Is Euthanasia the Future of End-of-Life Choices?

[JaredJames]

I'd add, I'm not going to put a child through the suffering just because they are below 16/18/21.

It's definitely an issue that needs debating.

 

[nismaratwork]

That whole cop thing is a rather poor analogy. If you put someone in a kill or be killed situation, I give them liberty to kill. I get the feeling you want my opinion on this vocabulary issue so you can extend the analogy to the doctor who administers a lethal dose, but that is more than just a stretch. There is no kill or be killed situation going on, so I don't give them the same liberty.

'I don't want to be trapped by the evils of logic', isn't really grounds to reject a VERY sound analogy. That being said, I didn't bring it up as an analogy, or at all for that matter. Someone did a page or so back, you rendered your opinion, and I responded.


You've said it however; when faced with a choice to kill or be killed, you choose to be killed. That's admirable, but I can already begin to understand why those genes aren't the winners of the evolutionary lottery...

 

[nismaratwork]

I'd add, I'm not going to put a child through the suffering just because they are below 16/18/21.

It's definitely an issue that needs debating.

There's no reason that such a grave matter shouldn't be up for constant debate, but as you say, the debate shouldn't paralyze us.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'd add, I'm not going to put a child through the suffering just because they are below 16/18/21.

In most legal matters great and small, a child below the age of 18 would not be considered legally competent to give informed consent. And yet in this matter of life and death, you would consider it competent down to the age of 5. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please verify that this is what you mean.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

'You've said it however; when faced with a choice to kill or be killed, you choose to be killed.

When did I say that?

 

[JaredJames]

In most legal matters great and small, a child below the age of 18 would not be considered legally competent to give informed consent. And yet in this matter of life and death, you would consider it competent down to the age of 5. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please verify that this is what you mean.

I'm not saying they get the final say in it and certainly not considering them competent. Which is why I said there is input from a trained person.

 

[nismaratwork]

When did I say that?

Ahhh, I thought you were saying that if faced with a choice to act in self defense with lethal force, or be killed, you'd be killed. I see you agree instead that such a situation is a fait accompli in which the cop is an instrument of the instigator. You think I'm going to slippery slope this, but I'm not, I'm just pointing out that your constant semantic bickering isn't helping, it's actually a deflection from the main point.

I want to add... if it's down to being 5 years old and dying, and 5 years old and dying in pain... you don't have a choice to ignore that because it's an unusual situation. Kids are routinely given into the care of their parents during life-threatening moments such as elective surgeries and more. You talk to the kid, the parents, the doctors, and make the best choice you can in a terrible situation with all of the options on the table. That's life...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm not saying they get the final say in it and certainly not considering them competent. Which is why I said there is input from a trained person.

I'm sorry my question was not specific enough. In order to perform voluntary euthanasia, the doctor is going to need consent from the person who will die. At what age is the child competent to give that consent.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm sorry my question was not specific enough. In order to perform voluntary euthanasia, the doctor is going to need consent from the person who will die. At what age is the child competent to give that consent.

You do realize that what you're saying is simply incorrect, right? A 5 year old doesn't have a choice about the nature or course of their treatment unless life saving measures are refused... and there isn't some religion invoked... and more.

A 5 year old doesn't have the ABILITY to give legal consent, but their parents do.

edit: Let me ask you this: in your version of the world, do you believe that 5 year old choose to undergo chemotherapy as adjunct therapy to surgery? Do you think 5 year olds even have the right to choose a gender if there is to be assignment surgery? I'm asking you for some proof that a doctor would need the "consent from the person who will die," including children/minors.
If you can't, then you're not actually saying meaningful things, just noise.

 

[JaredJames]

You do realize that what you're saying is simply incorrect, right? A 5 year old doesn't have a choice about the nature or course of their treatment unless life saving measures are refused... and there isn't some religion invoked... and more.

A 5 year old doesn't have the ABILITY to give legal consent, but their parents do.

Agreed, but I wouldn't ignore the wishes of a child either. If the child really is suffering, you discuss with them, parents and the doctors to decide on the best course of action. However, I wouldn't rely on the parents for a final decision in the matter (they don't in the UK - there was a recent case where doctors decided not to resuscitate a baby against the wishes of the parents, they appealed and lost).

I think the trained persons should be responsible for the final decision, whilst taking into account the childs wishes and listening to the parents.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

your constant semantic bickering

I can't believe this. I have done everything I can to keep semantics out of the conversation. I have abandoned the words suicide and euthanasia in favor of the phrase "one person killing anther". In spite of these efforts, I have had these terms thrown at me from every direction. This accusation is the icing on the cake. What semantic subtleties do you find in the phrase "one person killing another?" What's more, I have confined my remarks to that topic. Since suicide is not one person killing another, I have not expressed my opinion of it pro or con. That's not all. In one form or another, I have posted the content of this post a half dozen times already.

 

[nismaratwork]

I can't believe this. I have done everything I can to keep semantics out of the conversation. I have abandoned the words suicide and euthanasia in favor of the phrase "one person killing anther". In spite of these efforts, I have had these terms thrown at me from every direction. This accusation is the icing on the cake. What semantic subtleties do you find in the phrase "one person killing another?" What's more, I have confined my remarks to that topic. Since suicide is not one person killing another, I have not expressed my opinion of it pro or con. That's not all. In one form or another, I have posted the content of this post a half dozen times already.

I'll tell you what, when you start answering your backlog of questions to others, and eventually to get to mine, I'll answer question. Until then you're still overdrawn, but here's one more on credit:

Endless reductionism and forming personal definitions instead of using commonly agreed upon words is a kind of obfuscation you seem to retreat to. It is a kind of semantic deconstructionism, and I'd call it clever if you weren't so ham-handed about it.

 

[nismaratwork]

Agreed, but I wouldn't ignore the wishes of a child either. If the child really is suffering, you discuss with them, parents and the doctors to decide on the best course of action. However, I wouldn't rely on the parents for a final decision in the matter (they don't in the UK - there was a recent case where doctors decided not to resuscitate a baby against the wishes of the parents, they appealed and lost).

I think the trained persons should be responsible for the final decision, whilst taking into account the childs wishes and listening to the parents.

I agree with you, but in the USA that isn't necessarily the case, even if it often works out that way. I can only speak to those laws I'm familiar with, although I don't think saying that the kid has a say in any way means that the final call should be theirs. Hell, asking a toddler to choose their fate directly and starkly would be absurdly cruel.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

A 5 year old doesn't have the ABILITY to give legal consent, but their parents do.

No they don't. It's illegal everywhere. We are discussing the morality of doctors killing patients. I have been accused of getting too emotional about doctors killing patients that have agreed to it. How do you think I feel about doctors killing patients that have not agreed to it? One post suggested that children below the age of 5 could be killed without anyone's consent . This progression will not end well.

 

[JaredJames]

I agree with you, but in the USA that isn't necessarily the case, even if it often works out that way. I can only speak to those laws I'm familiar with, although I don't think saying that the kid has a say in any way means that the final call should be theirs. Hell, asking a toddler to choose their fate directly and starkly would be absurdly cruel.

Of course not, which of course why I added the "doctors input" clause. I require input from an outside person (preferably not emotionally attached) on the case. Parents can be skewed in their view on the matter and can appear selfish.

It's actually the reason I like the fact that doctors can over rule the parents. I'm not sure how much power they have in this area though. Religion seems to be the tricky ground with this matter.

 

[JaredJames]

One post suggested that children below the age of 5 could be killed without anyone's consent . This progression will not end well.

Please point that post out. Is it supposed to be mine?

I'd point out that the doctors decision is final and the consent for the action, based on rational thought regarding the quality of life of the child.

And once again, this particular form of euthanasia is currently enacted in both the US and UK without any problems you are making out to be. So please stop bringing these ridiculous statements.

 

[nismaratwork]

No they don't. It's illegal everywhere. We are discussing the morality of doctors killing patients. I have been accused of getting too emotional about doctors killing patients that have agreed to it. How do you think I feel about doctors killing patients that have not agreed to it? One post suggested that children below the age of 5 could be killed without anyone's consent . This progression will not end well.

I actually don't understand this grammatically: No the children don't have the right and you agree, or no the parents don't have the right and we disagree?...

Again, I really don't care how you feel by page 14 of this chat, as DaveC has said, this should be about something more than how we FEEL ABOUT THE ISSUE. I give you no credit for taking over a dozen pages to reign in your prejudice and channel it into these new evasive or nonsensical posts.

You think that parents making life-or-death decisions for their kids is the beginning of a slippery slope? Are you KIDDING me?! A parent can decide virtually every element of a child's future, from their education, diet, social life, and medical procedures which carry the risk of death.

 

[Evo]

This thread is closed for now.