The Rights of one should not be used to compel another to compromise theirs.
This moves well outside the topic of atheism/religion. Rights, properly understood, do not conflict and require no decisions (by the State or by anyone else) to determine their priority.
I think we have had this discussion before though, on facebook perhaps.
Kim Davis is entitled to her own beliefs. That being said, if she was TRUE to her principles, she should have resigned her post. That would have been staying "true" to her principles. But it would have kept her out of the spotlight, and cost her a bucketload of $$$.
Kim Davis is entitled to her own beliefs. That being said, if she was TRUE to her principles she should have resigned her post. That would have been staying "true" to her principles.
This moves well outside the topic of atheism/religion. Rights, properly understood, do not conflict and require no decisions (by the State or by anyone else) to determine their priority.
I think we have had this discussion before though, on facebook perhaps.
Possibly. I guess I should have made a CLEARER distinction between Rights and "Rights", as in the inalienable Rights we all have versus Rights as delineated under Law.
Kim Davis is entitled to her own beliefs. That being said, if she was TRUE to her principles, she should have resigned her post. That would have been staying "true" to her principles. But it would have kept her out of the spotlight, and cost her a bucketload of $$$.
So, I guess we know where she REALLY stood.
So would you likewise suggest these doctors resign from the college of medical practitioners (or whatever it is that they subscribe to)? Should they be required to renounce their faith? Or, should the church declare their actions unchristian and excommunicate them? And just for fun's sake, no you can't make the argument that "assisted death is against the Hippocratic oath" / popular morals. Let's just say that since it's now legal, the vast majority of people have deemed it to be less harm to in fact end suffering. (I am aware this is not the case in many people's eyes.. this is a "What if" if you need).
Doctor's, if I remember how it is actually set up viz "Hospital privileges", are more akin to "independent contractors" as opposed to Employees of a given Hospital. But, to your question, I would say that a Doctor who was not willing to perform an assisted suicide, should seek privileges elsewhere, if the Hospital he was affiliated with decided that all Doctors should make themselves available.
In the case of the article, if there are Doctors on staff who are okay with carrying out the procedure, I imagine they might move, too.
I have a friend who is a thoracic surgeon in Alberta. The whole issue is a big topic of conversation as they are looking at being asked to go against everything they have been trained to fight against (death), and to change a culture ingrained in the profession from the very beginning (preservation of life).
Also interesting to know is how Health Professionals in general look after themselves in "end of life" situations. More often the choice is one of quality of life over prolonging their time before the end.
Ms. Davis was hired to provide Marriage licenses to couples by the State. The State sanctions marriage between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Ms. Davis alleges her beliefs will not allow her to perform her job properly as defined by her Employer. She can either maintain her beliefs, or her job. Not both. The "right" thing to do would have been to resign in protest.
Doctor's, if I remember how it is actually set up viz "Hospital privileges", are more akin to "independent contractors" as opposed to Employees of a given Hospital. But, to your question, I would say that a Doctor who was not willing to perform an assisted suicide, should seek privileges elsewhere, if the Hospital he was affiliated with decided that all Doctors should make themselves available.
In the case of the article, if there are Doctors on staff who are okay with carrying out the procedure, I imagine they might move, too.
I have a friend who is a thoracic surgeon in Alberta. The whole issue is a big topic of conversation as they are looking at being asked to go against everything they have been trained to fight against (death), and to change a culture ingrained in the profession from the very beginning (preservation of life).
Also interesting to know is how Health Professionals in general look after themselves in "end of life" situations. More often the choice is one of quality of life over prolonging their time before the end.
Well, here's the oath:
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:... I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow. I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery. I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. Above all, I must not play at God. I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick. I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure. I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm. If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Basically - they will learn from their mistakes, they will try to aid the sick without overdrugging/treating them, or equally to just give up on them, don't be a robot, don't be a know it all, don't be a snitch, don't make decisions just on your own beliefs, don't lose the person behind the problems, prevent when you can, respect the sick and the well, and hopefully that'll be puppies and rainbows.
Nothing there says to "forestall death at all costs", in fact, the overtreatment line probably leans towards euthanasia.
