TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Feeding tube ordered back inside vegetative Florida woman
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Everything i know on comatoseness i learnt during Kill Bill: Volume 1, maybe i shouldn't comment?

If it were up to me, i would pull the plug, i find it quite obscene, especially if the money could save lives elsewhere. If what neophono says is true, she died 12 years ago, i see no difference between this and the the animation of dead bodies by means of electric currents, even 'galvanisation' was undignified to the dead thieves and murderers laying on an operating room table

quote:

Occrider The day the state starts to decide the "value" of life and makes a decision for us in whatever incapacitated state we live in is a step backwards in the recognition of our intrinsic rights. It is not up to you to determine whether they are "too miserable" to live.

this discussion could easily perambulate to capital punishment

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Natural means? Are we born with feeding tubes? There is nothing natural about being kept alive with a feeding tube. This woman died 12 years ago.

Ah ok ... than I suppose those of us on dialysis machines are dead as are those on respirators. Well I guess the state should have the option to pull the plug on them too ...

quote:

should also add that as her husband, he is her legal guardian and can, in fact make the decision to allow her natural death. It was not the state or anyone else but the husband that made this choice. It is incredible that due to the media hype hundreds of years of guardian precident could be overturned due to the emotional hysteria of this case. What we are now saying with this new precident is that no matter thier condition, a comatose individual should be allowed to carry on as long as the technology allows it. It is my "intrinsic" right to die a natural death, and also a right of my legal guardian to allow that death should I not be able to make the decision.

No it is NOT the right of someone else to determine whether YOU live or die. It IS your intrinsic right to die a natural death if YOU so choose to. Nobody is denying that right. If you excercise your right to live and express a desire to be artificially sustained than no one ELSE can deny you that right to life. To set precedent that a third party maintains rights over your wishes, and you might as well start up the incinerators for all the elderly and feeble-minded who are incapable of taking care of themselves. Yes that sounds like a wonderful right to give to others. Speaking of the husband's right to terminate his wife, let's take a look at this guy:

quote:

The Schindlers have accused Michael Schiavo of wanting his wife dead so he can marry his longtime girlfriend, with whom he now has a child and another baby on the way. They have begged him to divorce her, and let them care for her. . . . The Schindlers have accused Michael Schiavo of wanting his wife dead so he can marry his longtime girlfriend, with whom he now has a child and another baby on the way. They have begged him to divorce her, and let them care for her. In 1993, the Schiavos were awarded more than $1 million in medical malpractice claims against the doctors who failed to diagnose her chemical imbalance. Michael Schiavo told a jury he intended to take care of his wife for the rest of her life. The Schindlers say Michael Schiavo first mentioned his wife didn't want to be kept alive artificially after the money was awarded. Michael Schiavo has said he gradually realized his wife would not recover.

quote:

The Schindlers' suit cites statements by Brashers, who said she dated Michael Schiavo in 1992, during the time he had sued a doctor who had treated his wife for malpractice. A jury awarded the Schiavos more than $1 million after Michael Schiavo testified that he intended to care for his wife until she dies. Brashers said he told her that he and his wife had never discussed the matter of artificial life support. Brashers told an investigator for the Schindlers' attorneys that she came forward after hearing Michael Schiavo on the radio talk about how much he cared for his wife. According to court records, Brashers told investigators that Michael Schiavo considered his incapacitated wife a "nuisance."

Well ... what an upstanding individual this husband is! You're right, he TRULY cares about the well-being of his wife and therefore HE should have the right to make the decision about whether his wife lives or not so that she can be free, and he can finally live in sorrow with his girlfriend, 2 kids, and $700,000 from the settlement that was supposed to be used to care for his wife.

