Would you agree to Euthanasia? ( Archived) (37)

We might be using it very soon... I'll explain in private if someone wants to know.....

I know that Oregongold. World is full of rules!

Is that the country next to Austria?

nice one, thanks you made me laugh

But by that philosophy, you would never visit a doctor. You'd die of the first potentially terminal illness as the doctor would only be interfering with the will of the creator. I'm afraid, the argument has to cut both ways.

The creator, eh?

A good way to stop a persecuted population from topping themselves. You get to make a majority sub-set of the population work with no hope on the understanding their only hope is in a life after the life they're living based on fear of worse that they're already living, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

A cuning plan, if ever there was one.

Jaysus, that's a bit profound for this hour of the morning. What on earth did you have for breakfast?

Jaysus, I haven't had my breakfast yet, Gods.

You should see me after after a slice of toast.

(Or indeed the mental gymnastics a thread had me doing last night after some tofu in black bean sauce. I'm not sure the beans were all that relevant, mind.)

Its so much more sensible to manipulate people into volunteering to fight wars. You get to kill two birds with one stone, whilst maintaining, given there's a chance that fighters won't actually die, that its not really euthanasia and an effective means of population control on more than one level.

Another cunning plan.

Just think of all the potential nasty consequences of honest euthansia that our patriarchal governments and religious organisations wish to protect us from, though? How good of them not to let people make their own decisions as we simply can't be trusted to make the right ones for ourselves.

I'd be more worried about some of my own relatives and their vested interests in hurrying me along my path.

Seriously though, I have met amoral people in my life who would manipulate you into this decision for their own ends whilst convincing you they were doing you a huge favour. I don't really want to deny anybody the right to die but as the thin end of the wedge, it opens some quite frightening questions for me such as would this end in private or state run life termination centres.

Yes,
We consider it inhumane to extend the lives of animals in distress and pain....why does that philosophy change with humans?

Having looked into live kidney donation and been given the third degree by a nurse (quite rightly, even though it was very distressing) I'd say there was a certain skill in getting people to process the physical and emotional issues which surround life and death medical situations.

In our societies, physical medical problems (that is those medical problems we can see) are socially acceptable, but medical issues which have an emotional element are less so. For example, we accept that failed kidneys need fixing in some way, but something like depression, although organic in its root is less socially acceptable because of the emotional and behavioural elements.

Some medical issues can be seen as a pathway to solving emotional difficulties. For example, an absentee parent may turn up on the scene after 20 years and offer a live kidney donation as a means of 'fixing' other emotional issues. The thing is, both donor and recipient have to be emotionally capable of dealing with that and in the absence of an emotional link, or an emotionally conflictual link does not lead to 'fixing' the problem via socially acceptable medical means.

I suspect something very similar goes on with voluntary euthanasia and the processing thereof.

An interesting read, thank Conrad.

This bit I find interesting in as much as how motive is evaluated as not selfish, given that seeing one's loved ones beyond suffering, or providing a valuable service, will inherently have a selfish element.