Anyways.. you didn't quite answer the question, or if you did you tried to word it up to make it politician-level clear. If you still care, do I think this hospital should be allowed to say "we don't do this here"? Sure.. but the second they try and impede someone from seeking it, directly or indirectly, either physically, emotionally, morally, or even logistically they can fuck right off. If they don't want euthanasia, they don't have to get one.... kinda like abortion.
Ms. Davis was hired to provide Marriage licenses to couples by the State. The State sanctions marriage between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Ms. Davis alleges her beliefs will not allow her to perform her job properly as defined by her Employer. She can either maintain her beliefs, or her job. Not both. The "right" thing to do would have been to resign in protest.
So clearly Ms. Davis is not as religious as she claims to be... she's chosen her job over her beliefs. She should have stood her ground and resigned so as not to spend eternity burning in Hell. But as with all religions... beliefs are only as convenient as the current times allow.... and the eternal flip flop continues!!
Why couldn't Mrs. Davis have gone to her superiors with her concerns, and they could relocate her to an equivalent but non-morally sensitive position?
If I have some change in my situation as in a physical / mental impairment then my job can make a lateral move. (No, I'm not suggesting religion is a mental impairment). So why not respect a moralistic one as well?
Sorry, I thought I was clear enough. Let me try again.
No, I do not think that a doctor who objects to assisted suicide should quit his Provincial body. To my knowledge, none of them have said that all doctors should perform this task upon request. Quite the opposite. Many are trying to ensure the legislation protects a Doctor's ability to decline to participate.
As for trying to moralize, or otherwise dissuade a patient from this course, as the Government is not allowing this simply to be a "give me the shot" proposition, I think a certain amount of questioning of the person's resolve will be part of the process, don't you?
Sorry, I thought I was clear enough. Let me try again.
No, I do not think that a doctor who objects to assisted suicide should quit his Provincial body. To my knowledge, none of them have said that all doctors should perform this task upon request. Quite the opposite. Many are trying to ensure the legislation protects a Doctor's ability to decline to participate.
As for trying to moralize, or otherwise dissuade a patient from this course, as the Government is not allowing this simply to be a "give me the shot" proposition, I think a certain amount of questioning of the person's resolve will be part of the process, don't you?
There should be safeguards and some criteria of course.. but not from a religious bend.
There should be safeguards and some criteria of course.. but not from a religious bend.
Mark
I assume you mean in the process to determine whether or not to allow access? Agreed. The religious angle only comes into it when the Healthcare provider objects on those grounds.
Personally, I still hold to the notion of having the patient do it themselves, thus not involving anyone in the actual death. You can train people to apply the IV (call them Lachesis technicians). Then, when a person receives their "prescription", said technician arrives at an agreed upon time and place, installs the IV, and the individual triggers the cocktail themselves.
No muss, no fuss, and no one is asked to do anything they do not wish to do.
But that's me . . .
Moral/ethical decisions as to what constitutes eligibility for euthanasia can not come from a particular theological base, but rather one of morals and ethical standards in practice by all.
I'm actually a fan of your "used initiated" option here, to alleviate any trauma to health care providers, but how do you jive that with the "suicide is a straight to hell" move from your religion?
just to chime in here a little, there are many issues to consider from the basic doctor-patient relationship perspective.
should doctors have the authority and tell their patients what is best and should happen? should doctors provide informed consent in which they say what should happen but require the patients' to agree? should doctors simply provide all the possible choices with no bias at all and let the patients make the decision? should it be a shared decision making process?
there are pros and cons to all of these perspectives and when it comes to euthanasia, it can have some very serious consequences.
Moral/ethical decisions as to what constitutes eligibility for euthanasia can not come from a particular theological base, but rather one of morals and ethical standards in practice by all.
I'm actually a fan of your "user initiated" option here, to alleviate any trauma to health care providers, but how do you jive that with the "suicide is a straight to hell" move from your religion?
Mark
If you are asking about the people involved in providing the cocktail, or administering the IV prior to use, I would say that those people would not be of that strict a religious nature if that is the field they were to pursue.
If you are asking me personally, I would not take the option. I am going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the afterlife, thank you. I have sent a lot of money the Government's way since I started working and, if they have to spend a little of it keeping my mouldering carcass alive for a few extra weeks, so be it.
