unenlightened
3.6k

Let's say it's 50/50. — NKBJ


Let's say I've been gently boiling you in oil for a few years - for your own good mind - and not enough to do more than make your life unbearable. And let's say, because you are a bit sceptical and I am optimistic, that a few more years of constant agony will give a 50 % chance of recovery. "My argument stands" doesn't really do very much here. Any price is worth paying to someone who doesn't have to pay the price. — unenlightened

Yup.

That is the reason why NKBJ has decided she/he gets to make decisions for others in situations like this.

I just do not understand the "LIFE no matter how miserable rather than death" mentality.

Lest the extravagance of this likening strains the imagination, consider this case:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/23/acid-attack-partner-intended-really-serious-harm-court-told

Not a nice story I'm afraid, but one might be of a mind to consider a rape to constitute a similarly irreparable scarring of the person - to one who sees themselves in a particular way. Sometimes the very suggestion of 'getting over it' is a devaluing of the lost integrity of personhood, adding further insult to what is taken to be a lethal humiliation.

How would you think if this was about cancer patients? Would you allow a patient to die without interfering in their cancer because the treatment is "only" a 50/50 chance and chemo sucks?

How would you think if this was about cancer patients? Would you allow a patient to die without interfering in their cancer because the treatment is "only" a 50/50 chance and chemo sucks? — NKBJ

Of course. It happens all the time, and it's for the patient to decide and nobody else. Patients refuse treatment for various reasons, religious, or whatever. It would be monstrous if doctors could just treat people whenever they thought it was worthwhile.

I suppose you mean even in cases when the patient is underage and probably not the best judge of her own interests.


Oh well. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. We're going in circles and I'm not sure I see a way out of it.

And, of course, YOU want to be able to decide if a person is "cognizant enough...just as I am sure you would want ME to be the judge if YOU are...right? — Frank Apisa

Shirley, I would never!

It's not for "me" or "us"; in this case it's for her legal guardians to determine, and also perhaps for trained and regulated health and mental health professionals.

I suppose you mean even in cases when the patient is underage and probably not the best judge of her own interests. — NKBJ

When the patient is under age, it is normally the parent-or-guardian's decision, as being in the best position to represent the child's interests. Very rarely, if their decision is extreme, it becomes a matter for the courts if the medics see fit to dispute. In the case of cancer treatments, this is quite unlikely, because serious treatments are nearly always risky, potentially harmful not foolproof and so it would be rare for a refusal of treatment to be so unreasonable as to warrant a court case. More often, it is the other way about, that doctors wish to discontinue treatment, and parents want them to continue.

Medical ethics are not amenable to this one size fits all absolutist mentality. Life is complicated and issues require nuanced thinking.

We're going in circles and I'm not sure I see a way out of it. — NKBJ

The way out is to see that rigid thinking will not answer. It is to see that the patient's experience must always be considered and weighed; it is not just a matter of facts and probabilities, but of human individuality.

VagabondSpectre
1.6k

And, of course, YOU want to be able to decide if a person is "cognizant enough...just as I am sure you would want ME to be the judge if YOU are...right? — Frank Apisa


Shirley, I would never!

It's not for "me" or "us"; in this case it's for her legal guardians to determine, and also perhaps for trained and regulated health and mental health professionals. — VagabondSpectre

On something as personal as this...it is for HER to decide...not any regulated anything.

Her parents apparently conceded that she was unhappy to the point where she wanted to end her life...and in fact, did. Although that had to be done in a gruesome way, because people interfered with her ability to do it with dignity.

The way out is to see that rigid thinking will not answer — unenlightened

I see your line of thinking as just as rigid as you see mine. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree as it does not seem to me we will reach a consensus any time soon.

On something as personal as this...it is for HER to decide...not any regulated anything. — Frank Apisa

What if she was 12 instead of 17? (not a rhetorical question)

I'm not taking issue with the principle that individuals should have the right to make decisions for themselves, I'm raising the possibility that some people (such as a naive child) might not actually be intelligent/aware/cognizant enough to make the best decision.

