Export thread
Doctor Assisted Suicide and Related
#1
Eriol
Eriol
This is a thread about Doctor Assisted Suicide/Death/End of Life/Whatever. To be clear this is about people asking doctors for help with it due to ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, as well as any existing or pending legislation about such a thing. Will it spill over into more aspects of suicide? I'm sure it will.
To start it off, Canada had a ruling last year (ish) about how the blanket ban on this is unconstitutional in Canada. There is a Bill before parliament right now that is being hotly debated, amended, etc, to enable this and/or put federal restrictions on it. Of particular debate is the idea on whether somebody has to have an eminent "foreseeable death" (dying in under a year-ish, it's unclear) or if just going through "intolerable suffering" (ALS, other painful but not-immediately-terminal diseases, and possibly mental health, including dementia and/or Alzheimer's Disease) but won't die soon. This impacts "Living Wills" and such, especially in the dementia cases.
And now there's this interesting "quirk" on it: Prison watchdog asks for clarity on doctor-assisted death in prison
So... ya. We didn't have a thread on this, and it's definitely a current event in at least a few places.
To start it off, Canada had a ruling last year (ish) about how the blanket ban on this is unconstitutional in Canada. There is a Bill before parliament right now that is being hotly debated, amended, etc, to enable this and/or put federal restrictions on it. Of particular debate is the idea on whether somebody has to have an eminent "foreseeable death" (dying in under a year-ish, it's unclear) or if just going through "intolerable suffering" (ALS, other painful but not-immediately-terminal diseases, and possibly mental health, including dementia and/or Alzheimer's Disease) but won't die soon. This impacts "Living Wills" and such, especially in the dementia cases.
And now there's this interesting "quirk" on it: Prison watchdog asks for clarity on doctor-assisted death in prison
So... ya. We didn't have a thread on this, and it's definitely a current event in at least a few places.
#2
PatrThom
PatrThom
You sure have had a thing for hot-button threads lately.
FWIW, I believe it should be an option, I have no clear idea how to determine who is or is not "deserving" of it, and I fully expect that bar will plummet as the world's population rises, possibly to the point where it becomes merely discretionary.
--Patrick
FWIW, I believe it should be an option, I have no clear idea how to determine who is or is not "deserving" of it, and I fully expect that bar will plummet as the world's population rises, possibly to the point where it becomes merely discretionary.
--Patrick
#3
strawman
strawman
There are a number of very large concerns I have with physician assisted suicide, but the one on my mind at the moment (and probably not the biggest one over all) is that we are already bringing a lot of things into "healthcare" that probably should be split out. It makes sense in a twisted sort of way to bring death into healthcare, because they are the ones able to discern whether someone is in pain or is terminally ill, and they are the ones that control access to the medicines that might provide pain free suicide.
But they are tasked with life and the extension, preservation, and enjoyment of it. To bring death into their bubble forces them to also evaluate whether death is a reasonable path to choose in a profession long designed to promote life.
If a society must have a "death care" system, let's not mix it up with "health care" and let's not force doctors and their patients to put the bathroom in the kitchen. Create a separate "deathcare" system, legislate it differently, and if there's any involvement with the healthcare system let it be through official diagnosis reports - the deathcare system might require a doctor's signed diagnosis of terminal cancer before it will proceed, for instance.
The healthcare rules and regulations are already labyrinthian, to add deathcare to the same system would only result in greater, more complicated systems, when separating them out would make sense. Some physicians may open shops that perform both - that's fine - but at the government/regulatory level, you wouldn't require all physicians/hospitals/etc in the existing healthcare system to provide these services, nor would insurance companies be required to cover "deathcare" expenses - they could be tagged on as insurance riders if needed, but you'll probably find insurers will gladly add them since it reduces their overall costs to encourage people to kill themselves once their costs exceed their premiums.
I find the whole thought process terrible, in the same way I find abortion terrible, but at a minimum we should separate our life encouraging industries from our death producing industries.
But they are tasked with life and the extension, preservation, and enjoyment of it. To bring death into their bubble forces them to also evaluate whether death is a reasonable path to choose in a profession long designed to promote life.
If a society must have a "death care" system, let's not mix it up with "health care" and let's not force doctors and their patients to put the bathroom in the kitchen. Create a separate "deathcare" system, legislate it differently, and if there's any involvement with the healthcare system let it be through official diagnosis reports - the deathcare system might require a doctor's signed diagnosis of terminal cancer before it will proceed, for instance.
The healthcare rules and regulations are already labyrinthian, to add deathcare to the same system would only result in greater, more complicated systems, when separating them out would make sense. Some physicians may open shops that perform both - that's fine - but at the government/regulatory level, you wouldn't require all physicians/hospitals/etc in the existing healthcare system to provide these services, nor would insurance companies be required to cover "deathcare" expenses - they could be tagged on as insurance riders if needed, but you'll probably find insurers will gladly add them since it reduces their overall costs to encourage people to kill themselves once their costs exceed their premiums.
I find the whole thought process terrible, in the same way I find abortion terrible, but at a minimum we should separate our life encouraging industries from our death producing industries.
#4
Denbrought
Denbrought
I think that providing a legal and safe alternative to haphazard suicide methods would be helpful in destigmatizing it, and that might get people to better communicate their intentions to others, instead of bottling them up and winding up dead.
I would not support legal suicide channels that do not try to account for abuse, coercion, and mental unsoundness (which is an extremely hard line since there's a latent catch-22 there). That already happens on suicide by conventional means, I see no reason we can't at least try to tackle it for suicide 2.0.
I would not support legal suicide channels that do not try to account for abuse, coercion, and mental unsoundness (which is an extremely hard line since there's a latent catch-22 there). That already happens on suicide by conventional means, I see no reason we can't at least try to tackle it for suicide 2.0.
#5
GasBandit
GasBandit
This is an area about which I don't really even know my own thoughts.
I'm generally opposed to suicide as a rule, but I can conceive of a level of physical ailment where being alive is constant, real agony and there is no hope of recovery. In that case, it might be an act of mercy... but I worry how much it might be too easily a go-to for the healthy-but-suicidal... and I don't know where to draw the line to say "this is healthy enough to live, this is torment enough to end."
I'm generally opposed to suicide as a rule, but I can conceive of a level of physical ailment where being alive is constant, real agony and there is no hope of recovery. In that case, it might be an act of mercy... but I worry how much it might be too easily a go-to for the healthy-but-suicidal... and I don't know where to draw the line to say "this is healthy enough to live, this is torment enough to end."
#6
strawman
If we have it at all, it really should be severely limited. We can't stop people from killing themselves, but we can certainly provide greater access to resources that will improve their quality of life, and we should avoid making it easier for those in temporary pain to choose a poor long term permanent solution.
strawman
I don't think we should be destigmatizing it. I believe suicide is bad for society in the long run, and certainly bad for friends and family in the short run.destigmatizing it
If we have it at all, it really should be severely limited. We can't stop people from killing themselves, but we can certainly provide greater access to resources that will improve their quality of life, and we should avoid making it easier for those in temporary pain to choose a poor long term permanent solution.
#7
Bubble181
Bubble181
In Belgium, euthanasia is widely accepted for "unbearable suffering", both physical and mental. It's actually recently been expanded to be allowed for minors and mentally handicapped, as well. As long as....I think three? doctors sign off on the patient's mental capabilities and suffering, s/he can go ahead and get it done.
I dunno, I'm generally in favor of being allowed to take the dignified way out, rather than being forced to live through humiliating, painful, prolonged suffering out of some questionable idea of "sanctity of life". But the limits are grey, at the very least.
I dunno, I'm generally in favor of being allowed to take the dignified way out, rather than being forced to live through humiliating, painful, prolonged suffering out of some questionable idea of "sanctity of life". But the limits are grey, at the very least.
#8
Eriol
Eriol
True. Probably a sign of something else happening, but generally I just would rather have threads dedicated to some of the LARGE issues that many have been talking about obliquely in other threads. And in this case, this is BIG NEWS in Canada right now. It has an air of inevitability due to the fact that the government can put through whatever it wants (Majority Government here) but it's still hotly discussed.You sure have had a thing for hot-button threads lately.
Nice line btw.I find the whole thought process terrible, in the same way I find abortion terrible, but at a minimum we should separate our life encouraging industries from our death producing industries.
I'm somewhat surprised the libertarian in you doesn't say "it's up to them alone" and that it's not more-or-less just fee-for-service, and the only involvement government should have would be to prevent abuse/coercion, but nothing more. That doesn't jive with my views, but I thought it was more that way for you? Or is that misjudging you? If so, I don't mean to cast aspersions. Just presenting something that's generally conformant with your professed worldview.and I don't know where to draw the line to say "this is healthy enough to live, this is torment enough to end."
#9
GasBandit
GasBandit
Well, even Libertarians don't like murder, and it's possible to murder a suicidal person. That the suicidal person lets it happen doesn't make it not murder. But on a more personal level, my mother having taken her own life when I was 14 probably also biases me against the practice in general. I've seen situations and spoken with people in the decades since which has shown me the other side of the coin, though, so my own position isn't solidified.I'm somewhat surprised the libertarian in you doesn't say "it's up to them alone" and that it's not more-or-less just fee-for-service, and the only involvement government should have would be to prevent abuse/coercion, but nothing more. That doesn't jive with my views, but I thought it was more that way for you? Or is that misjudging you? If so, I don't mean to cast aspersions. Just presenting something that's generally conformant with your professed worldview.
#10
Eriol
Also, I do not hold that above view either, but that's my understanding of it. Also let me state that while that may be a libertarian view of government that does not necessarily apply to how a libertarian views a person or any other organization in society should necessarily act. e.g. the explicit PURPOSE of a Church/religion is to advertise morals, and thus it is consistent IMO to advocate libertarianism in government, but also advocate for other morals through other avenues.
Eriol
Sure, but I meant more that the Libertarian worldview is more about if a person wants to do just about anything to themselves (up to and including self-harm and even suicide, because who is government to tell you what is and isn't harmful?), it's not up to the government to say no, maximizing personal freedom, but also personal responsibility. It should only step in with relations between others, and thus murder and coercion to suicide both being very much a government thing. At least that's my understanding of it, and your personal view will probably lay somewhere other than that declaration, especially considering the history you just said above.Well, even Libertarians don't like murder, and it's possible to murder a suicidal person. That the suicidal person lets it happen doesn't make it not murder. But on a more personal level, my mother having taken her own life when I was 14 probably also biases me against the practice in general. I've seen situations and spoken with people in the decades since which has shown me the other side of the coin, though, so my own position isn't solidified.
Also, I do not hold that above view either, but that's my understanding of it. Also let me state that while that may be a libertarian view of government that does not necessarily apply to how a libertarian views a person or any other organization in society should necessarily act. e.g. the explicit PURPOSE of a Church/religion is to advertise morals, and thus it is consistent IMO to advocate libertarianism in government, but also advocate for other morals through other avenues.
#11
Bubble181
Bubble181
That's more or less my POV, though. Smoking, drinking, all legal and just as sure to slowly "kill" you. Someone with Alzheimer's wanting to take the dignified way out, saying goodbye to family and friends without wanting to be a burden, without regressing to the point of being a plant/baby, to me, has the right to do so. Someone wanting to end their life after their partner's died, if they've been together for 40 years - why should they be forced to carry on?