No, no, no ... the ONLY person that should have a say about your life is YOU. Nobody else knows what you think, nobody else knows your desires, and NOBODY knows what value you would place on your right to live regardless of your condition.

quote:

If it were up to me, i would pull the plug, i find it quite obscene, especially if the money could save lives elsewhere. If what neophono says is true, she died 12 years ago, i see no difference between this and the the animation of dead bodies by means of electric currents, even 'galvanisation' was undignified to the dead thieves and murderers laying on an operating room table

And many in past history placed similar values on the mentally handicapped and the mentally disturbed in determining their right to live.

quote:

this discussion could easily perambulate to capital punishment

This is not crime and punishment we're dealing with.

Allow me to clarify or reitterate my stance:

I am for voluntary euthenasia.

I am against non-voluntary and involuntary Euthenasia.

occrider.. NeoPhono might have a point though, I do believe at a certain state you enable your spouce to make decissions for you in the bond of marriage.

although her husband might be abusing the right.. the question is does he have it? the courts seemed to rule in his favor, why?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus occrider.. NeoPhono might have a point though, I do believe at a certain state you enable your spouce to make decissions for you in the bond of marriage. although her husband might be abusing the right.. the question is does he have it?

And who are you to place value on their condition of life? Who are you to override that person's wishes in the termination of their life?

In Kantian philosophy, what separates humans from animals is our "intrinsic worth" or dignity. Dignity is a measure of self-respect, but individuals cannot directly protect their self-respect if they are incapable of expressing themselves. Such a person must retain the same rights as a conscious person because the value of human dignity extends to both. Therefore refusing to preserve an incompetent person�s dignity is the same as intentionally trampling one�s own. Simply because someone cannot consciously communicate himself to others does not mean that he lacks self-respect or self-worth. It is prima-facie wrong to disrespect another person�s dignity because such an action would cease to recognize the unique features that make us human.

When taking into account non-voluntary euthenasia cases where there are no past wishes or voluntary requests for suicide, the state must honor the patient�s right to privacy. With regard to euthenasia, the right to privacy is defined as the necessity for one to be in full command of the decisions made about one�s own body. If people are not allowed to govern their own bodies they will not be able to defend the only tangible thing of which they have direct control. Therefore neither the state NOR a third party has the right to make that decision which is intrinsically yours alone to make.

quote:

the courts seemed to rule in his favor, why?

I don't know but I don't have to always agree with everything the courts say ...

Oh and by the way ... once we start traversing the slippery slope of legalizing non-volunatry euthenasia:

quote:

Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland The Hague -- Euthanasia in The Netherlands is "beyond effective control", according to a report which shows that one in five assisted suicides is without explicit consent. British opponents of assisted suicide say that the figures are a warning of the dangers of decriminalising euthanasia, as Holland did in 1984. By 1995 cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Holland had risen to almost 3 per cent of all deaths. The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent. A follow-up survey found that the main reason for not consulting patients was that they had dementia or were otherwise not competent. But in 15 percent of cases the doctors avoided any discussion because they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests. Michael Howitt Wilson, of the Alert campaign against euthanasia, said: "A lot of people in Holland are frightened to go into hospital because of this situation." Dr Henk Jochensen, of the Lindeboom Institute, and Dr John Keown, of Queens' College, Cambridge carried out the study. They conclude: "The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked. Dutch claims of effective regulation ring hollow." Another study appearing in the journal shows that the legal assessments of cases reported to the public prosecution service in the Netherlands vary considerably. Cases are reported to determine whether a doctor will be prosecuted for murder. The study was carried out by Dr Jacqueline Cuperus-Bosma, of Vrije University in the Netherlands. The paper concluded that there is a need for clear protocols. Dr Peggy Norris, chairwoman of the anti-euthanasia group Alert, said: "We need to learn from the Dutch system that euthanasia cannot be controlled." "I know of patients in a nursing home who are carrying around what they call sanctuary certificates all the time, stating that they do not want to be helped to die. People are afraid of being sick or of being knocked down in case a doctor takes the decision, without their permission, to stop treatment." http://www.euthanasia.com/holland99.html

Edit: Well shit ... I've been saying euthenasia instead of euthanasia this entire time. Oh well too lazy to change it all now.

