Your views on ending human life: when is it acceptable? A debate about

[Syco21]

(Yes I know that statement is incorrect, but one is not considered 'alive' in the sense that one is an independent human being with the right to life as well as all other fundemental rights while one is still in the womb).

Just because someone considers something to be one way, does not make it so. This is especially true when it flies in the face of reality, as you have admitted it does. If that were so, then we'd still have slaves today, Hitler's genocide wouldn't have ever been given another thought, there'd be no native Americans, women and non-white men would have no rights today and the list would go on.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Syco21

[AVDutch]

(Yes I know that statement is incorrect, but one is not considered 'alive' in the sense that one is an independent human being with the right to life as well as all other fundemental rights while one is still in the womb).

Just because someone considers something to be one way, does not make it so. This is especially true when it flies in the face of reality, as you have admitted it does. If that were so, then we'd still have slaves today, Hitler's genocide wouldn't have ever been given another thought, there'd be no native Americans, women and non-white men would have no rights today and the list would go on.

 

Perhaps, but whereas I consider a foetus, an embryo and indeed even a zygote 'alive', none of those is a person. Indeed, one has to be born to be an independent person, because up until that moment your are little more than a parasite. Of course this is a gross over-simplification but it is a rather apt one in my mind. But defining the moment 'when' one becomes a person is a debate about abortion, and whether or not it should be allowed. I am in favor of abortion up until the moment of birth, as I see it as an extension of the right to manage your own body as you see fit.

 

Also: Godwin's law. Had to said.

[ginnyfizz]

Sorry no, I don't think it was particularly helpful to chuck in Godwin's Law and you really didn't have to say it. Being flippant about that tragic period is never right. It is particularly relevant for Syco21 to bring in Hitler's revolting policies in a debate like this, precisely because Hitler was a fanatical euthaniser of anyone who he considered subhuman and not a valid member of society. And this included not only the Jews, Gypsies and Slavic peoples but also the mentally ill, physically handicapped and those who were in same sex relationships.

 

Those who forget or never learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. The way things are going in the UK with de facto euthanasia without consent going on, you could say we are already there. In her more lucid moments even my old Ma says as much and panics at the thought of even a routine outpatients appointment.

[AVDutch]

Sorry no, I don't think it was particularly helpful to chuck in Godwin's Law and you really didn't have to say it. Being flippant about that tragic period is never right. It is particularly relevant for Syco21 to bring in Hitler's revolting policies in a debate like this, precisely because Hitler was a fanatical euthaniser of anyone who he considered subhuman and not a valid member of society. And this included not only the Jews, Gypsies and Slavic peoples but also the mentally ill, physically handicapped and those who were in same sex relationships.

 

Those who forget or never learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. The way things are going in the UK with de facto euthanasia without consent going on, you could say we are already there. In her more lucid moments even my old Ma says as much and panics at the thought of even a routine outpatients appointment.

 

I was not being flippant, but comparing my point to what Hitler was doing is just ridiculous. Yes I know what Hitler did, and there is no need or reason to lecture me on it. But trust me when I say that euthanasia without consent by doctors is extremely... EXTREMELY rare. Sure there are some instances, but they are exceedingly rare and blown out of proportion by media scandals and such things.

 

Yes, that is my opinion, but it is an opinion founded on an inside view. Doctors by and large dedicate themselves to helping their patients, and a doctor who euthanizes a patient without consent or without the patient requesting it is probably a psychopath. Not only that, but that isn't euthanasia anymore, it's murder. Also, if you think Hitler euthanized people, you are quite mistaken. Euthanasia, meaning 'good death' from the ancient greek words 'eu' and 'thanatos' means that the death that a person dies is experienced as by that person 'good' (i.e. peaceful, without suffering etc). Hitler commited mass murder. He operated on a much larger scope, with completely different motives so yeah, there is quite a huge difference.

 

Also, Euthanasia benefits the person dying, whereas murder does not. So yeah, your entire point about me being flippant about Hitler is invalid.

 

Furthermore: no doctor is going to sneakily kill your old Ma for what would be 'her own good' from his point of view. By and large doctors are good people who have their patients best interests at heart, and they respect their patients wishes. It is true that illicit euthanasia does happen, but in those instances (even though it is done illegally), it is usually requested by the patient. More often than not a doctor simply gives the patients an opportunity to end their own life if they so choose. He is not going to stab them with a needle in their sleep because he deems it 'better for the patient'.

