Euthanasia - Your Views?
-
Anyway, if the the laws approve euthanasia, me and one of my fren will open a funeral service company, sure to earn money.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
if God gives you lemons, you make lemonades.
So you are in constant pain, and God decides your time is not up yet, and suicide is wrong.
Or...
If God gives you lemons, you find a new God.
your God think suicide is wrong. you decide to believe in something else.
Yeah, exactly. I'm not trying to attack religion or anything, but I fear if we discuss an ethical issue on the basis of religious doctrines - that God is the end all and be all of everything, there will be a problem of coverage in the ethical theory that is derived from that basis. Well, for starters, not everyone beliefs in God. It is different from say arguing the issue from a Utilitarian perspective. Although one may think Utilitarianism is full of crap, but through persuasion, one can argue for Utilitarianism over say Ethical Egoism, as we are confronted with two categorical ideas. But God, the belief of God is an act of faith, faith is not an idea. When we channel to make faith an idea, then we are in danger of superimposing our faith upon others.
I think to have as near an objective argument on this issue, keep religion out of it.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
I am horrified by your view...speechless!
All i can say is that if that is the law, then let me the first one in line for your gas chamber. I am no Einstein, my IQ is nowhere near his. I alone cannot afford to take care of myself, for i need society to build schools, provide teachers, create jobs, etc for me. By your defination, i too, am a retard.
by looking after oneself, i am meaning the basic ability to buy things and earn money.if the "mentally handicapped" in question cannot do stuffs beyond shitting, peeing and eating, how is he or she going to survive once their parents are gone?
its still ok to be physically handicapped. they can still support themselves with the assistance of the welfare organisations. do handicrafts, admin etc. they know how to seek aid.
but with severe mental retardness, (which often come along with severe physical defects), and note: i'm talking about the severely retarded, with very low IQ. they are the people who are totally unable to care and fend for themselves if left alone. ppl who dunoe how to operate a simple lock and key, and end up trapped in their homes.
there are also the ones who can't speak, can't walk, and had to depend on someone to spoonfeed them. how do u imagine they will survive on their own? and do u want to live 50-70 yrs in this sort of living conditions?
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
there are also the ones who can't speak, can't walk, and had to depend on someone to spoonfeed them. how do u imagine they will survive on their own? and do u want to live 50-70 yrs in this sort of living conditions?
the thing is if its us you're talking about we understand whats going on, we know what Euthanasia is, but if its a retard person you're talking about they don't, that's close to murder. its even possible someone retarded don't know they're retarded.
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
the thing is if its us you're talking about we understand whats going on, we know what Euthanasia is, but if its a retard person you're talking about they don't, that's close to murder. its even possible someone retarded don't know they're retarded.
there's voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia.you are talking about the first. the second should also be discussed
-
seesm to me that people here are not very keen to see people die in a dignified or more humane way.. that's my view judging from the comments..
-
Those who accept the proposal for Youth In Asia, please put up your hands.
-
Originally posted by Catholicuser:
seesm to me that people here are not very keen to see people die in a dignified or more humane way.. that's my view judging from the comments..
humane's a personal view. unless you're getting tortured or beaten to death i don't see whats inhumane about it. at the end of the day i strongly feel euthanasia should be a personal choice.and i'm personally against involuntary euthanasia.
its one thing to switch of the life support system of a dying person, its another entirely to make the choice of putting down another living being because you think you're doing good.
humans aside, i'm not very fond of animals doubt i'm going to be a vegan soon but whenever i read about people putting down pet i always go wtf. i rather choose staving/suffering out there than get put down out of "goodwill".
-
my two cents:
beyond physical suffering, there is also dignity to be considered. not being able to pee on command, having fecal matter kept in a bag beside you (as in colon-rectal cancer) all the time, depending on others for financial support, is quite degrading, for me at least.
most opponents of Euthanasia claim:
the act of legalising Euthanasia itself cheapens the value of life.
There is no difference between suffering at the end of life and suffering in the middle of life, why is there assymetry between our views on suicide and euthanasia? Is there a threshold of physical and emotional suffering, maybe as bad as terminal illness that, once crossed, would justify a person's suicide morally?
pondering the above points, i'm sure people have answers out there. Anyway, no philosophical school of thought is totally crap. although skeptism comes close, because not being sure about anything sounds pretty darn sure!
-
Originally posted by Gnasher:
most opponents of Euthanasia claim:
the act of legalising Euthanasia itself cheapens the value of life.
