4 ms·

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.

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.
- EdSharkey 9y ago
  > I think you're reading too much into a couple sentences typed during my coffee break. Fair point. I impute a lot of selfish motives when I hear what I consider to be ambiguous pro-euthanasia arguments. > 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. I appreciate you trying to corner this argument with some specifics. I can't convince you, but my contention is that mutable laws and under-manned/inept/corrupt officials can never provide the type of sustained protections for the helpless that I think you're envisioning. Just knowing how loop-holey and unjust so much of American law is, I urge caution.

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.

EdSharkey 9y ago
> I think you're reading too much into a couple sentences typed during my coffee break. Fair point. I impute a lot of selfish motives when I hear what I consider to be ambiguous pro-euthanasia arguments. > 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. I appreciate you trying to corner this argument with some specifics. I can't convince you, but my contention is that mutable laws and under-manned/inept/corrupt officials can never provide the type of sustained protections for the helpless that I think you're envisioning. Just knowing how loop-holey and unjust so much of American law is, I urge caution.