4 ms·
This is the most aggressively anti-human thing I have ever seen, possibly even more than ISIS or cartel executions, because at least the perpetrators of those a
by mooseburger 7y ago
This is the most aggressively anti-human thing I have ever seen, possibly even more than ISIS or cartel executions, because at least the perpetrators of those atrocities know that they are doing evil, even if they're unrepentant, which is more than can be said of the doctors in this situation.
I have been suicidally depressed, institutionalized. I'm better now. I suppose if I actually attempted to kill myself, but failed, paramedics that find me ought to let me go, or perhaps even finish me off if, say, I am in agony due to the method I used? Why wouldn't they, since after all, I've clearly chosen to die of my own free will? Yet, I now know that I was mistaken during my depression. Life is not about hedonism, not about maximizing pleasure experienced, which inevitably, inexorably, leads one to the conclusion that if there's just not a lot of enjoyment in one's life, and this has been persistent, then perhaps checking out is a good idea?
The path an individual life may take is unknowable, both to society and to an individual themself, even if the individual has attempted suicide. Negate this, and all human rights are instantly negated, as now all there is, is predicting who might be better off dead, as there is after all, no point in prolonging their existence, and they should be encouraged or gently nudged to at least consider the path of least suffering, because this will end their pain and decrease the overall suffering of the humanity. This is all because we have deluded ourselves into thinking that we and they know how their lives will play out. We do not, and no one knows, and therefore they must have certain rights, to maximize the near infinite potentiality of the individual human.
Society and government must not ever approve of this. I didn't believe euthanasia (and this is euthanasia, the real case is even worse than the original story) in the case of the terminally ill was a slippery slope, but then we get this case, seemingly out of nowhere, from an ostensibly enlightened, progressive, European country. I now see that making exceptions for the terminally ill is not safe, it just won't stop there.
And why is the approval of the laws and society sought anyway? Suicide is a mechanically trivial action. You can literally order poison hemlock off Amazon, no assistance is needed, and anyone committed to kill themselves obviously has no regard for their society, as they plan to deprive their community of any benefit they could have given it. Therefore, they should not expect society to sanction their ill-considered desires.
Dostoevsky predicted all of this 150 years ago. Read Crime and Punishment if you disagree with me, yet deign to consider yourself an intelligent, educated person.
- microcolonel 7y ago> This is the most aggressively anti-human thing I have ever seen, possibly even more than ISIS or cartel executions, because at least the perpetrators of those atrocities know that they are doing evil, even if they're unrepentant, which is more than can be said of the doctors in this situation. I think you'll find that ISIS executioners believe that they are doing the right thing.
- mooseburger 7y agoNo, not even they. A good thing is something you would visit upon all humanity, and while they may potentially wish to do so to all infidels, they would not wish to do it to their faithful.
- voxic11 7y agoAre you saying force-feeding people who don't want to be fed is ethical? I believe it's taught to be against medical ethics basically everywhere. This girl had been confined against her will already for 6 years. How many years of force-feeding would you have her endure as well? Go look up how force-feeding is done, I believe the summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture contained some descriptions.
- DanBC 7y agoForce feeding is ethical if someone doesn't have capacity to make the decision and doesn't have an advance directive in place. It's likely that she did have capacity to make that decision, which is why the courts didn't intervene.
- mooseburger 7y agoYes! Everything must be done to preserve a life. Imagine instead of starving herself, she had slit her wrists. Do you believe the correct case then is to allow her to bleed out? Because that would be the exact same situation, only with the tiny, inconsequential detail that a different method was chosen.
- toomanybeersies 7y ago