 

Again: yes I am sure there are exceptions to this, but I cannot stress enough that these are EXTREMELY rare.

 

Also: I am not going to state whether or not I would be willing to perform illicit euthanasia on a patient, outside the law but upon that patients request. This is the internet after all, and a search sometime in the future by my future employer could turn up this forum and potentially endanger my employment or even my medical license. Please don't ask me about it.

Edited October 21, 2012 by AVDutch

[WarRatsG]

It is one thing to end a life that is already assured to end due to terminal illness. It is another thing entirely to prematurely end a life due to that life being of "poor quality", in an attempt to prevent further suffering.

 

It may start off with postnatal abortion of those with major life-threatening and constantly restraining diseases, but at what point is the line drawn? Harlequin-type Icthyosis? Spina bifida? Asthma? This kind of euthanasia is essentially a cull not unlike the mass infanticide allegedly committed by the elitist Spartan society, or the Nazi's attempts to wipe out those deemed "inferior". Then there's the various types of acquired syndromes and disabilities that could hinder a person's quality of life: could you justify euthanasia for full body paralysis? If so, what if they were paralysed just from the waist down? How about simultaneously acquired blindness and deafness, perhaps combined with loss of taste and smell? If we cannot draw a definitive line, no line must be drawn at all. You have to be dying in the first place.

 

As far as terminal illness goes... I agree whole heartedly with euthanasia. One should be able to die with a little dignity, instead of drawing out the suffering and achieving nothing in the time taken to die anyway. There would need to be plenty of safety nets in place to prevent a patient being coerced into choosing euthanasia, and that it was always a last resort. No taking the easy way out due to depression when there is still a chance of survival down another route. The doctor in charge of your treatment should have veto power, although only a limited number of times before the case gets taken in front of some big-wigs, eliminating the possibility of bias/cruelty from the doctor forcing the patient to remain alive.

 

I could go deeper, but I don't think I want to. It's a touchy subject for me. Besides, I can't even work out an answer in my own mind to half of the questions this brings up, let alone share them.

[Syco21]

You completely missed the point, AVDutch. Ginnyfizz was much closer and absolutely right that is was relevant for me to bring it up in the context I did.

 

My point is, just because some considers something to be one way, does not make it so. Then I gave a list of things that, in times past, were considered acceptable, right and/or even morally required. Things that today are viewed as heinous.

 

What makes an unborn child a parasite? Because it relies on it's mother for survival? I guess that also makes the poor parasites as well, they rely on the government and help from others for survival. Anyone requiring a heart transplant would be a parasite because they rely on heart and lung machines for survival. Anyone in a coma is a parasite because they rely on life support to survive. A SCUBA diver currently in a dive is a parasite because they rely on their equipment for survival. Submariners are parasites because they rely on their subs for survival. Astronauts are parasites because they rely on their suits. Etc etc etc.

 

Why not just kill them all when it's convenient?

Edited October 22, 2012 by Syco21

[AVDutch]

You completely missed the point, AVDutch. Ginnyfizz was much closer and absolutely right that is was relevant for me to bring it up in the context I did.

 

My point is, just because some considers something to be one way, does not make it so. Then I gave a list of things that, in times past, were considered acceptable, right and/or even morally required. Things that today are viewed as heinous.

 

What makes an unborn child a parasite? Because it relies on it's mother for survival? I guess that also makes the poor parasites as well, they rely on the government and help from others for survival. Anyone requiring a heart transplant would be a parasite because they rely on heart and lung machines for survival. Anyone in a coma is a parasite because they rely on life support to survive. A SCUBA diver currently in a dive is a parasite because they rely on their equipment for survival. Submariners are parasites because they rely on their subs for survival. Astronauts are parasites because they rely on their suits. Etc etc etc.

 

Why not just kill them all when it's convenient?

 

And you are missing my point.

 

First of all: I'm not saying: kill everyone who relies on someone for survival, I'm saying: IF someone would like to commit suicide for whatever reason, he should be able to request euthanasia, and a doctor should be allowed to administer it (but then again, unless the euthanasia is being requested to prevent suffering from a terminal illness, a doctor should be able to refuse it). I'm not saying: euthanasia is okay, so it's okay for a doctor to go on a killing spree...