There is no difference between suffering at the end of life and suffering in the middle of life, why is there assymetry between our views on suicide and euthanasia? Is there a threshold of physical and emotional suffering, maybe as bad as terminal illness that, once crossed, would justify a person's suicide morally?
then i think those who value life so much should start turning vegan but only eat fruits to prevent taking of any lives. life's value depends on the person living it and not based on some guy with a PHD's views.
-
Our govt values talent if they can contribute to the society. The moment these people becomes old, vegetable and can't contribute to the society, our govt's views on them changes.
Our govt's stand is always a pragmatic approach. Good or bad, it is debatable. Sometimes, I feel too calculative over certain areas.
BTW, we already have the Advanced Standing Act in placed. One can gives power to a close relative on how to response upon one's losses of mental faculty. For example, if one contracts mad cow desease, doesn't response to medicine and reaches the advanced stage, the Act can be invoked. Isn't this a form of euthanasia? -
Well, if anything, the views on this thread show a diversity of views regarding the issue.
But if it is about policy we are talking about, we should be asking ourselves what are the objectives of the policy?
Honestly, I don't buy the crap that overnight the government has decided to endow us with the individual right of deciding life over death.
Someone has mentioned the economic merits behind this discussion? Legalization of euthanasia - a new niche industry? I mean I'm not suggesting that is the the truth pure and simple, rather, what I mean instead of engaging in open ended philosophical tirades, let us ask the right practical questions for a state like ours that has operated upon 'practicalism'.
From there, we can then delve into ascertaining if the ends that are being seek for the proposed legalization of euthanasia in our country is acceptable for us as a society.
-
come on, we are not talking as if there will be compulsory euthanasia when you become old and "worthless"
we are talking about giving people a choice over their life.
it will be up to people whether they want to continue living, in voluntary euthanasia. you can have a choice to remain alive.
I think it is not very fair to force people to continue living when they really dun want to.
for terminal stage patients, the pain from chemo etc, are very painful. heard from friends with cancer relatives, that people at that stage are so tormented by pain that they sometimes scream out at night while sleeping.
yes, the docs can sustain ur life for as long as possible, but are you sure you want to live that long? maybe just long enough to see your will done up, but nothing more than that, i guess.
you are bed-ridden. you have no hope of recovery. you are always in great pain. breathing is a torture to you. you are going to die, leaving a mountain of debt for your family, when that money could be better spent on something else, like, education for your child. (the hospital bills, regardless of whether there's subsidy or not, is certainly not cheap, nor affordable, if you are to stay in hospital for more than a month).
in this sort of scenario, it will be better off for the patient if he or she is allowed to die, to die in dignity, where everything is still in his control. in other words, he or she won't æ»å¾—很难看。
i'm sure people want to die looking their best, if not, their second best. no one wants to die looking horrible, (with sores, amputated limbs etc.)
-
Originally posted by Quincey:
Well, if anything, the views on this thread show a diversity of views regarding the issue.
But if it is about policy we are talking about, we should be asking ourselves what are the objectives of the policy?
Honestly, I don't buy the crap that overnight the government has decided to endow us with the individual right of deciding life over death.
Someone has mentioned the economic merits behind this discussion? Legalization of euthanasia - a new niche industry? I mean I'm not suggesting that is the the truth pure and simple, rather, what I mean instead of engaging in open ended philosophical tirades, let us ask the right practical questions for a state like ours that has operated upon 'practicalism'.
From there, we can then delve into ascertaining if the ends that are being seek for the proposed legalization of euthanasia in our country is acceptable for us as a society.
I won't be too fast to advocate "practicalism" if I were you. Its a double edged sword.
Its DAMN practical for government to encourage every busines to hire cheap foreign worker also. Practical to keep costs down, not practical to us Singaporean don't you think?
Besides, utilitarians are known to be so practical that they think that the ends justify the means. Imagine if they say they wanna erect more ERP gantries in order for the country to survive the economic crises... the means, kill us poor Singaporeans financialy, is better than Singapore collapse. People to tend to make decisions too fast in Practicalism and not consider alternatives.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I won't be too fast to advocate "practicalism" if I were you. Its a double edged sword.
Its DAMN practical for government to encourage every busines to hire cheap foreign worker also. Practical to keep costs down, not practical to us Singaporean don't you think?
