What's a grown man naked son? 😑
I think people only have one.Many cords to places. Nerve endings.
http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html3month/1980s/830118.Borgens.spinalcord.html
Originally posted by Bardock42
a) They do that now at times. I don't think this is a real slippery slope
arguments, and, many people that got in trouble because of euthanising people did so in agreement with the patient. I don't see why there would be more reason for doctors to act independently if it was legal, and in fact it would decriminalize behaviour which is, imo, very moral.b) I don't think that is a correct view of what doctors do. Obviously they
already try to ease suffering, at the cost of some time of life in specific
cases. It wouldn't actually be a new view, so I don't see a worry with that.
a) i was referring to cases in which consent is given. because euthanasia is generally illegal, doctors who perform it, even with consent, are still going to be charged for their actions. but i wasn't talking about that. i was talking about doctors acting independently, meaning without consent. i'm sure that happens more frequently than we would like to admit.
b) i know this for a fact. if you look into any medical text, promoting well-being is a primary goal of medicine. the concept of well-being, however, is entirely subjective, which is why respect for patient autonomy and patient consent is so paramount in medicine. doctors are trained in medicine and focus on medical health. what doctors consider medical best for their patients may not coincide what their patients believe to be best for their well-being (religious beliefs may play a role in their decision-making, concern for quality of life, how the effects of a treatment will effect loved ones, etc.). this is why patients have a right to refuse treatment and doctors have a duty to respect the patient's autonomy.
and just because doctors have a professional duty to respect patient autonomy, doesn't mean there aren't doctors who don't follow the ethical guidelines. that's where the slippery slope argument comes into play. there are so many cases of malpractice.
i support self-determination, which is why i support voluntary euthanasia, but i think there definitely needs to be restrictions.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Sooner or later a Christian will bring up that only God should choose when and how we die. Which is true IMO. This is why I am pro life and I do not support the death penalty, because we, as humans, basically suck as a species, and for us to assume we have the right to decide when and how someone dies is the epitome of self glorification. Don't get me wrong, I aint no holy roller, you know that for certain, better than most here anyways. I just have a certain unshakable set of beliefs, which I am entitled to.
yeah, i know what your religious views are. though, if you ask me, i don't think you know why you believe what you believe. at least, i don't think you've thoroughly dissected your reasoning.
your beliefs aren't unshakable. i've seen you flip flop sides.
but i guess all this is beside the point really.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Look, this is what I was trying to avoid, a religious debate. Let me just say that life is a precious thing, a gift, and to end it, even though one is suffering, is just a travesty. If certain things procedures can be performed to prolong it, great. But ending it to avoid suffering is wrong IMO. "Arguing" my point is not the same as me tying you down and force feeding you the Bible.
you say you want to avoid a religious debate, but you were the one who brought up religion. 😕
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think that takes into account many "unchangeable" or outside influences. Someone with severe depression or paranoia or another mental illness might be trapped with their own brain torturing them. Same for physically sick people. Especially since Euthanasia is often more thought of as help for terminally ill, and not assisted suicide (though I am in favour of that as well).
i thought assisted suicide was active voluntary euthanasia. 😕
Originally posted by lord xyz
Can't we put people out of suffering without death?
there's only so much medicine can do.
Originally posted by Fallen
a) i was referring to cases in which consent is given. because euthanasia is generally illegal, doctors who perform it, even with consent, are still going to be charged for their actions. but i wasn't talking about that. i was talking about doctors acting independently, meaning without consent. i'm sure that happens more frequently than we would like to admit.b) i know this for a fact. if you look into any medical text, promoting well-being is a primary goal of medicine. the concept of well-being, however, is entirely subjective, which is why respect for patient autonomy and patient consent is so paramount in medicine. doctors are trained in medicine and focus on medical health. what doctors consider medical best for their patients may not coincide what their patients believe to be best for their well-being (religious beliefs may play a role in their decision-making, concern for quality of life, how the effects of a treatment will effect loved ones, etc.). this is why patients have a right to refuse treatment and doctors have a duty to respect the patient's autonomy.
and just because doctors have a professional duty to respect patient autonomy, doesn't mean there aren't doctors who don't follow the ethical guidelines. that's where the slippery slope argument comes into play. there are so many cases of malpractice.
i support self-determination, which is why i support voluntary euthanasia, but i think there definitely needs to be restrictions.
a) I don't have numbers on such cases, so I can'r really comment...but, just like it is now, that would still be illegal in a changed system of euthanasia, would it not?
b) I am not sure what you are trying to say or how it relates to my point. But, what restrictions would you say have to be in place?
Originally posted by Fallen
i thought assisted suicide was active voluntary euthanasia. 😕
Euthanasia is a more specific term than assisted suicide and doesn't include all cases.
Originally posted by FallenThere are a handful people here who know why I believe what I believe. You, Bardock, DA, and maybe one or two others.yeah, i know what your religious views are. though, if you ask me, i don't think you know why you believe what you believe. at least, i don't think you've thoroughly dissected your reasoning.
your beliefs aren't unshakable. i've seen you flip flop sides.
