cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
The government imposes beliefs on people all the time. That's what governments do.
cg, you know better than that. It has to have a reason to do so first. A reason that would protect or benefit some portion of it's citizens first.cgannon64 said:The government imposes beliefs on people all the time. That's what governments do.
Is assisting a terminaly ill person to die on their own terms helping a suicide? I think that is a big streach.cgannon64 said:Keeping citizens from suicide sounds like a damn good reason to me.
Unless you have a nonstandard definition of the word "suicide," yes, it is.Kayak said:Is assisting a terminaly ill person to die on their own terms helping a suicide? I think that is a big streach.
What if a 22-year old is convinced that his life is not worth living, that it will be nothing but (spiritual/emotional) suffering from then on out? Does he have the right to a physician-assisted suicide?El Machinae said:People don't have the right to commit suicide? Even if they've consulted professionals and do not believe that their life is worth living, and the professional admits that nothing could be done to allay their beliefs?
Because that doesn't make any sense.How can they not have the right to sacrifice themselves for the good of ... themselves?
What if a 22-year old is convinced that his life is not worth living, that it will be nothing but (spiritual/emotional) suffering from then on out? Does he have the right to a physician-assisted suicide?
What was the world come to, where that is determined by doctors?El_Machinae said:The physician has a series of requirements, including determining whether the subject's life can be made worth living.
I'd rather have the kid not die. And legalizing suicide doesn't exactly teach kids that suicide is bad.I'd rather a kid be allowed to fill out some paper work and die in a civilized manner than have his parents find him in the garage with a running car.
What was the world come to, where that is determined by doctors?
No, as you described, the doctor decides whether the life "can be made worth living." That implies that the doctor has a minimum standard of living that is "worth living," and anything below that is worse than death. That is absurd.El_Machinae said:Who else can decide? The person has decided that their life is not worth living. And a doctor cannot prove otherwise. A doctor, like a priest or lawyer, can give full confidentiality. As well, a doctor can determine if the depression can be corrected.
Who else? You? The kid decides. The doctor is a special check.
Sure it is. Would you try to talk a friend out of suicide?Look, we live in a universe that attempts to kill us all the time. It's noble to prevent death, but it's not noble to prevent death in those who want it.
I have no respect for free will when it is in error, especially when it is in grave error.Have you no respect for free will, and others people's ability to choose?
Isn't it obvious that, in my opinion, no conditions are rationally worse than death?IglooDude said:So, this law really only affects those for whom life is what any reasonable person would consider to be approaching unendurable and would thus have understandable reasons for wanting to end it.
Whether this would increase suicides can't really be determined - but what is unquestionable is that this does legitimize suicide. It says that physical pain can be worse than death. Why not emotional reasons?The angst-ridden teen isn't going to be going to a doctor asking for a suicide prescription and isn't likely to consider suicide more of an option because of a SCOTUS decision or any law.
cgannon64 said:Isn't it obvious that, in my opinion, no conditions are rationally worse than death?
cgannon64 said:Whether this would increase suicides can't really be determined - but what is unquestionable is that this does legitimize suicide.
I don't beleive in this "tolerance" stuff when we're talking about people dying. Some things are intolerable - you cannot deny that. We've chosen to set a different standard for what is intolerable, but that doesn't make mine any less legitimate than yours.IglooDude said:Yep, and you're entitled to your opinion. Given that as yet no one (including SCOTUS) has determined exactly how bad death is, all anyone has is their own opinion. And, it therefore follows that I should legally be able to follow my opinion of how bad death is, and you should be able to follow yours.
Aww, c'mon. You can't use the previous failure of the state to provide a coherent moral example to prove that the state is not allowed provide a moral example.In the same way that smoking cigarettes is legitimate, but smoking marijuana is not? Anyone taking their moral/ethical code from federal, state, and local law needs some serious guidance anyway.
cgannon64 said:I don't beleive in this "tolerance" stuff when we're talking about people dying. Some things are intolerable - you cannot deny that. We've chosen to set a different standard for what is intolerable, but that doesn't make mine any less legitimate than yours.
cgannon64 said:Aww, c'mon. You can't use the previous failure of the state to provide a coherent moral example to prove that the state is not allowed provide a moral example.
Isn't it obvious that, in my opinion, no conditions are rationally worse than death?
cgannon64 said:I have no respect for free will when it is in error, especially when it is in grave error.