6 ms·

We need to be clear on terms here. Killing someone with a drug intended to stop the heart / prevent respiration is unequivocally euthanasia. Withholding treat

We need to be clear on terms here. Killing someone with a drug intended to stop the heart / prevent respiration is unequivocally euthanasia. Withholding treatments is not euthanasia. Nor is pain medication that hastens death. Those are things we can have an ethical discussion about. As for IV drip.. that's another discussion. I personally would not ever do that. Water is a basic thing for humanity, and should be provided. Unless he explicitly refused the water. Then, that's his choice. I think I ultimately reject the idea that this is not well-understood, because the largest organizations opposed to euthanasia (the Catholic church for example) has given endless thought to this, and explicitly accepts the situation you described. Opponents of euthanasia are not ignorant.

wat10000 2y ago
Why can someone make the choice not to have water in their IV, but can’t make the choice to have a fuckton of morphine in their IV?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think a lot of it comes down to deontological logic and morality versus consequentialist morality. It is recognized that the outcome is the same. The difference lies and how you get there
  - wat10000 2y ago
    I was thinking that the divide probably lines up pretty well with people who think the Trolley Problem is a great moral quandary versus people who think it’s obvious you pull the lever and don’t understand the fuss. Which is basically what you said.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I completely agree. I thought about bringing it up in the post, but opted for brevity. Also, I am genuinely amused that my post is getting downvotes. People are fascinating
- anon291 2y ago
  They can make both choices. But if the person is non responsive and we are left to make a choice, we have to presume they want water. Morphine is debatable
dogman1050 2y ago
Both the lack of hydration and morphine were his choice, and he was lucid. My brother was angry that Dad decided to "give up." I wasn't, but was horrified at the ease with which the staff complied and knew exactly what to do.

wat10000 2y ago

Why can someone make the choice not to have water in their IV, but can’t make the choice to have a fuckton of morphine in their IV?

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think a lot of it comes down to deontological logic and morality versus consequentialist morality. It is recognized that the outcome is the same. The difference lies and how you get there
- wat10000 2y ago
  I was thinking that the divide probably lines up pretty well with people who think the Trolley Problem is a great moral quandary versus people who think it’s obvious you pull the lever and don’t understand the fuss. Which is basically what you said.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I completely agree. I thought about bringing it up in the post, but opted for brevity. Also, I am genuinely amused that my post is getting downvotes. People are fascinating
anon291 2y ago
They can make both choices. But if the person is non responsive and we are left to make a choice, we have to presume they want water. Morphine is debatable

dogman1050 2y ago

Both the lack of hydration and morphine were his choice, and he was lucid. My brother was angry that Dad decided to "give up." I wasn't, but was horrified at the ease with which the staff complied and knew exactly what to do.