There's definitely a grey area around children, mentally differently abled, temporary pain or sorrow - but that's at most a reason to ask a psych or a doctor to confirm the request, not to deny it categorically.
There's definitely a grey area around children, mentally differently abled, temporary pain or sorrow - but that's at most a reason to ask a psych or a doctor to confirm the request, not to deny it categorically.
#12
GasBandit
GasBandit
Well, adding a second person to do the killing/assisting definitely calls the practice more into question than one doing so themselves.Sure, but I meant more that the Libertarian worldview is more about if a person wants to do just about anything to themselves (up to and including self-harm and even suicide, because who is government to tell you what is and isn't harmful?), it's not up to the government to say no, maximizing personal freedom, but also personal responsibility. It should only step in with relations between others, and thus murder and coercion to suicide both being very much a government thing. At least that's my understanding of it, and your personal view will probably lay somewhere other than that declaration, especially considering the history you just said above.
#13
Eriol
This comes from my general belief that just because the government CAN do something, doesn't mean it should. Thus any action by it must be covered by the "it must" rather than "it can" in more cases than not. Thus any paraphrase of "they're stepping in for the good of the adult" is suspect (adult is important in that statement).
This goes in a different direction than my beliefs around human life, and the value therein, but most of the governments of the world don't seem to value that either as a matter of dictating the other parts of law. Whether they should or not is not talked about anymore. So the discussion goes to the idea IMO of "now that they don't, and only value if a person takes another's life" then what? If personal choice is that high up, then why restrict anything beyond the ensuring of non-murder?
Eriol
I'm more getting at trying to get people to think about it the other way around: why should the government be involved beyond making sure it isn't murder? Why should they care if the person is in deep "temporary pain or sorrow" or not? Why should government care either way? If the stated objective in many cases is to make government as amoral as possible, then they shouldn't care at all.That's more or less my POV, though. Smoking, drinking, all legal and just as sure to slowly "kill" you. Someone with Alzheimer's wanting to take the dignified way out, saying goodbye to family and friends without wanting to be a burden, without regressing to the point of being a plant/baby, to me, has the right to do so. Someone wanting to end their life after their partner's died, if they've been together for 40 years - why should they be forced to carry on?
There's definitely a grey area around children, mentally differently abled, temporary pain or sorrow - but that's at most a reason to ask a psych or a doctor to confirm the request, not to deny it categorically.
This comes from my general belief that just because the government CAN do something, doesn't mean it should. Thus any action by it must be covered by the "it must" rather than "it can" in more cases than not. Thus any paraphrase of "they're stepping in for the good of the adult" is suspect (adult is important in that statement).
This goes in a different direction than my beliefs around human life, and the value therein, but most of the governments of the world don't seem to value that either as a matter of dictating the other parts of law. Whether they should or not is not talked about anymore. So the discussion goes to the idea IMO of "now that they don't, and only value if a person takes another's life" then what? If personal choice is that high up, then why restrict anything beyond the ensuring of non-murder?
#14
strawman
strawman
Once the government adopts the position that they should regulate death in the extreme cases, then it's not a very long legislative session to them deciding that they should regulate death in non extreme cases.
In other words, a lot of discussion abounds about people with no hope for quality of life, but inevitably, as in Belgium, it leads to people who only temporarily have depression and choose death over treatment. It leads to the inculcation of society that life is only valuable/valid/useful if it meets a certain bar for "quality" and suddenly you're teaching generations that maybe if you have a disease or disability you aren't experiencing enough "life" to justify living when things get hard. It leads to people thinking, "Well, wouldn't they just be better off dead?"
And while this is a slippery slope argument we can already see this happening elsewhere. This change in the public consciousness turns into a disadvantage to those who do choose life even with severe disability. Other's begin to wonder why they even try.
In some socialist countries there's an expectation that if you have a terminal illness and suicide is available, you are draining valuable healthcare resources by demanding continued treatment so one can seek what little enjoyment they can from what little life they have left.
In other words, choosing life is now becoming more commonly considered selfish, and death selfless in those countries that have embraced assisted suicide. Ultimately, though, and I honestly do not say this lightly, to geneticism and shades of "the final solution" where lives considered less worthy are pushed to choose death.
This is not a path that's worthy of light thought and consideration, and certainly not one to be jumped into wholeheartedly as some states in the US have done.
In other words, a lot of discussion abounds about people with no hope for quality of life, but inevitably, as in Belgium, it leads to people who only temporarily have depression and choose death over treatment. It leads to the inculcation of society that life is only valuable/valid/useful if it meets a certain bar for "quality" and suddenly you're teaching generations that maybe if you have a disease or disability you aren't experiencing enough "life" to justify living when things get hard. It leads to people thinking, "Well, wouldn't they just be better off dead?"
And while this is a slippery slope argument we can already see this happening elsewhere. This change in the public consciousness turns into a disadvantage to those who do choose life even with severe disability. Other's begin to wonder why they even try.
In some socialist countries there's an expectation that if you have a terminal illness and suicide is available, you are draining valuable healthcare resources by demanding continued treatment so one can seek what little enjoyment they can from what little life they have left.
In other words, choosing life is now becoming more commonly considered selfish, and death selfless in those countries that have embraced assisted suicide. Ultimately, though, and I honestly do not say this lightly, to geneticism and shades of "the final solution" where lives considered less worthy are pushed to choose death.
This is not a path that's worthy of light thought and consideration, and certainly not one to be jumped into wholeheartedly as some states in the US have done.
#15
Denbrought
Denbrought
This short essay is probably relevant to the discussion, Slate Star Codex: The Right to Waive Your Rights.
#16
Eriol
Eriol
I think it's useful, but only to illustrate short-sightedness (I did read the whole post, though obviously not the comments). He's pointing out the problems of the current system where you can't waive all rights. Can he even fathom the massive issues if you could waive 100% of them? The powerful would be the only ones with rights (which let's be honest, they don't need under such a system, since they have POWER), and everybody else would be subject to EULA-level madness at all times, 100% enforceable, aka: Legal Slavery. Yes the current system is flawed, but the opposite suggestion is a shitstorm.This short essay is probably relevant to the discussion, Slate Star Codex: The Right to Waive Your Rights.
#17
Denbrought
Denbrought
Did you skip the first two paragraphs?I think it's useful, but only to illustrate short-sightedness (I did read the whole post, though obviously not the comments). He's pointing out the problems of the current system where you can't waive all rights. Can he even fathom the massive issues if you could waive 100% of them? The powerful would be the only ones with rights (which let's be honest, they don't need under such a system, since they have POWER), and everybody else would be subject to EULA-level madness at all times, 100% enforceable, aka: Legal Slavery. Yes the current system is flawed, but the opposite suggestion is a shitstorm.
#18
Gruebeard
Gruebeard
That's rather close to my view on this. It's on these sorts of topics that I lean Libertarian. Of course, our government will have to be involved more than that, given our health care systemI'm somewhat surprised the libertarian in you doesn't say "it's up to them alone" and that it's not more-or-less just fee-for-service, and the only involvement government should have would be to prevent abuse/coercion, but nothing more.
#19
Eriol
So I completely disagree that it's not something to worry about, and that the current state it so much worse, which is the point of the article. I will agree the current state sucks and has problems. I still assert the alternative is much worse. Thus why I don't think you should be able to sign away many/most of your rights.
Eriol
No I didn't skip them, in that he lampshades my point, then completely ignores the implications as not plausible. We're already there with all kinds of contracts with providers, waving rights to class action suits, and many other things that may actually keep corporations accountable. And 1000s of other examples of if not outright collusion to keep contracts "industry standard" (ie: screwing over the consumer), the result is you can't shop around if everybody is screwing you.Did you skip the first two paragraphs?
So I completely disagree that it's not something to worry about, and that the current state it so much worse, which is the point of the article. I will agree the current state sucks and has problems. I still assert the alternative is much worse. Thus why I don't think you should be able to sign away many/most of your rights.
#20
PatrThom
PatrThom
Related or not, I don't believe it should ever be possible to waive your rights.
After all, they are rights. You possess them by merely existing. Putting aside for the moment the debate over whether the things we call "rights" are actually Rights or merely "privileges," anything which is an actual Right is de facto something you are entitled to no matter what anyone else may say/do/think/want.
So if there is ever any debate over whether it should be possible that a thing could potentially be waived, I think the better discussion would be one of whether or not that thing is actually a right, or whether we should be forced to entertain the possibility that it should be reclassified as just a highly-regarded privilege. For everyone.
--Patrick
After all, they are rights. You possess them by merely existing. Putting aside for the moment the debate over whether the things we call "rights" are actually Rights or merely "privileges," anything which is an actual Right is de facto something you are entitled to no matter what anyone else may say/do/think/want.
So if there is ever any debate over whether it should be possible that a thing could potentially be waived, I think the better discussion would be one of whether or not that thing is actually a right, or whether we should be forced to entertain the possibility that it should be reclassified as just a highly-regarded privilege. For everyone.
--Patrick
#21
Bubble181
Bubble181
Also useful in "kill/search/torture them damn terrorists without a trial" discussions.Related or not, I don't believe it should ever be possible to waive your rights.
After all, they are rights. You possess them by merely existing. Putting aside for the moment the debate over whether the things we call "rights" are actually Rights or merely "privileges," anything which is an actual Right is de facto something you are entitled to no matter what anyone else may say/do/think/want.
So if there is ever any debate over whether it should be possible that a thing could potentially be waived, I think the better discussion would be one of whether or not that thing is actually a right, or whether we should be forced to entertain the possibility that it should be reclassified as just a highly-regarded privilege. For everyone.
--Patrick
#22
Dave
Dave
If I ever get a diagnosis of Alzheimer's, I'm going to throw a fucking HUGE goodbye party, then I'll be leaving on my terms. So I can see this as a thing. But for ANY reason? Not sure I'm for that. I mean, most doctors I know would be if not fine then at least at ease with assisting in the case of a terminal and painful disease, but doubt they'd be okay with someone just going in and saying, "Hey, doc, I'm feeling off. Can I borrow your Death-o-matic for a few minutes?"
#23
ThatGrinningIdiot!
ThatGrinningIdiot!
You describe rights almost as though they're imposed on an individual without their choice or thoughts on the matter. I believe it should be acknowledged that while rights are given or earned, can also be taken away or rejected entirely by people; despite these possible outcomes all efforts should be made continuing to endow individuals with rights. But forcing them onto others runs the risk of becoming just another form of tyranny. After all, not everyone holds the same meaning of freedom or rights as we would.Related or not, I don't believe it should ever be possible to waive your rights.
After all, they are rights. You possess them by merely existing. Putting aside for the moment the debate over whether the things we call "rights" are actually Rights or merely "privileges," anything which is an actual Right is de facto something you are entitled to no matter what anyone else may say/do/think/want.
So if there is ever any debate over whether it should be possible that a thing could potentially be waived, I think the better discussion would be one of whether or not that thing is actually a right, or whether we should be forced to entertain the possibility that it should be reclassified as just a highly-regarded privilege. For everyone.