 

Secondly, here is what makes an unborn child a parasite, whereas none of the things you mentioned even remotely fit he definition. A parasite is: "An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense." (That is the actual definition by the way).

 

Sure there are valid reasons for enduring this relationship (from the mother's perspective), but that doesn't change the fact that an unborn child is biologically a parasite.

[BlackBaron2]

OK, this one's complicated for me.

 

As regards abortion, I view it as a form of self-defence and thus, personhood of foetuses is irrelevant. Born human beings don't get to use somebody else's organs without that person's consent. Pregnancy itself can also debilitate a person for its duration and, there's still a random chance of death or serious injury for the pregnant person if they're forced to give birth. I don't see why somebody should be forced to risk their life for a foetus, especially if anti-choicers aren't exactly helping anyone feed actual babies. I still think we should try to reduce the need for abortion as much as possible by ensuring that everyone can have comprehensive sex education and access to contraception.

 

The question of assisted suicide is the part I'm not sure about. In an ideal world, where Machiavellian behaviour wasn't so common, it'd be fine and dandy provided we could get real consent from the person, in the form of a living will (in case of coma, for example) or otherwise (in the case of someone still capable of communication). However, I'm going to be a bit cynical and say that right now, we have to tread extremely carefully. In the current situation, if Great-Aunt Bertha is unable to care for herself, foul-tempered, has some memory loss and is rich, well, who's to say the younger relatives won't band together to get her to sign the form so she dies and they get the insurance money...

[Syco21]

And you are missing my point.

 

First of all: I'm not saying: kill everyone who relies on someone for survival, I'm saying: IF someone would like to commit suicide for whatever reason, he should be able to request euthanasia, and a doctor should be allowed to administer it (but then again, unless the euthanasia is being requested to prevent suffering from a terminal illness, a doctor should be able to refuse it). I'm not saying: euthanasia is okay, so it's okay for a doctor to go on a killing spree...

I'm not talking about euthanasia. K?

 

Secondly, here is what makes an unborn child a parasite, whereas none of the things you mentioned even remotely fit he definition. A parasite is: "An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense." (That is the actual definition by the way).

 

Sure there are valid reasons for enduring this relationship (from the mother's perspective), but that doesn't change the fact that an unborn child is biologically a parasite.

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

 

The other definitions you have neglected. The poor, the sick and prisoners are also parasites by definition. So again, why not make it legal to kill them when it's most convenient?

Edited October 22, 2012 by Syco21

[AVDutch]

And you are missing my point.

 

First of all: I'm not saying: kill everyone who relies on someone for survival, I'm saying: IF someone would like to commit suicide for whatever reason, he should be able to request euthanasia, and a doctor should be allowed to administer it (but then again, unless the euthanasia is being requested to prevent suffering from a terminal illness, a doctor should be able to refuse it). I'm not saying: euthanasia is okay, so it's okay for a doctor to go on a killing spree...

I'm not talking about euthanasia. K?

 

Secondly, here is what makes an unborn child a parasite, whereas none of the things you mentioned even remotely fit he definition. A parasite is: "An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense." (That is the actual definition by the way).

 

Sure there are valid reasons for enduring this relationship (from the mother's perspective), but that doesn't change the fact that an unborn child is biologically a parasite.

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

 

The other definitions you have neglected. The poor, the sick and prisoners are also parasites by definition. So again, why not make it legal to kill them when it's most convenient?

 

Well... first off... if you're not talking about euthanasia, but mass murder, then why bring it up? I fail to see how 'Hitler killed a bunch of people' is relevant to the debate.

 

Second of all, and I think I was pretty clear, but let me just spell it out: I was talking about a parasite in the strictest, biological sense of the word. The difference between an embryo or foetus (or a zygote for that matter, but let's not call ending a pregnancy in that state 'abortion'. If you have to ask why: it's because a zygote is just a clump of cells, and other anti-conception methods - that are NOT abortion - can be used to end a pregnancy in that phase) and the examples you're giving is that an embryo or foetus is not yet a person.

 

Therefore, your analogy of 'why not just legalize killing people in comas etc' is flawed because of that simple fact: they are people.

They would therefore fall under the 'requested euthanasia' part of my argument, where, as you can see, I advocate no such thing as 'killing them for the good of everyone else'. I advocate: if you wish to die you should be able to do it quickly and painlessly through euthanasia. This is done upon YOUR request.