And yes, my beliefs are indeed unshakable. Sure, there are times when I wonder about this or that, why things work this way or that, but in the end, my faith is rock solid. Most die hard Christians I know tell me I am the weirdest Christian they know. Oh well? 🙄
Flip flopped sides? Define "flip flop." You mean I have gone through periods where I believed in Christ, then lost my faith? Then regained it? If that's what you mean, I am afraid I am gonna call bullshit on that one.
you say you want to avoid a religious debate, but you were the one who brought up religion. 😕I brought up that this argument would sometimes come back to that. Some Christians do not support euthanasia (or abortion for that matter) for personal reasons, I, however, and many other Christians, are pro life and against euthanasia for religious AND personal reasons. I'm not "using" Christianity to support my argument, I was merely saying that subjects like this one run the risk of one bringing one's religion into it, that's all. I am using my personal reasons, not my religious ones here.
Originally posted by Bardock42
a) I don't have numbers on such cases, so I can'r really comment...but, just like it is now, that would still be illegal in a changed system of euthanasia, would it not?
b) I am not sure what you are trying to say or how it relates to my point. But, what restrictions would you say have to be in place?Euthanasia is a more specific term than assisted suicide and doesn't include all cases.
a) i don't either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. many fear that by legalizing voluntary euthanasia, doctors will start practicing involuntary euthanasia as a means to relieve the suffering of a patient (out of benevolent motives such as compassion).
b) you didn't think my assessment of the goal of medicine was accurate. i was explaining to you that it was, then further elaborated on what the goals were.
okay, let me see if i can explain this better...
the goal of medicine is to promote well-being and respect patient autonomy (self-determination). respect for patient autonomy includes honoring patient consent and acknowledging the patient's idea of well-being. in acknowledging a patient's idea of well-being, doctors need to respect a patient's decision regarding treatment, which may include rejecting treatment.
now, under the idea of respect for patient autonomy, theoretically, patients should have a right to request euthanasia as a means to relieve suffering. however, many believe that killing goes against the goals of medicine. throughout history, doctors have prolonged life, reduced suffering, or accepted a patient's request to reject or stop treatment. taking measures to actually kill a patient to promote well-being has traditionally not been associated with the goals of medicine.
this is where the slippery slope argument comes into play...
1) if doctors can legally kill patients who are suffering from a terminal illness and have consented to die, some doctors might feel compelled to end a patient's suffering out of compassion and without consent. this goes completely against respect for patient autonomy and patient consent.
2) if terminally ill patients who are suffering are allowed to request euthanasia, this could open the door to patients who simply want to die and aren't afflicted will an illness. first off, patients who seek medical attention have some sort of medical affliction. it doesn't make sense to euthanize patients who aren't ill and have no medical reasons to be killed. doctors would be working outside the scope of medicine if they committed such acts.
let's bring this all together now...
if patient autonomy and patient consent is continually violated, and doctors are killing patients who don't have a medical reason to be killed, the public looses faith in the medical system. people already have a hard time grasping that killing to end suffering is permissible. if doctors are killing patients and the following events did occur, the institution of medicine could collapse. and to prevent all the negative outcomes i just mentioned, restrictions need to be placed. society benefits from the medical system and its only logical to protect it.
so there you have it. 😊 hopefully, i explained my case or at least made it more clear. i sometimes think sporadically and don't always fill in the needed gabs.
as for the restrictions, earlier i mentioned ones that i thought were pretty good.
Originally posted by Fallen
i think oregon's law provides a good staring point. patients have to make a request for prescribed medication that will, in turn, end their lives.1) the patient has to be suffering from a terminal illness in which death is imminent within the next 6 months. (i personally think this restriction should be expanded to include those who are not necessarily facing imminent death, but are severally ill and have a condition that will not improve, as well as the severally incapable like quadriplegics.)
2) the patient is required to go through a psychological evaluation to determine competency.
3) the request has to be confirmed by two witness, one of which cannot be a family member, the treating doctor, or someone who is entitled to any material possessions (to prevent coercion).
4) written and oral request with waiting periods.
5) the right to rescind the request.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Euthanasia is a more specific term than assisted suicide and doesn't include all cases.
i'm still not sure what that means.
active euthanasia involves one person taking a direct action that results in another person's death. isn't assisted suicide the same thing? one person is still taking an action that will kill someone.
oregon's euthanasia law is considered active voluntary euthanasia. the doctor is prescribing deadly medication to a patient, who later takes the medication to end their life. the doctor prescribing the mediction is the action that defines euthanasia.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
There are a handful people here who know why I believe what I believe. You,Bardock, DA, and maybe one or two others. And yes, my beliefs are indeed unshakable. Sure, there are times when I wonder about this or that, why things work this way or that, but in the end, my faith is rock solid. Most die hard Christians I know tell me I am the weirdest Christian they know. Oh well? 🙄
Flip flopped sides? Define "flip flop." You mean I have gone through periods where I believed in Christ, then lost my faith? Then regained it? If that's what you mean, I am afraid I am gonna call bullshit on that one.
i wasn't necessarily referring to your religious beliefs, though i think it has a lot to do with why you take certain stances on certain issues. regardless, i don't think you really understand why you take up positions that you tirelessly argue for, even from a secular point of view.
by flip flop i mean that you argue for one side and then say something that completely contradicts what you were arguing in the first place. there are instances in the past regarding debate topics where you've done this.