Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Victoria (Aust) Introduces Voluntary Assisted Dying
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Quid est Veritas?" data-source="post: 74044547" data-attributes="member: 385144"><p>That "across a number of diseases and conditions" just hides the problem. Would it be 1% of Strokes in general? What of middle cerebral artery strokes? So a significant percentage of Stroke units lose research subjects, even more of specific subtypes. What of care facilities aimed specifically at these? Look at something like Huntingdon's Chorea - if anything is a good candidate, this would have been, but we are very close to curing it. Yet, it is rare. If even a tiny proportion was lost to assisted suicide, that would not have been the case.</p><p></p><p>No, this is a real problem, as there are often insufficient research cases as is, especially for the lower prevalence conditions or subtype presentations, and the percentages in specialised care facilities will certainly not be neglible. This is merely a way of hiding this, by generalising and lumping very different conditions and presentations together, and thus lose perspective. It is akin to saying we have no need for specific laws on incest say, because it is a small percentage of case law in sexual matters in general.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because it poisons the well regardless. Again, the examples of the Low Countries are instructive. You don't ask wolves to defend sheepfolds, unless you make them into dogs.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Regardless of my faith, I disagree. I do not see how non-existence can ever be valued more than existence. How can we determine the proportion? How does a certain experience become a negative point trumping the other aspects of life? Who determined the relative values? This is hopelessly subjective. Something trumps Nothing always, in my opinion. Without bringing faith into it, I see literally no way to rationally argue for Euthanasia at all. You simply have no objective measures of varying levels of experience, and such subjectivity is why Euthanasia measures inevitably result in 'mental anguish' of stupid teenagers becoming seen as the equivalent of a terminal cancer patient's.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quid est Veritas?, post: 74044547, member: 385144"] That "across a number of diseases and conditions" just hides the problem. Would it be 1% of Strokes in general? What of middle cerebral artery strokes? So a significant percentage of Stroke units lose research subjects, even more of specific subtypes. What of care facilities aimed specifically at these? Look at something like Huntingdon's Chorea - if anything is a good candidate, this would have been, but we are very close to curing it. Yet, it is rare. If even a tiny proportion was lost to assisted suicide, that would not have been the case. No, this is a real problem, as there are often insufficient research cases as is, especially for the lower prevalence conditions or subtype presentations, and the percentages in specialised care facilities will certainly not be neglible. This is merely a way of hiding this, by generalising and lumping very different conditions and presentations together, and thus lose perspective. It is akin to saying we have no need for specific laws on incest say, because it is a small percentage of case law in sexual matters in general. Because it poisons the well regardless. Again, the examples of the Low Countries are instructive. You don't ask wolves to defend sheepfolds, unless you make them into dogs. Regardless of my faith, I disagree. I do not see how non-existence can ever be valued more than existence. How can we determine the proportion? How does a certain experience become a negative point trumping the other aspects of life? Who determined the relative values? This is hopelessly subjective. Something trumps Nothing always, in my opinion. Without bringing faith into it, I see literally no way to rationally argue for Euthanasia at all. You simply have no objective measures of varying levels of experience, and such subjectivity is why Euthanasia measures inevitably result in 'mental anguish' of stupid teenagers becoming seen as the equivalent of a terminal cancer patient's. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Victoria (Aust) Introduces Voluntary Assisted Dying
Top
Bottom