--Patrick
#24
Bubble181
Bubble181
It's what the Hippocratic Oath was invented for, see. Anyway, it'll always be something of a grey area. Alzheimer's is a great example, as it isn't lethal or particularly physically painful. Yet it's, to my mind, a good reason to have a goodbye bash and go jump off a cliff... This is why you do want some measure of control in there - as i said earlier, in Belgium you need, I think, 2 doctors and one shrink or vice versa to sign off on it as being "unbearable".If I ever get a diagnosis of Alzheimer's, I'm going to throw a fucking HUGE goodbye party, then I'll be leaving on my terms. So I can see this as a thing. But for ANY reason? Not sure I'm for that. I mean, most doctors I know would be if not fine then at least at ease with assisting in the case of a terminal and painful disease, but doubt they'd be okay with someone just going in and saying, "Hey, doc, I'm feeling off. Can I borrow your Death-o-matic for a few minutes?"
#25
PatrThom
I don't believe anyone's rights are ever "taken away" when they aren't allowed to do something, I just believe they're being ignored. Society may decide that it would be better served by willfully ignoring certain rights, and subsequently enforce that ignorance through superior numbers or force of arms, and that is where you'll find the tyranny. Yes, even when it is justified, because to say, "We're going to lock you up for the rest of your life so that you can't capriciously kill anyone" is still a form of tyranny, no matter how much it benefits the rest of humanity.
--Patrick
PatrThom
Yes, that's it exactly. They are initialized and set to TRUE by default upon becoming a person.You describe rights almost as though they're imposed on an individual without their choice or thoughts on the matter.
And that's where we differ, a little. I believe that a person can choose not to exercise a right, but I don't believe a person should ever be permitted to outright renounce a right any more than they should be "allowed" to decide they want to live without a circulatory system. A person who says, "Y'know what, I've decided I want to give up my right to xxx" should be viewed with just as much skepticism as someone who pronounces, "I think blood is messy and stains things too easily and I don't like that, so I've decided to have it all removed." To do either is to cease to exist as a person.I believe it should be acknowledged that while rights are given or earned, can also be taken away or rejected entirely by people; despite these possible outcomes all efforts should be made continuing to endow individuals with rights. But forcing them onto others runs the risk of becoming just another form of tyranny. After all, not everyone holds the same meaning of freedom or rights as we would.
I don't believe anyone's rights are ever "taken away" when they aren't allowed to do something, I just believe they're being ignored. Society may decide that it would be better served by willfully ignoring certain rights, and subsequently enforce that ignorance through superior numbers or force of arms, and that is where you'll find the tyranny. Yes, even when it is justified, because to say, "We're going to lock you up for the rest of your life so that you can't capriciously kill anyone" is still a form of tyranny, no matter how much it benefits the rest of humanity.
--Patrick
#26
Gruebeard
In Canada and the US, Rights are bestowed upon the citizens by the government. The Bill of Rights is what it's called down there, right? Ours is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What these documents provide are the only rights we really have, and they are indeed imposed on us the moment we become citizens.
We can choose not to exercise our rights, though, as you say. But I'm with @PatrThom in the thought that we should never be able to choose to forfeit our Rights, that choosing not to exercise a Right at this moment should never mean I don't get that Right at any moment I change my mind.
(Well, there's probably a UN declaration of Human Rights that are probably imposed upon us if our government signs on.)
Gruebeard
You describe rights almost as though they're imposed on an individual without their choice or thoughts on the matter.
In Canada and the US, Rights are bestowed upon the citizens by the government. The Bill of Rights is what it's called down there, right? Ours is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What these documents provide are the only rights we really have, and they are indeed imposed on us the moment we become citizens.
We can choose not to exercise our rights, though, as you say. But I'm with @PatrThom in the thought that we should never be able to choose to forfeit our Rights, that choosing not to exercise a Right at this moment should never mean I don't get that Right at any moment I change my mind.
(Well, there's probably a UN declaration of Human Rights that are probably imposed upon us if our government signs on.)
#27
Bubble181
Bubble181
Well, it depends on what rights. Some are inalienable universal human rights, others are conferred rights given to specific groups of people. Some would say those are by default privileges, but that means you're really, really limiting rights and expanding privileges enormously.
#28
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
That's a lot of what I'm getting at, yes.choosing not to exercise a Right at this moment should never mean I don't get that Right [back] at any moment I change my mind.
--Patrick
#29
Eriol
1. Rights area construct useful to our social fabric, but only exist and have force because of force of law and/or government. This is simply because no "higher" laws exist than these other than physics. This is an atheistic view of "value" in that anything only has value because people believe it does. Nothing is inherent. New rights can be granted, and old ones revoked for whatever reasons those making the laws/rights can decide upon, and/or convince enough people of.
2. Rights are in-born traits that exist in us (and potentially animals, and/or the earth itself) because they are parts of our beings. This is at the LEAST an agnostic philosophy, if not fully religious. It relies on a concept of "right and wrong" outside of opinion of humans. Under this idea, all rights belong to all at all times, but sometimes they are violated and/or ignored or not recognized by governments and/or other people. This view is not incompatible with having laws that we CALL rights, but are clearly different, such as a right of internet access (it's a thing some places) for the sake of social good, but that is not the same thing.
We reach have our own ideas on which is true, and to what degrees, but do we agree that's the "ground-level" definitional distinction on "rights"?
Eriol
I picked your post to express the difference between what rights mean to different people that use the word. I've made this distinction before, be it years ago here, or even earlier on a different board.Well, it depends on what rights. Some are inalienable universal human rights, others are conferred rights given to specific groups of people. Some would say those are by default privileges, but that means you're really, really limiting rights and expanding privileges enormously.
1. Rights area construct useful to our social fabric, but only exist and have force because of force of law and/or government. This is simply because no "higher" laws exist than these other than physics. This is an atheistic view of "value" in that anything only has value because people believe it does. Nothing is inherent. New rights can be granted, and old ones revoked for whatever reasons those making the laws/rights can decide upon, and/or convince enough people of.
2. Rights are in-born traits that exist in us (and potentially animals, and/or the earth itself) because they are parts of our beings. This is at the LEAST an agnostic philosophy, if not fully religious. It relies on a concept of "right and wrong" outside of opinion of humans. Under this idea, all rights belong to all at all times, but sometimes they are violated and/or ignored or not recognized by governments and/or other people. This view is not incompatible with having laws that we CALL rights, but are clearly different, such as a right of internet access (it's a thing some places) for the sake of social good, but that is not the same thing.
We reach have our own ideas on which is true, and to what degrees, but do we agree that's the "ground-level" definitional distinction on "rights"?
#30
PatrThom
PatrThom
Some of it is purely semantic, but using Internet access as an example, you can claim that the statement "Every resident of the city of Townsburg gets Internet access provided by the city" can be called a right IF it truly applies to everyone in Townsburg. New residents, old residents, businesses, renters, whomever. BUT once you start saying things like, "...but only if they are not delinquent on their taxes," then you are tacitly admitting that this is a privilege, not a right. If, instead, you say, "Anyone who is delinquent on their Townsburg taxes will have 90 days to pay or they will be evicted and their property condemned" then that means they would no longer be residents and so would no longer be entitled to the Internet access, and in that case Internet Access=a right for residents, but residency=not a right.
--Patrick
--Patrick
#31
Bubble181
Bubble181
I strongly disagree about calling them atheistic and agnostic/religious. Atheism does not imply no belief in a higher structure or reason for existence, merely the lack of (a) God. Even accepting a lack of higher reason - it's all pure chaos - you can still have undeniable rights based on an individual's understanding of ethics and a value placed on human life. The idea that any atheist morality is based on external laws is deeply flawed and very typical of religious people trying to condemn atheism, it's a pet peeve of mine.
#32
Sara_2814
Sara_2814
Buddhism is an agnostic religion. There is no established creator deity, so belief in a 'higher power' is entirely up to the individual practitioner. You can even remove all the supernatural elements (using them only as metaphor), which gives you secular/atheist Buddhism. The Four Noble Truths still apply in all cases, they do not depend on the existence of a god.I strongly disagree about calling them atheistic and agnostic/religious. Atheism does not imply no belief in a higher structure or reason for existence, merely the lack of (a) God. Even accepting a lack of higher reason - it's all pure chaos - you can still have undeniable rights based on an individual's understanding of ethics and a value placed on human life. The idea that any atheist morality is based on external laws is deeply flawed and very typical of religious people trying to condemn atheism, it's a pet peeve of mine.
#33
Eriol
Atheism means you believe in NOTHING beyond physics. Any other values are human-made and enforced. Useful yes, but anything "intrinsic" that aren't physics means bringing something theistic (or spiritual or whatever) into it, which means you're not an Atheist. To an Atheist, "The Universe" doesn't fucking care and CAN'T care. PEOPLE can care, but an Atheist shouldn't fool themselves into thinking it has any more weight than any other human opinion about making a functioning society.
Buddhism is a non-deistic Religion, but is not Atheist. Stripping out the spirituality may turn it Atheistic, but the "Truths" then just become another opinion then.
Eriol
Fine, but at the point of "value placed on human life" that is outside of personal "because I think it's a good idea for me/other and making it "undeniable" goes somewhere beyond pure physics.I strongly disagree about calling them atheistic and agnostic/religious. Atheism does not imply no belief in a higher structure or reason for existence, merely the lack of (a) God. Even accepting a lack of higher reason - it's all pure chaos - you can still have undeniable rights based on an individual's understanding of ethics and a value placed on human life. The idea that any atheist morality is based on external laws is deeply flawed and very typical of religious people trying to condemn atheism, it's a pet peeve of mine.
Atheism means you believe in NOTHING beyond physics. Any other values are human-made and enforced. Useful yes, but anything "intrinsic" that aren't physics means bringing something theistic (or spiritual or whatever) into it, which means you're not an Atheist. To an Atheist, "The Universe" doesn't fucking care and CAN'T care. PEOPLE can care, but an Atheist shouldn't fool themselves into thinking it has any more weight than any other human opinion about making a functioning society.
Buddhism is a non-deistic Religion, but is not Atheist. Stripping out the spirituality may turn it Atheistic, but the "Truths" then just become another opinion then.
#34
PatrThom
--Patrick
PatrThom
Are there different sects of Atheism? Because I thought Atheism was merely the belief that there are no gods, and didn't make any claims about whether or not "The Universe" knows/cares about our existence. For instance, I know about my own cells, and I really can't be said to "care" about them or call myself a god to them even though I have the ability to influence them (and to some extent they influence me). They are merely a part of me.To an Atheist, "The Universe" doesn't fucking care and CAN'T care.
--Patrick
#35
Eriol
The definition I put forth above is Atheists = physics only, human thought is the only measure of value. Agnostic (and beyond) = more than that in any way not defined by physics.
Eriol
To my understanding as applied to the universe would be a variation of Gaia theory, which I would call theistic, but others may not depending on how literal it is.Are there different sects of Atheism? Because I thought Atheism was merely the belief that there are no gods, and didn't make any claims about whether or not "The Universe" knows/cares about our existence. For instance, I know about my own cells, and I really can't be said to "care" about them or call myself a god to them even though I have the ability to influence them (and to some extent they influence me). They are merely a part of me.
