I'm pro choice and eveything, but this is appalling :sick:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MD4DG1.html
Printable View
I'm pro choice and eveything, but this is appalling :sick:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MD4DG1.html
So....the Netherlands are the first nation to permit euthanasia? Hmm....what is that saying....."those that forget he past are doomed to repeat it"...is that the one?
I am pro choice if a consenting adult suffering chooses to end it all but is unable to do so. I see no problem if all the needed safeguards are in place for assisted suicide.
I don't know the criteria for infant euthanasia, however i do have a problem with it. We can make the infant comfortable so it is not suffering i believe, so i am wondering why it is needed. There is a big difference between not prolonging the inevitable and speeding the inevitable along.
Im fully in favour of Euthanasia on those that can decide for themselves.
I have grave reservations about the same for those that cant, unless they made a decision before they reached that condition. :(
Newborns obvously cant make a decision for themselves. I therefore have real problems with this...
Surely you could supply your own criteria, vid?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Please don't tell me you'd google that, too.
Sheesh. :blink:
I have reservations about this also. I do not believe, however, that the handful of cases that have occurred in The Netherlands have been immoral. I am sure that those parents that have made this decision have done so after much soul searching and in both love for their child and with a mind to the pain and forthcoming death of their child.
However, the ability to make this decision on the behalf of others is fraught with danger. Whilst I appreciate that the current situation in The Netherlands requires a number of triggers, including legal, medical and parental permissions, one must be mindful that best interests are a moveable feast and there is always a danger that Nazi like policies of racial purity are never further than a step away. A C S Lewis quote I am fond of is "She lived for others, you could tell the others by their haunted expressions" is relevant here - beware of others that consider they have your best interests at heart.
Nevertheless, I am not "anti-the right to decide" the time of ones own death when faced with a tedious and unnecessarily painful death. Long goodbyes have never been something I have found useful.
why would i "google" that? ..."too" ??????Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
What is it with you and google?
I don't know what their criteria would be, it certainly would be different from what others would think acceptable.
If you read my post i am against it as i feel we can make it so they are not in pain.
I do however make the point that it is different from not treating something that can't be cured and thereby not prolonging life.
My point is that, as you are not a stupid person, you are fully capable of forming a complete and all-purpose criteria all by your little-old-self that you can apply to such doings.
None of this In different cultures, or, In different countries crap;
If you can justify an application of morality in one instance or locale your construct ought to be comprehensive enough to use in all cases.
To look at it any other way would be positively...um...senatorial.
Opportunities abound for the use of situational reasoning; I don't think this is one of them.
Morality is not a Universal, it changes and is subjective. What is Moral in one place may not be elsewhere by the mores of another tribe.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You must rub blue mud into your belly button when those around you do.
well j2 rat gets up earlier than I due to time zones but he is right on the spot of what I would say, morals are not universal. You just have to look at the debate here about abortion.... certainly there is no "universally acceptable" criteria just within the USA for that. Stem cell research is another.
There are a whole rage of instances where tough life destroying decisions have to be made...conjoined twins sharing organs for example where a separation operation has to be performed or both will die. But as to this thread subject I cannot think of any cases that could justify it, by my criteria...perhaps you can by your own.
Gee whiz-
I'm gone 6 weeks and neither of you has one iota of discernment left.
WHAT I MEANT WAS: (and now I regrettfully must include you, Brother Rat-)
As thinking individuals, we all ought to know (already) how we look at certain actions/events; when it all comes down, there are really only a few permutations of your several standard life-taking acts, and they revolve mainly around the issue of guilt, and, to some extent, circumstances; in other words, it only stands to reason we have done most of the "if___, then___" thinking already.
Unless, of course, you insist on always maintaining an open mind, in which case you might find yourselves bound at some point to re-consider your thoughts as re: Mr. Bush.
If a Dog is in pain and cannot be cured, then in our humanity we put it to sleep, to prevent suffering.
If someone decides that they do not wish to suffer and leave instrutions to that effect, then i have no problem, i'd probably do it myself.
The problem i have is not with the act, but that they are not deciding for themselves as children..
Im torn between my humanity which hates to see suffering with no hope of relief; and the fact that they are newborn children and medical science makes leaps and bounds in only a few years.
Is 4 years of suffering before a cure worth a further 80 years of life? Or is there no hope of relief... its that simple.
I empathize with your dilemma, Rat, but I will not allow potential despair to rule my thoughts.
I'd rather think positively. ;)
I think I just constructed a circumstantial profundity... :huh:
so are you going to tell us just where you stand...using non encrypted English?
I am always going to err on the side of life, vid.
I have extreme difficulty placing such trust in the hands of "well-intentioned" (and fallible or questionably motivated) people.
I have been (somewhat ironically) placed in this position twice in my life; both times in situations of relatives whose closer kin kept the decision at arms length due to their own inability to shoulder a burden they found (rightfully) unbearable.
One was a nephew I had been quite close to; I was approached by a surgeon (at the request of my sister-in-law) who wanted me to authorize pulling the plug.
I argued against this (he had suffered a head injury falling off a bike), as the subject was broached before anyone had even uttered the dreaded words "brain dead".
The subject didn't go too far, as he hemorrhaged and died while we were butting heads.
In the second case, my ex-father-in-law was slowly dying-after a long life of good health, he developed a cancerous tumor on his jaw which necessatated surgery; while in recovery (this was at Methodist Hospital, Rochester Minn., Mayo Clinic) he suffered a massive stroke, then a series of heart events and more strokes.
After 3 weeks of his fighting as best he could, I was approached by the doctors, as my (ex-) wife wasn't up for that particular discussion.
They wanted a decision from me; I asked for leave to consult with the patient, who could communicate by squeezing my hand (they knew this, but it somehow didn't figure into their strategy).
I was able to determine in fairly short order that he was tired of fighting, and after asking him several times to clarify for my assuredness, he was able to satisfy me he had had enough.
I told my wife, she concurred, and then I told the doctors, who did their "thing".
It was one of the saddest moments of my life, as much for the loss of a loved one (my ex-wife was cut from a different bolt of cloth) as finding that the need to clear a hospital bed out-weighed any inclination on the hospital's part to fight for his life.
Hope this helps you understand where I come from, vid.
Firstly J2 my sympathies for your losses
could i ask if you consider turning off a life support machine or not reviving someone in arrest euthanasia?
i had better be specific. I am not talking about not reviving someone that has a chance of living a life, I am specifically talking about people that for want of a better description...are just not going to make it even if they get the heart going this time.
With the caveat that people ought to address such things ahead of time (along with wills, organ harvest, etc.) so as to relieve others of that burden to the greatest extent possible, I must say that I still believe in miraculous recoveries, because I've seen them, too; I can square neither my beliefs nor my thought processes to euthanasia.
Who is to pronounce as to viability, ultimately?
BTW-
Comatose patients are a continual point of contention; if their maintenance was a bit more costly (and even if not) I would think those who prefer euthanasia would begin there.
:ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :blink: :blink: :blink:
Youthanasia
:shifty:
Don't even go there, Arm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arm
Huge problems await you.........
http://doublesmusic.com/other/Jimmy/...20Pics/hxc.jpg
......................................
Yeah I know metals bad for me but I listen to it anyway so fuck you, your rules and fuck Partnership for a Metal-Free America. :mad3:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
:whistling
You've wandered off-course again, son. :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Arm
Please stay inside the yellow lines for your own safety, and don't forget to wear your crash helmet. ;)
As long as your not a member of Ban Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, or Parents Against Dungeons & Dragons... its OK J2 ;)
Eh? :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced