4 ms·
> we should euthanize another human You are shiftinf the topic. This is about self-euthanization, assisted suicide. Not others. > Where do we draw the line?
by teiferer 1y ago
> we should euthanize another human
You are shiftinf the topic. This is about self-euthanization, assisted suicide. Not others.
> Where do we draw the line?
As written elsewhere, having to draw a line does not mean that the only reasonable conclusion is to make it illegal in general. It's a hard topic without easy answers. "Don't allow it" is an easy answer that doesn't do justice to the topics complexity.
A good friend of mine passed away a year ago with an incurable disease, diagnosed 3 months before his death, and it was essentially guaranteed that he'd have to endure unbelievable suffering during the last weeks of those months. He didn't have the choice to end it early. It was heartbreaking.
I for my part hope that I can choose myself when the time has come.
- firesteelrain 1y agoIt is not really a shift. The slippery slope is the heart of the debate. Once assisted suicide is allowed, the line between respecting autonomy and others making that decision blurs. Safeguards may help, but asking where to draw the line is the central problem.
- dxdm 1y agoI'm not arguing either side, but I'd like to note that human societies have been drawing various lines dealing with the legal and ethical issues surrounding the death of other people in various stages of age, competency and guilt, usually without descending into a free-for-all killing frenzy. When things get bad, it was usually not the drawing of lines that did it, but the intention and underlying stance on the rights and indeed humanity of others. The line is not what makes the slope slippery, but a pervasive lack of empathy seems to do it. We also know that bad actors do not care about lines much. So I think that slippery slope is not a powerful argument on its own.
- LorenPechtel 1y agoWhere do we have an example of the medical community engaging in any sort of slippery slope in this regard? The politicians, yes. Auschwitz may return but it won't be voluntary.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 1718627440 1y agoKZs were supported by the medical community and were very fruitful for research since the experiments couldn't and still can't be replicated elsewhere.
- anigbrowl 1y agoYes it. You are not the arbiter of what the heart of the debate is.
- firesteelrain 1y agoI am freely able to set the tone and make arguments wherever I see fit in responding
- anigbrowl 1y agoSure, but it's obvious that many don't agree with your views.
- firesteelrain 1y agoI am not sure the point of your comment. Do you have anything to add to the discussion? My parent comment has driven alot of valuable discussion (other than your comment)
- anigbrowl 1y agoPerhaps you find the replies to bait 'valuable.'
- firesteelrain 1y agoYou literally co-authored a paper on how online communities handle conflict, and yet here you are generating a textbook example for your own citations. At least you’re staying on-brand.
- anigbrowl 1y agoI didn't co-author it, I just think people should read it. Impressive projection, though.
- isodev 1y agoMy body my choice. And I shouldn’t have to justify my choice. I’m not sure if it’s country specific or religion based, but certain groups really can’t grasp the fact that we have agency over our bodies and how we live (or not).