Death with dignity passes in California ( faith perspective only)

[brewmama]

When they say they haven't... how else?
In my opinion, those that have been through it first hand clearly have more to offer the conversation on the matter at hand.

OK, well I read the thread over again, and I don't find anyone who said that, so I'm still not sure who you are talking about. But whatever.

 

[benedictaoo]

“Life is a God-given gift and who has the right to destroy life ?” Mother Theresa

 

[Cos-play]

You are complaining once again about my tone but not about the substance of what I have said.

I never mentioned your tone at all but I'm sure no one will notice because the original post is several hours and posts removed from your statement that I did.

But I never did.

Let's look at it this way; you have said

Let's do.

What is really at issue here is someone's control over their own health and body. It has nothing to do with comparing the value of one life to another.

I haven't got the first clue how you made the inferential jump from "Control over their won health and body" to:

Meaning that you think that "death with dignity" is acceptable because people chose to end their own lives. If that is the only criteria, then it would seem that anyone should be allowed to request that a doctor put him to death.

This is the most egregious logical extension to an argument that I have been subjected to in a very long time

If you go back to my original post I said that it would be possible for a law to allow anyone to commit suicide, but I thought that the problems with that would be obvious to the posters on this forum. If I was wrong and they are not, we could discuss things in further detail. Note that when I said that I was explicitly talking about all possible laws that allowed for doctor assisted suicide, not this law in particular, so there is no falsehood in claiming that there could be a law like that.

Let's cite the post directly

Laws which allow for the so called "physician assisted suicide" always do one of two things. They either:

1.) Allow for anyone to demand suicide for any reason. There are obvious problems with this spiritually.

or

2.) Officially decide that certain people would be better off dead. If the state responds to one patient's plea for death with "you have too much to live for," and to another patient's plea for death with "sure thing, your life is too horrible to contemplate living" then they have said that the second patient is better off dead. Taking things further, they are also saying that anyone else in the same situation as the second patient is better off dead, even if they don't request to be killed.

There is no reconciling attempting to help a patient and attempting to kill a patient. Death may come as a side effect of treatment and this is acceptable, but it should never be the primary aim. A good benchmark test to determine what a certain action is seeking is to consider the following: if the patient unexpectedly improves in condition, though perhaps does not make a full recovery, will those treating the patient be overjoyed or disappointed.

For example, if a patient is using machines to breathe and is taken off of them, it may be expected that the patient will die. But suppose the patient does start breathing under his own power. If those involved would rejoice and continue to treat the patient, then there is nothing wrong with taking the patient off of the machines. If on the other hand those involved start to regret that they did not simply smother the patient, then this was a stand-in for a lethal injection.

Your original post didn't say "possible" it says "always".

It's the "always" to which I took exception. Using the word "possible" would have changed the entire meaning of the post.

You then responded by saying that I hadn't read the law passed in California and that I was misrepresenting it. So let's look at the law in question. It does not allow for anyone to request doctor assisted suicide, but only those who (in the language of law) are:

where "terminal disease" is defined as:

{snip}

Now let's go back to my original post. I claimed that any law about doctor assisted suicide would either allow suicide for everyone or would restrict the option to only those that the law deems as deserving of suicide. You claim that I was misrepresenting the law and to prove that I misrepresented it, link to a law which restricts the option for doctor assisted suicide to only those that the law deems as deserving of suicide. I do not see so far how I said anything counterfactual.

Your point number 2 goes way further than that. Your claim in point 2 is some third party is making value judgements on the one person's life over another. This is not the case in death with dignity laws generally and certain not in this case.

The person making a decision the the person requesting the service.

Further your assertion that somehow because a person at end of life has this option while an person not in end of life doesn't is creating a situation the places value of one life over another seem to me to be rather disingenuous on it's face.

People at end of life are going die. Soon. Hence the name "end of life". How long the process will take and in what state one should live the short time one has left should be a matter of healthcare decisions by the person in end of life. This is the intent of these laws.

Any further logical extension (something you're very good at) is just assuming things not in evidence.

You may object that I said that the law restricts the option for suicide to people with terminal conditions because it considers their lives less worthy of living. This is admittedly speculation on my end.