Much the same way that in the United States parents speak for their children legally and medically, someone who loses the ability to speak for themselves or in a "normal" manner also must have a guardian. A child or invalid alike cannot make decisions about their state or their own care. Therefore a legal guardian must be set into place. The precident now set in Florida is that this is no longer the case. Now everyone that cannot speak for themselves must be kept alive at all costs if anyone objects to their denial of care. I can see this spiraling to the point where entire hospitals will be filled with comatose patients. There are literally thousands of people each day that die from having "the plug pulled." I cannot imagine the burden this would put on society and an already grossly understaffed healthcare system. If every time someone other than the legal guardian objects to care we are forced to conform to their wishes, we are doomed. As far as the husband is concerned, you may have your own opinions, but after 12 years, 18 different doctors and 13 different hospitals, I believe he has more than fulfilled his obligation to try everything available.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider And who are you to place value on their condition of life? Who are you to override that person's wishes in the termination of their life?

Umm your there spouse, the person they married and came into union with to live in sickness and in health with.. etc..

From a religious viewpoint I think the spouse has the moral right.
From a philosophical viewpoint I think it can be argued either way (basically how religiously accomadating your philosophy is).

From a legal standpoint is what I don't know... what is it?

quote:

I don't know but I don't have to always agree with everything the courts say ...

No you don't but you might find out just why this happened, and the courts reasoning in the affair. Perhaps it is the legal right of a spouse to decide for the well-fair of the other.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Much the same way that in the United States parents speak for their children legally and medically, someone who loses the ability to speak for themselves or in a "normal" manner also must have a guardian. A child or invalid alike cannot make decisions about their state or their own care. Therefore a legal guardian must be set into place. The precident now set in Florida is that this is no longer the case. Now everyone that cannot speak for themselves must be kept alive at all costs if anyone objects to their denial of care.

A ward or guardian can make important decisions about the direction of the care of their trustee, however, they cannot (should not) be able to make the decision to terminate the life of the patient. If that's the case than I suppose situations such as these are ok:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/D...eath010213.html

As legal guradians of this child, a person who cannot make their own decions, these parents have the right to invoke the right to refuse medical treatment and therefore cause this child's death since they are essentially speaking for the child??? What if these parents invoked the right to voluntary euthanasia for their child for whatever reason?? Is this ethically or morally correct? Of course not, because the child and EVERY individual possesses inalienable rights, such as the right to life, that cannot be controlled by a third party. There are boundaries set to control the rights of an individual OVER the rights of a person associated with that individual. In Yoepus's spouse case, what if the husband were to get into an accident, and were put into a mild coma? Should the wife have the right, as guardian over her husband, to immediately discontinue treatment and feeding? Of course not, this right to terminate another's life should not be valid then nor ANY extension of the indivduals medical condition or outlook since you are inherentely violating that individuals right to life simply because they are otherwise incapable of expressing their wishes. And NO spouse should have the right to deny your inalienable rights ... they cannot deny you your decision to keep your life, involuntary euthanasia is nice, clinical sounding name for murder. As I said before, giving guardians the right to terminate and you will see non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia occuring in mental wards, mentally handicapped wards, and elderly wards all across the nation. Now what kind of precedant is that?

quote:

I can see this spiraling to the point where entire hospitals will be filled with comatose patients. There are literally thousands of people each day that die from having "the plug pulled." I cannot imagine the burden this would put on society and an already grossly understaffed healthcare system. If every time someone other than the legal guardian objects to care we are forced to conform to their wishes, we are doomed. As far as the husband is concerned, you may have your own opinions, but after 12 years, 18 different doctors and 13 different hospitals, I believe he has more than fulfilled his obligation to try everything available.