Moral/ethical decisions as to what constitutes eligibility for euthanasia can not come from a particular theological base, but rather one of morals and ethical standards in practice by all.
If I may join into the discourse a bit...
I'm wondering, mostly out of an inquisitive nature hoping to learn more about this issue and probably with some bias, how we as a society would determine a "moral and ethical standard"? Won't everyone have a slightly differing opinion on this? Do we vote on it? Determine a consensus?
EDIT: On second thought, perhaps you are referring to the likely situation that would arise given an introduction of a "mercy killing" law. Those who are "fine" with continuing on with their jobs and being involved with assisted death continue; and those who decide their conscience is against it and refuse, may be out of luck. We voted in our government, and if this is what they do we as a democracy just have to go with it. Pardon my lack of political knowledge or anything I overlooked.
I'm wondering, mostly out of an inquisitive nature hoping to learn more about this issue and probably with some bias, how we as a society would determine a "moral and ethical standard"? Won't everyone have a slightly differing opinion on this? Do we vote on it? Determine a consensus?
EDIT: On second thought, perhaps you are referring to the likely situation that would arise given an introduction of a "mercy killing" law. Those who are "fine" with continuing on with their jobs and being involved with assisted death continue; and those who decide their conscience is against it and refuse, may be out of luck. We voted in our government, and if this is what they do we as a democracy just have to go with it. Pardon my lack of political knowledge or anything I overlooked.
What I mean is this
Now that Canada is examining euthanasia as an option, they need to safeguard it to some degree to ensure it is not being accessed by those who may be mentally unsound, in an acute state of being mentally unwell, or somehow being coerced / pressured into the act. Not unlike certain procedures and protections that are already in place (for example setting a will, assigning a power of attorney, hell I even believe there are certain protections around contractual things such as business loans nowadays).
As for the moral and ethical standard, there are certainly going to be some range as people are not uniform. However, when I say "come from a particular theological base", I mean an acceptable moral IMO is "everyone has the right to be treated with dignity and respect", whereas a theological base one I would say has NO place in this discussion is "The bible says killing yourself means your soul is damned for all eternity in hell". The former is a fine consideration, while the latter has no basis in logic or evidence, and is in fact an attempt of one demographic of people trying to impose their will on another.
The moral of all people being treated with dignity and respect would be INCLUSIVE of options, where the bible one is EXCLUSIVE. This is what I was saying earlier where I want all people to have all options open to them. In the case of euthanasia, if you're religious and believe it is wrong, you don't have to look at it as an option with my approach. With the religious approach, if I'm in pain and / or want to alleviate the suffering and hardship my existence is causing not only to myself but also to those around me, they are telling me I can't because it's wrong according to them. Kinda like abortion.
And yes, I will grumble and be pissed off when the people are gathered outside of a euthanasia clinic holding signs saying "God says...", just like I grumble about the abortion people.
i strongly feel that there is a very simple solution to the argument that euthanasia laws will lead to people who "shouldn't be killed" for whatever reason being killed anyway. how about we as individuals actually consider our inevitable deaths and stop ignoring the fact and outright state in our wills (or what have you) our personal intentions about the end of our lives? i know it sounds crazy but if we all just HAVE to make a decision before we're sick and/or old and/or dying, everyone would know what we wanted. to safeguard it even more, it could be something that you have to renew every five years or so just to make sure you haven't changed your mind. it's so simple it's amazingly stupid we don't do this.
The moral of all people being treated with dignity and respect would be INCLUSIVE of options, where the bible one is EXCLUSIVE.
It is very possible for a religious person to act in an inclusive manner, so perhaps you don't have a problem with religion per se, but with religious people acting inappropriately?
outright state in our wills (or what have you) our personal intentions about the end of our lives? .
I guess I would say that this could be complicated because there's no way to know exactly what situation will arise leading us to our deathbed and then inevitable death. A situation could arise that could not possibly be planned for and whatever was attempted in the will to explain what to do, the situation that in fact came up is very complex and it's not clear what action the person would have wanted. Lol, I don't know if the point I'm making is clear or coming across but I guess I'm trying to say that it may not be as simple as just stating it in your will ahead of time. A person could even have a change of heart after something life-threatening occurs and they're on their deathbed unable to speak or communicate in any way, but in their heart they wish to continue living despite what they wrote in their will before the trauma, as an example.