Actually I think of it as misdirection but that's me.

It seems to me to be consistent with the facts, though there is not enough evidence to prove this claim absolutely. But since the law does not detail why only those with terminal diseases are allowed to request suicide, we are forced to speculate on the reasons.

THE LAW IS SPECIFICALLY AIMED TO GIVE OPTIONS TO PEOPLE AT END OF LIFE

We don't need to "speculate" about anything.

I would be happy to hear competing theories on the matter. But as both my theory as well as competing theories are speculation on incomplete evidence, they haven't been proven to be counterfactual. We can debate about which ones best explain the data, but again I do not see anything that I have said which you have shown to be false.

Factuals:

1) The law is specially written to address end of life issues.
2) The law only addresses people at end of life
3) The law does not allow a third party to place value on the patients life

Where is the debate needed, actually ?

And furthermore, your statements about it being about "control over one's body" seem to strengthen my assessments. If it is important to have "control over one's body" it would seem that that would be important regardless of whether one was terminally ill or not. So if the law restricts suicide to only the terminally ill, it would not be to safeguard the control that an average citizen has over his body. It would have to be about something with terminally ill people in particular. I can only see two options: either the law is more willing to see terminally ill end their lives because it sees their lives at less worthwhile (the theory I advanced), or the law thinks that is more important for the terminally ill to control their bodies, while it is not important for the healthy to control their bodies. I suppose that it is theoretically possible that things are better explained by the second scenario, though it seems unlikely to me.

One more time:

End of life. I know that a lot of people who want to force pain and suffering on people because, you know, virtue, can't wrap their heads around this but:

we all die. Medicine has made that an uncertain experience. At the moment people should have options. Giving options is what this is all about.

That is my analysis of the situation. I am willing to admit that I may be mistaken if it can be shown that I am mistaken. I am not impressed about criticisms that I am looking at things in the wrong way, or that I have the wrong tone, or even that my arguments are flawed without any specific discussion about how they are flawed.

Here's my analysis of your analysis:

You have a real issue trusting people to make their own moral decisions if they have the options to make them in a way you don't necessary agree with and either by intent or some subconscious sense of moral righteousness you're willing to twist, and frame the argument in any way that makes having those options available a social evil.

Nothing personal on that, a lot of people do it. It a not a character flaw or anything it's just the way people think.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Wgw]

Historically, the Church issued that suicide is an unforgivable sin. This was especially true during the Inquisitions when people sought to kill themselves rather then be tortured until they conceded to the Church's orthodoxy.
But, you can't really just single out the RCC, because most of Christianity has issued the same notion- that if you kill yourself then you are going to Hell.
I really think Judas is a central inspiration for that honestly, among other things.

It's something I myself do not believe is the case, at least not in a lot of circumstances. Suicide is the result of a despair so deep that the only way one reconciles it is to end their life, and that is something between them and God. If we believe that Christ is merciful, then how can one really state that they are all in Hell? In fact, isn't it a bit sadistic even to suppose that every person in that sort of anguish should also go unto eternal torment?

As far as euthanasia, it is something we do with animals all the time. We do it because we know that it is the reasonable, moral thing to do. Also in war, if a person is injured beyond being able to recover, a soldier may give them a near lethal dose of morphine.
These things happen.
And if a person is terminally ill and the rest of their life is nothing but pain, then it is simply in vain for them to continue in it just the same as the examples above.

I am going to jump in on behalf of my pious Roman Catholic friends, who in their admirable respect for the inherent difnity of the human person and the value for life are inspirational, and in their defense I shall proceed to pour the following scorn on your remark:

The position you take is fundamentally untenable; the excellence of medicine provides pain management in almost any case, and those chosing or being induced or coerced into euthanasia, or who are simply killed against their will, in general do not represent the outer threshold of known pain. In objecting to euthanasia, the objection is to the intentional termination of life, not to the use of for example narcotic painkillers, which should be uncontroversial in the case of terminally ill persons. Such persons might well be able to enjoy the duration of their life if provided with proper care, including mental health and pastoral care.

