Euthanasia

Post Reply New Topic

Firstly I'll address my comments about awesomelyglorious. I was referring to his premises remaining the same over the course of a number of threads. I have "come across" him a few times here on the sub forum of "Politics, Philosophy, and Religion. And in that same time there have been a few others in those threads who's premises (and conclusions) seem to change without warning. One second advocating existentialism, the next going in with logical positivism or some other thing. Again... I was not referring to this thread in isolation. A discussion that perhaps should have taken place between us over PM but I did not feel like it.

Secondly I'll disagree with that statement about not introducing your model or your opinion. I have examples culled through the thread below. I'll call them "the appendix" and you can brush up on them in a second. (It also includes your opinions which you've introduced a few times so far.)

A person can not debate without announcing their accepted axioms and their premises, inferences, and deductions. A person MUST do it with every breath they take to utter a syllable. As you have done throughout this entire thread. This is not inherently a "bad" thing... it just is. Like the person who loves Picasso announces to the entire world the content of the psycho-epistemology.

So whether you wanted to or not, you have given your opinion, stated your premises and painted the backdrop of your philosophical landscape where you propose to do pitched battle in order to "get rid of the models that don't work" and THEN have the audacity to claim that you are an unbiased observer with no personal interest in the matter and are going to refrain from offering up your own models?

The fact that your conscious claims are to provide no value, only to seek to get rid of the values that others are attempting to contribute say a lot too... I didn't say ARE contributing, attempting. Validating models by constructive criticism (and destructive when warranted) is valid, but to offer nothing in it's place is farcical. Anyhow... now onto the appendix...

==========
The appendix:
==========
(just a short non-exhaustive list of Hero's previous utterances where he introduces his model and/or opinion. There are many more explicit examples in the thread... these are just a selection of the more subtle ones that people could possibly miss if they went searching.)
----------
The largest reason of all for that being is absolute truth. If one were to die, they could no longer act. By dying, they have prevented additional progress from being attained, even though they may have suffered.
----------
Fast and good are generally not on the same page. If they had looked for possibilities or answers to the suffering, they might have found the answer they were seeking.

Choosing the other options, shows that they are unwilling to go the distance to find it themselves. They want OTHERS to fix it for them.
----------
IF they KNEW how to fix their problem...they would not be COMMITTING Suicide. Suicide/euthanasia is an escape based upon ignorance and despair. The despair brought about by the lack of answers and suffering they have endured. And the Ignorance of either seeing no end to their suffering, or being told that it cannot be fixed.
----------
The closest I can presume is Japanese seppuku when they have "supposedly" embarassed[sic] their superiors. However, that is STILL not the same thing, and was done out of ignorance and inability to understand that seppuku was foolish in the first place. Other reasons are already bad enough, but Shame or embarrassment as means for suicide is even more irrational.
----------
***end of transmission***

How exactly would one go about enforcing laws against suicide? I do not have the power to coerce someone into living if they do not desire to do so, so that question is moot. Society can't prevent people from committing suicide because we have no way of exacting consequences or punishments upon the dead. Euthanasia is a bit trickier, as it implies someone else making the decision for them. This could very easily be seen as murder unless the person in question had explicitly stated a desire to be euthanized.

In the more extreme form the punishment would most probably go along the lines of seizing assets. Suspension of will etc...

I have never heard it being done, but I imagine if one wanted to "punish" suicide that would be the way to go about it. Make sure they know that their family and/or descendants are going to be punished.

I am wondering . . . I understand that since the Dutch legalized euthanasia there apparently have been quite a few cases where people have been euthanized without their knowledge or consent. Most of the cases I have heard about have been elderly people. Would anyone have any knowledge of how many ASD individuals have been euthanized in the Netherlands simply because they are ASD--especially children?

Random thought: The main problem with legalizing euthanasia is that it's one step away from murder.

How is it that close to murder? Murder is the violation of another person's life against their will. Euthanasia is consensual. By that logic gifts should be illegal because a good consensually changing hands without mutual exchange is one step away from a good unconsensually changing hands without mutual exchange. I dunno, I don't see how there is a slippery slope that MUST be true, the most that can be argued is some level of cultural degradation caused by this, but I have my doubts on that as well.

Is euthanasia always consensus? If it were to be legalized, under what terms? What if the person Is unable to decide so another must decide for him or her?

I said one step away because these things can easily be twisted and bent, even under the law. just make a broad one and you have legalized murder.

Euthanasia is either by the consent of the individual who lives, or the consent of the person with the right to the existence of that other person. The owner of the human being sets the terms except in cases such as underagedness.

Anything can be twisted and bent, however, murder is killing against the will of that other individual. If we keep in mind that other people own themselves, then I don't see how we will legalize murder.

It just seems like a tricky issue...

I see the bolded part, but really, the times when the rights of one person are given to another are rather rare and usually only occur in a situation where one party is severely brain damaged.

Yeah, you have a point. Too many precedents could be opened though. The law is often bent.

Well, the issue of precedents goes back to the idea of how our law is created. You are right, the law can be bent, however, bending it is usually towards a given loophole rather than anything else, so we simply have to make the process of termination to be reasonably open. People do already commit suicide and do already have the braindead and others terminated, so this really would only be allowing a legal means for this process, and possibly this could be used to reduce the number of deaths by making killing oneself a more open process.

I tend to think euthanasia is wrong, as per Christian morals of suicide being wrong.

I had a former friend who was a Christian (a relatively obscure denomination), who had entertained the thought of assisted suicide. I think it is quite disturbing that people would do this kind of thing.

My kids' grandmother died by assisted suicide last month.

She didn't even say goodbye.

Good riddance is more like it.