Auschwitz in America

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't know what the Weimarers were thinking at that time, and maybe your friend has a point in this precise historical context (my ignorance prevents me from making any judgement).

But to confuse today's notion of euthanasia with the nazi inclination of precocious death is completely ignorant.

Inclination of precocious death? Most excellent euphemisms. You are a paragon of obfuscation.

The difference is not in the ideology, but in the degree. In saying that one person's life is somehow not worth living, is the essential assumption of Quality of Life. What is this nebulous term? Can we measure it through scientific means? No. It always has and remains a matter of opinion,

"The mind is it's own place, entirely of itself. It can make a heaven of hell or a hell of heaven."

Milton, Paradise Lost.

Sanctity of life believes that all lives are equally valuable, regardless of outside appearances, and therefore ought to be equally protected.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Fringe loonies are the academic philosophy world.

They have to stand out some way.

BTW, the reason I used the term "formal euthanasia" is that in my view, denying care or resources that could extend life, without the patient's or family's consent to deny those resources, is a form of passive killing. If the net result is the same, and the time frame is closely similar, then whether the result was obtained by deliberate inaction, or deliberate action, isn't a significant difference in my view.

As far as euthanasia and a "euthanasia movement" goes, that seems to be a label created for propaganda purposes, and not by any supposed proponents.

I don't support euthanasia as a social practice, but I do believe that it is an undeniable part of the "right to life" for each individual to determine the conditions under which they will live, or choose not to continue to do so.

I don't buy this "God won't give me any cross so heavy I can't bear it" BS line of pseudo-theological argument that I have to endure whatever level of pain and disfunction that might accompany a terminal illness. If it's a mortal sin to take my own life under those circumstances, then God and I will have a little chat about it when the time comes.

I dealt on a face to face basis with the whole assisted suicide / euthanasia / terminal suicide / terminal pain management issue with my own brother. "Luckily" the VA's butcher shop level of medical care resolved all issues before it got to the point where he or I had to, but this myth of successful pain management and la de da horse**** about the "sanctity" and "dignity" of forcibly sustained life is just that - a wishful myth. There are some deaths that really aren't that bad, and some that are, and take far too long to occur and impose far too much pain and suffering and indignity.

It should be up to each of us as individuals, not the state carrying out someone's "moral" fixation on controlling our actions, to determine our own limits on what we are willing to endure, and on how we choose to leave this life.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm back and can more properly keep this thread on track.

MtG:

So only innocently headed threads contain valid arguments?

If it's born as a troll, it can't change into something else. Unless you believe in evolution.

Well I suppose one good troll deserves another. Prolifers cannot justify killing other people in the name of life or in bombing a clinic.

But some do.... I've even known a couple... It just goes to show that there are moderates and extremists, and even a range of extremists, in any point of view.

It must be a difficult argument if it stumps MtG.

There's a difference between "stump" and "reject as an argument because it is stated with distortions of fact and fallacious conclusions.

[Ben Kenobi]

"right to life" for each individual to determine the conditions under which they will live, or choose not to continue to do so.

We already have this, one can ask not to be put on life support in a living will, or not to have extraordinary measures of resuscitation.

That's why I don't see the need for euthanasia, and I fear the consequences of abuse since it will always be the weak and helpless most targeted.

Unless you believe in evolution.

Not quite that fundy,

but this myth of successful pain management

Well, it seems then the issue then is not should we go for euthanasia, but how can we develop better pain medications?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Fringe loonies are the academic philosophy world.

They have to stand out some way.

BTW, the reason I used the term "formal euthanasia" is that in my view, denying care or resources that could extend life, without the patient's or family's consent to deny those resources, is a form of passive killing. If the net result is the same, and the time frame is closely similar, then whether the result was obtained by deliberate inaction, or deliberate action, isn't a significant difference in my view.

you might be interested to know that at least some rabbis agree with you. I once discussed this with one rabbi who said that there followed an obligation to put UNLIMITED funding into healthcare, at least for actions that extend life. Up to the point that things youre denying by taxing to extend life are themselves things needed to maintain life.

There is a distinction in the common law between passive and active euthanasia however - there is a common law right to refuse medical treatment, and no such common law right to commit suicide. Similary few (outside rabbis and others with a strong concern for logical consistency) are willing to go from banning murder to an unlimited obligation to expend whatever resources are required to maintain and extend life.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Fringe loonies are the academic philosophy world.

It should be up to each of us as individuals, not the state carrying out someone's "moral" fixation on controlling our actions, to determine our own limits on what we are willing to endure, and on how we choose to leave this life.