What is more, euthanasia legalization has proven to be a slippery slope; child euthanasia is legal in Belgium and effectively legal in the Netherlands. In addition, we have the gruesome spectacle of persons being euthanized or denied life daving treatment so that their organs can be harvested. We also have the chilling proposal that neonates are only "potential persons" and that an "after birth abortion" is justified in any case where an abortion would otherwise be lawful.

 

[Wgw]

I never mentioned your tone at all but I'm sure no one will notice because the original post is several hours and posts removed from your statement that I did.

But I never did.


Let's do.



I haven't got the first clue how you made the inferential jump from "Control over their won health and body" to:



This is the most egregious logical extension to an argument that I have been subjected to in a very long time



Let's cite the post directly


Your original post didn't say "possible" it says "always".

It's the "always" to which I took exception. Using the word "possible" would have changed the entire meaning of the post.



{snip}



Your point number 2 goes way further than that. Your claim in point 2 is some third party is making value judgements on the one person's life over another. This is not the case in death with dignity laws generally and certain not in this case.

The person making a decision the the person requesting the service.

Further your assertion that somehow because a person at end of life has this option while an person not in end of life doesn't is creating a situation the places value of one life over another seem to me to be rather disingenuous on it's face.

People at end of life are going die. Soon. Hence the name "end of life". How long the process will take and in what state one should live the short time one has left should be a matter of healthcare decisions by the person in end of life. This is the intent of these laws.

Any further logical extension (something you're very good at) is just assuming things not in evidence.



Actually I think of it as misdirection but that's me.



THE LAW IS SPECIFICALLY AIMED TO GIVE OPTIONS TO PEOPLE AT END OF LIFE

We don't need to "speculate" about anything.



Factuals:

1) The law is specially written to address end of life issues.
2) The law only addresses people at end of life
3) The law does not allow a third party to place value on the patients life

Where is the debate needed, actually ?



One more time:

End of life. I know that a lot of people who want to force pain and suffering on people because, you know, virtue, can't wrap their heads around this but:

we all die. Medicine has made that an uncertain experience. At the moment people should have options. Giving options is what this is all about.



Here's my analysis of your analysis:

You have a real issue trusting people to make their own moral decisions if they have the options to make them in a way you don't necessary agree with and either by intent or some subconscious sense of moral righteousness you're willing to twist, and frame the argument in any way that makes having those options available a social evil.

Nothing personal on that, a lot of people do it. It a not a character flaw or anything it's just the way people think.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

How exactly does the Dutch system of infanticide, which flows directly from initial "end of life" legislation to this end, constitute giving people options?

Your position seems contrary to the established doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church; it seems to me that it also is directly contrary to the decrees of the First, Second, Third, Sixth, and Seventh ecumenical Councils.

Euthanasia does violence to the human image of the divine and shows a lack of respect for the integrity of the human person and the reality of the incarnation. The Orthodox and traditionalist Roman Catholics do not condone cremation for this same reason.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

When I think about people choosing to die....because they are going to die anyways soon......my mind flashes back to 9/11. Where people above the airplane crash, jumped. Those people up there were dying, some already dead from heat/smoke. The towers hadn't even fallen yet, and I don't think the people up there knew they were going to fall so soon. However for those that jumped, the situation was so desperate that they believed they were going to die anyways. In retrospect if they didn't jump, they were still dead, if not from heat/smoke, from tower collapse.

Seeing things like that on TV changes ones perspective on suicide, at least for me it did.

Sure its a bit different then someone dying of natural causes. Since 9/11 was man made, and for the people up there, death was coming a lot faster then those slowly dying on some medical bed. Still.....I am uncomfortable in making sure to prevent those who are dying, to not allow a less painful way out.

 

[Wgw]

When I think about people choosing to die....because they are going to die anyways soon......my mind flashes back to 9/11. Where people above the airplane crash, jumped. Those people up there were dying, some already dead from heat/smoke. The towers hadn't even fallen yet, and I don't think the people up there knew they were going to fall so soon. However for those that jumped, the situation was so desperate that they believed they were going to die anyways. In retrospect if they didn't jump, they were still dead, if not from heat/smoke, from tower collapse.