--Patrick
The definition I put forth above is Atheists = physics only, human thought is the only measure of value. Agnostic (and beyond) = more than that in any way not defined by physics.
#36
Covar
Covar
Atheists like Christians have beliefs based on faith. Opposite ends of the coin, but still based on faith.
Agnostics can admit that they don't know what's going on.
Agnostics can admit that they don't know what's going on.
#37
Chad Sexington
Atheists can admit they don't know plenty, after all there is plenty that is not known. And in the same sense a pious Christian will probably admit, "Of course I could be wrong," so would an atheist, but to say that their having chosen a side is a faith-based decision is not true. It is supported by logically consistent evidence - as is the decision of most believing Christians, I would argue. The faith aspect is a solely religious thing. Unless you want to use a vague, general definition of faith, like the way, "Faith in humanity," is tossed around these days, an atheist doesn't have faith. And, if you want to use that definition, then it is definitely a different faith than what is meant by religious faith.
Either way, the one thing atheists and the religious can agree on is agnostics are the worst.
Chad Sexington
I... disagree.Atheists like Christians have beliefs based on faith. Opposite ends of the coin, but still based on faith.
Agnostics can admit that they don't know what's going on.
Atheists can admit they don't know plenty, after all there is plenty that is not known. And in the same sense a pious Christian will probably admit, "Of course I could be wrong," so would an atheist, but to say that their having chosen a side is a faith-based decision is not true. It is supported by logically consistent evidence - as is the decision of most believing Christians, I would argue. The faith aspect is a solely religious thing. Unless you want to use a vague, general definition of faith, like the way, "Faith in humanity," is tossed around these days, an atheist doesn't have faith. And, if you want to use that definition, then it is definitely a different faith than what is meant by religious faith.
Either way, the one thing atheists and the religious can agree on is agnostics are the worst.
#38
Covar
Covar
I have more thoughts on this, and can elaborate, but it will have to wait until I'm in front of a proper keyboard .
#39
Sara_2814
Sara_2814
Atheist literally means "without god(s)" (it's Greek). That's all. Atheism has nothing to do with how or what an individual believes about humanity or the universe, only that there are no deities involved. Making generalizatins about the beliefs of atheists makes about as much sense as making generalizations about the beliefs of people who don't believe in astrology.To my understanding as applied to the universe would be a variation of Gaia theory, which I would call theistic, but others may not depending on how literal it is.
The definition I put forth above is Atheists = physics only, human thought is the only measure of value. Agnostic (and beyond) = more than that in any way not defined by physics.
#40
Eriol
Basically, you need to read Wikipedia on Atheism.
Eriol
Lots of words go fast beyond their original root meaning. If you claim that Atheism ONLY means "no gods, but everything else mystical/spiritual/etc is OK" them I think your head is in the sand on what it has come to mean.Atheist literally means "without god(s)" (it's Greek). That's all. Atheism has nothing to do with how or what an individual believes about humanity or the universe, only that there are no deities involved. Making generalizatins about the beliefs of atheists makes about as much sense as making generalizations about the beliefs of people who don't believe in astrology.
Basically, you need to read Wikipedia on Atheism.
#41
Covar
When you boil it down to the most basic element. Christianity == a belief in God and Atheism == a belief that there is no God. Both are heavily reliant on faith, or a strong belief or trust even in the absence of proof. I think on both sides of the coin people want to downplay this, whether by showing us bananas or mistaking absence of proof as proof of absence.
... eh, that's all I got. whatever, I'm no wordsmith.
Covar
alright. lets give this a go.I have more thoughts on this, and can elaborate, but it will have to wait until I'm in front of a proper keyboard .
When you boil it down to the most basic element. Christianity == a belief in God and Atheism == a belief that there is no God. Both are heavily reliant on faith, or a strong belief or trust even in the absence of proof. I think on both sides of the coin people want to downplay this, whether by showing us bananas or mistaking absence of proof as proof of absence.
... eh, that's all I got. whatever, I'm no wordsmith.
#42
Sara_2814
And maybe I wasn't the one who needed to read the Wikipedia article on atheism?
Sara_2814
I have my "head in the sand" and need to read the Wikipedia article on atheism? Oh, okay. If you insist.Lots of words go fast beyond their original root meaning. If you claim that Atheism ONLY means "no gods, but everything else mystical/spiritual/etc is OK" them I think your head is in the sand on what it has come to mean.
Basically, you need to read Wikipedia on Atheism.
Wikipedia said:Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies (eg. humanism and skepticism),[18][19] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[20] Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism and therefore that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.[21]
Wikipedia said:With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Taoism.[41]
Wikipedia said:Some atheists have doubted the very need for the term "atheism". In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris wrote:
In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist". We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.[58]
Wikipedia said:Atheism is acceptable within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Syntheism, Raëlism,[72] and Neopaganmovements[73] such as Wicca.[74]Āstika schools in Hinduism hold atheism to be a valid path to moksha, but extremely difficult, for the atheist can not expect any help from the divine on their journey.[75] Jainism believes the universe is eternal and has no need for a creator deity, however Tirthankaras are revered that can transcend space and time [76] and have more power than the god Indra.[77]Secular Buddhism does not advocate belief in gods. Early Buddhism was atheistic as Gautama Buddha's path involved no mention of gods. Later conceptions of Buddhism consider Buddha himself a god, suggest adherents can attain godhood, and revere Bodhisattvas[78] and Eternal Buddha.
Should I post more? I can post more.Wikipedia said:The strictest sense of positive atheism does not entail any specific beliefs outside of disbelief in any deity; as such, atheists can hold any number of spiritual beliefs. For the same reason, atheists can hold a wide variety of ethical beliefs, ranging from the moral universalism of humanism, which holds that a moral code should be applied consistently to all humans, to moral nihilism, which holds that morality is meaningless.[96]
And maybe I wasn't the one who needed to read the Wikipedia article on atheism?
#43
Eriol
Eriol
From what I read from the article, you're on the spectrum somewhere, but it's fiercely debated as to the exact definition.
Personally, I think the agnostic label is MUCH better to describe the "I don't believe in a god, but think there is 'more' somehow" than the label of Atheist. The line is clearer that way. But some LIKE the Atheist label because it is a rejection of God more explicitly than agnostic is.
And as for the final couple of lines that you quoted, I think that any who demand consistency of any kind without a moral authority are inconsistent themselves. The "moral nihilists" are far more consistent and honest, by NOT demanding such. If there's no higher "value and/or authority" then imposing even consistency is still one's opinion forced on others. The nihilists at least admit they only want rules on others to benefit themselves.
But getting back to the original topic, this has to do with the value of human life regarding suicide. If the value is assigned by others, it can be stripped by others (or even self), and other things like quality of life then can become more important. If it is innate, then something is lost in all cases which in most/many cases cannot be overridden.
Personally, I think the agnostic label is MUCH better to describe the "I don't believe in a god, but think there is 'more' somehow" than the label of Atheist. The line is clearer that way. But some LIKE the Atheist label because it is a rejection of God more explicitly than agnostic is.
And as for the final couple of lines that you quoted, I think that any who demand consistency of any kind without a moral authority are inconsistent themselves. The "moral nihilists" are far more consistent and honest, by NOT demanding such. If there's no higher "value and/or authority" then imposing even consistency is still one's opinion forced on others. The nihilists at least admit they only want rules on others to benefit themselves.
But getting back to the original topic, this has to do with the value of human life regarding suicide. If the value is assigned by others, it can be stripped by others (or even self), and other things like quality of life then can become more important. If it is innate, then something is lost in all cases which in most/many cases cannot be overridden.
#44
strawman
strawman
The problem with talking about atheism is the same problem with talking about theism - you can't generalize. About the only thing you can say is that "Atheism rejects deity" and "Theism believes deity", and even that will ignite some argument because different people have different definitions of atheism and theism - so much so that you can find some in each group who you might classify as belonging to the other group.
So if you want to put forth an argument on this subject that won't simply result in a long pedantic conversation, it might be useful to source any specific beliefs or thoughts to the person who said/believes them if they are not your own thoughts and beliefs. That way you're less likely to be making generalizations about an entire diverse group.
Otherwise we're going to argue about everything except suicide.
So if you want to put forth an argument on this subject that won't simply result in a long pedantic conversation, it might be useful to source any specific beliefs or thoughts to the person who said/believes them if they are not your own thoughts and beliefs. That way you're less likely to be making generalizations about an entire diverse group.
Otherwise we're going to argue about everything except suicide.
#45
Sara_2814
I'm on a spectrum somewhere? Yes. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU! That atheists do not have an "atheists believe X", that the only thing in common is a lack of deities but everything else is up to the individual. So don't even try to insinuate that we were the ones stating the absolute beliefs of all atheists and you're the enlightened one telling us we're actually on a spectrum.
Buddhists take their moral authority from the Four Noble Truths. That's consistent. And doesn't have any gods involved. But still not as good as your own moral authority, right?
Altruism exists in nature. Primate research has shown that chimps show altruism and compassion. Maybe they have chimpanzee gods? Dolphins rescued injured sailors from sharks during WWII. Do they have dolphin gods that told them to do that? But it's just as likely that altruism and ethical behavior is an evolved trait for social animals (including humans) to survive and succeed, and some animals (humans, dogs, and dolphins most notably) apply that to other species as well.
But why is that considered lesser than living in fear of an omnipotent being who will punish you for being bad? Doesn't it actually show more ethics and "goodness" if you are a good person without constant fear of punishment? I love my family and friends without being told to do so by a god. I give to charity without being told to do so by a god. I don't murder anyone because I don't want to murder anyone, no god involved in that one, either. And I'm pretty damn consistent on it. Forty-five years and no murders. Go me! I have also never belonged to a religion (though I adopted elements of secular Buddhism in my thirties) and have not once in my life been to a religious service other than attending weddings/funerals. You may need a god to be your moral authority to prevent you going on a murder spree, but don't project that onto other people who simply think murder is a shitty thing to do.
Sara_2814
So you arrogantly point me to read up on my own beliefs of my own atheism in a Wikipedia article, but when the actual content of the Wikipedia article actually counters your argument that "atheists believe X", you brush off the very article you told me to read and the definition of atheism itself as "fiercely debated". Nice.From what I read from the article, you're on the spectrum somewhere, but it's fiercely debated as to the exact definition.
I'm on a spectrum somewhere? Yes. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU! That atheists do not have an "atheists believe X", that the only thing in common is a lack of deities but everything else is up to the individual. So don't even try to insinuate that we were the ones stating the absolute beliefs of all atheists and you're the enlightened one telling us we're actually on a spectrum.
Okay. And what does that have to do with anything? So people can be both atheist and agnostic. Or one or the other, whatever they feel best describes them. And?Personally, I think the agnostic label is MUCH better to describe the "I don't believe in a god, but think there is 'more' somehow" than the label of Atheist. The line is clearer that way. But some LIKE the Atheist label because it is a rejection of God more explicitly than agnostic is.