I guess I would say that this could be complicated because there's no way to know exactly what situation will arise leading us to our deathbed and then inevitable death. A situation could arise that could not possibly be planned for and whatever was attempted in the will to explain what to do, the situation that in fact came up is very complex and it's not clear what action the person would have wanted. Lol, I don't know if the point I'm making is clear or coming across but I guess I'm trying to say that it may not be as simple as just stating it in your will ahead of time. A person could even have a change of heart after something life-threatening occurs and they're on their deathbed unable to speak or communicate in any way, but in their heart they wish to continue living despite what they wrote in their will before the trauma, as an example.
i can see that you have not put these provisions into your will as you would have know that they can be extremely detailed if you want them to be and they can cover many various situations if you want them to.
obviously, there is a chance that one could go their whole life stating "just kill me when the time comes" and suddenly they change their mind after a serious accident which leaves them comatose or unable to communicate. however, no offense to them, but they would seem to be shit out of luck. if you are worried about a sudden change of mind at the last minute, then don't put euthanasia instructions into your will. obviously, this is something you should think a lot about and be certain of your decision.
personally, just fucking kill me. there is no way i want to spend the rest of my life in crazy pain with a million tubes stuck in me. i will never have children because i know how i feel about the end of my life and how i will deal with it.
It is very possible for a religious person to act in an inclusive manner, so perhaps you don't have a problem with religion per se, but with religious people acting inappropriately?
Not quite...
I have a problem with the structure of religion - at least the ones I am familiar with - tend towards obedience, following their code, and therefore limiting their own options in general. It spoon feeds you the morals telling you what you should have, while I prefer to think for myself. It cultivates a community that asks no questions, and believes what they're told... this is profoundly dangerous IMO.
I was raised Roman Catholic, and when you think about it, the entirety of the doctrine celebrates death, doing only for others, and suffering in the name of future promises. Although there are circumstances where death can be a glorious thing, and doing for others is wonderful, and sacrifice now for late gains is also good - in certain ways - in others it isn't. Let me decide.
As for religious people being able to act in an inclusive manner, of course they can! And non-religious people can act in an exclusive manner too. I'm not a fan of people who act exclusively of other people, my freedoms and choices, or feel they can tell me what I should be doing. Religion often serves as a shield to hide bigotry.
personally, just fucking kill me. there is no way i want to spend the rest of my life in crazy pain with a million tubes stuck in me. i will never have children because i know how i feel about the end of my life and how i will deal with it.
Sorry to isolate that part trigs, but that's pretty deep. I can totally relate in a sense that death sucks and it's a pretty scary thing, unless that's not quite what you were getting at.
Anyways, for the rest of what you said before that, I agree with you, you can just be extremely detailed and obviously not take lightly a decision like euthanasia. Can't really argue with what you said.
I 119% agree with you that as a human being I'd love to decide and control every aspect of my existence and of existence in general. I'd make suffering extinct and abolish death if you're catching my drift. But in my personal opinion I think there are things in life that we don't decide or can't control. Fine, I'll say it lol: I was raised Roman Catholic as well and I have also chosen to believe in the truth of this religion. I don't really practice it right now in terms of going to church and taking communion etc., but I still sorta believe in it. Honestly, this is what it's like: I'm not thrilled that God gets to make the rules and decide right and wrong and all that, but I accept that reality independent of what I want. We don't always get what we want in life.
I know it can be argued, as it has been, that it's stupid to believe in God or whatever, but in my personal opinion I believe God exists and that the Roman Catholic Church happens to teach the true meaning of reality, and yes I understand there are some teachings in there that are controversial and some that seem too ludicrous to believe. But I do believe them because from what I can see I see plenty of evidence/reasons to believe what I do. But to each their own I suppose. We have to separate how people "handle" religion with the religion itself. Just because you met a priest, for example, that only cared about how much money you gave to the church I don't think it counterfeits the entire faith. It might only counterfeit that particular man's faith.
