Euthanasia

[Katman]

Here's hoping.

[RDJ]

Stop thy clodhopping logic right there mister.

"I will provide a cake-baking service to anyone. Except gay people."
"I will not provide a death-assistance service to anyone. End of."

Do you see the difference?

Now, if you refused to kill anyone except gays, that'd be discrimination.

On your #2, about the guys spreading their junk, the relevance utterly escapes me.

The common-denominator-relevance is that once a group decides that a particular habit or practice or lifestyle (whether being gay, sitting legs apart, no baking for gay weddings) shall be not only allowed or required but the allowance or requirement enforced - because they = the biens-pensants know what's best for the rest of us - and get the full force of the Government to enforce their intolerance, then everything can be made mandatory and punishable. And punishable by up to and including death.

If you think that is exaggeration - ISIS decided that being gay / being an infidel is punishable by death so in the territory they govern that's how they punish people who don't go along with the status quo they want to enforce.

If any of the opponents of gay marriage had said a few years ago that if gay marriage was to be permitted, bakers who refuse to cater to gay weddings by baking a cake could be fined a hundred thousand dollars, proponents of gay marriage would have scoffed vigorously at the stupidity of that fantasy. Yet here we are.

(BTW: I've got nothing against gay people contracting a lifelong relationship, although I would prefer they used their own word rather than marriage - which has for a very long time meant a unique partnership between man and woman. But I don't think there is any reason, need, point or goal to achieve, to deny people who want to have that relationship, formalising that relationship. So why does the same community that wanted tolerance, now wish to act intolerantly? I'd say the answer lies in human nature, because when we can do something, we tend to do so even if we shouldn't. Once euthanasia becomes easier, it will happen more often. That's not my opinion: that's, again, (1) human nature and (2) firmly evident from the euthanasia medical literature.)

In terms of euthanasia, there are at least two major difficulties. The first is, making sure that people are not killed for others' convenience but because they actually want to shorten their life. a few posts back I outlined some of the unintended consequences whereby people are not making informed choices about shortening their life. The second is, making sure that people who administer euthanasia are not made to do it for others' convenience. Quite a few of the posts on this thread seem to indicate that administering euthanasia should not be left to the choice of the doctor. In which case, why don't you go ahead and do it yourselves rather than force compliance?

(BTW again, I don't see anyone inside or outside the profession arguing against the right to die with minimal suffering and as peacefully as possible. Quite the contrary).

[RDJ]

perhaps the discussion will happen after all

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...ary-euthanasia

A reasoned and rational discussion is always welcome. An irrational desire to compel other people not just to believe in one's views, but to act upon one's belief contrary to their principles, is unwelcome. Many proponents of euthanasia fail to spot the difference, just as many opponents of euthanasia fail to spot the difference.

If adults compile a Living Will or similar document, to ensure their wishes about not being resuscitated will be followed, inform their relatives, and inform the people looking after them in a serious or terminal illness, no one I have ever worked with would brush it off and insist on resuscitating these people. (Over the years I have also seen people with DNR (do not resuscitate) instructions tattooed on their chest... an example of such, not the chest, and retrieved via Google, is attached below).

That said again, just like a prenup, a Living Will / DNR document can and has been challenged in court by a family member. But that's not a medical disadvantage, that's legal.


Not my patient

[Katman]

If any of the opponents of gay marriage had said a few years ago that if gay marriage was to be permitted, bakers who refuse to cater to gay weddings by baking a cake could be fined a hundred thousand dollars, proponents of gay marriage would have scoffed vigorously at the stupidity of that fantasy. Yet here we are.

Bullshit.

People have been penalised on the grounds of discrimination way before gay marriage ever appeared on the scene.

[RDJ]

Bullshit.

As always, you put forward a very convincing argument in rebuttal.

[Katman]

As always, you put forward a very convincing argument in rebuttal.

Did your selective eyes miss the second sentence?

[husaberg]

Bullshit.

People have been penalised on the grounds of discrimination way before gay marriage ever appeared on the scene.

So Katman if Euthanasia was made legal and a doctor refused to perform it then what, he too should be subject to court action for refusing to do it, in your own eyes............

[Katman]

So Katman if Euthanasia was made legal and a doctor refused to perform it then what, he too should be subject to court action for refusing to do it, in your own eyes............

Not if it was legislated that doctors only assisted a death on a free-will basis.

(And refusing to assist someone's death wouldn't really fall into the recognised classes of discrimination anyway).

[Big Dog]

Is it not so that a doctor can withhold treatment that they believe to not be in the patients best interests?
They withhold treatment on a it costs too much basis so surely if they had an ethical objection to any procedure they can?

Again please correct me if I am wrong a doctor can be compelled only to not hasten death?


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[husaberg]

Not if it was legislated that doctors only assisted a death on a free-will basis.

(And refusing to assist someone's death wouldn't really fall into the recognised classes of discrimination anyway).

Yes it would, you just created it.........multiple in fact, you clearly need to think through your arguments a little better.

[Big Dog]

I don't get it at all, marriage celebrants are allowed to refuse to marry any couple they like. No reason needed.
Now if they were to post online it was because they were black, gay, Jewish etc that might be a different yarn. Why would a doctor not be allowed to refuse?
If he just said, sorry I don't believe that to be ethical no dramas. If on the other hand he was euthanising Jews 2 a weekend and refusing gay people perhaps he might have to answer a few questions.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Madness]

So Katman if Euthanasia was made legal and a doctor refused to perform it then what...

There are plenty of Chinese doctors around.

[RDJ]

Did your selective eyes miss the second sentence?

No, I saw the second sentence, but it didn't add any value.

Are you involved in the motorcycle industry in any retail capacity?

[RDJ]

I don't get it at all, marriage celebrants are allowed to refuse to marry any couple they like. No reason needed.
Now if they were to post online it was because they were black, gay, Jewish etc that might be a different yarn. Why would a doctor not be allowed to refuse?
If he just said, sorry I don't believe that to be ethical no dramas. If on the other hand he was euthanising Jews 2 a weekend and refusing gay people perhaps he might have to answer a few questions.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

For example, consider the abortion law in New Zealand. (Please note, this analogy is not a comment in any way about the desirability or undesirability of abortions being legally available in New Zealand).

The law currently states, if a doctor refuses to refer you to an abortion provider because they don't "believe" in abortion or have a "conscientious objection", then they have a legal obligation to refer you to another doctor who will. In other words, if you go to see a doctor wanting an abortion, that doctor is obliged to facilitate your request and "make it happen".

The doctor's views on abortion are therefore considered to be irrelevant and he or she is compelled to provide the service. This element of compulsion allows no room for personal ethics.

If a similar statute was to be placed on the law books, that a doctor was legally obliged, under threat of legal sanction, to administer a dose of a drug that would result in euthanasia, this should be equally morally repugnant even to those who support euthanasia. If it is not morally repugnant, then I am afraid we have no common ground for discussion.

[Katman]

The doctor's views on abortion are therefore considered to be irrelevant and he or she is compelled to provide the service.

Because it's not about the doctor.

It's about the patient.

(I shouldn't really be having to teach you this).