Besides, utilitarians are known to be so practical that they think that the ends justify the means. Imagine if they say they wanna erect more ERP gantries in order for the country to survive the economic crises... the means, kill us poor Singaporeans financialy, is better than Singapore collapse. People to tend to make decisions too fast in Practicalism and not consider alternatives.
so are you advocating a rights-based approach to this issue? Using that approach, people should, intuitively, have the right to free themselves from needless suffering, especially in terminal cases. people should also have the right to dignity in death. but do these rights equate to the not so intuitive right to end one's own life? Is it a "categorical imperative", or moral duty to end the life of someone suffering needlessly before death, or isn't it? Someone has brought this up before, but when you watch movies, especially war ones, sometimes some soldier gets horribly maimed and asks his comrade to kill him. most pple feel sad, but not many pple's intuitive reaction is one of moral disapproval.beyond the more utilitarian concerns of abuses and children killing their parents, is it a person's right to die when he wants?
-
Originally posted by Gnasher:
beyond the more utilitarian concerns of abuses and children killing their parents, is it a person's right to die when he wants?
its almost that way already, unless you're the type to tell everyone before you make the jump. no one can stop you if no one knows right?
-
I am evoking practicalism, for practicalism's own sake, for inevitably that is the road we will be made to take in considering any decision. Like the two child policy, was the issue considered from a moral stand point? Ethics was only left to reflect on the decision's aftermath after the administration considered the whole issue from a practical stand point.
Since it is from this 'psyche' from which policies arise, it will do us well to consider the motivations behind this so-called practical approach to things. For, what rights do we have to talk about, if rights were not considered in the first place? Rights do not supercede practical needs, practical needs trump rights, at least that is how it works here. Of course, like you, I think it is a huge mistake to see things that way.
But lets say if behind this policy, a hypothetical entity called A decided to go ahead with voluntary euthanasia on the account that the country is over-populated or a hypothetical 'Vet-Nation' who sells euthanasia because of the need to harness more organs for transplant, a very practical approach, now wouldn't the whole debate on rights or the coverage of collective rights fall short of rebutting or supporting the original justification?
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
its almost that way already, unless you're the type to tell everyone before you make the jump. no one can stop you if no one knows right?
Yes, that is true, but the same can be said of a person suffering now. overdose on a bottle of sleeping pills and end the misery. children can sneak into the hopsital and unplug their parent's life-support. Many things can happen in real life, but for the sake of argument, and also for the societal recognition that comes with a law, we should pursue the matter in principle, whether practically, rights-based or some other form of ethical model. Is Euthanasia "right" or "wrong". Utilitarianly, it must be argued by considering the positive and negative consequences of allowing euthansia. On the other hand, in terms of rights, it must be decided if euthanasia is a right, and should be allowed or disallowed regardless of the consequences.
-
Originally posted by Quincey:
I am evoking practicalism, for practicalism's own sake, for inevitably that is the road we will be made to take in considering any decision. Like the two child policy, was the issue considered from a moral stand point? Ethics was only left to reflect on the decision's aftermath after the administration considered the whole issue from a practical stand point.
Since it is from this 'psyche' from which policies arise, it will do us well to consider the motivations behind this so-called practical approach to things. For, what rights do we have to talk about, if rights were not considered in the first place? Rights do not supercede practical needs, practical needs trump rights, at least that is how it works here. Of course, like you, I think it is a huge mistake to see things that way.
But lets say if behind this policy, a hypothetical entity called A decided to go ahead with voluntary euthanasia on the account that the country is over-populated or a hypothetical 'Vet-Nation' who sells euthanasia because of the need to harness more organs for transplant, a very practical approach, now wouldn't the whole debate on rights or the coverage of collective rights fall short of rebutting or supporting the original justification?
Right, most people, other than some ah bengs and ah lians and souless heathens like the despots, think "it is a huge mistake to see things that way"
Euthanasia is just crapz.... without "ideals"; without "honour"; without "dreams"; to live life to simply "eat" "sleep" "sh!t" and "fark".... that is just sad...
-
Besides, utilitarians are known to be so practical that they think that the ends justify the means. Imagine if they say they wanna erect more ERP gantries in order for the country to survive the economic crises... the means, kill us poor Singaporeans financialy, is better than Singapore collapse. People to tend to make decisions too fast in Practicalism and not consider alternatives.
I find it amusing you think that that erecting more ERP gantries will kill us poor Singaporeans financially. That means you feel a car on an island 32 km at its widest point is a neccesity?
Quincey said it best. Rights do not trump practical needs, practical needs trump rights hands down. I supposed it speaks much of how comfortable economically we are doing when we feel being an idealist is better than being a pragmatist.
