Quote:
Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!
Quote:
|
The ---8216;right to die---8217; has an appealing ring to it, but apply the Beachy Head test. If, hypothetically, you saw someone in a wheelchair about to throw himself off Beachy Head, would you stand and applaud, maybe even give the wheelchair a helpful push ---8212; or would you rush forward to stop him?
|
Good analogy, no? |
No. It's a childish, simplified comparison, it's saying that helping someone end their life who isn't able to do that himself is the same as killing a handicapped person you never met before.
If someone were to kill himself like that, you try to stop him.
Because you don't know their reasons and their story. If someone willingly chooses to end their life, and isn't able to do so himself, a doctor should help him with that.
If you live in a country where the law makes this impossible, than it's not surprising that there will be organizations that, by giving instructions to people on how to end their lives, attempt to give them their right on the choice of life or death back. imo that's a good thing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!
If society allows voluntary euthanasia, it is my belief that this will send us towards the allowing of other forms of euthanasia. Including non-voluntary euthanasia.
|
Yes, because after all, we're all just waiting for killing someone to become legal! That just makes absolutely no sense at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!
It is a hard-line article with questions being asked in a more blunt way perhaps than a lot of articles written about this topic.
Because it is more blunt or straight to the point and asks perhaps some uncomfortable questions, is this the reason that we should shy away from asking ourselves the exact same questions?
Just because the article is addressing the topic matter differently or in a way that may seem a little too straight to the point, is that any reason to dismiss it and laugh it off as garbage?
|
Don't really care for the tone there. You're suggesting we're
afraid of adressing these questions? Not at all.
But you're almost in admiration of how blunt and ballsy this article is. I have no problem with someone being blunt about a subject. This article however is not just blunt, it is shrewdly linking euthanasia with killing over and over again. THAT is why I can't take it seriously.
Of course there are problems arising with euthanasia. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't allow it at all. For example, to avoid people taking advantage of others, you could only allow (assisted) euthanasia if the person in question wrote up a will
before falling ill. And there are a lot of these issues that should be well thought about by lawmakers. But they should be thought about from an objective stance, leaving religion completely out of the matter.