Moebius
Well-Known Member
......... careless?
Suicide dilemma
- Thread starter Carne Seca
- Start date
Moebius
Well-Known Member
wascaptain
Well-Known Member
i say yes.
thru my job, ive seen sick people hanging on agaisnt thier will in nursing homes. sad for sure. the best thing you can do, if thats you lying on your back in bed, sick and dying a slow death , is to get your doctor to sign off on a DNR (do not resesate) order.
for me , i think i would use a gun on myself, when i would get that bad.
thru my job, ive seen sick people hanging on agaisnt thier will in nursing homes. sad for sure. the best thing you can do, if thats you lying on your back in bed, sick and dying a slow death , is to get your doctor to sign off on a DNR (do not resesate) order.
for me , i think i would use a gun on myself, when i would get that bad.
Moebius
Well-Known Member
What if you had children and a wife and the life insurance company say they get no money in the event of suicide?
Which could mean they end up on the street because they cannot pay the bills.
Trolling
New Member
This is what the OP should've wrote, this topic has come up so often on every forum I've used but never that question.
wascaptain
Well-Known Member
its a little different in my case, but yea i see your point sir
Moebius
Well-Known Member
Carne set the parameters for the discussion by hypothesizing a scenario where there were no loved ones. Fair enough.
But in reality people do have Kids and wives and life insurance and a million other factors that make this not so easily answered.
In the real world there are many difficult questions like a persons competency to make decisions for themselves.or are there external factors other than clinical diagnosis that are pressurizing the patient into ending their life.
To be honest, I really don't have an answer to the Euthanasia debate. Its a tricky one.
Moebius
Well-Known Member
As a society though, How could our Governments condone Euthanasia whilst banning the use of medical cannabis?
It would be like saying 'You can kill yourself but only with the drugs 'we' prescribe and only if its quickly'.
Weird philosophical paradoxes present themselves.
It would be like saying 'You can kill yourself but only with the drugs 'we' prescribe and only if its quickly'.
Weird philosophical paradoxes present themselves.
Urca
Well-Known Member
Not at all tricky. Have to look at it from 2 points of view. As a consequentionalist, and as a deontologist (focuses on intent). consequentially, all signs favor the morality of euthanasia. the money saved, the pain and suffering saved, and the long term emotional benefits on the family are all major wins for euthanasia.
if we focus on intent, then we ask, is suffering good? When is pain and misery a preferable option? If the patient will die anyway, why not put their fate into their own hands?
As far as sudden recoveries or unexpected extension of life past an assigned death estimate, how often does that happen? those things are miracles, or what we call miraculous. if we practiced non euthanasia as a rule because patients were waiting for some highly unlikely miracle, that is morally wrong
if we focus on intent, then we ask, is suffering good? When is pain and misery a preferable option? If the patient will die anyway, why not put their fate into their own hands?
As far as sudden recoveries or unexpected extension of life past an assigned death estimate, how often does that happen? those things are miracles, or what we call miraculous. if we practiced non euthanasia as a rule because patients were waiting for some highly unlikely miracle, that is morally wrong
Moebius
Well-Known Member
Your argument is philosophical. The 'tricky' comes in the practical.
Q1. Who does the Euthanizing?
Edit:
and I don't understand the boolean thinking to what are complex human questions?
Moebius
Well-Known Member
Most Doctors say 'No Thanks, we want to heal'.
I'm sure some would, don't know how their living patients would feel about it. They would almost certainly become specialist in the procedure. I don't know if such a person could still be called a doctor.
greenswag
Well-Known Member
I've tlked about this before and the answere is definitely yes. That one dr had it right. If they were terminally ill he would come, family can say the good byes, arrangements made, then he put them to sleep, and gave the lethal, painless injection. I dont see anything immoral with that.
Edit: then again my morrals might be a bit scewed because I accept things like cannibalism lol, hey it's just a diff type of meat from another mammal. Not that I would go out of my way to kill people to eat them when i can go to the store and buy HOTPOCKETS!!
Edit: then again my morrals might be a bit scewed because I accept things like cannibalism lol, hey it's just a diff type of meat from another mammal. Not that I would go out of my way to kill people to eat them when i can go to the store and buy HOTPOCKETS!!
Moebius
Well-Known Member
Sounds cosey. Do they get to have the Hot chocolate with the marshmallows too?
edit:
Just playing devils advocate, I'm 50/50
Hepheastus420
Well-Known Member
It wasn't their choice to to be brought to life.. So the logical side of me says go ahead. Your life. But the human side of me would smack the gun or whatever out of their hands and give them a good smack on the head.
If there was no amount of physical fitness/nutrition/medication/mental power in the world to save them, and they full-on 100% wanted to do it because their quality of life now was so poor, I'd support it. If they got diagnosed with cancer and automatically said "well fuck it", I'd say they're an idiot. Things happen within our bodies that scientists and doctors have absolutely no answer for. For any disease though, I'd say exercise a lot, take high-quality multivitamin/omega 3 supplements, stay on a good diet, eat fruits and drink a lot of orange juice. And if cancer was that disease, try cannabis oil.