Maybe it should be - what some of us fear is that taking the state out of it does NOT necessarily make it a strictly personal choice - some of us have heard of cases of elderly people wanting death because they feel guilty that they are a financial burden on their families - I guess I fail the libertarian test, cause i think people ARE influenced by their culture, their relatives opinions, etc. I am very uncomfortable with legalizing euthanasia BEFORE 1. We have a just health care financing system 2. We take pain management, hospice care,etc seriously 3. Before we have a culture that values life to the point where we can be sure that NO ONE will feel pressured to choose euthanasia.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I am very uncomfortable with legalizing euthanasia BEFORE 1. We have a just health care financing system 2. We take pain management, hospice care,etc seriously 3. Before we have a culture that values life to the point where we can be sure that NO ONE will feel pressured to choose euthanasia.

That is very true.

Also even if euthanasia was not allowed there is still the option of suicide, which I don't believe is illegal. I mean it is pathetic to think that if terminally ill patients wanted to die that they could not find the means to do so. Where there is will there is way. I can see that if for instance you have lost all sensory feeling from the neck down or lost all your limbs and so on it would be pretty difficult. I don't know how you would solve that if that person pleaded to be allowed to die. The point is that you can't legalize your way out of every possible scenario. In the real world too, people who suffer from excruciating pain, cancer patients for instance, are often given gradually more morphine so that in the end they simply pass away. Nothing controversial about that.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Inclination of precocious death? Most excellent euphemisms. You are a paragon of obfuscation.

Your friend was talking about nazi euthanasias all along, depicting that they were painless. Since he assumes the Holocaust is a moral byproduct of euthanasia, I had to find an expression that covers both. "Nazi inclination of precocious death" does the trick, because the nazis have exactly an inclination to give precocious death.

The difference is not in the ideology, but in the degree. In saying that one person's life is somehow not worth living, is the essential assumption of Quality of Life.

This is where we differ. To me, the current concept of euthanasia is when the individual himself desires to die. And it is a completely different beast than simply go killing aged people because they're "useless" (what the nazis were doing). Basically, among the mainstream euthanasiasts, the worth of a life is given by the patient, not by the politician. And this is completely different, in ideology, to the nazi notion of precocious death, where the individual had no say in stating if his life was worth living or not.

Sanctity of life believes that all lives are equally valuable, regardless of outside appearances, and therefore ought to be equally protected.

Good thing that I don't buy in the Sanctity of Life ideology then

[notyoueither]

Does anyone know what a fatal dose of morphine would be?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Pure Bull**** if you want my opinion. The concept of "quality of life" that underlies the acceptance of abortion and euthanasia is not related to what an individual can bring to society, but to what he can expect from life himself.

How does abortion fit the concept of how the individual feels about his/her life. Perhaps for the mother if she thinks of the child as some kind of burden, but allowing an elderly or terminally ill patient to die based on their whishes and aborting a fetus is not the same thing. The childs input is not sought and to people who support abortion, it is not important at all.

[Spiffor]

Indeed, in the case of abortion, only the "quality of life" of the family members is expressed by them directly (at most, the quality of life of the fetus is expressed by other people).

I shouldn't have bundled abortion in these sentences, because abortion doesn't follow the exact same logic as euthanasia, since the fetus itself doesn't have a say. In today's view of abortion, it is the individual mother that takes the decision, rather than the State. And only the needs of the mother / family / existing kids / to-be kids are taken into account, rather than the needs of society.

It doesn't make current concept of abortion / euthanasia any less individualistic, whereas the the nazi concepts of abortion / euthanasia / genocide are collectivistic.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Does anyone know what a fatal dose of morphine would be?

I ask, because I strongly suspect that euthanasia is being practiced right now in some cases. However, I would like some information confirmed before I am going to be certain about it.

To be more specific, how many units per hour would be considered safe for a healthy adult? Would it be different for a sick, underweight, weak adult with respiratory problems?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Does anyone know what a fatal dose of morphine would be?

As low as 30mg if you are not addicted, but may vary.

A huge subject as I just found out by googling it.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by notyoueither
To be more specific, how many units per hour would be considered safe for a healthy adult? Would it be different for a sick, underweight, weak adult with respiratory problems?

According to a Danish page on palliative treatment the usual dose is 10mg morphine per night (repeated until effect is reached, whatever that means), but may be more depending on how long the patient has been given the medicine. usually other drugs are given as well in combination with morphine, to stimulate appetite and combat nausea.

[Ben Kenobi]

I shouldn't have bundled abortion in these sentences, because abortion doesn't follow the exact same logic as euthanasia, since the fetus itself doesn't have a say. In today's view of abortion, it is the individual mother that takes the decision, rather than the State. And only the needs of the mother / family / existing kids / to-be kids are taken into account, rather than the needs of society.

So everyone gets a say but the victim. Very individualistic.