Number 4 from the top is Soviet Marshal Aleksandr Vasilevsky.
Physician Assisted Suicide (kevorking)
-
On 2002-05-08 11:36, Yanny wrote:
If I was in pain, I’d shoot myself, I wouldn’t ask someone else to do it.The point I’m trying to make, is if you start letting doctors kill those who want to die, you start yourself down a slippery slope of human life devaluation.
I totally agree with horten about Euthanasia being a cowards way out.
-
with regards to the comment about the dutch, yourbuttocks is not far off. I’ve heard and read a little too much about the elderly being “euthanized” against their will.
re: The point I’m trying to make, is if you start letting doctors kill those who want to die, you start yourself down a slippery slope of human life devaluation.
The “slippery slope” argument, although obviously valid in your mind, is not a good philosophical argument as one can apply it to any circumstance (“what? you’re increasing the size of the police force? are you going to execute jaywalkers next?” - is a bizaare example of the ss arguement gone awry - all one has to do is demonstrate that the slope may be easily interrupted, and it vanishes altogether).
As a student, i mercifully have not been put in a situation of being asked to euthanize a patient, and my stomach recoils violently at the idea. Although “heroic measures” are too often employed unnecessarily, even pulling the plug is a painful consideration for many doctors.
I think that medical society needs to look at improved palliation methods before it seeks to start killing patients “legally and ethically”.
Having said all that, I do plan to get my hands on a syringe and a vial of KCl just in case . . . :smile: -
The problem I see is where greed comes in. What happens when that old guy who costs 3,000 a day to keep alive runs out of money? By law, the Hospital must eat the costs. So, fake a few forms, kill him, and don’t eat the costs.
-
you know yanny, i think that happens more than you know. Usually the person wants to die or is brain dead (clinically dead). Of course the family can’t accept that the personhood does not exist anymore - it’s just a biological machine. Ultimately someone gives the order to pull the plug irrespective of the poor widow(er) who can’t live without the dead old guy/girl
-
Suicide is worthless. I would much rather die in pain and suffering with my courage and honor in my hands than to pull the plug and have my courage and honor flushed down the toilet. There might be a few occasions where PAS might be justified, but there are too many justifications to be made. If suicide were the answer to everything, we would all be dead and all knowledge would be obtained without having a chance to use it.
-
On 2002-05-08 17:17, cystic crypt wrote:
with regards to the comment about the dutch, yourbuttocks is not far off. I’ve heard and read a little too much about the elderly being “euthanized” against their will.
Thanks for the confirmation
The “slippery slope” argument, although obviously valid in your mind, is not a good philosophical argument as one can apply it to any circumstance (“what? you’re increasing the size of the police force? are you going to execute jaywalkers next?” -
The slippery slope argument is valid when a clear procession of descent is apparent: (first, those who wish to die are Euthanised, then those who are non-coherent [coma] are Euthanised, and then those who the doctors believe should die, but want to live, are euthanised, and so on.)
-
Yanny wrote: What happens when that old guy who costs 3,000 a day to keep alive runs out of money? By law, the Hospital must eat the costs. So, fake a few forms, kill him, and don’t eat the costs.
Well, that’s easy. The system is called public health insurance g, then the guy won’t run out of money, and best: make it compulsory (spelling?). But of course, these are ideas many of you would consider communism. g
-
“The slippery slope argument is valid when a clear procession of descent is apparent: (first, those who wish to die are Euthanised, then those who are non-coherent [coma] are Euthanised, and then those who the doctors believe should die, but want to live, are euthanised, and so on.” - yourbuttocks
Again i must disagree. For a physician there is a world of difference between a pt whose lungs are filled with metastatic CA wanting to be extubated and killed softly vs. a person in a metabolic/non-brainstem coma with a real chance of surviving who hasn’t expressed their wishes yet. The slippery slope argument can’t apply when two things are not on the same continuum.
If you WANT it to apply, try something like - First 89 y/o with mets to the lungs wants to be extubated. Then 68 y/o with ms wants the easy way out. Then blah blah blah. Then a 22 y/o with no clinical signs of depression or any other disease tells me that he’s done living and would i prescribe something for him/help him die. Now this is a philosophical doozy.
(note: not wishing to be antagonistic, but i’ve seen the “slippery slope” argument misapplied too often, and it appears that the philosophy communittee is distancing themselves from it as a valid arguement) -
The problem I see with your argument against SS is that you are assuming all doctors have your sensebilities. Now I understand you know more doctors/ more about doctors than I do. But when you talk about the average doctor, you’re talking from a very personal place. You have sensebilities that keep you from, for example, working in an abortion clinic.
The doctors I am afraid of falling down the slippery slope is those who baisically have, but are not practicing their beliefs because of the law. If there are plenty of doctors willing to kill babies, what chance do the medically disadvantaged have?
-
If someone wants to kill themselves, there are several ways that they can do this on their own. No need to give the doctor the right to kill them or to make the doctor do so. If you joined your proffession to help people get well, (and went through a lot of school as well), You would be in an awkward situation if you were told to kill someone. Could you make a choice like that(PAS)? I don’t think I could.
-
On 2002-05-09 10:08, Usul513 wrote:
No need to give the doctor the right to kill them
Exactly
-
Either way you look at it, killing yourself shouldn’t be an option. There are going to be tough times in a persons life. They need to learn how to deal with them, because in the end it will make them a better person. PAS should only be used when a threat to society is evident. Some type of virus that spreads very quickly, I can see killing someone for the better of society, but no rampid virus, no suicide.
-
On 2002-05-10 18:46, Disclaimer wrote:
I can see killing someone for the better of society,
Again, where do you think hitler started?
-
Hitler started by killing people because of the way they looked and what they believed in; not because of a deadly virus
-
On 2002-05-10 19:00, Disclaimer wrote:
Hitler started by killing people because of the way they looked and what they believed in; not because of a deadly virus
Hitler called the Jewish people a plauge which had infected Germany and brought it to it’s knees. Its another slippery slope. Just look at the burning synagouges in France
-
Didn’t know that. Thanks for the new found knowledge.
-
Disclaimer, unfortunately I have to completely disagree with you on that one. Allowing the killing of people for “public saftey” opens the door to a lot of sh*t. What happens when some corrupt leader wants to kill off all those with Aids?
Personally, the only time I would allow killing off a virus like that is when it is something that could be contained by a nuclear blast. Otherwise, it’s useless, you wouldnt erraticate the virus.
-
Don’t disagree with me unfortionatly yanny. I am here to add my input and gain knowledge. If you can prove me wrong, all the better. First of all, we know that AIDS is not a major virus that spreads like wildfire. I forget the name of the Micheal Criton (sp) book about the virus that almost kills everyone. I think it is the Abdominal Strain or something to that effect. All I am saying is if we can kill people for the better of society (capital punishment), then why not extend that technique do diseases.
-
On 2002-05-10 19:34, Disclaimer wrote:
All I am saying is if we can kill people for the better of society (capital punishment), then why not extend that technique do diseases.
Exactly why neither (PAS nor Capital Punishment,or even abortion) should not be legal. You’re falling onto a slippery slope right in the middle of this forum. What about entire nations? You get Nazism, Stalinism, and so on.
-
On 2002-05-10 19:52, yourbuttocks wrote:
Exactly why neither (PAS nor Capital Punishment,or even abortion) should not be legal. You’re falling onto a slippery slope right in the middle of this forum. What about entire nations? You get Nazism, Stalinism, and so on.Agreed. I have never been for either of the three although there are some justifications about why one would choose that answer.
Suggested Topics