And of course your moral authority (the Judeo-Christian god) is the only consistent and just moral authority, right? Because we've already seen what happens when certain sects of Christians try to force their consistent moral authority onto others. Just ask any gay couple who wanted to get married before a human, secular authority (the Supreme Court) stepped in to protect them from the "morals" of strangers. And since other Christians disagreed with them, what does that say for the consistency of Christian moral authority?And as for the final couple of lines that you quoted, I think that any who demand consistency of any kind without a moral authority are inconsistent themselves. The "moral nihilists" are far more consistent and honest, by NOT demanding such. If there's no higher "value and/or authority" then imposing even consistency is still one's opinion forced on others. The nihilists at least admit they only want rules on others to benefit themselves.
Buddhists take their moral authority from the Four Noble Truths. That's consistent. And doesn't have any gods involved. But still not as good as your own moral authority, right?
Altruism exists in nature. Primate research has shown that chimps show altruism and compassion. Maybe they have chimpanzee gods? Dolphins rescued injured sailors from sharks during WWII. Do they have dolphin gods that told them to do that? But it's just as likely that altruism and ethical behavior is an evolved trait for social animals (including humans) to survive and succeed, and some animals (humans, dogs, and dolphins most notably) apply that to other species as well.
But why is that considered lesser than living in fear of an omnipotent being who will punish you for being bad? Doesn't it actually show more ethics and "goodness" if you are a good person without constant fear of punishment? I love my family and friends without being told to do so by a god. I give to charity without being told to do so by a god. I don't murder anyone because I don't want to murder anyone, no god involved in that one, either. And I'm pretty damn consistent on it. Forty-five years and no murders. Go me! I have also never belonged to a religion (though I adopted elements of secular Buddhism in my thirties) and have not once in my life been to a religious service other than attending weddings/funerals. You may need a god to be your moral authority to prevent you going on a murder spree, but don't project that onto other people who simply think murder is a shitty thing to do.
Why does it matter if the value is assigned by a deity or a human? If you believe that deities are sentient beings, then they are still values assigned by others. At least when it comes from a human, it can be put into human context. Rather than "Suicide is bad. Because I say so." from deities, you can get "Suicide is bad for treatable conditions (depression), but should be allowed/assisted for conditions that are incurable and cause immense suffering (bone cancer)". Humans experience human suffering, and are therefore better judges of the quality vs quantity aspect of life. Why is it "good" that a deity can decide a terminally ill person must prolong the inevitable and waste away in agony from cancer? And deities, from their stories, are certainly willing to strip rights away, even the right to life. Wasn't there some god who said "Thou Shalt Not Kill", but slaughtered all the firstborn of Egypt? And drowned anyone who didn't fit on the ark? And destroyed a couple cities with fire and brimstone? Fuck that "do not kill" and value of life shit, right? Jehovah has some mobs of humans to plough through to get that Epic Smiter achievement!But getting back to the original topic, this has to do with the value of human life regarding suicide. If the value is assigned by others, it can be stripped by others (or even self), and other things like quality of life then can become more important. If it is innate, then something is lost in all cases which in most/many cases cannot be overridden.
#46
Gruebeard
But seriously, Sara, excellent post. You said it far better than I ever would've.
Gruebeard
What she's not telling us, though, is she's 64I don't murder anyone because I don't want to murder anyone, no god involved in that one, either. And I'm pretty damn consistent on it. Forty-five years and no murders. Go me!
But seriously, Sara, excellent post. You said it far better than I ever would've.
#48
Eriol
Eriol
I'm on a phone, not computer, so it's impractical to answer everything.
You can't go up a chain to anything that says "this is right and wrong regardless of opinion." All you have is that enough others agree with you NOW. It's for the preservation of your view of the world NOW but that's it. "It seems to work" is as far as your justifications go. Until they don't, with disaster for MANY. The largest killer regimes in history have been hostile to religion and theistic beliefs because they were "right". (Mao, Stalin, and Hitler by most measures btw)
As for my own theistic beliefs, sure, I could be wrong. No issue there. But I do think there is more. The idea of better is concrete and real. The doubt of if you ACTUALLY are right is what should make one humble, but that also doesn't preclude the idea of "yes you disagree, you're getting punished anyways. Too bad. If I'm wrong later, sorry."
You advocate for NOTHING more being a justification. Thus how can you ever take ANY action against someone unwilling?
Why? That's the central "issue" I have with no higher authority. Why do you think x y or z is "shitty"? Because you were raised that way? Why does that give you the right to persuade another that your way is better?You may need a god to be your moral authority to prevent you going on a murder spree, but don't project that onto other people who simply think murder is a shitty thing to do.
You can't go up a chain to anything that says "this is right and wrong regardless of opinion." All you have is that enough others agree with you NOW. It's for the preservation of your view of the world NOW but that's it. "It seems to work" is as far as your justifications go. Until they don't, with disaster for MANY. The largest killer regimes in history have been hostile to religion and theistic beliefs because they were "right". (Mao, Stalin, and Hitler by most measures btw)
As for my own theistic beliefs, sure, I could be wrong. No issue there. But I do think there is more. The idea of better is concrete and real. The doubt of if you ACTUALLY are right is what should make one humble, but that also doesn't preclude the idea of "yes you disagree, you're getting punished anyways. Too bad. If I'm wrong later, sorry."
You advocate for NOTHING more being a justification. Thus how can you ever take ANY action against someone unwilling?
#49
Sara_2814
And I'm not trying to presuade anyone of anything! That's MY point. My personal choices are my own and no one elses. And outside my dependent child and family members I can legally make medical decisions for (and I have particpated in family End of Life decisions), I have no right to make personal choices for anyone else. If someone is suffering through terminal cancer, they have every right to make their own end of life decisions with their doctor and family and their personal deity (if applicable). Whether that's to end it or keep fighting is THEIR decision. Not anyone else's and certainly not the decision of some stranger's deity.
I'm not teling anyone that my way is better. I'm just clarifying what atheism is. You're the one going on and on about how having a 'higher authority' is the better belief and the only way to make proper moral decisions. I don't care what you believe in. You can believe that mystical purple rabbits live under your bed and whisper lotto numbers to you. Just don't try to dictate my life decisions because the mystical purple rabbits told you to.
I had issue with you making blanket statements about what atheists believe. I pointed out that atheism is an absence of deities and that the beliefs of atheists are individual. Atheists can be skeptical or spiritual/religious, there's no such thing as "atheist beliefs" other than the no deities thing. I'm not trying to tell anyone else what to believe in or take action against anyone, willing or not. I'm trying to tell YOU to stop making statements about what atheists believe as fact, especially when you have actual atheists telling you that you're wrong.
Sara_2814
Okay, so let's say we need to have a "higher authority" to be moral. So whose higher authority? Catholic? Baptist? Methodist? Jewish? Orthodox Jewish? Shia Muslim? Shiite Muslim? Shinto? Hindu? Buddhist? Sikh? Wiccan? Norse? Hellenic? Aztec? Or any other of hundreds (thousands?) of denominations/sects/cults of varoius religious beliefs that exist and have existed? Which deity and associated beliefs is the higher authority? Who gets to pick the higher authority? What if the chosen higher authority is an asshole god who tells his followers to burn all the unbelievers? How is having to choose from hundreds of different theistic beliefs and practices better than an atheist choosing to follow the philosophy of "Live and Let Live, and Don't be a Dick"?I'm on a phone, not computer, so it's impractical to answer everything.
Why? That's the central "issue" I have with no higher authority. Why do you think x y or z is "shitty"? Because you were raised that way? Why does that give you the right to persuade another that your way is better?
And I'm not trying to presuade anyone of anything! That's MY point. My personal choices are my own and no one elses. And outside my dependent child and family members I can legally make medical decisions for (and I have particpated in family End of Life decisions), I have no right to make personal choices for anyone else. If someone is suffering through terminal cancer, they have every right to make their own end of life decisions with their doctor and family and their personal deity (if applicable). Whether that's to end it or keep fighting is THEIR decision. Not anyone else's and certainly not the decision of some stranger's deity.
I'm not teling anyone that my way is better. I'm just clarifying what atheism is. You're the one going on and on about how having a 'higher authority' is the better belief and the only way to make proper moral decisions. I don't care what you believe in. You can believe that mystical purple rabbits live under your bed and whisper lotto numbers to you. Just don't try to dictate my life decisions because the mystical purple rabbits told you to.
You mean the same as with religion? The only power theistic religions have is when "enough others agree with you NOW". Remember how the Roman religion dominated Europe? And replaced by Christianity because kings deemed it the new religion, often at the point of a sword? How about the power the Pope used to have in Europe? Christianity used to think it was just fine to torture and kill heretics and "witches". That was for the preservation of their view of the world NOW. That was their 'higher authority' morality at the time. And Mao? Stalin? Also Crusades, the slaughter and forced conversions of Native Americans, and nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition--because the theists considered themselves "right". Bloody hands belong to theists and atheists alike. Theocracies have lost power in the modern world and so theist powers tended to do their slaughtering back before we made killing efficient with bombers, tanks, and machine guns. Do you think the Crusades would not have had a higher body count if the crusaders had Stalin's arsenal and mechanized transportation? Comparing medieval warfare and modern warfare is not as simple as direct comparison of raw numbers.You can't go up a chain to anything that says "this is right and wrong regardless of opinion." All you have is that enough others agree with you NOW. It's for the preservation of your view of the world NOW but that's it. "It seems to work" is as far as your justifications go. Until they don't, with disaster for MANY. The largest killer regimes in history have been hostile to religion and theistic beliefs because they were "right". (Mao, Stalin, and Hitler by most measures btw)
What? What exactly am I advocating for or justifying? And who am I taking action against? I don't want to take action against anyone. Where did I say that? I have no idea what you're talking about.You advocate for NOTHING more being a justification. Thus how can you ever take ANY action against someone unwilling?
I had issue with you making blanket statements about what atheists believe. I pointed out that atheism is an absence of deities and that the beliefs of atheists are individual. Atheists can be skeptical or spiritual/religious, there's no such thing as "atheist beliefs" other than the no deities thing. I'm not trying to tell anyone else what to believe in or take action against anyone, willing or not. I'm trying to tell YOU to stop making statements about what atheists believe as fact, especially when you have actual atheists telling you that you're wrong.
#50
Cog
Cog
Human morality makes no sense, from both points of view. Everything is a justification for their way of life. As Eriol said, you only need that enough people agree with you to be right.
#51
Gruebeard
Gruebeard
I begin to reply, but I have no faith in my argument.
#52
strawman
strawman
Slippery slope? What slippery slope?
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...t-refuses-to-intervene-over-sick-british-baby
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...t-refuses-to-intervene-over-sick-british-baby
#53
mikerc
Yes, his parents want to take him to the US to receive experimental treatment that they believe might be able to cure him. The sad truth is that they are clutching at straws. Even *if* the treatment works it would only stop Charlie from getting worse, not cure the damage already done. Go read that list of what he cannot do again. None of that will change.
