- #211
JaredJames
- 2,818
- 22
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.
It's definitely an issue that needs debating.
Jimmy Snyder said: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.
jarednjames said: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.
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.jarednjames said:I'd add, I'm not going to put a child through the suffering just because they are below 16/18/21.
When did I say that?nismaratwork said:'You've said it however; when faced with a choice to kill or be killed, you choose to be killed.
Jimmy Snyder said: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 said:When did I say that?
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.jarednjames said: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.
Jimmy Snyder said: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 said: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.
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 said:your constant semantic bickering
Jimmy Snyder said: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.
jarednjames said: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.
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.nismaratwork said:A 5 year old doesn't have the ABILITY to give legal consent, but their parents do.
nismaratwork said: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 said:One post suggested that children below the age of 5 could be killed without anyone's consent . This progression will not end well.
Jimmy Snyder said: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.