Anyways, to bring it back to some of the things we've discussed, I believe that I should be free to believe what I believe. I guess some arguments being made by those of faith are along the lines of "You should not be allowed to force us to act against our beliefs." The same people who want to provide the suffering and dying with freedom and choice to die are simultaneously removing freedom and choice from those who are still alive and want to abide by what they believe to be right and good.
Bear in mind, Mark, that I don't want to get on your bad side, you've helped me so much in my other thread. (Haha.) I do hope you find my thoughts somewhat interesting and worth conversing to. It would be refreshing to talk with someone who doesn't take the tact of someone like luvs2fart.
To believe in a supernatural god or universal spirit, people appear to suppress the brain network used for analytical thinking and engage the empathetic network, the scientists say. When thinking analytically about the physical world, people appear to do the opposite.
"A stream of research in cognitive psychology has shown and claims that people who have faith (i.e., are religious or spiritual) are not as smart as others. They actually might claim they are less intelligent.," said Richard Boyatzis, distinguished university professor and professor of organizational behavior at Case Western Reserve, and a member of Jack's team.
Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths—not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others.
Jack said the conflict can be avoided by remembering simple rules: "Religion has no place telling us about the physical structure of the world; that's the business of science. Science should inform our ethical reasoning, but it cannot determine what is ethical or tell us how we should construct meaning and purpose in our lives."
Comments
The Rights of one should not be used to compel another to compromise theirs.
This moves well outside the topic of atheism/religion. Rights, properly understood, do not conflict and require no decisions (by the State or by anyone else) to determine their priority.
I think we have had this discussion before though, on facebook perhaps.
So were you pro Kim Davis?
Mark
So, I guess we know where she REALLY stood.
Possibly. I guess I should have made a CLEARER distinction between Rights and "Rights", as in the inalienable Rights we all have versus Rights as delineated under Law.
So would you likewise suggest these doctors resign from the college of medical practitioners (or whatever it is that they subscribe to)? Should they be required to renounce their faith? Or, should the church declare their actions unchristian and excommunicate them? And just for fun's sake, no you can't make the argument that "assisted death is against the Hippocratic oath" / popular morals. Let's just say that since it's now legal, the vast majority of people have deemed it to be less harm to in fact end suffering. (I am aware this is not the case in many people's eyes.. this is a "What if" if you need).
Mark
Ok, I perused the article.
In the case of the article, if there are Doctors on staff who are okay with carrying out the procedure, I imagine they might move, too.
I have a friend who is a thoracic surgeon in Alberta. The whole issue is a big topic of conversation as they are looking at being asked to go against everything they have been trained to fight against (death), and to change a culture ingrained in the profession from the very beginning (preservation of life).
Also interesting to know is how Health Professionals in general look after themselves in "end of life" situations. More often the choice is one of quality of life over prolonging their time before the end.
Well, here's the oath:
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:...
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Basically - they will learn from their mistakes, they will try to aid the sick without overdrugging/treating them, or equally to just give up on them, don't be a robot, don't be a know it all, don't be a snitch, don't make decisions just on your own beliefs, don't lose the person behind the problems, prevent when you can, respect the sick and the well, and hopefully that'll be puppies and rainbows.
Nothing there says to "forestall death at all costs", in fact, the overtreatment line probably leans towards euthanasia.
Anyways.. you didn't quite answer the question, or if you did you tried to word it up to make it politician-level clear. If you still care, do I think this hospital should be allowed to say "we don't do this here"? Sure.. but the second they try and impede someone from seeking it, directly or indirectly, either physically, emotionally, morally, or even logistically they can fuck right off. If they don't want euthanasia, they don't have to get one.... kinda like abortion.
Mark
If I have some change in my situation as in a physical / mental impairment then my job can make a lateral move. (No, I'm not suggesting religion is a mental impairment). So why not respect a moralistic one as well?
Mark
No, I do not think that a doctor who objects to assisted suicide should quit his Provincial body. To my knowledge, none of them have said that all doctors should perform this task upon request. Quite the opposite. Many are trying to ensure the legislation protects a Doctor's ability to decline to participate.
As for trying to moralize, or otherwise dissuade a patient from this course, as the Government is not allowing this simply to be a "give me the shot" proposition, I think a certain amount of questioning of the person's resolve will be part of the process, don't you?
