What about my right not to be killed?
What’s the problem?
If I want to “check out”, I should have that right.
If I have some horrendous disease that is terminal, I don’t think anyone has the right to stop me or hinder me from seeking help on how to do it in the most painless way.
Except that your “right” to die is being foisted onto the medical community as your right to have the means given to you by which you die, making others unwilling accomplices to your decision and act even when they have moral objections to being placed into that position.
Just as abortion is, in many jurisdictions, viewed as the medical responsibility of doctors and nurses to refer and perform abortions or lose their jobs and/or professional standing, euthanasia is becoming a duty of medical practitioners at risk to their medical license.
Are you obligating others to provide you that “help on how to do it in the most painless way?”
“ must argue for life in all its fullness, and convince those looking to give up that they are not burdens, but are capable of enjoyment and giving happiness to their community.”
I think that’s a valid point.
Doctors who don’t want to can abstain and doctors who are happy to help can do so.
Obligating? Not at this point. I don’t see the demand being common enough to do that. There are plenty of those willing to solve the problem if laws were relaxed to give them the ability to choose to do so without legal consequence.
I recall the hospice nurse attending my grandmother when she was literally in her death throes. Wailing, screaming, using language we’d never heard her use…
The kind woman whispered something to my mother, my mother nodded her head, then the nurse went over to my grandmother with a syringe, put something in her IV and in a few seconds peace filled the room.
That nurse was a hero. A hero many would jail.
I’m not sure she is a hero.
I taught for over thirty years and encountered a few tantrums that involved “wailing, screaming, using language we’d never heard used…” I wouldn’t begin to suggest those students should have been given the “peace” available from the end of a syringe.
There must be something more to it than letting those “in the room” find peace.
When my wife was in the hospital waiting for heart surgery a young woman was in the room next door constantly (days on end) wailing “Help me! Help me!” What you might view as a “final solution” resulting in “peace filling the room,” seems contrary to basic human values.
Should everyone in severe distress simply be dispatched so the rest of us can experience “peace?”
Were those kids dying? If not, next time I make a point, you may need to jump to get it…
If she was terminally dying, then the only help available to her was the cessation of her suffering. Sad but true.
If they want it and especially if they’re terminal? Most absolutely.
If you presume atheism, it would be “sad but true” to you.
If we presume theism where all suffering is purposeful and there is a transcendent meaning to existence, then your presumption falls infinitely short of the truth.
As stated earlier, I’m a weak deist. The law essentially requires it in order to function.
I presume that reality must be observable in order to be real. Without that standard - tooth fairies, unicorns, Cthulus, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and so on…
If the truth can’t be observed, it cannot be known.
Observing and knowing are two far different things. Observing is perceptual, knowing is conceptual.
Ergo, your If the truth can’t be observed, it cannot be known, isn’t as logically tight as you presume.
Sure, I’m familiar with the classic Gettier Problem - essentially what that is.
You proceed with as much certainty as you can with the idea that perfect certainty may not be possible. But without observational data, you can’t escape complete uncertainty.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.