I'm not denying that this particular 17 year old was cognizant enough to make her own choice (it's a complicated case that would require investigation to firmly judge), instead I'm going straight to the crux of the issue that the thread is based on: extreme youth makes suicide more controversial because we expect youth to correlate with naivete (and future potential). The older we make the woman in our example, the less intuitively controversial it becomes.

As I said in the post to which you originally responded, it's a complicated issue and we would have to look at the details of each specific case; there's no correct answer that must hold true for all cases.

I see your line of thinking as just as rigid as you see mine. — NKBJ

Then you are not paying attention. My response varies between children and adults, it varies between forcible treatment and euthanasia, it varies between critical and chronic conditions and it varies according to mental competence. And my posts have been directed mainly at drawing these distinctions and relating them to the balance to be drawn between the autonomy of the patient (and parent if applicable) and the authority of the doctor.

Whereas you seem to universalise across these distinctions and ignore the patient's view entirely.

The stubbornness you're showing in refusing to even just move on from the conversation is part of the rigidity I've seen throughout your posts.

I won't go into the rigidity of your so-called nuanced position.

VagabondSpectre
1.6k

On something as personal as this...it is for HER to decide...not any regulated anything. — Frank Apisa


What if she was 12 instead of 17? (not a rhetorical question)

I'm not taking issue with the principle that individuals should have the right to make decisions for themselves, I'm raising the possibility that some people (such as a naive child) might not actually be intelligent/aware/cognizant enough to make the best decision.

I'm not denying that this particular 17 year old was cognizant enough to make her own choice (it's a complicated case that would require investigation to firmly judge), instead I'm going straight to the crux of the issue that the thread is based on: extreme youth makes suicide more controversial because we expect youth to correlate with naivete (and future potential). The older we make the woman in our example, the less intuitively controversial it becomes.

As I said in the post to which you originally responded, it's a complicated issue and we would have to look at the details of each specific case; there's no correct answer that must hold true for all cases. — VagabondSpectre

Actually, we are not that far apart, VS.

But as I said in an earlier post...on issues like this, my side of the issue cannot concede ground at the beginning of debate...or we end up with a mid-point that favors the extreme other side.

That is best illustrated in the "abortion" issue.

If the side I favor starts by saying "Well a woman should certainly have the right to terminate a pregnancy that is less than 8 weeks along"...and the debate is with someone insisting that a fertilized cell is already a human being...our side would be screwing ourselves in the debate.

So...the argument from our side MUST start with "a woman with a pregnancy occurring in her own body should have the right to terminate that pregnancy at any time for any reason."

We can make adjustments at some point...but not right now...and not while discussing the subject case.

I took your post to question my motives, as if I truly don't care about the traumatized, but I'm just more interested in promoting my brand of conservatism. My point is that I'm interested in the philosophical component of this issue and that's why the focus is on the ethical issue, not on my expressions of sympathy for the young girl and her family. While the latter is humane and appropriate in other contexts, it's not part of this discussion.

Anyway, all of this is an aside and ad hom. — Hanover

That sounds right.

If your post is supposed to be a standalone exercise in standalone ethical questions, then I'm out of line. I'll leave you to the standalone question. Have at the philosophical components.

I see your line of thinking as just as rigid as you see mine. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree as it does not seem to me we will reach a consensus any time soon. — NKBJ

There's no consensus because you're simply wrong.

Medical ethics are not amenable to this one size fits all absolutist mentality. Life is complicated and issues require nuanced thinking — unenlightened

Starting here, at a point of agreement, are you willing to concede that had Noa's parents or had a judge intervened on her behalf and she still lived today, still as painfully as the day her life ended, that you'd be in agreement with the intervention?

