Yep you are right that we don't have a choice.
The least we could do is eat healthier and live a healthier lifestyle.
Anyway the goverment passed this act on financial grounds. And ethics will always have 2 sides of the story since it's based on ones own ethical viewpoint. So everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
As long as the religious issue don't compromise their policitical power, why should the goverment be too bothered about their opinion since there will always be people for and against this issue?
Just let them pass the act in parliment. Are the people opposing it simply because it's against their religion, or do they feel that it would not benefit the people who opt for euthanasia?
From what i understand. U need to entrust your son with the authority to decide whether he wants to let u go when you are still reasonably sound. If you don't, he can't do a thing to you.
Correct me if i'm wrong coz i don't follow this thing closely
I agree with you each is free to choose his own way of life.
However, I think it will be hard for me to sit here and do nothing if government intends to pass a law that say my son is not committing any crime if he chooses to kill me when he feels that his pocket is hurting.
===
Yep you are right that we don't have a choice.
The least we could do is eat healthier and live a healthier lifestyle.
Anyway the goverment passed this act on financial grounds. And ethics will always have 2 sides of the story since it's based on ones own ethical viewpoint. So everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
As long as the religious issue don't compromise their policitical power, why should the goverment be too bothered about their opinion since there will always be people for and against this issue?
Just let them pass the act in parliment. Are the people opposing it simply because it's against their religion, or do they feel that it would not benefit the people who opt for euthanasia?
I don't know either.
If I am well, I will not entrust my son any authority to kill me.
If I am very sick, I will not do so either.
But I don't think I will do nothing if a law is enacted such that at some point in time, the law says my son can make that decision for me (ie kill me) because I am "too sick", but more importantly because my son's pocket is being hurt.
===
From what i understand. U need to entrust your son with the authority to decide whether he wants to let u go when you are still reasonably sound. If you don't, he can't do a thing to you.
Correct me if i'm wrong coz i don't follow this thing closely
I thought current practices of euthanasia require a doctor to verify you're of clear mind and that your current condition is incurable? Not to mention that it must be a doctor to administer the lethal injection.
I wouldn't support the idea that my child can just kill me and declare that it was euthanasia. But i don't think that's what the government have in mind. That's just asking for the murder rate to spike.
Assuming all euthanasia is done in the hospital.
It makes senses that euthanasia should perform under the witness of the love ones, doctor and an official that there is no discrepancy.
If your body is ripped into 2 by a bomb blast, you are still alive breathing and in alot of pain. Would you rather die fast or enjoy the pain?
I rather have my friend put a bullet thru my head.
I don't know.
See a summary of articles on this subject:
http://projectsday.hci.edu.sg/2003/webreports/cat3/QL10/analysis.htm
Perhaps current pactise is If I leave a living will saying my son is free to kill me (which I won't), then he can do so.
But that is very different from any law that say it is no crime for my son to kill me, especially when he perceives that his wallet will get hurt.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:I thought current practices of euthanasia require a doctor to verify you're of clear mind and that your current condition is incurable? Not to mention that it must be a doctor to administer the lethal injection.
I wouldn't support the idea that my child can just kill me and declare that it was euthanasia. But i don't think that's what the government have in mind. That's just asking for the murder rate to spike.
Yep tat would be the case. If you were of clear mind, would you allow your child to go ahead with it if you don't want to? No mah.
The other issue is that when you are in coma or cannot make a decision, your child has the authority to decide if you pass the authority to him when you are still able to make decisions. (Not very sure on this part though)
Again, you are entitled to your view.
If I am suffering deeply, I hope I will not take the escape route and kill myself.
===
If your body is ripped into 2 by a bomb blast, you are still alive breathing and in alot of pain. Would you rather die fast or enjoy the pain?
I rather have my friend put a bullet thru my head.
The other issue is that when you are in coma or cannot make a decision, your child has the authority to decide if you pass the authority to him when you are still able to make decisions. (Not very sure on this part though)
I think the child only has the authority when the doctor verifies that the patient is brain dead or unlikely to ever wake up from a coma. Even when there's a legal document dictating you want it that way, it's still up to the doctor's call whether it comes into power.
Personally i think it's unfair to your children to make them bear the cost of your medical support when they have no idea of knowing whether you want to go on or not.
It's a massive burden, not to mention they would have to live on with the stigma and guilt that they've murdered their own parents.