Well you know what, civil liberties are a pain in the ass too when it comes to keeping criminals off the streets and prosecuting wrongdoing, however, we still stand by those principles EVEN if we release a criminal we KNOW to be guilty because his/her rights were violated. It is far better to err on the side of prudence, caution, and a respect of rights. What's that saying, it's better to release 10 guilty men than send one innocent man to jail? Well the same concept applies to this scenario, and even MORE so since we are talking about our inherent right to life. Many of those thousands of people who have the "plug pulled" are individuals who either expressed desire to cease treatment, or conveyed to relatives of their desires to end any suffering they may have, or have established living wills to describe their intent. If it becomes such a problem then change the health system to require living wills. If we're seeking to maximize cost and efficiency then we might as well just throw the bill of rights out the window because I gauruntee you that society will run a lot more efficientely that way.

What I have a problem with in your arguement is your assumption that it is her "inalienable" right to live in her current state. True we due have an inalienable right to live. However, we have no inalienable rights to technology. Much the same way we have no guaranteed right to a nice car or a plasma tv, we do not have a "right" to healthcare, because healthcare, any way you put it, is a technology. That being said, if she were living by totally natural means (e.g. no feeding tube) and the husband ordered her killed by lethal injection, the story would be different. However, as it stands medical technology is what is keeping her alive. Also, guardians due in fact have the right to remove life support. I see it everyday and it is a very important part of our medical legal system. Your analogy with euthanizing children does not fall into the same category in this case. There is no law that allows for a guardian to kill whom they protect by outside forces, however the law does allow for the guardian to remove technology keeping someone alive. If a parent were to kill a perfectly functional child, it is murder. If a parent decides to remove a child from life support, it is not murder, but it is allowing the child to die from "natural" causes. And that is at the heart of this case, allowing a guardian to speak for a silent individual, and by their decision allowing them to die a natural death.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono What I have a problem with in your arguement is your assumption that it is her "inalienable" right to live in her current state. True we due have an inalienable right to live. However, we have no inalienable rights to technology. Much the same way we have no guaranteed right to a nice car or a plasma tv, we do not have a "right" to healthcare, because healthcare, any way you put it, is a technology. That being said, if she were living by totally natural means (e.g. no feeding tube) and the husband ordered her killed by lethal injection, the story would be different. However, as it stands medical technology is what is keeping her alive. Also, guardians due in fact have the right to remove life support. I see it everyday and it is a very important part of our medical legal system. Your analogy with euthanizing children does not fall into the same category in this case. There is no law that allows for a guardian to kill whom they protect by outside forces, however the law does allow for the guardian to remove technology keeping someone alive. If a parent were to kill a perfectly functional child, it is murder. If a parent decides to remove a child from life support, it is not murder, but it is allowing the child to die from "natural" causes. And that is at the heart of this case, allowing a guardian to speak for a silent individual, and by their decision allowing them to die a natural death.

Then what of the case I referenced above of the parents who refused to let their children to receive medical "technology" to cure relatively simplistic conditions? The parents would have the right to not give their kids medicine to keep them alive because it is not "natural"? What if the child were on life-support in critical but possibly curable state? Shall we let guardians decide at will whether to take their children off "artificial" support to die through natural means? At any rate, I still stand by the basic premise of my argument, the patient has the right to remove themselves from medical "technology" at THEIR choosing. If the patient is incapable of expressing their opinion, their life does not become a lottery to be auctioned off to the say-so of the closest living family member. The basic precepts of the determinism of their own life is still theirs alone to make. In the absence of prior indication, the state must honor their right to life under the presumption that that is their desire. Once again, if non-voluntary euthanasia is authorized for use by guardians what of children in "artifical" neo-natal care? What of the mildly retarded who are incapable of "naturally" caring for themselves yet possess some mental faculty? What of the insane who would otherwise die without "artificial" care? Their survival too is just as "unnatural" as that of a coma patient.

And in the event that I leave a living will asking that I be kept alive in whatever state that I'm in in the hopes of some kind of, ANY kind of, recovery no matter how implausible, it is not up to you, my family members, or anybody else to go against MY wishes when it concerns MY fundamental right to life. That's simply barbaric when the state or society dictates the value and worth of your life and whether you have the right to live it.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider And in the event that I leave a living will asking that I be kept alive in whatever state that I'm in in the hopes of some kind of, ANY kind of, recovery no matter how implausible, it is not up to you, my family members, or anybody else to go against MY wishes when it concerns MY fundamental right to life. That's simply barbaric when the state or society dictates the value and worth of your life and whether you have the right to live it.

