I... disagree.
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.
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.
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.
alright. lets give this a go.
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.
I have my "head in the sand" and need to read the Wikipedia article on atheism? Oh, okay. If you insist.
Wikipedia said:
Wikipedia said:
Wikipedia said:
Wikipedia said:
Should I post more? I can post more.Wikipedia said:
And maybe I wasn't the one who needed to read the Wikipedia article on atheism?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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!
What she's not telling us, though, is she's 64
But seriously, Sara, excellent post. You said it far better than I ever would've.
What she's not telling us, though, is she's 64
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 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?
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Welcome to Halforums. Just throw your coat anywhere.
Is it better if that power rests in a private insurance company? It seems disempowering to the family in both circumstances.
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?
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.
Last edited:
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".
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.
@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?
You're discussing a hypothetical situation here, I believe.
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.
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.
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.
Aye, I had considered saying that the hospital and its doctors in the UK case could be considered part of the government.
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.
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.
Except the UK is not one of those countries. Assisted suicide is just as illegal here as it is in the US.
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!
@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".
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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!
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.