Originally posted by ArtBoon:If we assume that history recorded this event correctly, then my view is Rommel was "forced" to kill himself. When someone is "forced", then I think this is not a suicide. This is simply an execution.
In my view, this is different from a situation when the terminally ill patient consiously chooses to kill himself to spare his family from financial burden (by focusing on money).
Rommel is not 'forced' either. He was given a choice. If he wanted he can choose not to take the cyanide and instead go to court, and hope for a legal (or some other) miracle that can save himself and his family.
Likewise, the patient can choose to drain his family financially in the hope that his illness might be 'miraculously' cured. The two cases are quite analogous as far as I am concerned.
Both Rommel and the patient do not want to take their lives, but they were 'forced' by circumstances to make a hard choice.
But then again we can also say that a teenager whose love was unrequited chose to jump down from a 20-storey flat because he is 'forced' by 'circumstances' (rejected by a girl) to kill himself.
The trick is to fine and define the demarcation line between those 'forcing circumstances' that are legitimate (socially, ethically and religiously) from those that are not.
I am not arguing for or against euthanasia... Just tryting to examine the issues more thoroughly.
I am not sure whether if there is an option for court for Rommel. I have no idea what happened then.
If there is an option for court, then certainly Rommel had committed suicide.
I will not commit suicide to take the escape route.
Taking suicide as escape route is different from being killed (through war, execution etc).
Originally posted by ArtBoon:I am not sure whether if there is an option for court for Rommel. I have no idea what happened then.
If there is an option for court, then certainly Rommel had committed suicide.
I will not commit suicide to take the escape route.
Taking suicide as escape route is different from being killed (through war, execution etc).
He had that option. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_rommel) Although the Peoples Court is for all intents and purposes a kangeroo court. He had to weigh the probablity of himself getting a fair trial against the consequence of having his family persecuted if he had been wrong.
I would have done the same thing.
I will try and put myself in Rommel head.
I am presented with 2 options. One is a kangeroo trial and very likely it will lead to death of my family. Another is to take the poison.
In this case, I really have no choice. I hope I will have the courage to take the poison and sacrifice my life for the family.
This is different from suicide (which is take an action to escape from something, eg self pity after rejected by my girl friend)
One of the issues with allowing one the the remaining family members whether or not to be the patient to sleep through Euthanasia is that on the part of distributing the decease's (then a patient) assets. It will be kind of tricky here to ensure it's not due to the wish of wanting the monie that led to the decision of an unnecessary articifial act that leads to death.
I think Rommel's case is not relevant to Euthanasia.
If christians want to use religion as a reason to ban Euthansia, then I can simply bring up one single point to counter them .
Euthansia is a form of self-sacrifice, to relive your family of their burden. If I remember, Jesus commited an act of self-sacrifice right?
In the olden days, when contraception was unavailable. The newborn was put to death by suffocation with a wet towel over the face.
Is modern society more civilise? What is right or wrong is only in the eyes of the beholder.
I am saying I will not want a law to allow my son to legally kill me just because he is trying to save money.
What other people wish to do with their own life (to "sacrifice" for their family) or their love ones' life (to save money) is their choice.
===
Euthansia is a form of self-sacrifice, to relive your family of their burden. If I remember, Jesus commited an act of self-sacrifice right?
If we are discussing abortion, let's do it via another topic?
===
In the olden days, when contraception was unavailable. The newborn was put to death by suffocation with a wet towel over the face.
Is modern society more civilise? What is right or wrong is only in the eyes of the beholder.
Originally posted by yamizi:I think Rommel's case is not relevant to Euthanasia.
Agree. It is not directly relevant.
I just used that case as two extreme scenarios to illustrate when killing oneself is clearly justified (in Rommel's case) and when it is clearly not (killing oneself because of unrequited love). Additionally, there are cases that are somewhere in between the above two extremes (the case of the dying patient)
My point is that to sort out the issue of euthanasia and to achieve social acceptance of a decision (whatever that maybe), there needs to be an accepted litmus test that defines exactly where in the above continuum does an act of killing oneself (as forced by "circumstances") becomes justified.
A dying patient may be draining money for his family.
If he wants to kill himself (or allowed himself to be killed) that is his choice.
But government better NOT come up with a law that say my son can legally kill me even though I have never given him any permission.
I am not talking about abortion, I am stating that a life is taken whether a newborn or a terminally sick
Putting a new born to death is killing that person.