There should be safeguards and some criteria of course.. but not from a religious bend.
Mark
I assume you mean in the process to determine whether or not to allow access? Agreed. The religious angle only comes into it when the Healthcare provider objects on those grounds.
Personally, I still hold to the notion of having the patient do it themselves, thus not involving anyone in the actual death. You can train people to apply the IV (call them Lachesis technicians). Then, when a person receives their "prescription", said technician arrives at an agreed upon time and place, installs the IV, and the individual triggers the cocktail themselves.
No muss, no fuss, and no one is asked to do anything they do not wish to do.
But that's me . . .
Moral/ethical decisions as to what constitutes eligibility for euthanasia can not come from a particular theological base, but rather one of morals and ethical standards in practice by all.
I'm actually a fan of your "used initiated" option here, to alleviate any trauma to health care providers, but how do you jive that with the "suicide is a straight to hell" move from your religion?
Mark
should doctors have the authority and tell their patients what is best and should happen? should doctors provide informed consent in which they say what should happen but require the patients' to agree? should doctors simply provide all the possible choices with no bias at all and let the patients make the decision? should it be a shared decision making process?
there are pros and cons to all of these perspectives and when it comes to euthanasia, it can have some very serious consequences.
If you are asking about the people involved in providing the cocktail, or administering the IV prior to use, I would say that those people would not be of that strict a religious nature if that is the field they were to pursue.
If you are asking me personally, I would not take the option. I am going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the afterlife, thank you. I have sent a lot of money the Government's way since I started working and, if they have to spend a little of it keeping my mouldering carcass alive for a few extra weeks, so be it.
If I may join into the discourse a bit...
I'm wondering, mostly out of an inquisitive nature hoping to learn more about this issue and probably with some bias, how we as a society would determine a "moral and ethical standard"? Won't everyone have a slightly differing opinion on this? Do we vote on it? Determine a consensus?
EDIT: On second thought, perhaps you are referring to the likely situation that would arise given an introduction of a "mercy killing" law. Those who are "fine" with continuing on with their jobs and being involved with assisted death continue; and those who decide their conscience is against it and refuse, may be out of luck. We voted in our government, and if this is what they do we as a democracy just have to go with it. Pardon my lack of political knowledge or anything I overlooked.
What I mean is this
Now that Canada is examining euthanasia as an option, they need to safeguard it to some degree to ensure it is not being accessed by those who may be mentally unsound, in an acute state of being mentally unwell, or somehow being coerced / pressured into the act. Not unlike certain procedures and protections that are already in place (for example setting a will, assigning a power of attorney, hell I even believe there are certain protections around contractual things such as business loans nowadays).
As for the moral and ethical standard, there are certainly going to be some range as people are not uniform. However, when I say "come from a particular theological base", I mean an acceptable moral IMO is "everyone has the right to be treated with dignity and respect", whereas a theological base one I would say has NO place in this discussion is "The bible says killing yourself means your soul is damned for all eternity in hell". The former is a fine consideration, while the latter has no basis in logic or evidence, and is in fact an attempt of one demographic of people trying to impose their will on another.
The moral of all people being treated with dignity and respect would be INCLUSIVE of options, where the bible one is EXCLUSIVE. This is what I was saying earlier where I want all people to have all options open to them. In the case of euthanasia, if you're religious and believe it is wrong, you don't have to look at it as an option with my approach. With the religious approach, if I'm in pain and / or want to alleviate the suffering and hardship my existence is causing not only to myself but also to those around me, they are telling me I can't because it's wrong according to them. Kinda like abortion.
And yes, I will grumble and be pissed off when the people are gathered outside of a euthanasia clinic holding signs saying "God says...", just like I grumble about the abortion people.
Mark
It is very possible for a religious person to act in an inclusive manner, so perhaps you don't have a problem with religion per se, but with religious people acting inappropriately?
