4 ms·

> That we don't have Euthanasia in most 'modern' societies I think is insane. An insanely complex and thorny issue, maybe. I would argue that once preserving

> That we don't have Euthanasia in most 'modern' societies I think is insane. An insanely complex and thorny issue, maybe. I would argue that once preserving life is negotiable, a debate on the utility of the elderly and infirmed soon follows. Ruthless bureaucratic directives will simply roll off the tongue like, "maybe your mother should just take a pain pill", if you recall that ol' chestnut from prez. Obama. So, if you want to institutionalize murdering inconvenient people, go ahead and make your case. I'll oppose such self-hating foolishness. If you do get your way, don't be surprised when you're powerless and some bean counter unceremoniously pulls your plug before you're ready to go, just to free up a bed.

noir_lord 9y ago
You didn't so much as step onto that slippery slope as strap on some ski's and make it an Olympic event. > An insanely complex and thorny issue, maybe. So are most major issues society has to deal with. > I would argue that once preserving life is negotiable, a debate on the utility of the elderly and infirmed soon follows. Perhaps but we already have that debate every time the government decides how much money to put into elderly care (hint: In my country (the UK) not as much as they should - Social Care for the elderly is critically underfunded) > So, if you want to institutionalize murdering inconvenient people. Not sure how you got there from my post but for what it is worth, I don't - I want the opinion of the person in sound mind backed up by competent medical professionals to be respected as a matter of body autonomy, We don't get to force surgery on adults of sound mind for example and here in the UK other things are regulated in a similar system - I can choose not to have surgery that will kill me if I don't have it, that's fine but I can't choose the manner of my death, it seems contradictory to me, We put animals that are suffering to sleep because it's humane but we don't extend the same right to humans who are capable of asking for it and yes there are arguments against but nothing is perfect, the question I always ask is "in aggregate does this benefit people" if you wait around for the perfect solution you end up not implementing a 'merely' better one. > If you do get your way, don't be surprised when you're powerless and some bean counter unceremoniously pulls your plug before you're ready to go, just to free up a bed. And if we don't, don't be surprised when the secret Martian master race turn up and harvest your essence....
- EdSharkey 9y ago
  > Perhaps but we already have that debate every time the government decides how much money to put into elderly care (hint: In my country (the UK) not as much as they should - Social Care for the elderly is critically underfunded) Hm, this is not selling me on your system. You've already surrendered your freedoms. Take whatever you can get, I guess? Go strike in the streets if you don't get enough care? I am sorry for you; I just hope we (in the US) don't go your way. > We put animals that are suffering to sleep ... You are merely an animal, then? You have resigned yourself to the meat grinder. I prefer to take a more enlightened view of what it means to be human and how special human life is.
aaronbrethorst 9y ago
Ruthless bureaucratic directives will simply roll off the tongue like, "maybe your mother should just take a pain pill", if you recall that ol' chestnut from prez. Obama. Death panels! http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp
khedoros1 9y ago
If I'm of sound mind and choose to die, then who are you to stop me in the name of "preserving life"? Life has value, but so do personal rights. Every human has the right to life. I don't see any reason that they shouldn't also have the right to decide when to give that right up. > So, if you want to institutionalize murdering inconvenient people, go ahead and make your case. That's the exact opposite of what is being discussed here: Murder is a disgusting violation of personal rights.
- EdSharkey 9y ago
  You can do whatever you want with your body. The law has no control over you ending it all. Do not resuscitate orders and the like are all yours to set, too. Make a will, tell your loved ones what your wishes are so they don't pull the plug prematurely. My disagreement is with killing people. I particularly have a problem with killing people who do not wish to die by withholding care because they're no longer useful, too expensive, etc. This is the institutional murder that I'd like to avoid. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution rather than make blanket "right to die" laws. Right to die laws a) expand like all laws do, and b) get misapplied in tragic ways. The problem of euthanasia is thorny because abstract arguments in-favor are very dangerous. "I don't see any reason that they shouldn't also have the right to decide when to give that right up" is not very specific. I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    > My disagreement is with killing people. I particularly have a problem with killing people who do not wish to die by withholding care because they're no longer useful, too expensive, etc. This is the institutional murder that I'd like to avoid. > I particularly have a problem with killing people who do not wish to die by withholding care because they're no longer useful, too expensive, etc. Me too (and I hope I made that clear in my previous comment). > I'd prefer to err on the side of caution rather than make blanket "right to die" laws. Right to die laws a) expand like all laws do, and b) get misapplied in tragic ways. They seem to work out pretty well in places like Switzerland. > I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person. In the context of an informal online discussion, I don't see the point in agonizing over the exact wording; I feel that my intent was clear enough in the context of the thread. If someone is of a sound mind, and wishes to end their life through euthanasia, they have the right to do it. I don't see the "euthanasia" part itself as the "thorny" bit. The details of determining the individual's mental state (i.e. the method of testing their sanity), documenting that, and preventing abuse of the law. But that's the nature of the law; provide protection for citizen's rights, and preventing abuse of those rights. > I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person. I think you're reading too much into a couple sentences typed during my coffee break.

