Alfa Seltzer:

You are very right to be cautious in your response and avoid the requested precision.

So, you want me to be debunked in epic proportions? I gotta be careful

Logicboy03:

Of course, you like Anonyism.....


Anonyism; redefining already defined words to meet your argument...

Nah anonyism is any argument logicboy doesn't like

by the way, what words did Alfa redefine exactly?

Logicboy03:

Well, childhood diseases causing such pain are quite rare
Secondly, parents/guardians are there plus social services to give consent if the matter should arise.


Wow, I have really thought about this more than you, eh?

And you accuse me of annonynism!

Are we going to talk about rarity of diseases now? In that case, adult diseases causing such pains are also very rare.

If you start putting the consent of parents and governemnt workers into the equations, where is this voluntary freewill you were on about before?

Logicboy03:


So, you want me to be debunked in epic proportions? I gotta be careful

You are already debunking yourself in epic proportions by dodging simple questions. Just like Anony.

Alfa Seltzer:

And you accuse me of annonynism!

Are we going to talk about rarity of diseases now? In that case, adult diseases causing such pains are also very rare.

If you start putting the consent of parents and governemnt workers into the equations, where is this voluntary freewill you were on about before?

What are you on about? One is far rarer than the other. Euthenasis is mostly geared towards adult.

Even at that. Child euthenasia is mostly at infant stage....just to show you how rare it is for your 14 year old child example.


So, you have shited your argument to child euthanasia after losing on the major area consenting adults. Dont worry, I will still debunk you.


First off, let us start with the most common form of child euthanasia.....infanticide. infant euthanasia. This problem would be cured naturally and easily if they aborted the deformed baby in the first place or immunized/treated the baby ASAP. This form of child euthanasia is totally avoidable.


Secondly, as rare as it would be for prepubescent to teen euthanasia, even if it happens, there are ways around it. First off, a child can not give consent, therefore the child has to first (voluntary freewill) want to die and then the parents or legal guardians must then sign the consent as well.

Social services would monitor the child and as well as a independent state certified psychiatrist (who has no conflict of interest- eg family friend) who will find out whether the teenager really cant withstand the pain and truly wish to die.

But then, I support countries that ban euthanasia for children except for very rare and exceptional cases.



So, what is your argument now?

Alfa Seltzer:

You are already debunking yourself in epic proportions by dodging simple questions. Just like Anony.

Craze dey worry you?

Which question did I dodge here? You keep making false assertions and asking silly questions which I then answer in detail.

abeg

Logicboy03:


What are you on about? One is far rarer than the other. Euthenasis is mostly geared towards adult.

Even at that. Child euthenasia is mostly at infant stage....just to show you how rare it is for your 14 year old child example.


So, you have shited your argument to child euthanasia after losing on the major area consenting adults. Dont worry, I will still debunk you.


First off, let us start with the most common form of child euthanasia.....infanticide. infant euthanasia. This problem would be cured naturally and easily if they aborted the deformed baby in the first place or immunized/treated the baby ASAP. This form of child euthanasia is totally avoidable.


Secondly, as rare as it would be for prepubescent to teen euthanasia, even if it happens, there are ways around it. First off, a child can not give consent, therefore the child has to first (voluntary freewill) want to die and then the parents or legal guardians must then sign the consent as well.

Social services would monitor the child and as well as a independent state certified psychiatrist (who has no conflict of interest- eg family friend) who will find out whether the teenager really cant withstand the pain and truly wish to die.

But then, I support countries that ban euthanasia for children except for very rare and exceptional cases.



So, what is your argument now?

I wish you were a christian, then I would understand why you talk like this.

I was on about my philosophical view on euthanasia and you came with your "voluntary" nonsense. When I showed you it was a two-edged sword, you started twisting and dodging questions. Now you are back to proposing ways of making euthanasia acceptable and legal. That was not my point. My point was, even if we make it legal and acceptable, is it the right thing for us humans to do? Even if it becomes volutary, is it right?
Take the case of suicide. Sometimes a person suffers so much that they voluntarily kill themselves. Is it right? For them, maybe. But for the rest of mankind? Should we encourage suicide in extreme difficulties? Those are the questions I raised which you tried to derail.

Alfa Seltzer:

I wish you were a christian, then I would understand why you talk like this.