Seeing things like that on TV changes ones perspective on suicide.

Sure its a bit different then someone dying of natural causes. Since 9/11 was man made, and for the people up there, death was coming a lot faster then those slowly dying on some medical bed. Still.....I am uncomfortable in making sure to prevent others who are dying, to not allow a less painful way out.

The persons who jumped by jumping not only ended any possbility of survival, but also endangered persons on the ground; I am not criticizing their actions, which were made in a state of incalcuable mental distress, but I am also not going to use those actions, which were erroneous (if inadvertant) in an attempt to justify euthanasia, which I suspect many of those driven by psychological strain to jump would have objected to.

If one was able to retain rational faculties, even if faced with certain death it would be desirable and in accord with Roman Catholic and Orthodox morslity to not hasten it through suicide, out of respect for the incarnation and also in order to avoid jeopardizing the lives of persons evacuating or providing emergency services. That said I do fully recognoze the impairment of rational faculties this sort of incident can cause, so I do not blame individuals for jumping.

In terms of euthansia however, the impairment of rational faculties produced by the onset of a terminal condition which can be ameliorated through medical treatment should not be exploited by facilitating suicide. This is nothing like what was faced by the victims of 9/11, who simply cannot have been reasonably expected or even supported in acting rationally; this would be more like handing out cyanide pills to the third class passengers of RMS Titanic.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

The persons who jumped by jumping not only ended any possbility of survival, but also endangered persons on the ground

That's a good point. Thankfully at least there were not that many people right below the WTC.

 

[Cos-play]

How exactly does the Dutch system of infanticide, which flows directly from initial "end of life" legislation to this end, constitute giving people options?

I'm an American on a thread discussion American laws, specifically the California law on the subject. . I have no influence nor any great knowledge on the laws in other countries.

Go ask a Dutchman.

Your position seems contrary to the established doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church; it seems to me that it also is directly contrary to the decrees of the First, Second, Third, Sixth, and Seventh ecumenical Councils.

I don't claim to be speaking for the Catholic Church on this subject. Simply as a Catholic who has the right of my own conscience as defined in the CCC (Para 1776)

Euthanasia does violence to the human image of the divine and shows a lack of respect for the integrity of the human person and the reality of the incarnation.

My conscience suggests that there is a point at end of life where it becomes morally arguable that ending a human life with some dignity, as an individual sees dignity, is no longer "euthanasia" but rather surrendering humbly to the inevitable ending.

The Orthodox and traditionalist Roman Catholics do not condone cremation for this same reason.

I cannot speak for Orthodox or "traditionalist" Roman Catholics but I can refer you to Canon 1176 which speaks to this subject and allows cremation.[/QUOTE]

 

[Cos-play]

The persons who jumped by jumping

As opposed to those who jumped by being pushed ?

 

[MoonlessNight]

This is the most egregious logical extension to an argument that I have been subjected to in a very long time

How so? If it is necessary to be able to make use of doctor assisted suicide in order to have control over one's body, would that not mean that everyone should be able to make use of doctor assisted suicide?

If I am wrong in thinking this, where is the mistake? I am assuming for the sake of argument that making use of doctor assisted suicide relates to control over one's body, since you seemed to suggest this. If this was not what you were suggesting, let me know. But if that is granted, to say that not everyone should be allowed to make use of doctor assisted suicide would seem to suggest that not everyone has full control over their body, and if it is important to have control over your body, this would be unacceptable. However you say that this conclusion is not only wrong but ridiculous.

So it seems to me that the confusion must be in what you meant by "this is about someone's control over their own health and body." I would greatly appreciate you expanding what you mean by this and how it relates to this law.

Your original post didn't say "possible" it says "always".

It's the "always" to which I took exception. Using the word "possible" would have changed the entire meaning of the post.

If only certain types of laws must have certain properties, then that type of laws will always have those properties. I say that it was clear that I was talking about all possible laws, because I talked in a universal sense without any exceptions. If I meant to talk only about a specific law I would have said so, and if I meant to talk about only the laws currently on the books I would have said that.

But perhaps I was not clear enough and for that I apologize.