Unless you're arguing that it's a slippery slope because the patient - or his legal guardians in this case - are not the ones making the decision. In which case you're still wrong because *this is not assisted suicide.* Assisted suicide is choosing to actively assist someone in ending their life. This is choosing to no longer artificially extend their life - a small but significant difference. This would be closer to a "DNR" than assisted suicide, because that is effectively what is happening to Charlie Gard. He is being resucitated every second of every day, and as soon as that resucitation stops, he's gone. And sometimes that's the kindest thing you can do. Just...let them go.
mikerc
I don't agree that this is a slippery slope situation. Firstly the whole thing about assisted suicide was it being used to allow someone with no more quality of life to choose to end that life. Charlie Gard, the young boy at the center of this case has no quality of life. He cannot see. He cannot hear. He cannot move. He cannot swallow. He cannot even *breathe* without the aid of a machine.Slippery slope? What slippery slope?
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...t-refuses-to-intervene-over-sick-british-baby
Yes, his parents want to take him to the US to receive experimental treatment that they believe might be able to cure him. The sad truth is that they are clutching at straws. Even *if* the treatment works it would only stop Charlie from getting worse, not cure the damage already done. Go read that list of what he cannot do again. None of that will change.
Unless you're arguing that it's a slippery slope because the patient - or his legal guardians in this case - are not the ones making the decision. In which case you're still wrong because *this is not assisted suicide.* Assisted suicide is choosing to actively assist someone in ending their life. This is choosing to no longer artificially extend their life - a small but significant difference. This would be closer to a "DNR" than assisted suicide, because that is effectively what is happening to Charlie Gard. He is being resucitated every second of every day, and as soon as that resucitation stops, he's gone. And sometimes that's the kindest thing you can do. Just...let them go.
#54
strawman
strawman
When we 1. Allow physician assisted suicide for terminally ill patients and 2. Allow the state to assert control over patients even when the patient has guardians or those with power of attorney which oppose the state:
Then you get situations like this, where the state determines the child must be killed and the parents have no recourse.
I recall a discussion many years ago on this board about this intersection of state healthcare and assisted suicide that posits the state could remove a child from its parents in order to kill it. There were those who indicated it would never be done, and that this slippery slope argument had no value.
The details of the case are less interesting to me than the fact that the government not only has the power to ensure the death of a child, but can do so against the wishes of the parents.
Go ahead and explain it away, and support the government's power to do so. That's your choice and I'm sure you have your reasons. I don't believe the government should hold that power, and I hope you understand I have my reasons.
Then you get situations like this, where the state determines the child must be killed and the parents have no recourse.
I recall a discussion many years ago on this board about this intersection of state healthcare and assisted suicide that posits the state could remove a child from its parents in order to kill it. There were those who indicated it would never be done, and that this slippery slope argument had no value.
The details of the case are less interesting to me than the fact that the government not only has the power to ensure the death of a child, but can do so against the wishes of the parents.
Go ahead and explain it away, and support the government's power to do so. That's your choice and I'm sure you have your reasons. I don't believe the government should hold that power, and I hope you understand I have my reasons.
#55
Krisken
Krisken
Welcome to Halforums. Just throw your coat anywhere.So you arrogantly point me to read up on my own beliefs of my own atheism in a Wikipedia article, but when the actual content of the Wikipedia article actually counters your argument that "atheists believe X", you brush off the very article you told me to read and the definition of atheism itself as "fiercely debated". Nice.
#56
MindDetective
MindDetective
Is it better if that power rests in a private insurance company? It seems disempowering to the family in both circumstances.When we 1. Allow physician assisted suicide for terminally ill patients and 2. Allow the state to assert control over patients even when the patient has guardians or those with power of attorney which oppose the state:
Then you get situations like this, where the state determines the child must be killed and the parents have no recourse.
I recall a discussion many years ago on this board about this intersection of state healthcare and assisted suicide that posits the state could remove a child from its parents in order to kill it. There were those who indicated it would never be done, and that this slippery slope argument had no value.
The details of the case are less interesting to me than the fact that the government not only has the power to ensure the death of a child, but can do so against the wishes of the parents.
Go ahead and explain it away, and support the government's power to do so. That's your choice and I'm sure you have your reasons. I don't believe the government should hold that power, and I hope you understand I have my reasons.
#57
Tinwhistler
Let's flip that argument on its head. Let's say that a child has a life-threatening disease with a prognosis of certain death, but it can absolutely be cured with modern medical attention. If the parents decide to treat the child at home with yogurt, vitamins, and quartz crystal therapy (virtually guaranteeing the child's death), should the courts have the power to force them to take the child to the hospital?
The courts often intervene in family matters. Parental rule over their children is not absolute. Parental control is stripped from parents every day when the courts determine that they are incapable of acting in the best interests of the child.
The decision of ending life support when continued care is futile is not a new issue and not unique to this case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/us/even-as-doctors-say-enough-families-fight-to-prolong-life.html
I agree with @mikerc . This has nothing at all to do with assisted suicide, and trying to use it as some kind of argument in that debate really has no merit. I still see no slippery slope making this different and unique situation equivalent to forcing an octogenarian with bone cancer to take life-ending drugs.
Tinwhistler
Parents aren't always reasonable. Incidentally, I found this article to be a bit more informative than the one linked above.Go ahead and explain it away, and support the government's power to do so. That's your choice and I'm sure you have your reasons. I don't believe the government should hold that power, and I hope you understand I have my reasons.
Let's flip that argument on its head. Let's say that a child has a life-threatening disease with a prognosis of certain death, but it can absolutely be cured with modern medical attention. If the parents decide to treat the child at home with yogurt, vitamins, and quartz crystal therapy (virtually guaranteeing the child's death), should the courts have the power to force them to take the child to the hospital?
The courts often intervene in family matters. Parental rule over their children is not absolute. Parental control is stripped from parents every day when the courts determine that they are incapable of acting in the best interests of the child.
The decision of ending life support when continued care is futile is not a new issue and not unique to this case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/us/even-as-doctors-say-enough-families-fight-to-prolong-life.html
I agree with @mikerc . This has nothing at all to do with assisted suicide, and trying to use it as some kind of argument in that debate really has no merit. I still see no slippery slope making this different and unique situation equivalent to forcing an octogenarian with bone cancer to take life-ending drugs.
#58
Eriol
Eriol
Yes but it's arguably against a government's financial interest to argue in favor of life, thus compelling them to do so is good policy from the people's perspective. Encouraging death of the sick however is very compatible with government's financial interests, and thus anything that goes that direction EASILY falls to slippery slope. Thus it's a danger. You don't need to be worried about the government's actions when it's protecting people (except to make sure they're doing it enough). You DO need to worry when they're deciding who lives and dies, and/or imprisoning people, and/or anything that CAN lead to "bad stuff".Parents aren't always reasonable. Incidentally, I found this article to be a bit more informative than the one linked above.
Let's flip that argument on its head. Let's say that a child has a life-threatening disease with a prognosis of certain death, but it can absolutely be cured with modern medical attention. If the parents decide to treat the child at home with yogurt, vitamins, and quartz crystal therapy (virtually guaranteeing the child's death), should the courts have the power to force them to take the child to the hospital?
#59
strawman
Our current system errs on the side of making sure the decision is made by the spouse, parent, adult child of the patient if the patient is unable to communicate their wishes.
The insurance companies are economically disempowering, but they won't turn your child's machine off and threaten to throw you in jail if you interfere.
@MindDetective (quoting and deleting is a pain on mobile, this is in response to your later post)
In cases of abuse and negligence the state may remove a child from its parents, or remove authority over medical decisions from a spouse, sibling, or child of a patient.
It would be hard to argue that parents trying to preserve the life of their child could be considered abuse or negligence, but I suppose the argument could be made, and that you stand on the side where in some cases preserving life is abusive. I disagree, but that's not the core point.
I concede that there is a minor difference between assisted suicide and removing life support.
Bu that difference only exists in the US. In Europe there is little legal difference, because more and more of those countries already allow assisted suicide when the legal guardian of a patient decides to follow that course of action. The only difference is whether the patient themselves is in control or not. I suppose you might argue that being on life support is different as well, but then you might as well believe that anti rejection drugs for transplant patients, pacemakers, and insulin pumps make people eligible for "pulling the plug", however if you removed a mentally disabled person's insulin pump it would still be considered murder. So I don't buy the argument that removing life support machinery is essentially different than giving someone a poison. They may need aid to breath, they may need aid to eat, but our current definition of life doesn't mean "lives without aid".
So the only difference between the two in the EU is that the government has now asserted its authority to remove the guardian of a person from that guardianship so they can deprive that person of life.
And this in a european union where capital punishment isn't permitted, recognizing the legal system is imperfect, and the essentially dignity and human right to life.
Fortunately for that country, medical science is perfect, and never makes mistakes, so I'm glad that, at least in that one country, they've determined that they can deal death without worrying about whether they are making a mistake, and I'm glad the government is willing to remove power from its citizens in order to kill those whom their perfect medical doctors have deemed unsalvagable.
I'm sure they'll give that power back to the people when they determine the people can wield it responsibly, so no worries.
So I guess I should reverse my opinion and laud the individuals who are carrying out these laws to their fullest implementation?
strawman
There's a gray area we would fall into if we discussed this too far, but I think I could successfully argue that while the insurance company may choose not to pay for further treatement, the insurance company won't demand treatment be stopped, and pull the plug itself, taking authority from the parent or legal guardian of the patient in question. The hospital likewise will also not pull the plug even if the family has no means to pay against the wishes of the family.Is it better if that power rests in a private insurance company? It seems disempowering to the family in both circumstances.
Our current system errs on the side of making sure the decision is made by the spouse, parent, adult child of the patient if the patient is unable to communicate their wishes.
The insurance companies are economically disempowering, but they won't turn your child's machine off and threaten to throw you in jail if you interfere.
@MindDetective (quoting and deleting is a pain on mobile, this is in response to your later post)
In cases of abuse and negligence the state may remove a child from its parents, or remove authority over medical decisions from a spouse, sibling, or child of a patient.
It would be hard to argue that parents trying to preserve the life of their child could be considered abuse or negligence, but I suppose the argument could be made, and that you stand on the side where in some cases preserving life is abusive. I disagree, but that's not the core point.
I concede that there is a minor difference between assisted suicide and removing life support.
Bu that difference only exists in the US. In Europe there is little legal difference, because more and more of those countries already allow assisted suicide when the legal guardian of a patient decides to follow that course of action. The only difference is whether the patient themselves is in control or not. I suppose you might argue that being on life support is different as well, but then you might as well believe that anti rejection drugs for transplant patients, pacemakers, and insulin pumps make people eligible for "pulling the plug", however if you removed a mentally disabled person's insulin pump it would still be considered murder. So I don't buy the argument that removing life support machinery is essentially different than giving someone a poison. They may need aid to breath, they may need aid to eat, but our current definition of life doesn't mean "lives without aid".
So the only difference between the two in the EU is that the government has now asserted its authority to remove the guardian of a person from that guardianship so they can deprive that person of life.
And this in a european union where capital punishment isn't permitted, recognizing the legal system is imperfect, and the essentially dignity and human right to life.
Fortunately for that country, medical science is perfect, and never makes mistakes, so I'm glad that, at least in that one country, they've determined that they can deal death without worrying about whether they are making a mistake, and I'm glad the government is willing to remove power from its citizens in order to kill those whom their perfect medical doctors have deemed unsalvagable.
I'm sure they'll give that power back to the people when they determine the people can wield it responsibly, so no worries.