That also goes for if you leave a living will and ask to have the "plug pulled" under such circumstances. The state shoudl not meddle in a person's right to determine wheter or not they choose to stop care. Of course I am a proponent of elective Euthanasia because I feel that the quality of life is more important than the clinical signs of life. If a terminally ill person wishes to end their suffering early that is their choice.

I have not posted in this thread before because I know no real details abotu the case other than the blurbs I hear on the radio and cannot make an informed comment on the issue. I have not been supportive of the Bush brothers recent meddling in the medical choices of the public. I am pro-choice in all things. Refusing people the right to choose medical procedures that have been agreed upon by both the doctor and the patient because it crosses some grey moral line to the people in power is wrong.

All my opinion of course.

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel That also goes for if you leave a living will and ask to have the "plug pulled" under such circumstances. The state shoudl not meddle in a person's right to determine wheter or not they choose to stop care. Of course I am a proponent of elective Euthanasia because I feel that the quality of life is more important than the clinical signs of life. If a terminally ill person wishes to end their suffering early that is their choice. I have not posted in this thread before because I know no real details abotu the case other than the blurbs I hear on the radio and cannot make an informed comment on the issue. I have not been supportive of the Bush brothers recent meddling in the medical choices of the public. I am pro-choice in all things. Refusing people the right to choose medical procedures that have been agreed upon by both the doctor and the patient because it crosses some grey moral line to the people in power is wrong. All my opinion of course. MrS

Well of course, that goes without saying. We have a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment if we make that choice. I'd go even further and say voluntary euthanasia should be legalized whereby doctors take pro-active steps to hasten your death. The issue at hand is non-voluntary and involontary euthanasia ... there's a big difference.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well of course, that goes without saying. We have a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment if we make that choice. I'd go even further and say voluntary euthanasia should be legalized whereby doctors take pro-active steps to hasten your death. The issue at hand is non-voluntary and involontary euthanasia ... there's a big difference.

Yes, yes, I agree with you fully sir.

We have nothing further to discuss on this matter.

Though I think a good old fashioned plague that kills off 20% of the world's population is in order

MrS

If anything I think the lesson behind this is people really should create a living will that deals with their concerns in the case of an irreversible coma (not the kind of coma a neo-nate may find itself in). However until the time comes when 100% of people have a living will a legal guardian is critical in medical issues. And these legal guardians must have the right to deny an irreversibly comatose patient of artificial life support. I'm sorry but there are no resources available to allow thousands of comatose patients to live indeffinently. We do not have the nurses, doctors, support staff or healthcare dollars to sustain this many people. (The cost of keeping a full-vent on life support is $750 to $900 a day, where does this money come from?) Morevoer, I believe the majority of individuals would rather have a loved one making deicisions for them than a defacto law set forth by the government. In any circumstance an individual may change their mind. Someone may feel it reasonable to be maintained in a coma for one or even five years, but after 12 years of failed attempts, they may have a different opinion on their own care, this is also where a guardian has importance. A person in an irreversible coma (unlike the other comatose states you used as analogies) will never be able to speak for themselves. How we differ is that I feel a guardian should be there to make legal medical decisions for an individual, not the government. There are limits to this power, as there is no way they would be able to remove someone from life support if there was medically documented chance of hope for reversal...this is how it is today. However to say that all individuals without a direct living will stating other-wise should be kept alive at all costs is literally, not practically impossible. Loved ones should speak for loved ones, not politicians.

About the Right to Life

I think the fundamental misconception of the Natural Right to Live which haunts much of the discourse on abortion is manifesting itself here as well. In a traditional sense, Natural Rights do not confer entitlements. That is, they do not compel us to take action in order to uphold them.