Your point number 2 goes way further than that. Your claim in point 2 is some third party is making value judgements on the one person's life over another. This is not the case in death with dignity laws generally and certain not in this case.

The person making a decision the the person requesting the service.

Further your assertion that somehow because a person at end of life has this option while an person not in end of life doesn't is creating a situation the places value of one life over another seem to me to be rather disingenuous on it's face.

Let's imagine a situation in which some new surgery is discovered which will extend the life of those who use it by an average of 20 years. A law is written which allows this procedure to be used, but only by men of age 30 or less. No explanation in the law is given for why this restriction would be made, and the procedure is equally viable on all people regardless of sex or age. The procedure is not required of young men, only made available to them.

In such a case, would you say that no value judgements have been made?

People at end of life are going die. Soon. Hence the name "end of life". How long the process will take and in what state one should live the short time one has left should be a matter of healthcare decisions by the person in end of life. This is the intent of these laws.

Any further logical extension (something you're very good at) is just assuming things not in evidence.

This may come as a shock to you, but life has a fatality rate of 100%. Each and every one of us is going to die at some point in the future, and we are all at "the end of our lives." It is only a matter of degree. What makes six months to death so special? You should especially consider that many people who are told that they have six months to live will outlast that prediction, and many people who are told to expect decades of life will die of a heart attack anyway. So what non-arbitrary reason is there to say that if a doctor tells you that you have six months to live then you can ask him to kill you, but if he tells you that you have a year to live you cannot? Or even if he tells you that you have twenty more to live?

Beyond all that, how does the proximity of death justify suicide in any sense? Sometimes people try to justify it by reducing suffering, but it is possible to be terminally ill and be suffering in a small degree, and it is also possible to have a long life expectancy and yet be in constant pain?

You say that we should not speculate beyond what the law says. But if that is the case, your answer to these questions must be "it is acceptable to request suicide when you have six months to live and not if you have more to live because that's when the law says that you can request suicide." That is, if we cannot go beyond the law we cannot justify the existence of the law, and we are forced to submit to the law simply because that is what the law says to do.

I'm not going to address your next few statements because they are all variations on "the law is what it is because that's what it says." But I do want to address this:

we all die. Medicine has made that an uncertain experience. At the moment people should have options. Giving options is what this is all about.

You have said yourself that we all die! Not just that terminally ill people die, but all of us. But you also say that it is absurd to think that if the terminally ill should be allowed to be assisted in suicide because they are going to die and they should have control over how they die, then all of us should be allowed to be assisted in suicide because we all are going to die and we all should have control over how we die.

You seem to reconcile this by saying that since the law doesn't say anything about the non-terminally ill being assisted in suicide that it is absurd to discuss such matters or to suggest that there is any reason why the terminally ill are allowed to be killed (at their request) while the healthy are not. But it isn't as though this law is some divine command which has been here since the beginning of time and which we dare not question. It hasn't even been a law for very long at all. If the only defense of the law's restriction of assisted suicide to the terminally ill is that that is what is in the law, how could the law be passed in the first place? It certainly couldn't be justified by referencing itself as a law before it was law.

Look, laws are created for reasons and have consequences after they are passed. They are much more than the text which is written. If laws have any justification or meaning at all, we need to be able to discuss the intentions which led to them being passed, whether their implementation is consistent with those intentions, and what effect they will have beyond their intended purpose. If we do not do that we are only able to say "well the law is the law because it is the law."

 

[brewmama]

My conscience suggests that there is a point at end of life where it becomes morally arguable that ending a human life with some dignity, as an individual sees dignity, is no longer "euthanasia" but rather surrendering humbly to the inevitable ending.

You seem to be ignoring all the larger concepts of human dignity and focusing it on one final choice at the end of life.