So I guess I should reverse my opinion and laud the individuals who are carrying out these laws to their fullest implementation?
#60
Gruebeard
In the UK situation being discussed it looks like the hospital (through its doctors) is indeed the one deciding to pull the plug against the parents wishes.
The parents fought the decison in a local court up through the UK Supreme Court and on to the European court. It's been parents vs hospital from the start.
Gruebeard
You're discussing a hypothetical situation here, I believe.The hospital likewise will also not pull the plug even if the family has no means to pay against the wishes of the family.
In the UK situation being discussed it looks like the hospital (through its doctors) is indeed the one deciding to pull the plug against the parents wishes.
The parents fought the decison in a local court up through the UK Supreme Court and on to the European court. It's been parents vs hospital from the start.
#61
strawman
strawman
There may be a reason for you to believe there's a difference, but to me it's just splitting hairs. Whether the government is taking authority to itself, or transferring authority to a third party, its the same because th government has concluded that death is warranted in this case, and that is the reason they've made the decision.
It's more particularly the same since the healthcare system there is government run and mandated, so even if there was more than a technical difference, it doesn't exist in this case.
It's more particularly the same since the healthcare system there is government run and mandated, so even if there was more than a technical difference, it doesn't exist in this case.
#62
Bubble181
Bubble181
I'm stayig out of this discusison for my own mental health's sake, but I just do want to chime in and say this is a very, very, wrong and bad misinterpretation of how the UK healthcare system works.It's more particularly the same since the healthcare system there is government run and mandated, so even if there was more than a technical difference, it doesn't exist in this case.
#63
Gruebeard
But I'm really just trying to clarify for myself if you talking about the UK situation in that post.[DOUBLEPOST=1499113611,1499113204][/DOUBLEPOST]
Indeed, I think he's very much right that, paid for and run by the government rather qualifies it as being part of the government. In much the same way, I'd consider that schools, fire departments and such are government.
Gruebeard
Aye, I had considered saying that the hospital and its doctors in the UK case could be considered part of the government.There may be a reason for you to believe there's a difference, but to me it's just splitting hairs. Whether the government is taking authority to itself, or transferring authority to a third party, its the same because th government has concluded that death is warranted in this case, and that is the reason they've made the decision.
It's more particularly the same since the healthcare system there is government run and mandated, so even if there was more than a technical difference, it doesn't exist in this case.
But I'm really just trying to clarify for myself if you talking about the UK situation in that post.[DOUBLEPOST=1499113611,1499113204][/DOUBLEPOST]
I'm not really sure he's wrong.I'm stayig out of this discusison for my own mental health's sake, but I just do want to chime in and say this is a very, very, wrong and bad misinterpretation of how the UK healthcare system works.
Indeed, I think he's very much right that, paid for and run by the government rather qualifies it as being part of the government. In much the same way, I'd consider that schools, fire departments and such are government.
#64
mikerc
mikerc
Except the UK is not one of those countries. Assisted suicide is just as illegal here as it is in the US.I concede that there is a minor difference between assisted suicide and removing life support.
Bu that difference only exists in the US. In Europe there is little legal difference, because more and more of those countries already allow assisted suicide
Except the government has not got itself involved in this case This was entirely a *medical* decisions made by *doctors*! And then went throught the judiciary who heard testimony from experts from both sides before making a decision. At no time was a politician ever involved in this. And even if this was just that nasty tax-funded healthcare not caring about the lives of its patients - the UK has private healthcare!There may be a reason for you to believe there's a difference, but to me it's just splitting hairs. Whether the government is taking authority to itself, or transferring authority to a third party, its the same because th government has concluded that death is warranted in this case, and that is the reason they've made the decision.
It's more particularly the same since the healthcare system there is government run and mandated, so even if there was more than a technical difference, it doesn't exist in this case.
#65
strawman
strawman
@mikerc doctors following the government nhs care regulations, procedures, and policy, paid for by the government and acting in the government's place for all medical related matters.
I've said nothing of politics, but if you think the judiciary are not part of the government and governance of a country then the foundation upon which I'm arguing does indeed fall apart.
Regarding assisted suicide in the U.K., I'm trying to avoid discussing the details of this case. Where physician assisted suicide comes into play is at the higher EU human rights level, where those courts do accept assisted suicide, and I contend that this does influence the decisions they teach in this and similar cases.
They've determined that the gocernment/social healthcare system/doctors rights to kill a child they've professionally determined should die superseded the parent's rights to preserve the life of their child.
Of course, these parents wouldn't have been able to take their case to the EU if brexit had happened, and as such the link between assisted suicide and this case in particular isn't strong, but I still view it as an example of what powers the government can give itself as it nationalizes healthcare and legalizes so-called "death with dignity".
I've said nothing of politics, but if you think the judiciary are not part of the government and governance of a country then the foundation upon which I'm arguing does indeed fall apart.
Regarding assisted suicide in the U.K., I'm trying to avoid discussing the details of this case. Where physician assisted suicide comes into play is at the higher EU human rights level, where those courts do accept assisted suicide, and I contend that this does influence the decisions they teach in this and similar cases.
They've determined that the gocernment/social healthcare system/doctors rights to kill a child they've professionally determined should die superseded the parent's rights to preserve the life of their child.
Of course, these parents wouldn't have been able to take their case to the EU if brexit had happened, and as such the link between assisted suicide and this case in particular isn't strong, but I still view it as an example of what powers the government can give itself as it nationalizes healthcare and legalizes so-called "death with dignity".
#66
MindDetective
2.) Is someone going to jail in the linked story? I admit I am just discussing things in the broad sense and haven't devoted any time to the specifics of the case you linked.
3.) Is stopping treatment because one says "no more" any different (in outcome) from stopping treatment via withdrawing financial support?
4.) Perhaps related to the discussion: Hospitals and doctors can refuse treating patients if they are not equipped or staffed to handle the medical care required.
MindDetective
1.) The insurance companies stop treatments all the time, as they review the treatments suggested and economically pressure doctors or hospitals to consider less expensive treatments.There's a gray area we would fall into if we discussed this too far, but I think I could successfully argue that while the insurance company may choose not to pay for further treatement, the insurance company won't demand treatment be stopped, and pull the plug itself, taking authority from the parent or legal guardian of the patient in question. The hospital likewise will also not pull the plug even if the family has no means to pay against the wishes of the family.
Our current system errs on the side of making sure the decision is made by the spouse, parent, adult child of the patient if the patient is unable to communicate their wishes.
The insurance companies are economically disempowering, but they won't turn your child's machine off and threaten to throw you in jail if you interfere
2.) Is someone going to jail in the linked story? I admit I am just discussing things in the broad sense and haven't devoted any time to the specifics of the case you linked.
3.) Is stopping treatment because one says "no more" any different (in outcome) from stopping treatment via withdrawing financial support?
4.) Perhaps related to the discussion: Hospitals and doctors can refuse treating patients if they are not equipped or staffed to handle the medical care required.
#67
mikerc
mikerc
@stienman I don't deny that the judiciary is part of government. However they are to a certain extent walled off from the rest of the government. In much the same way that the judiciary over in the US can do things like, oh say, overturn the Presidents attempts to institute travel bans, UK judges are not neccesarily beholden to the government.
And as far as NHS doctors being government funded goes...well yes, that's true. But as I stated earlier there is an option for private healthcare in the UK through BUPA.
I *do* sympathise with the parents in this case - there was a quote from them saying they don't want to look back and think "what if?" & if we didn't live in a world with snake oil salesmen I would be arguing to allow these parents to take their baby to the US for the experimental treatment. But when that inevitably doesn't work the chancers would crawl out of the woodwork & claim they could cure him with homeopathic magic water or quantum quartz crystals or something equally ludicrous. And the parents would want to try them because what if? Of course they would, they love their son & are desperate for a miracle and will try anything that offers them a hope of that miracle.
But ultimately it comes down to do you want to allow a baby to die? Or do you want to condemn that baby to a life of constant torment? There *is* no "right" answer here only a less wrong one.
And as far as NHS doctors being government funded goes...well yes, that's true. But as I stated earlier there is an option for private healthcare in the UK through BUPA.
I *do* sympathise with the parents in this case - there was a quote from them saying they don't want to look back and think "what if?" & if we didn't live in a world with snake oil salesmen I would be arguing to allow these parents to take their baby to the US for the experimental treatment. But when that inevitably doesn't work the chancers would crawl out of the woodwork & claim they could cure him with homeopathic magic water or quantum quartz crystals or something equally ludicrous. And the parents would want to try them because what if? Of course they would, they love their son & are desperate for a miracle and will try anything that offers them a hope of that miracle.
But ultimately it comes down to do you want to allow a baby to die? Or do you want to condemn that baby to a life of constant torment? There *is* no "right" answer here only a less wrong one.
#68
strawman
strawman
1. Well, this is a rabbit hole. I contend that insurance companies *in the US* do not tell the hospital to turn off active life support equipment. They simply say, "We're not paying for it."
2. My understanding is that if the parents take the child to the US with the money they've gathered from supporters for the experimental treatment, then they will be conducting kidnapping of their own child to prevent the imminent death of that child.
3. Yes. In the US the difference is whether the person dies or just runs up a very large bill. I'm sure there are people who would rather die than be in debt. If so, there is no difference for them. For me there's a very big difference.
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act --> In order to qualify as an emergency care service a hospital must be able to provide a basic set of emergency services, mostly surrounding the stabilization and life preservation of a patient sufficient to give them time to go to a specialist when they are unable to provide certain care themselves.
Urgent care centers, medical centers, and other medical facilities have no legal obligation to treat patients experiencing medical emergencies, but those calling themselves emergency services do have a legal obligation.
"Stabilization", however, doesn't cover every service one might consider necessary for life, particularly in the long term. Cancer, for instance, is not an emergency - if cancer is causing an emergency, then the emergency department must stabilize the patient before transferring them to a suitable care facility.
I still don't see the equivalence between the US insurance company's denying payment of claims and the government transferring guardianship to a doctor so the doctor can kill the patient. Again, however, I accept that under exceptional circumstances the end result can be the same.
Given the integration of the government/insurance/medical care in the specific example I brought up in the first place, the waters are particularly muddy, and perhaps in that specific case there is no difference, practical or otherwise.
2. My understanding is that if the parents take the child to the US with the money they've gathered from supporters for the experimental treatment, then they will be conducting kidnapping of their own child to prevent the imminent death of that child.
3. Yes. In the US the difference is whether the person dies or just runs up a very large bill. I'm sure there are people who would rather die than be in debt. If so, there is no difference for them. For me there's a very big difference.
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act --> In order to qualify as an emergency care service a hospital must be able to provide a basic set of emergency services, mostly surrounding the stabilization and life preservation of a patient sufficient to give them time to go to a specialist when they are unable to provide certain care themselves.
Urgent care centers, medical centers, and other medical facilities have no legal obligation to treat patients experiencing medical emergencies, but those calling themselves emergency services do have a legal obligation.
"Stabilization", however, doesn't cover every service one might consider necessary for life, particularly in the long term. Cancer, for instance, is not an emergency - if cancer is causing an emergency, then the emergency department must stabilize the patient before transferring them to a suitable care facility.