Perhaps it's easier stated in terms of freedom. There is no such thing as "freedom to", but only "freedom from." The Right to Live does not imply a Right to receive treatment, but rather a right to be free of interference in the pursuit of one's own survival. In other words, you are not violating someone's Right to Life if you refuse to donate them a kidney which they need to survive. However, if you hit them with your car, and kill them, then you are. They had the Right to be free of you hitting them with your car. They do not have a Right to your kidney if they need it to survive.

In this scenario, this woman is incapable of maintaining her own survival. It is not her Natural Right to receive external assistance in this endeavor. Ergo, she does not have a Natural Right to continued treatment.

If we, as a society, choose to maintain her life, then we do so as a favor to her. We aren't obligated to do so.

Re: About the Right to Life

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think the fundamental misconception of the Natural Right to Live which haunts much of the discourse on abortion is manifesting itself here as well. In a traditional sense, Natural Rights do not confer entitlements. That is, they do not compel us to take action in order to uphold them. Perhaps it's easier stated in terms of freedom. There is no such thing as "freedom to", but only "freedom from." The Right to Live does not imply a Right to receive treatment, but rather a right to be free of interference in the pursuit of one's own survival. In other words, you are not violating someone's Right to Life if you refuse to donate them a kidney which they need to survive. However, if you hit them with your car, and kill them, then you are. They had the Right to be free of you hitting them with your car. They do not have a Right to your kidney if they need it to survive. In this scenario, this woman is incapable of maintaining her own survival. It is not her Natural Right to receive external assistance in this endeavor. Ergo, she does not have a Natural Right to continued treatment. If we, as a society, choose to maintain her life, then we do so as a favor to her. We aren't obligated to do so.

The manner in which society is structured is to value life, regardless of condition. Therefore if you wish to frame the argument in the sense that society is only obligated to maintain freedom from as opposed to granting entitlements to than society similarly has no obligation to care for the elderly, provide welfare, provide health care, provide schooling, etc. So I'm not altogether sure we want to head down that path ...

quote:

If anything I think the lesson behind this is people really should create a living will that deals with their concerns in the case of an irreversible coma (not the kind of coma a neo-nate may find itself in). However until the time comes when 100% of people have a living will a legal guardian is critical in medical issues. And these legal guardians must have the right to deny an irreversibly comatose patient of artificial life support. I'm sorry but there are no resources available to allow thousands of comatose patients to live indeffinently. We do not have the nurses, doctors, support staff or healthcare dollars to sustain this many people. (The cost of keeping a full-vent on life support is $750 to $900 a day, where does this money come from?) Morevoer, I believe the majority of individuals would rather have a loved one making deicisions for them than a defacto law set forth by the government. In any circumstance an individual may change their mind. Someone may feel it reasonable to be maintained in a coma for one or even five years, but after 12 years of failed attempts, they may have a different opinion on their own care, this is also where a guardian has importance. A person in an irreversible coma (unlike the other comatose states you used as analogies) will never be able to speak for themselves. How we differ is that I feel a guardian should be there to make legal medical decisions for an individual, not the government. There are limits to this power, as there is no way they would be able to remove someone from life support if there was medically documented chance of hope for reversal...this is how it is today. However to say that all individuals without a direct living will stating other-wise should be kept alive at all costs is literally, not practically impossible. Loved ones should speak for loved ones, not politicians.

Well I stated before that I believe that everyone should be required to establish a living will to determine how they wish to carry forth in the event such a situation happens. Until then however, I will always disagree with non-voluntary euthanasia. Perhaps 12 years in a coma is too long to hope for you, but for the victim perhaps she would claim that that is not enough ... In this case I believe loved ones ARE speaking for the victim, the parents. I think that the case against the husband as a biased individual with personal profits to gain out of this decision are quite substantial. Therefore, if anything, the parents should be allowed to cover the costs of her continuing care.