"Do we possess dignity and a right to life by virtue of the kind of entity we are, namely, a human being—the one type of bodily creature known to us who has a rational nature? Or is dignity something we possess only by virtue of our acquisition or realization of certain qualities (immediately exercisable capacities) that human beings in certain stages and conditions possess (or exhibit) and others do not, and that some possess in greater measure than others, e.g., self-awareness, consciousness, rationality?"
Read more:http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-01-004-e#ixzz3o0uBhEN5

“Death with dignity” offers not only an escape from pain and humiliation, but a rational and apparently noble way to leave this life. All it requires is that you declare yourself God. Make yourself the lord of life and death, and you can do what you want. All you have to do, as a last, definitive act, is to do what you’ve been doing all your life, every time you sin: declare yourself, on the matter at hand, the final authority, the last judge, the one vote that counts."
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/11/death-dignified-by-christ

Hence, in my view, the concept of human dignity is really only safe in a society with a firm belief in the equal dignity of human persons. Concerns have been expressed about rationing care, depriving people (especially those with diminished capacities) of needed care, and even of encouraging people to die. These are all serious and legitimate concerns, and their presence suggests an uncertainty about our continued commitment to equal personal dignity. (Gilbert Meilaender)
Read more:http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-02-036-i#ixzz3o0wyp6RG

People are losing the real definition of dignity.

 

[Cos-play]

How so? If it is necessary to be able to make use of doctor assisted suicide in order to have control over one's body, would that not mean that everyone should be able to make use of doctor assisted suicide?

No and if you don't understand why at this point I can't explain it to you.

Look, read and remove the rest of your post. I am simply not going down rat hole with you on these, frankly weird, philophoical questions that aren't related to the issues at hand.

This is all about end of life issues.

If you don't expect that I can't make you.

 

[MoonlessNight]

This is all about end of life issues.

If that's all this is about it is should be very easy to explain.

You simply need to do two things:

1.) Clearly define what "end of life" means in a manner which seems correct and useful (i.e. not simply say that the law defines it in such a way, but explain why the law made a good decision in defining it in such a way).

and then:

2.) Explain why being at the "end of life" should affect whether a doctor is allowed to assist someone in his suicide.

 

[brewmama]

THE LAW IS SPECIFICALLY AIMED TO GIVE OPTIONS TO PEOPLE AT END OF LIFE

We don't need to "speculate" about anything.

Factuals:

1) The law is specially written to address end of life issues.
2) The law only addresses people at end of life
3) The law does not allow a third party to place value on the patients life

Where is the debate needed, actually ?
One more time:
End of life. I know that a lot of people who want to force pain and suffering on people because, you know, virtue, can't wrap their heads around this but:
We all die. Medicine has made that an uncertain experience. At the moment people should have options. Giving options is what this is all about.

You keep ignoring all evidence that pain relief is not something that requires euthanasia, that it is not that difficult to control, that it is desired usually more from fear of pain than actual pain itself, and that the law that you have so much faith in has so far never stopped at where you say it will stop. Here's another example.

"Under Oregon and Washington State’s lax oversight, these are some of the documented abuses and complications that have come to light. This list includes abuses and medical complications, as well as other incidents showing some of the harms and dangers that accompany assisted suicide laws..."
http://dredf.org/public-policy/assi...on-assisted-suicide-abuses-and-complications/

So since you don't really seem to want to have a conversation about these aspects, I guess I'll quit wasting my time.

 

[Cos-play]

You seem to be ignoring all the larger concepts of human dignity and focusing it on one final choice at the end of life.

"Do we possess dignity and a right to life by virtue of the kind of entity we are, namely, a human being—the one type of bodily creature known to us who has a rational nature? Or is dignity something we possess only by virtue of our acquisition or realization of certain qualities (immediately exercisable capacities) that human beings in certain stages and conditions possess (or exhibit) and others do not, and that some possess in greater measure than others, e.g., self-awareness, consciousness, rationality?"
Read more:http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-01-004-e#ixzz3o0uBhEN5

“Death with dignity” offers not only an escape from pain and humiliation, but a rational and apparently noble way to leave this life. All it requires is that you declare yourself God. Make yourself the lord of life and death, and you can do what you want. All you have to do, as a last, definitive act, is to do what you’ve been doing all your life, every time you sin: declare yourself, on the matter at hand, the final authority, the last judge, the one vote that counts."
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/11/death-dignified-by-christ

Hence, in my view, the concept of human dignity is really only safe in a society with a firm belief in the equal dignity of human persons. Concerns have been expressed about rationing care, depriving people (especially those with diminished capacities) of needed care, and even of encouraging people to die. These are all serious and legitimate concerns, and their presence suggests an uncertainty about our continued commitment to equal personal dignity. (Gilbert Meilaender)
Read more:http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-02-036-i#ixzz3o0wyp6RG

People are losing the real definition of dignity.