I was on about my philosophical view on euthanasia and you came with your "voluntary" nonsense. When I showed you it was a two-edged sword, you started twisting and dodging questions. Now you are back to proposing ways of making euthanasia acceptable and legal. That was not my point. My point was, even if we make it legal and acceptable, is it the right thing for us humans to do? Even if it becomes volutary, is it right?
Take the case of suicide. Sometimes a person suffers so much that they voluntarily kill themselves. Is it right? For them, maybe. But for the rest of mankind? Should we encourage suicide in extreme difficulties? Those are the questions I raised which you tried to derail.

Guy.....let us not have this dance...you go wound ooooo!


Your philosophy was Anonyistic (see what I did there? ). You were kinda saying that euthanasia is forced. That is why I told you that it is voluntary.

Euthanasia is still suicide one way or the other. Assisted suicide. If a person is going to die soon in the fimmediate future and prefers to die quickly rather than days/weeks of agonizing pain, what is wrong in speeding up the process?

Logicboy03:


Guy.....let us not have this dance...you go wound ooooo!


Your philosophy was Anonyistic (see what I did there? ). You were kinda saying that euthanasia is forced. That is why I told you that it is voluntary.

Euthanasia is still suicide one way or the other. Assisted suicide. If a person is going to die soon in the immediate future and prefers to die quickly rather than days/weeks of agonizing pain, what is wrong in speeding up the process?

Wow! Did I just read the bolded?

Alfa Seltzer:

Wow! Did I just read the bolded?

Yes, you did.


Do you watch Zombie movies with your brain locked.......when a character is being chewed slowly by a pack of zombies and the hero does the best he can do- shoot the chraracter being eaten in the head!

This is the same moral dilenma faced with euthanasia

Logicboy03:


Yes, you did.


Do you watch Zombie movies with your brain locked.......when a character is being chewed slowly by a pack of zombies and the hero does the best he can do- shoot the chraracter being eaten in the head!

This is the same moral dilenma faced with euthanasia

Lord have mercy.

Alfa Seltzer:

Lord have mercy.

What is this?

Is it right by mankind?
@Alfa Seltzer
truly, euthanizing suffering patient(painful,'incurable' diseases) may slow down development of treatment for said disease but
compassion for that patient is what made me think about validity and correctness of euthanasia.

for instance, a adult man is involved in an accident, he suffers loss of control of his limbs and complete paralysis.The resulting prognosis; no treatment(cure) now or in the near future( i know there's lot of activity these days on treatment of spine injuries, just painting a scenario), he runs out of funds to pay for his round the clock care. Hospital put up some funds for a few weeks then abandon him. he CANNOT move. This causes accumulation of fluids on one side of his body. he's in extreme pain.he BEGS for death. NO ONE obliges him. he passes away after some days.
Now,
is the best thing keeping him alive by donating funds to him with no 'preferable' treatment in his future? Donations are risky by the way.
or allowing him to go without pain and in dignity?

this is a question of morality of the action.

Avicenna: Is it right by mankind?
@Alfa Seltzer
truly, euthanizing suffering patient(painful,'incurable' diseases) may slow down development of treatment for said disease but
compassion for that patient is what made me think about validity and correctness of euthanasia.

for instance, a adult man is involved in an accident, he suffers loss of control of his limbs and complete paralysis.The resulting prognosis; no treatment(cure) now or in the near future( i know there's lot of activity these days on treatment of spine injuries, just painting a scenario), he runs out of funds to pay for his round the clock care. Hospital put up some funds for a few weeks then abandon him. he CANNOT move. This causes accumulation of fluids on one side of his body. he's in extreme pain.he BEGS for death. NO ONE obliges him. he passes away after some days.
Now,
is the best thing keeping him alive by donating funds to him with no 'preferable' treatment in his future? Donations are risky by the way.
or allowing him to go without pain and in dignity?

this is a question of morality of the action.

Of course morality may dictate that we take a course of action that are detrimental to our general well being. You are seeing the problem from the point of view of the patient and what his best interests in the matter is. I am trying to look at the general picture. At the consequences for mankind if individual intrests takes priority over group interests.

As my little debate with Logicboy showed, these matters are not simple nor straightforward but we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere for the benefit of the group. If a few individuals have to suffer for mankind to progress, so be it. That's where I stand on the issue.

Logicboy03:

Well, childhood diseases causing such pain are quite rare

I would have thought that as a defender of euthanasia, your main concern would be more about the severity of the suffering than the frequency of the disease or the age of the patient.