I hate to be cliche but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think we've both made our points, and it was a good discussion. It will be interesting to see what the law and the future holds for these kinds of cases. I hope to debate with you all again soon.

--NeoPhono

Re: Re: About the Right to Life

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well I stated before that I believe that everyone should be required to establish a living will to determine how they wish to carry forth in the event such a situation happens. Until then however, I will always disagree with non-voluntary euthanasia. Perhaps 12 years in a coma is too long to hope for you, but for the victim perhaps she would claim that that is not enough ... In this case I believe loved ones ARE speaking for the victim, the parents. I think that the case against the husband as a biased individual with personal profits to gain out of this decision are quite substantial. Therefore, if anything, the parents should be allowed to cover the costs of her continuing care.

There was that guy who woke up from a coma a few months back who was in one for like 18 years. HIs daughter was not even born when he was in the car accident and he met her for the first time she was 18. So it is possible to come out of a coma after a long long time. Of course he did not have the amount of brain damage the woman in Florida does.

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I hate to be cliche but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think we've both made our points, and it was a good discussion. It will be interesting to see what the law and the future holds for these kinds of cases. I hope to debate with you all again soon. --NeoPhono

That's not cliche at all. Sometimes there are just fundamental differences of thought that cannot be argued or disputed no matter how many words you apply to your argument. But it was good feeling out and discussing the pros and cons of this issue.

Cheers!

Re: Re: About the Right to Life

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The manner in which society is structured is to value life, regardless of condition. Therefore if you wish to frame the argument in the sense that society is only obligated to maintain freedom from as opposed to granting entitlements to than society similarly has no obligation to care for the elderly, provide welfare, provide health care, provide schooling, etc. So I'm not altogether sure we want to head down that path ...

I only meant to point out that Natural Rights are not a justification for keeping her alive. I wouldn't jump from that to the conclusion that we shouldn't keep her alive - there are plenty of things society can do beyond upholding our natural rights which are very positive. I'm still undecided as to whether or not this particular situation is such an example.

Re: Re: Re: About the Right to Life

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I only meant to point out that Natural Rights are not a justification for keeping her alive. I wouldn't jump from that to the conclusion that we shouldn't keep her alive - there are plenty of things society can do beyond upholding our natural rights which are very positive. I'm still undecided as to whether or not this particular situation is such an example.

Ok well given the rights we possess in society as it is, should the determination of your fate reside upon a third party or you? And in general, what are your opinions on involuntary/non-voluntary euthanasia?

Re: Re: Re: Re: About the Right to Life

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok well given the rights we possess in society as it is, should the determination of your fate reside upon a third party or you? And in general, what are your opinions on involuntary/non-voluntary euthanasia?

Did you mean voluntary/non-voluntary or were you trying to doubly emphasize the fact of it not being voluntary?



MrS

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: About the Right to Life

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel Did you mean voluntary/non-voluntary or were you trying to doubly emphasize the fact of it not being voluntary? MrS

No I'm fairly certain that arbiter would be for voluntary euthanasia. The difference between involuntary and non voluntary is that non-voluntary is when the patient cannot express their opinion of whether they wish to die. This whole thread would be an example of that. Involuntary is when the patient expresses the desire to live yet they are put down ... similarly to how a person establishes a living will asking to live, yet their wishes are ignored.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: About the Right to Life

quote:

Originally posted by occrider No I'm fairly certain that arbiter would be for voluntary euthanasia. The difference between involuntary and non voluntary is that non-voluntary is when the patient cannot express their opinion of whether they wish to die. This whole thread would be an example of that. Involuntary is when the patient expresses the desire to live yet they are put down ... similarly to how a person establishes a living will asking to live, yet their wishes are ignored.

Ahhh I see.

I still think the two words are synonymous.

But if that is what you meant at least we got a clarification

MrS

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: About the Right to Life

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel Ahhh I see. I still think the two words are synonymous. But if that is what you meant at least we got a clarification MrS

Not my definition ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethic...e/euthdef.shtml

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.