Originally posted by DolosYeah but then you gotta learn how to fly a plane, and bribe/sneak your way to a plane. And then you gotta take in to the account the time spent f*cking around in the air--cuz you will on a suicide run-- and make sure the Sky Police don't stop you...
Just crash a plane directly straight into the ground at full speed with expert piloting, it's as painless as euthanasia but more fun and costly to those who have to clean that wreckage.
That's a lot of work.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yeah but then you gotta learn how to fly a plane, and bribe/sneak your way to a plane. And then you gotta take in to the account the time spent f*cking around in the air--cuz you will on a suicide run-- and make sure the Sky Police don't stop you...That's a lot of work.
Not if you own a private ****ing plane.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The key difference is that forcing someone to live is forcing someone to live, whereas allowing them to die isn't forcing them to do anything. The two situations are incomparable.
1. You are submitting a very very very very very very specific situation as your argument rather than the overall argument. That's a great way to win an argument: just select something so very specific that it is near impossible to argue against...except....you didn't think that argument through enough and I can argue against that, too. 🙂
2. Forcing someone to live is not forcing someone to live. Unless they are a quadriplegic or a vegetable, they are not being forced to live. At which point, you are forcing your choice on the person, anyway: killing them or letting them live is forcing your choice on the person as they no longer have the choice, themselves. Even if a quadraplegic tells you that he/she wants to do, you ultimately have to choose for them. 🙂 HOW DARE YOU!
3. You have an arbitrary standard by which you enforce your supposed morals. I reject your arbitrariness and submit my own arbitrariness as being correct: there are no objective morals in your supposed points; they are just arbitrary opinions on what is moral.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
So we keep terminal cancer patients who request euthanasia on life support against their will on the off chance that cancer will be cured next Tuesday? That's completely logical and ethical.
1. Did you even read my post?
"People in pain or no longer wanting to live upsets me so you should all have to conform to my feelings: kill em!"
2. It is completely logical and ethical to kill someone even if they want to be killed. <--Sarcasm
3. Just admit that the debate has no objective answer and it is just arbitrary moral standards that each side is throwing at the other.
Originally posted by dadudemonmost people who require euthanasia do so because they are physically unable to kill themselves: quadraplegics, people with degenerative diseases, terminal parients who are to weak, etc. if they can ask for help to die, then no one is forcing choices on them at all, because their will is being fulfiled with help, not being contradicted or violated. it is simply absurd to claim otherwise.
2. Forcing someone to live is not forcing someone to live. Unless they are a quadriplegic or a vegetable, they are not being forced to live. At which point, you are forcing your choice on the person, anyway: killing them or letting them live is forcing your choice on the person as they no longer have the choice, themselves. Even if a quadraplegic tells you that he/she wants to do, you ultimately have to choose for them. 🙂 HOW DARE YOU!
Originally posted by BlackZero30xthats odd and completely counter-productive. is that the case across the usa? most jurisdictions i knew of, didnt make it a crime
well if it's successful nothing can be done but you can get in trouble if you get caught attempting it and it isn't successful. Not necessarily jail time but a buddy of mine decided to do it and took a bottle of sleeping pills. He changed his mind and called 911. He was billed $10,000 and I believe court ordered to go to therapy sessions. That was going light on him because he "willfully changed his mind"
Originally posted by 753
thats odd and completely counter-productive. is that the case across the usa? most jurisdictions i knew of, didnt make it a crime
Im pretty sure it is but can't say it is 100%. My friend told me that if he had known what staying alive would cost him he would have just ended his life instead.
Originally posted by Cloviethats not what this is about. medical personell shouldnt be forced to perform euthanasia, a conscience objection excuse should be allowed. the point of the whole debate is that people who are willing to help them shouldn't be criminally prosecuted as murderers
but they can't make anyone do it for them.
Originally posted by ClovieI'm sure there would simply be specialized clinics offering the service like abortion in the case of the usa. arent doctors there allowed to opt out? even in public hospitals, there'll always be someone willing, it's not that hard to build appropriate legal guarantees to protect people's conscience into an euthanasia system
but if euthanasia was legal, person would be allowed to sue doctors for denying their law to die 😑
dunno. but if it would be like with abortion it wouldn't be that clear.
here there are some situations when abortion is legal, and it is possible only untill some age of foetus/baby [I on't remember at the moment, but that' irrelevant].
so there was some woman and she was legally allowed to get aborted. but doctors were legally allowed to refuse. she didn't find anyone willing before the time of possible treatment ended. so she gave birth to a child, and because of some complications she got blind or slmost blind during the labour.
in the end she sued a country to strassbourg tribunal (sp?) and as far as i know, she won.
so what if situation with euthanasia goes the same way?
well I gotta say if there was a clinic made for euthanasia then the people that work there would have to be willing to do the job in order to be hired. It wouldn't be ran exactly like abortions. They could set a universal minimum requirement. If people are under a certain age then they would need to prove they need assistance. Or lets say it was a child that had an incurable sickness that is killing them slowly....then they would need to provide documentation of the illness and give both child and parent consent. But if you are just lets say 18 and want to die because you are depressed then the clinic could turn them down because they are physically and healthy enough to do it themselves.
Originally posted by Clovie
but if euthanasia was legal, person would be allowed to sue doctors for denying their law to die 😑
I don't think so. I think the law would allow a provision that would not force doctors to have to kill a patient: that kind of goes against the Hippocratic Oath.
Similar to gay marriage laws: almost all (except for one situation that happened in the UK and in the US) gay marriage laws around the world do not force churches or other private institutions to marry gays.
Believe it or not, sometimes laws grant more freedom. That is a weird concept but not all laws restrict freedoms.
My personal opinion is:
If two consenting adults, of sound mind, want to kill each other (or one kill the other), they should be able to choose to do so. That choice should be between them and their moral codes of ethics (or god, or religion, etc.) and not me.
What about my religion? At most, my own personal religion would have me gently talk them out of it and at the least my religion would have my mind my own damn business.
Originally posted by 753
most people who require euthanasia do so because they are physically unable to kill themselves: quadraplegics, people with degenerative diseases, terminal parients who are to weak, etc. if they can ask for help to die, then no one is forcing choices on them at all, because their will is being fulfiled with help, not being contradicted or violated. it is simply absurd to claim otherwise.
I disagree. What I said was correct.
"...you are forcing your choice on the person, anyway: killing them or letting them live is forcing your choice on the person as they no longer have the choice, themselves. Even if a quadraplegic tells you that he/she wants to do, you ultimately have to choose for them."
They cannot make that choice. Sure, you may be fulfilling their will but it is not a choice they can make, for the most part.
Some do commit suicide by simply not eating. That works.