What is the argument in favour of euthanasia for people who are not about to die?

It's not about whether you are making a CHOICE for someone. It's also not your choice to make for someone who chooses to murder someone, is it?

 

same with the shot, natural reactions are taking place after the shot, both actions lead to the same outcome, both are the actions of man

 

Of course, just like NOT doing it, also ends life. If someone dies after NOT being given life support, do you also think that's not a natural death?

Uh.. a little thing called 'physics' IS natural! IS nature! So yes, a plane falling out of the sky if the pilots are removed, is perfectly natural!

 

I hear what you're saying to be fair, except, the difference is that there are TWO human actions involved with the shot: 1: administering the shot, and 2: the man-made shot doing the actual physical killing. Whereas there is only ONE human action with removing life support -- and that is removing life support.

 

You deliberately cropped off the reference to mental pain in the definition that you posted!

Says who? All law is subject to interpretation

There is no cure for depression. Some forms of depression can be diminished by drugs

 

I 100% support death with dignity laws

 

removing the life support, the body reacting to not having air or food

 

Yes, but you went on to highlight the distinction of a patient diagnosed with a terminal illness or not. I was pointing out how that shows it isn't anything like as clear cut as any of us would like to imagine.

Not without access to all or the relevant information available at the time (which we rightly don't have). Considering this kind of thing exclusively on the basis of highly emotive individual cases is a bad process (especially based on media reporting alone), and is how over-simplistic hard lines get drawn which don't necessarily work in other cases. We need to work on the basis of general principle and the whole range of possibilities because each and every case will be individual and unique.

Of course. They're just not easy to define.

Practical reality. Morally, I don't think anyone should be killed but I recognise that there are circumstances where it is necessary or a least worst option (e.g. defensive war, individual self-defence, or ending pain and suffering as we're discussing here). I'll also vote for people who I know hold some different moral positions to mine (not least because nobody is going to agree on everything) if I think they're the best candidate for the role overall.

But you've not made an argument for government objecting to euthanasia. You've made arguments for practical restrictions, guidelines and limitations (which there already are anywhere it is legal) and inadvertently highlighted the difficulties in actually working those out.

No, but I also don't think religious beliefs should be a justified exception to discrimination laws. My personal opinion isn't the be-all and end-all of the law, that is (in a democracy at least) a collective agreement and compromise. The current consensus happens to be consistent with my first opinion but not entirely with my second.

 

You don't think we own our own bodies, our selves, our very existence? Because if we don't have basic, normal property rights over the most important thing in our lives, how can we move to own anything at all?

 

Why, because it's not your choice to make for people?

 

EXACTLY! The body reacting to not having air or food. Which is... wait for it... NATURAL!

 

We absolutely do, but what does that have to do with another person killing us?

 

There is a load of difference in between someone you selected to assist you, medically or simply by bringing you a gun and letting you do it yourself, and another person taking your life when you want to live. As a free person who owns your own body, you have the absolute right to make that choice, at any time, and for any reason.

Look, I know you. You are super religion man, and you are constantly looking for angles to try to enforce what your 'holy' book says onto our civil laws, thus making choices for others they don't want you to make. You don't have that right, morally, ethically, legally, or in the US anyway, Constitutionally. We have many, many Unconstitutional laws, from our war on (some) drugs, to ridiculous gun control, to entire cabinet level departments that exist with no Constitutional authority whatsoever, but that doesn't mean we should keep adding more. We need to be deleting what we have.

I don't believe in your religion, your your gawd, or what your holy book says, and I've got a pretty good source because I've been dead and had a preview of the 'coming attractions', and if your holy book was right, I would have had nothing but a one way ticket to hellfire and brimstone. Sorry, but that doesn't exist, and what you believe or don't is not relevant, nor is there any judgement made on what we do in our lives. At least, not the kind of judgement that your book says. Sure, examining choices that were made, yes, perhaps reviewing other alternative actions you could have taken in any given situation, but it doesn't mean that if you f something up that you are doomed to be tortured worse than even the vilest human torture ever invented by anyone for all of eternity. Sorry.

 

a sharp left turn to euthenasia? ridiculous.

my last swim in the mississippi river (we are not blessed with assisted suicide legislation)will be for economic, capitalist reasons. a state forcing me to live so that i can shove what is left of my, and my families' wealth into hospital bills is a very capitalist policy.

 

A person can not be both of sound and suicidal mind.

 

They can. If I was in a position of full brain activity but had no control of the rest of my body I would choose to be switched off.

However if I reached the end of my natural life and had the choice of my brain thoughts downloaded into some sort of memory bank and was able to control browsing onto the internet to see how the world develops after I die I would choose that

 

That's not suicide.

 

Of course it is. I chose to be killed off

 

Sure there is, they are called.

People sit around all day moaning and groaning and feeling sorry for themselves. Their depressed because they're bored and live in their lil worlds of WOE IS ME

Get out, get busy stop dwelling on bullshit!

 

Really it's nature doing the killing in that circumstance.

 

You mean a LEGAL right?

Look, no you do not actually.

What makes you think that I am religious?

What is 'voting' if not imposing what we believe onto our civil laws, thus making choices for others they don't want you to make? Or do you not vote?

What do you mean you "had a preview of the 'coming attractions?'"

 

Aren't you saying that it's not even possible to consider the matter on the basis of individual cases because in each case we do not have access to all or the relevant information available at the time?

As in what? What's an example? I assume that if there was a party which had a policy of banning abortion nationwide, you would not vote for that particular party. Why not?

Why are you making it about ME?

How dare you impose your moral principles on others.

 

Why, because it's not your choice to make for people?

 

Oh yeah, that was the verb. The example sentence is: "it pains me to say this."

What I mean is, in the text of law, things are defined. So for example, in an assisted dying law, pain could be defined as "physical." How would that be subject to interpretation?

Define "painful" in this sentence.

Ok, well would you say that it was possible to relieve the symptoms of depression?

 

yep, it's their or their next of kins (If they can't) choice to make in those situations

make a living will, and you can pre-choose for yourself