I still don't see the equivalence between the US insurance company's denying payment of claims and the government transferring guardianship to a doctor so the doctor can kill the patient. Again, however, I accept that under exceptional circumstances the end result can be the same.
Given the integration of the government/insurance/medical care in the specific example I brought up in the first place, the waters are particularly muddy, and perhaps in that specific case there is no difference, practical or otherwise.
#69
@Li3n
Seriously!
@Li3n
You know, i don't actually agree with the decision (if they want to waste their money it's their problem), but this statement makes you and idiot.They've determined that the gocernment/social healthcare system/doctors rights to kill a child they've professionally determined should die
Seriously!
#70
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
Let's not resort to name calling. I don't agree either, but given what I know (or presume to know) of stienman's beliefs and values, his stance from his point of view makes sense.You know, i don't actually agree with the decision (if they want to waste their money it's their problem), but this statement makes you and idiot.
Seriously!
#71
@Li3n
I haven't been following the case closely, but as i recall from what i saw, the kid already has too much brain damage to ever recover even if they somehow solve his genetic issue.
Even if you believe in a soul, since you can't function without a working brain, you can't logically argue you're killing someone by taking them off life support under those circumstances.
Hell, if souls are real you're basically keeping one trapped in an object... and that's something evil witches do in fairy tales.
@Li3n
Reality >>>> your beliefs.Let's not resort to name calling. I don't agree either, but given what I know (or presume to know) of stienman's beliefs and values, his stance from his point of view makes sense.
I haven't been following the case closely, but as i recall from what i saw, the kid already has too much brain damage to ever recover even if they somehow solve his genetic issue.
Even if you believe in a soul, since you can't function without a working brain, you can't logically argue you're killing someone by taking them off life support under those circumstances.
Hell, if souls are real you're basically keeping one trapped in an object... and that's something evil witches do in fairy tales.
#72
PatrThom
Personally, if as some have said the outcome is not in doubt and it is determined the child will never improve above his current condition, that would make me more likely to allow the child to come to the USA for experimental treatment--not because I expect it would vastly improve the quality of the child's life, but because at that point, what the parents are doing is essentially donating the child's body to science while he is still living, and there is the very real possibility that even though the child's life may not be saved or improved, data may be gathered which would help the next unfortunate individual. And if this child's life was somehow improved in the process, that would be one extremely happy accident.
--Patrick
PatrThom
The government already wields this power via capital punishment, and already kills people's children with it. It can compel the death of an individual, though in the USA there are only a limited number of conditions specifically codified in federal law. I assume all governments have some list of reasons that they defend via some variation of "For the Greater Good," much as I have my own beliefs on the matter (which may or may not intersect).the government not only has the power to ensure the death of a child, but can do so against the wishes of the parents.
Go ahead and explain it away, and support the government's power to do so. That's your choice and I'm sure you have your reasons. I don't believe the government should hold that power, and I hope you understand I have my reasons.
Personally, if as some have said the outcome is not in doubt and it is determined the child will never improve above his current condition, that would make me more likely to allow the child to come to the USA for experimental treatment--not because I expect it would vastly improve the quality of the child's life, but because at that point, what the parents are doing is essentially donating the child's body to science while he is still living, and there is the very real possibility that even though the child's life may not be saved or improved, data may be gathered which would help the next unfortunate individual. And if this child's life was somehow improved in the process, that would be one extremely happy accident.
--Patrick
#73
strawman
That's a unique and so far as I can tell substantially different definition of death compared to most of the medical community. For us to have a reasonable conversation about this topic I suspect you would have to help me understand what what "too much" and "recover" mean in an objective, measurable sense. Perhaps you are referring to a persistent vegetative state, which is measurably different from brain death. It may well be that you don't think detaching them from their life support system(s) would kill them, from your point of mental privilege it can be hard to see what kind of "life" they might have. However I think we can fall back to a legal standard here to determine whether detaching someone from life support is killing them or not. Hypothetically, if a doctor detached life support for such an individual they have no connection with, without permission, would they not be charged with murder or manslaughter?
Please understand that I'm restricting myself to a discussion of the legal aspects of the laws being put in place to enable physician assisted death, healthcare, and interrelated aspects and how these, coming together, may have unintended consequences (ie, slippery slope). So while a discussion of the morality of killing (and mercy killing, and suicide) as well as opinions of what constitutes life, and the specifics of this case in particular are interesting, I'm primarily concerned with what the law says, and how it's actually implemented.
strawman
Ok, so your definition of life is whether a person can recover from a certain amount of brain damage. If I understand your assertion correctly, after a certain amount of unrecoverable brain damage it isn't possible to kill them because they are, according to your definition, not actually alive, or, in other words, they are already dead and we are merely sustaining the remainder of their body....the kid already has too much brain damage to ever recover...
That's a unique and so far as I can tell substantially different definition of death compared to most of the medical community. For us to have a reasonable conversation about this topic I suspect you would have to help me understand what what "too much" and "recover" mean in an objective, measurable sense. Perhaps you are referring to a persistent vegetative state, which is measurably different from brain death. It may well be that you don't think detaching them from their life support system(s) would kill them, from your point of mental privilege it can be hard to see what kind of "life" they might have. However I think we can fall back to a legal standard here to determine whether detaching someone from life support is killing them or not. Hypothetically, if a doctor detached life support for such an individual they have no connection with, without permission, would they not be charged with murder or manslaughter?
Please understand that I'm restricting myself to a discussion of the legal aspects of the laws being put in place to enable physician assisted death, healthcare, and interrelated aspects and how these, coming together, may have unintended consequences (ie, slippery slope). So while a discussion of the morality of killing (and mercy killing, and suicide) as well as opinions of what constitutes life, and the specifics of this case in particular are interesting, I'm primarily concerned with what the law says, and how it's actually implemented.
I disagree. Any statement I make can only demonstrate my idiocy. I contend that statements I make cannot actively reduce my mental ability, all they can do is help you re-calibrate your understanding of my capacity for thought and reason, perhaps helping you understand how to better communicate with me given my deficiencies....this statement makes you and idiot.
#74
strawman
strawman
It might be worthwhile to point out that the legal argument for removal of life support in this particular case is not just the terminal nature of the illness, but because the doctors contend he is suffering from this illness, and that prolonging life is a form of torture - this is very similar to arguments made for physician assisted suicide. It would be interesting to understand how they assess pain in this case, because there appears to be the possibility that they are using that legal argument without actually knowing whether he's suffering or not. It appears that painful seizures are uncommon.
He is not in a persistent vegetative state, which makes this case different than the most common reason to remove life support short of brain death.
He is not in a persistent vegetative state, which makes this case different than the most common reason to remove life support short of brain death.
#75
Gruebeard
Gruebeard
I don't know. Every time I speak a Trumpism, I can feel my brain cells dying.I disagree. Any statement I make can only demonstrate my idiocy. I contend that statements I make cannot actively reduce my mental ability
#76
GasBandit
GasBandit
Sort of reminds me of Something Awful. Their slogan used to be "The Internet Makes You Stupid."
It was later revised to "The Internet doesn't make you stupid, it merely makes your stupidity infinitely more accessible to the world."
(I am not taking sides in this argument btw)
It was later revised to "The Internet doesn't make you stupid, it merely makes your stupidity infinitely more accessible to the world."
(I am not taking sides in this argument btw)
#77
Krisken
Krisken
Good call. This discussion seems more emotional than rational.(I am not taking sides in this argument btw)
#78
@Li3n
And if you're just trying to argue it in a legal sense, i find the fact that you're using the word "killing" (which isn't even a legal term) to go against that stated goal, as it's clearly an emotional appeal.
....
As for slippery slopes, i don't think we should be encouraging people to basically give over a million dollars to doctors that would be basically just testing a technique they know would not save the patient, and will just give them data (i understand why the parents want it, and, as i said before, i'm not against letting them do it, so i don't actually agree with the ruling, since they're not costing the UK anything they should be allowed to try one more thing just to be sure themselves it was hopeless, i just find it rather shitty that they have to pony up the money themselves). But that's another issue altogether.
Of course they would be charged with something, because they'd be doing it without having a well documented reason, and the law hates that.
They can still do it without permission from relatives if they can motivate it medically well enough. Just like they can admit a patient that can't give consent by following the local guidelines about it.
And questioning the circumstances warranting it or not is different from questioning it being a thing that needs to exist at all.
@Li3n
As i said, i haven't watched the case very closely, but as i recall he can't live without the machines, which is one of the things mentioned in the brain death article. And i disagree that not keeping someone's organs alive as long as possible is the same as killing them.Ok, so your definition of life is whether a person can recover from a certain amount of brain damage. If I understand your assertion correctly, after a certain amount of unrecoverable brain damage it isn't possible to kill them because they are, according to your definition, not actually alive, or, in other words, they are already dead and we are merely sustaining the remainder of their body.
That's a unique and so far as I can tell substantially different definition of death compared to most of the medical community. For us to have a reasonable conversation about this topic I suspect you would have to help me understand what what "too much" and "recover" mean in an objective, measurable sense. Perhaps you are referring to a persistent vegetative state, which is measurably different from brain death. It may well be that you don't think detaching them from their life support system(s) would kill them, from your point of mental privilege it can be hard to see what kind of "life" they might have. However I think we can fall back to a legal standard here to determine whether detaching someone from life support is killing them or not. Hypothetically, if a doctor detached life support for such an individual they have no connection with, without permission, would they not be charged with murder or manslaughter?
Please understand that I'm restricting myself to a discussion of the legal aspects of the laws being put in place to enable physician assisted death, healthcare, and interrelated aspects and how these, coming together, may have unintended consequences (ie, slippery slope). So while a discussion of the morality of killing (and mercy killing, and suicide) as well as opinions of what constitutes life, and the specifics of this case in particular are interesting, I'm primarily concerned with what the law says, and how it's actually implemented.
And if you're just trying to argue it in a legal sense, i find the fact that you're using the word "killing" (which isn't even a legal term) to go against that stated goal, as it's clearly an emotional appeal.
....
As for slippery slopes, i don't think we should be encouraging people to basically give over a million dollars to doctors that would be basically just testing a technique they know would not save the patient, and will just give them data (i understand why the parents want it, and, as i said before, i'm not against letting them do it, so i don't actually agree with the ruling, since they're not costing the UK anything they should be allowed to try one more thing just to be sure themselves it was hopeless, i just find it rather shitty that they have to pony up the money themselves). But that's another issue altogether.
Hypothetically, if a doctor detached life support for such an individual they have no connection with, without permission, would they not be charged with murder or manslaughter?
Of course they would be charged with something, because they'd be doing it without having a well documented reason, and the law hates that.
They can still do it without permission from relatives if they can motivate it medically well enough. Just like they can admit a patient that can't give consent by following the local guidelines about it.
And questioning the circumstances warranting it or not is different from questioning it being a thing that needs to exist at all.
I agree that a statement can't literally make you an idiot, only figuratively, so we got that going, which is nice.I disagree. Any statement I make can only demonstrate my idiocy. I contend that statements I make cannot actively reduce my mental ability, all they can do is help you re-calibrate your understanding of my capacity for thought and reason, perhaps helping you understand how to better communicate with me given my deficiencies.