That is to say, this is just a terribly complex case, with equal justifications for either decision, and there's no use in second guessing. It's like what we do in most complex life, work, family, career, etc. decisions. We do our best. I lean heavily for her intervention as you know, but might it really be neither of us knows what's best here and rules limiting our intervention into other's affairs becomes murky when dealing with someone with psychological issues.

are you willing to concede that had Noa's parents or had a judge intervened on her behalf and she still lived today, still as painfully as the day her life ended, that you'd be in agreement with the intervention? — Hanover

I would be; in the circumstance as is, of relying on media hysteria, my inclination would be to trust the judgement of those closer to the scene as my inclination is in the case anyway.

We do our best. — Hanover

This! Not everyone does, every time, but mostly...

I lean heavily for her intervention... — Hanover

I would too as a first instinct. I retreat from there based on what I understand to be a situation that has seen interventions for years and years. They did their best, and failed, and failed, and failed. Sometimes the only best left is to admit that your best is just not good enough. Cures are the best, but sometimes there is no cure, and palliative care is all that is left.

I think it is hard for a male to understand the identity issues around sexual violation for a woman, but it was fairly commonplace traditionally for a violated woman to restore herself by suicide, rather as a Japanese man might restore his honour by harakiri. It doesn't fit modern western culture, but that doesn't make it insane. There have always been fates worse than death.

There's no consensus because you're simply wrong. — Benkei

Ah, well then. If you make your case like that, I guess it must be true. S/

Clearly you've run out of productive things to say. Oh well. Next time mayhaps.

Are there any countries where euthanization using nitrogen gas is legal for the terminally ill? Wikipedia doesn’t seem to have all of the info on this. Thanks!

What happens when a euthanasia thread returns from the dead...?

I have garlic and a wooden stake....

What happens when a euthanasia thread returns from the dead...? — Banno

I have garlic and a wooden stake. — tim wood

:rofl:

That's a zombie thread tim wood, not a vampire. Jesus Christ!

I'm sorry I'm late, but I can think of something that could unlock the debate.

The first thing to do in the face of a morally complex case is to make the assumptions (if possible common ones) explicit. I would say that the first moral assumption of a free society is that every person has the right to decide freely and rationally about his actions as long as he does not inflict on others a greater evil than he is trying to avoid for himself.

According to this principle, euthanasia should be authorized in any country that presumes to respect the freedom of its citizens.

The rest will be casuistry.

NOTE: It seems to me that a society that causes the death of people based on the indemonstrable benefits that these deaths can produce for all citizens and that forbids these citizens to end their own life when it is evidently unbearable for them is a morally ill society.
No, I'm not just thinking about death penalty. Look for other examples. There are.

I have garlic and a wooden stake.... — tim wood

I have garlic and a boned shoulder...

I would say that the first moral assumption of a free society is that every person has the right to decide freely and rationally about his actions as long as he does not inflict on others a greater evil than he is trying to avoid for himself. — David Mo

Except children, apparently.

Except children, apparently. — Isaac

It is assumed that children have no use of reason. The age of reason, you know.

What poses a sharp problem: In what age begins the age of reason? Everybody knows many teen that have very more reason that their fathers, syndrome Down people smarter that "normal" people, and gaga old men absolutely stupid...
I suppose a rule about this is not easy. So we cut by eye.

Are there any countries where euthanization using nitrogen gas is legal for the terminally ill? Wikipedia doesn’t seem to have all of the info on this. Thanks! — Euth

I think that would be more expensive than morphine. Plus if it's a patient who can move around, she'd likely try to take the mask off when confusion sets in. Someone would have to put it back on. Then she'd start fighting. Not good.

Assuming the facts reported are accurate, do you not see this as murder? — Hanover

I see it as manslaughter, perpetrated by the person who abused her.

The suicidal premise: All living things that commit suicide are humans
This implies, if nothing else, that taking one's own life has something to do with our brains. Brains are logical devices i.e. whatever else they may do, their primary function is logic - rational thinking to be precise. This suggests, to me at least, that there's something rational about suicide i.e. there are good reasons to take one's own life. You can't have the most intelligent member of a group being mistaken about this. Ergo, without going into the details of when suicide is permissible, we can safely say that suicide, sometimes, is a perfectly rational choice. If that's the case, is it possible that euthanasia is one of those times?