3 ms·
Although I'm pro-euthanasia in a medical sense, I don't think it's fair to dismiss GP's comment like that. There was definitely substance to it, and that substa
by jazoom 8y ago
Although I'm pro-euthanasia in a medical sense, I don't think it's fair to dismiss GP's comment like that. There was definitely substance to it, and that substance is worth thinking about, even if you sit on the other side of the fence.
If you disagree, say why you disagree. Don't just say "your viewpoint has no substance".
- SilasX 8y agoI agree. Maybe I’m ignorant, but I’d never thought about the topic that way, about the bind it puts the doctor in when you say you want to die, and how that interplays with the impact on mental health. I also think the comment was a succinct way to communicate that insight.
- jazoom 8y agoI'm particularly fond of succinct insights. It gives you time to think. Paragraphs of disclaimers and apologies distract from insights IMHO.
- dang 8y agoIt's not a question of disagreeing. That comment was glib and reductionist. People need to do better than that here, especially on divisive topics. The replies to my objection were far more substantive than the original comment, proving that this is easy enough to do if people want to.
- jazoom 8y agoThose replies also appreciated that "glib and reductionist" comment.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- SilasX 8y agoMy rephrasing of the insight took about 3x as many words; it's generally a good thing when you can convey the same insight with fewer. I get what you mean about trite, inflammatory comments, but I don't think the one you're objecting to qualifies. It points out a non-obvious implication of accepting someone's request to die. I see a clear difference between that and something like, "sure, let everyone who feels hopeless die, that sure saves money on people who aren't worth saving!".