E.g., a person who has late-stage cancer with a small % chance of survival who refuses what promises
to be a long course of painful treatment is not 'suicidal.'
However, a person who refuses benign treatments (e.g., blood transfusions) that will prevent them
from dying and without which they will die is indeed suicidal.
Nemesio
Originally posted by snowinscotlandIt makes a lot of sense if you believe that Scripture is the Word of God and that it forbids taking blood.
It makes no sense whatsoever - the same person would take aspirin to cure a headache but die from something readily preventable? And the basis is that line of scripture?
We do have a law against suicide, however that is the active taking of life. I suppose someone could pine away to nothing, simply refuse to have the will to live.... But we would t ...[text shortened]... from the will to live); It is not sustaining, which we are asked to do repeatedly in the bible.
No one has ever been convicted of committing suicide.
Originally posted by no1marauderI suppose it does; but there are a lot of saying in the bible that if you took literally you would a) be very confused and b) be in trouble from the local law;
It makes a lot of sense if you believe that Scripture is the Word of God and that it forbids taking blood.
No one has ever been convicted of committing suicide.
Also if the passage is read in it's entirety it looks like it is talking about food with blood eg black puddings
Originally posted by snowinscotlandYou asked for the Biblical passage that is used by the Jehovah's Witnesses (a small group of Christians, not all of whom agree with the prohibition) to support the ban on receiving blood transfusions. Whether they are confused is a matter of opinion and b) seems like an overstatement. However, if one believes that something is required by God it is unlikely that the presence of Man-made law will make them refrain from doing it.
I suppose it does; but there are a lot of saying in the bible that if you took literally you would a) be very confused and b) be in trouble from the local law;
Also if the passage is read in it's entirety it looks like it is talking about food with blood eg black puddings
I might very well agree with your interpretation, but I'm not a JW.
