Euthanasia: those who "assist"

[Thorne]

Bringing religion into the conversation makes it about religion and not ethics.

It's about religion for the patient, perhaps, but not for the doctors or family. For them it's ethics.

But in that context.. it's an easy answer. "Thou Shalt Not Kill"

Except that the accepted translation is, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder". Killing is quite acceptable, given the proper justification.

So, is euthanasia just another name for murder, or is it justified?

A very difficult question. An unexpected and sudden debilitating event. I don't have a good answer for you. I just don't know.

That's the best answer anyone could give. I don't know either. Unless one is actually in the position where he has to make such a decision, I don't think anyone can know.

I'd be much happier with a change to the law first, and then identifying the circumstances under which direct assistance is allowed.

I could agree with that. As long as lawmakers alone are not the one's setting the guidelines. Doctors, nurses, patient advocates, should all be involved. Perhaps lawyers in an advisory capacity, but that's about it.

[Ozme52]

It's about religion for the patient, perhaps, but not for the doctors or family. For them it's ethics.

Fine. In which case, for that patient, in what way is asking someone to terminate you any different than pulling the trigger yourself?

Except that the accepted translation is, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder". Killing is quite acceptable, given the proper justification.

Semantics. Especially considering that in the Roman Catholic version... the religion that says suicide is an unforgivable sin, they use the word "kill". So my argument against that instance is still fine.

So, is euthanasia just another name for murder, or is it justified?

That's really another conversation. This one however... regarding assisting suicide, is clearer in my mind for me.

That's the best answer anyone could give.

Thanx

I don't know either. Unless one is actually in the position where he has to make such a decision, I don't think anyone can know.

I agree.

I could agree with that. As long as lawmakers alone are not the one's setting the guidelines. Doctors, nurses, patient advocates, should all be involved. Perhaps lawyers in an advisory capacity, but that's about it.

That won't happen. If it could, euthanasia laws would be enacted by now. In the meantime, we're stuck with suicide, and as I have said, aside from not knowing about the debilitation question, I think such assistance must stop short of "pulling the trigger" for them.

[Thorne]

Fine. In which case, for that patient, in what way is asking someone to terminate you any different than pulling the trigger yourself?

Maybe it's just a question of giving permission, more than actually asking. But then, I've never had a problem with someone wanting to commit suicide.

Semantics. Especially considering that in the Roman Catholic version... the religion that says suicide is an unforgivable sin, they use the word "kill". So my argument against that instance is still fine.

Except when it's witches or heretics? Those are okay? Or enemies, of course. The RCC never had any problem with killing enemies.

No, even the RCC has exceptions for killing.

In the meantime, we're stuck with suicide, and as I have said, aside from not knowing about the debilitation question, I think such assistance must stop short of "pulling the trigger" for them.

Given the way the laws are written in this country, I'd have to agree with you. Legally it's wrong. Morally? Like many other moralistic arguments, that one has to lie with the individual.