I'm not ignoring it.
I'm simply disagreeing with it.

And really not even that. Mostly I saying that I'm not going to take away someone else's right to disagree with it.

The truth is the other side as some pretty persuasive argument on this subject and whither I agree with them or not I think I have to respect their right to argue them.

You on the other hand would rather not allow them that right.

Ok, cool

whatever.

That said, I back to law.

 

[brewmama]

I'm not ignoring it.
I'm simply disagreeing with it.

And really not even that. Mostly I saying that I'm not going to take away someone else's right to disagree with it.

The truth is the other side as some pretty persuasive argument on this subject and whither I agree with them or not I think I have to respect their right to argue them.

You on the other hand would rather not allow them that right.

Ok, cool

whatever.

That said, I back to law.

??
I certainly haven't seen any "pretty persuasive argument" from your side of the subject, and I have no idea what you mean by saying that I want to take away someone's right to argue.
If you do have a logical and morally intact argument to present, then by all means do so.

 

[Cos-play]

If that's all this is about it is should be very easy to explain.

You simply need to do two things:

First of all let's get this clear: I don't need to do anything, we're arguing the law specifically

1.) Clearly define what "end of life" means in a manner which seems correct and useful (i.e. not simply say that the law defines it in such a way, but explain why the law made a good decision in defining it in such a way).

The law does that actually, I believe you actually quoted it to me.

and then:

2.) Explain why being at the "end of life" should affect whether a doctor is allowed to assist someone in his suicide

That one is easy. Because the law says so.


You probably think I'm playing with you here but I'm not. If you want a philosophical conversion than speak philosophically.

But you don't seem to want to do that. You want me to defend the law from philosophical standpoint. Which I'm not going to do because every time I make a philosophical point you're just going to point to the law and claim that the law isn't congruent with my thinking and therefore either I or the law is wrong.

I mean, moonless, I didn't start arguing morality and law last week I know the moves, ok ?

Social philosophy guides social policy which guides the crafting of laws but laws are about compromises. I will not allow you to back me into a philosophical corner using something a blunt as a civil law.[/QUOTE]

 

[MoonlessNight]

I agree that we have established that the law says what the law says. As this is a tautology I don't know why it took us this long for you to tell us that that was your position, but I don't think that anyone here will disagree with your claim that the law says what the law says.

But who cares? No one has been disputing what the law says. We have speculated on why the law was created, or what it might mean in the future, or how it relates to Catholic spirituality, but no one has been arguing that the law does not say what it says.

Perhaps after this we can have more thrilling discussions where we determine that the fact we are on the Earth means that we are on the Earth, or if the sun is shining then the sun is in fact shining. Personally I don't find such conversations interesting though, so if you want to argue similar statements in the future please inform me at the beginning of the situation rather than getting me involved under other pretenses.

 

[Cos-play]

You keep ignoring all evidence that pain relief is not something that requires euthanasia, that it is not that difficult to control, that it is desired usually more from fear of pain than actual pain itself, and that the law that you have so much faith in has so far never stopped at where you say it will stop

My wife has been a hospice nurse for 30 years.

You're flat wrong.

Here's another example.

"Under Oregon and Washington State’s lax oversight, these are some of the documented abuses and complications that have come to light. This list includes abuses and medical complications, as well as other incidents showing some of the harms and dangers that accompany assisted suicide laws..."
http://dredf.org/public-policy/assi...on-assisted-suicide-abuses-and-complications/

So since you don't really seem to want to have a conversation about these aspects, I guess I'll quit wasting my time

I'm sorry, another example of what ?

I did read the article. The law is being enforced badly. I'll admit that if this is typical and I can't say that it is or isn't from this article. But I don't think you can call a law immoral because it's being enforced incorrectly.