Dr. Kevorkian & assisted suicide

Basic points why i'm against it are:

- I believe that human life has intrinsic value so shouldn't be killed
- Palliative care should be invested in instead of offering barbituates
- We need to end misconseptions about death (like pain), as opposed to offering euthanasia as a good thing
- If euthanasia is put through, how do we monitor it? It may lead to non-voluntary euthanasia I.e. the Remmelink Report
- Further to it being allowed, how is it fair that doctors are the ones burdened with killing?
- Also alters the doctor/patient relationship with no regard to the Hippocratic oath which states "i will administer no lethal poisons..." or words to that effect
- How do we eliminate the potential surreptitious motives that could sway a decision to kill a family member i.e. life insurance scams
- We have a duty to society to live on (Kants idea)

I'll write down more later on, those are enough for now

 

People also believe in the existence of God, your point being?

I'm sure it would've already been invested in, assisted suicide is offered as a last resort to the patients indefatigable wishes to cease suffering.

I don't understand. End misconceptions about death?

Property rights. I own my body, I am free to do whatever I want with it. Suicide is not illegal, I am perfectly within my rights and the law to grab a shotgun and blow my head off all over the hospital ward, a bloody mess! This is acceptable, yet a simple morphine drip is not.

Also, why do you want to monitor it? So long as their is patient consent, then why do you care what they do with their bodies? Are they affecting you? How so?

Doctors are not forced to do the killing. There is no coercion involved, the patient requests his doctor to end his suffering after exhaustive means to mitigate his pains. The doctor either obliges or denies. If the doctor denies, the patient will most likely request another doctor. If no doctor obliges, then I don't think you'd have a problem. If a doctor obliges, then no coercion has been achieved, and the burden is something the doctor accepts.

Doctors are allowed to exercise judgement calls. Also, no coercion has been put on the doctor, so, your point?

It is my body, I can choose to do whatever I want. If I can't, then I'll ask someone to do the killing for me. If I lack the cognitive functions, then I place someone in charge of making such a decision for me. It is not your business should that person have ulterior motives, it is your job to honor the patients wishes, in the same manner as a will.

We have a duty to society? We have no duty to the collective body of people. Elaborate?

None even stopped my thought process.

 

1 sec, i just typed my rebuttal out and then my laptop messed up - bare with me. -.-

EDIT: infact i'm not going to bother rebutting you, it's too much time and effort and your views clearly wont change as much as mine won't. Good day to you.

 

My views will and do change, and I can mould yours to as well.

Rebut if you will, I stand on the side of unalienable rights, you stand on the side of bad feelings.

 

Unalienable rights would be from God (atleast thats what i've heard) so natural law is in place, which is against the killing of people.

Bad feelings? Please elaborate because i don't know what you're getting at here.
I'll write a rebuttal later on then when i'm not annoyed at the computer

 

God does not exist; there is no natural law against killing people.

I feel bad because of x, therefore x is wrong.
I feel bad for assisting someone to die, therefore assisted suicide is wrong.

 

But natural laws exist i.e. the law of thermodynamics
and as we both cannot proves God doesn't exist or not, let's not go there.

Nice fallacious reasoning. I feel bad for x, therefore x or y is right.

 

The laws of thermodynamics do not dictate whether or not we should or shouldn't kill people.

God is belief in the arbitrary, and thus irrational. There is a burden of proof on the believer to prove his assertion (Russel's teapot), if the believer cannot satisfy this burden even remotely with either a priori, or a posteriori evidence, then he either remains a blind irrational believer and thus folds from any rational debate encompassing God.

Though, this isn't a thread for the existence of God, create one if you feel necessary to debate.

It is, and that's the side you stand on.

 

And believing that science will fill the gaps we don't know is blind faith too. but lets not go there ok?

Then it's the same for you aswell. I feel sorry for those people suffering, so lets allow euthanasia. It's just an emotive argument. You've picked your side of fallacious reasoning and i've picked mine.

 

No, your using the God of the Gaps argument, and the argument from incredulity. It's not blind faith to say I don't know, it is blind faith to believe that a super natural being is responsible for the gaps, or everything.

My side isn't of fallacious reasoning, my side is on the side of unalienable rights, the 2 lines I typed where representative of your side. You have nothing other than you feel bad.

 

in short, Malakadang is completely right.

The simple fact remains that there is simply no true definition of good or bad, right or wrong, or what we can or cannot do.

As malakadang said.... when it comes down to it... theres really no factual basis to support the idea that killing is wrong... much less the idea that killing someone who wants to be killed is wrong.

 

I'd argue that the right to euthanasia is simply a legal right, not inalienable, because it's not self-evident.

No, I have more reasons to thinking euthanasia is wrong than thinking it's "bad" thats a short sighted argument to say the least.

Anyway i've had enough lol, clearly we aren't going to change our views.

 

There is no right to Euthanasia, only a right to do what you will with your property, in this case, your body.

Excellent, enlighten me.

I'm willing to change my views, I have done so in the past. Are you willing to change yours?


Leave a rebuttal if you will, I will read it in the morning if you do; as of now, I'm tired and cold.

 

Alright i'll try, if not i'll write something up and PM you it.

"...factual basis to support the idea that killing is wrong"

Just a legal and moral one eh?

By the way Tesla, is paedophilia ok?

 

Of course. Just so long as the person doesn't molest a child.

 

So pedantic... I meant the act anyway

 

If somebody wants to die, it's their choice. It is so weird that it is "illegal to die" in some parts of the world.

 

It's not illegal to die...
Suicide (in some countries) is only illegal if you don't manage to kill yourself... obviously.
Whats illegal here is physician aided suicide, in that a doctor gives you poison, so it's more akin to murder than suicide

 

This alone shows Malakadang's superiority by the ability/openness to assimilate an existing schema with new/incoming knowledge.

if legality and morals are really your argument, then there is no argument. Because there is no factual basis as to why killing is legally or morally wrong. In fact, it is morally wrong to most people because it is legally wrong . anyone who is not a drone to society could see that.


and with regard to your paedophilia question.... Technically no, its not "wrong". As i have said before: there is no definition for right or wrong in nature

 

Lol and your point is? I changed my views after looking at the arguments, equally i could change back, but i don't think it'd be likely.

I think legality is a pretty good reason not to do something like murder...
Or perhaps its morally wrong to most people because it's just that... morally wrong. Don't forget that the legality is based on the morality. Haha "a drone" nice Ad Hominem...

So it's okay for someone to rape a child, is that what you're saying? NAMBLA would love you! So how do we define right and wrong? would hitler be a saint then?