noir_lord 9y ago

You didn't so much as step onto that slippery slope as strap on some ski's and make it an Olympic event. > An insanely complex and thorny issue, maybe. So are most major issues society has to deal with. > I would argue that once preserving life is negotiable, a debate on the utility of the elderly and infirmed soon follows. Perhaps but we already have that debate every time the government decides how much money to put into elderly care (hint: In my country (the UK) not as much as they should - Social Care for the elderly is critically underfunded) > So, if you want to institutionalize murdering inconvenient people. Not sure how you got there from my post but for what it is worth, I don't - I want the opinion of the person in sound mind backed up by competent medical professionals to be respected as a matter of body autonomy, We don't get to force surgery on adults of sound mind for example and here in the UK other things are regulated in a similar system - I can choose not to have surgery that will kill me if I don't have it, that's fine but I can't choose the manner of my death, it seems contradictory to me, We put animals that are suffering to sleep because it's humane but we don't extend the same right to humans who are capable of asking for it and yes there are arguments against but nothing is perfect, the question I always ask is "in aggregate does this benefit people" if you wait around for the perfect solution you end up not implementing a 'merely' better one. > If you do get your way, don't be surprised when you're powerless and some bean counter unceremoniously pulls your plug before you're ready to go, just to free up a bed. And if we don't, don't be surprised when the secret Martian master race turn up and harvest your essence....

EdSharkey 9y ago
> Perhaps but we already have that debate every time the government decides how much money to put into elderly care (hint: In my country (the UK) not as much as they should - Social Care for the elderly is critically underfunded) Hm, this is not selling me on your system. You've already surrendered your freedoms. Take whatever you can get, I guess? Go strike in the streets if you don't get enough care? I am sorry for you; I just hope we (in the US) don't go your way. > We put animals that are suffering to sleep ... You are merely an animal, then? You have resigned yourself to the meat grinder. I prefer to take a more enlightened view of what it means to be human and how special human life is.

aaronbrethorst 9y ago

Ruthless bureaucratic directives will simply roll off the tongue like, "maybe your mother should just take a pain pill", if you recall that ol' chestnut from prez. Obama. Death panels! http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp

khedoros1 9y ago

If I'm of sound mind and choose to die, then who are you to stop me in the name of "preserving life"? Life has value, but so do personal rights. Every human has the right to life. I don't see any reason that they shouldn't also have the right to decide when to give that right up. > So, if you want to institutionalize murdering inconvenient people, go ahead and make your case. That's the exact opposite of what is being discussed here: Murder is a disgusting violation of personal rights.

EdSharkey 9y ago
You can do whatever you want with your body. The law has no control over you ending it all. Do not resuscitate orders and the like are all yours to set, too. Make a will, tell your loved ones what your wishes are so they don't pull the plug prematurely. My disagreement is with killing people. I particularly have a problem with killing people who do not wish to die by withholding care because they're no longer useful, too expensive, etc. This is the institutional murder that I'd like to avoid. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution rather than make blanket "right to die" laws. Right to die laws a) expand like all laws do, and b) get misapplied in tragic ways. The problem of euthanasia is thorny because abstract arguments in-favor are very dangerous. "I don't see any reason that they shouldn't also have the right to decide when to give that right up" is not very specific. I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  > My disagreement is with killing people. I particularly have a problem with killing people who do not wish to die by withholding care because they're no longer useful, too expensive, etc. This is the institutional murder that I'd like to avoid. > I particularly have a problem with killing people who do not wish to die by withholding care because they're no longer useful, too expensive, etc. Me too (and I hope I made that clear in my previous comment). > I'd prefer to err on the side of caution rather than make blanket "right to die" laws. Right to die laws a) expand like all laws do, and b) get misapplied in tragic ways. They seem to work out pretty well in places like Switzerland. > I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person. In the context of an informal online discussion, I don't see the point in agonizing over the exact wording; I feel that my intent was clear enough in the context of the thread. If someone is of a sound mind, and wishes to end their life through euthanasia, they have the right to do it. I don't see the "euthanasia" part itself as the "thorny" bit. The details of determining the individual's mental state (i.e. the method of testing their sanity), documenting that, and preventing abuse of the law. But that's the nature of the law; provide protection for citizen's rights, and preventing abuse of those rights. > I am therefore assuming you are a very dangerous, if well-meaning, person. I think you're reading too much into a couple sentences typed during my coffee break.