I guess I would say that this could be complicated because there's no way to know exactly what situation will arise leading us to our deathbed and then inevitable death. A situation could arise that could not possibly be planned for and whatever was attempted in the will to explain what to do, the situation that in fact came up is very complex and it's not clear what action the person would have wanted. Lol, I don't know if the point I'm making is clear or coming across but I guess I'm trying to say that it may not be as simple as just stating it in your will ahead of time. A person could even have a change of heart after something life-threatening occurs and they're on their deathbed unable to speak or communicate in any way, but in their heart they wish to continue living despite what they wrote in their will before the trauma, as an example.
i can see that you have not put these provisions into your will as you would have know that they can be extremely detailed if you want them to be and they can cover many various situations if you want them to.
obviously, there is a chance that one could go their whole life stating "just kill me when the time comes" and suddenly they change their mind after a serious accident which leaves them comatose or unable to communicate. however, no offense to them, but they would seem to be shit out of luck. if you are worried about a sudden change of mind at the last minute, then don't put euthanasia instructions into your will. obviously, this is something you should think a lot about and be certain of your decision.
personally, just fucking kill me. there is no way i want to spend the rest of my life in crazy pain with a million tubes stuck in me. i will never have children because i know how i feel about the end of my life and how i will deal with it.
Not quite...
I have a problem with the structure of religion - at least the ones I am familiar with - tend towards obedience, following their code, and therefore limiting their own options in general. It spoon feeds you the morals telling you what you should have, while I prefer to think for myself. It cultivates a community that asks no questions, and believes what they're told... this is profoundly dangerous IMO.
I was raised Roman Catholic, and when you think about it, the entirety of the doctrine celebrates death, doing only for others, and suffering in the name of future promises. Although there are circumstances where death can be a glorious thing, and doing for others is wonderful, and sacrifice now for late gains is also good - in certain ways - in others it isn't. Let me decide.
As for religious people being able to act in an inclusive manner, of course they can! And non-religious people can act in an exclusive manner too. I'm not a fan of people who act exclusively of other people, my freedoms and choices, or feel they can tell me what I should be doing. Religion often serves as a shield to hide bigotry.
Mark
Sorry to isolate that part trigs, but that's pretty deep. I can totally relate in a sense that death sucks and it's a pretty scary thing, unless that's not quite what you were getting at.
Anyways, for the rest of what you said before that, I agree with you, you can just be extremely detailed and obviously not take lightly a decision like euthanasia. Can't really argue with what you said.
I 119% agree with you that as a human being I'd love to decide and control every aspect of my existence and of existence in general. I'd make suffering extinct and abolish death if you're catching my drift. But in my personal opinion I think there are things in life that we don't decide or can't control. Fine, I'll say it lol: I was raised Roman Catholic as well and I have also chosen to believe in the truth of this religion. I don't really practice it right now in terms of going to church and taking communion etc., but I still sorta believe in it. Honestly, this is what it's like: I'm not thrilled that God gets to make the rules and decide right and wrong and all that, but I accept that reality independent of what I want. We don't always get what we want in life.
I know it can be argued, as it has been, that it's stupid to believe in God or whatever, but in my personal opinion I believe God exists and that the Roman Catholic Church happens to teach the true meaning of reality, and yes I understand there are some teachings in there that are controversial and some that seem too ludicrous to believe. But I do believe them because from what I can see I see plenty of evidence/reasons to believe what I do. But to each their own I suppose. We have to separate how people "handle" religion with the religion itself. Just because you met a priest, for example, that only cared about how much money you gave to the church I don't think it counterfeits the entire faith. It might only counterfeit that particular man's faith.
Anyways, to bring it back to some of the things we've discussed, I believe that I should be free to believe what I believe. I guess some arguments being made by those of faith are along the lines of "You should not be allowed to force us to act against our beliefs." The same people who want to provide the suffering and dying with freedom and choice to die are simultaneously removing freedom and choice from those who are still alive and want to abide by what they believe to be right and good.
Bear in mind, Mark, that I don't want to get on your bad side, you've helped me so much in my other thread. (Haha.) I do hope you find my thoughts somewhat interesting and worth conversing to. It would be refreshing to talk with someone who doesn't take the tact of someone like luvs2fart.
He stuck with it, finally met some of us and fit in. Perhaps in the future we'll lovingly be saying F U sard!
Joe
same here.
The conflict between science and religion lies in our brains, researchers say