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

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

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.

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.

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.

___________________
Retro ...

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

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

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

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!

___________________
Retro ...

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.

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?

___________________
Retro ...

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

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

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.

___________________
Retro ...