Euthanasia is just crapz.... without "ideals"; without "honour"; without "dreams"; to live life to simply "eat" "sleep" "sh!t" and "fark".... that is just sad
Believe me, when the only thing left you can do in life is lay on a bed eating through a tube, with the only thing you can do is sleep and shit you won't be thinking about ideals, honour or dreams.
I have a suspicion that only your suppposedly ah bengs/ah lians will believe otherwise, rather than what you suggest.
-
utilitarianism is an ethical theory that all action should be directed toward achieving greatest happiness for the greatest number of people - the belief that the value of a thing, a life, or action must and should be determined by its utility.
Egalitarianism is the affirmation, promotion of the belief in equal political, economic, social and civil rights for all people.
Should human life be considered an utility, a tool to be used and then discarded when its 'use by' date runs out? After all, 'pratical needs truimphs rights'.
The old, the retarded, the useless, the less than intelligent humans, the ugly, the fat, the stinkers, smokers, prostitutes, gays, deviants, mormans, conspiracy theorists, etc, etc, should be killed so that a society be kept pure, in the pursuit of 'practical needs'.
We would have difficulty communicating with those of different lingo. Lets kill them as well.
We would have difficulty in asimilating with different skin colours. Lets kill the blacks, the yellows, the browns, etc.
We would have difficulty accepting different religions. Lets kill them too.We would have difficulty living with people with different temperament. Lets kill them.
We would have difficulty sharing a space with someone whom we dislke. Lets kill them.Look around and see who's left?
That's the consequences when we allow 'practical needs to overide rights'. Utilitarianism is only good up to a certain point. When we apply utiltarianism to life itself, we will be in deep shit.Today we talk about legalised ethanasia. Tomorrow, who will go next? The Pandora box of 'Practical needs' had been opened, and it can never be covered back.
Logically, scientifically and mathematically, utilitarianism will lead mankind into a higher plane of existance,to understand the universe and harness its energies to save mankind, for we would have discarded 'baggages' whom will only stop us from evolving faster.
But Utilitarianism will ultimately destroy mankind instead, for in the search of perfection, we flawed humans will only kill each other. The last human life will save no one.
Better we accept egalitarianism, and together, leaving none behind, move towards our ultimate destiny to evolve and populate the stars. We may not do so in this generation, but the next or the following ones will be able to do so, with none need to have their life prematuredly ended.
------------------------------------------------------
The invalid lying on the bed suffers more from depression than pain. No human wants to die.
They need pyschological help, not the needle to end life. Every moment of his/her life is precious during their lucid moments - to be able to see a new dawn, the smell of planet earth's air, fellow humans, etc.
They want to know the results of their achievements - plans, children, grandchildren, etc, before leaving this planet for the great unknown - a place where no person had ever returned before.
What lies there, no one knows, despite our brave front and false bravados. No human wants to die. The plea for death is only a wish for attention to alleviate their pain, depression and loneliness.
So you want to murder them instead?
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
wonder why the givernment now seeks such an active role indiscussing the issue of euthanasia, when the western countries are no longer so interested in the issue. the issue of euthanasia is somewhat active 5 years ago, so we are 5 yrs behind the western country.
so excluding the possibility that "euthanasia" is the hot global discussion topic, is there any reason behind the gahmen's sudden interest in euthanasia?
The organ trading discussion starts only after the CK Tang kidney trading case.
so do you think that this "revived" interest in euthanasia has anything to do with Mrs MM Lee staying in a coma?
we are more than 5 years behind the 1st world western countries, we are 2 worlds behind them!
-
I rather not quote you Xtreyier, because i do not want my post to be unneccesarily long.
But we live in a universe where resources are finite.
The human spirit, no matter how noble we feel ourselves to be do not possess the ability to counteract that rule. We talk about nobility and honour only when resources are abundant.
I don't get the obsession with insisting that Euthanasia will lead to murder. But if i get hit by a dehabiliting disease I want to be given the choice of chosing death.
I find nothing noble in extending it when it's obvious the time extended will give me no quality of life. It forces my children to take care of me, and even to burn their resources paying for my bills.
And quite frankly, i feel it rather ironic you're preaching pro life when a while back you're wanting war against Iran for something that wasn't their fault to begin with.
You're obviously well educated judging by your posts but you lack the life experiences to make good use of your education.
-
ya. i agree.
legalising euthanasia allows one to take his or her life legally. likewise, one also have a choice to remain alive.
if you are a pious person, you too can have a choice not to exercise ur freedom to euthanise yourself.
we are talking about people who do really want to put an end to their torment.
-
Victims of torture. To end thier suffering after having all the information... euthanise him.
Why suffer ?