Avicenna: Is it right by mankind?
@Alfa Seltzer
truly, euthanizing suffering patient(painful,'incurable' diseases) may slow down development of treatment for said disease but
compassion for that patient is what made me think about validity and correctness of euthanasia.

for instance, a adult man is involved in an accident, he suffers loss of control of his limbs and complete paralysis.The resulting prognosis; no treatment(cure) now or in the near future( i know there's lot of activity these days on treatment of spine injuries, just painting a scenario), he runs out of funds to pay for his round the clock care. Hospital put up some funds for a few weeks then abandon him. he CANNOT move. This causes accumulation of fluids on one side of his body. he's in extreme pain.he BEGS for death. NO ONE obliges him. he passes away after some days.
Now,
is the best thing keeping him alive by donating funds to him with no 'preferable' treatment in his future? Donations are risky by the way.
or allowing him to go without pain and in dignity?

this is a question of morality of the action.

Interesting, I'd still say you don't have the right to kill him.

Now permit me to tell you what the law states here in UK. Here you have the right to make an advanced decision i.e. "if anything happens and I am in a vegetative state, pull the plug". But you'll have to make this decision and put it in writing and validate it legally before your calamity befalls you.

Mr anony:
Interesting, I'd still say you don't have the right to kill him.

Now permit me to tell you what the law states here in UK. Here you have the right to make an advanced decision i.e. "if anything happens and I am in a vegetative state, pull the plug". But you'll have to make this decision and put it in writing and validate it legally before your calamity befalls you.

I have yet to see someone sign such a document. Imagine authorizing people to kill you if you fall sick!
Logicboy, would you sign such a document?

Alfa Seltzer:

I have yet to see someone sign such a document. Imagine authorizing people to kill you if you fall sick!
Logicboy, would you sign such a document?

It's the law. People actually go out of their way to buy the form here.

Mr anony:
It's the law. People actually go out of their way to buy the form here.

I hope they check the psychological conditions of people filling those forms.

Alfa Seltzer:

Of course morality may dictate that we take a course of action that are detrimental to our general well being. You are seeing the problem from the point of view of the patient and what his best interests in the matter is. I am trying to look at the general picture. At the consequences for mankind if individual intrests takes priority over group interests.

As my little debate with Logicboy showed, these matters are not simple nor straightforward but we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere for the benefit of the group. If a few individuals have to suffer for mankind to progress, so be it. That's where I stand on the issue.

OK, fair enough.
but
Why i look at it from the perspective of the patient is that the patient may be ME or maybe YOU. It could be anybody.
I want you to honestly answer this question;
What if it was you?

Mr anony:
Interesting, I'd still say you don't have the right to kill him.

Now permit me to tell you what the law states here in UK. Here you have the right to make an advanced decision i.e. "if anything happens and I am in a vegetative state, pull the plug". But you'll have to make this decision and put it in writing and validate it legally before your calamity befalls you.

dude, I didnt say I should have the right to kill him.
The issue is his right to request for assisted suicide.

As for the vegetative state, he's good as dead already but not legally dead.
It is different. A DO-NOT-RESUSCITATE form or that pull the plug scenario is not the same as a request for Euthanasia.

Alfa Seltzer:

I have yet to see someone sign such a document. Imagine authorizing people to kill you if you fall sick!
Logicboy, would you sign such a document?

You won't only If you are assured of funds to keep you 'alive'.
I understand some people's anxiety at keeping families unnecessarily burdened
by paying the cost of keeping them alive on the remote hope of recovery.
This doesn't apply to people with excess funds.

note, this is not euthanasia.

Alfa Seltzer:

I hope they check the psychological conditions of people filling those forms.

Actually, They are normal , rational people.

maybe, too rational.

Avicenna:

dude, I didnt say I should have the right to kill him.
The issue is his right to request for assisted suicide.

As for the vegetative state, he's good as dead already but not legally dead.
It is different. A DO-NOT-RESUSCITATE form or that pull the plug scenario is not the same as a request for Euthanasia.

Sorry perhaps i didn't make myself clear enough. The reason I talked about that law is that if the scenario you prescribed happened, he won't be granted his request because here in the UK he would be deemed mentally incapable of making such a decision because he is under the influence of pain. In fact that is one of the reasons of having an advanced decision document because that way you can't say he is simply delirious. He should have made his choice known before hand free of any duress. . . . .But then again the UK has the NHS so running out of funds is not an issue because the government covers the healthcare.

Mr anony:
Sorry perhaps i didn't make myself clear enough. The reason I talked about that law is that if the scenario you prescribed happened, he won't be granted his request because here in the UK he would be deemed mentally incapable of making such a decision because he is under the influence of pain. In fact that is one of the reasons of having an advanced decision document because that way you can't say he is simply delirious. He should have made his choice known before hand free of any duress. . . . .But then again the UK has the NHS so running out of funds is not an issue because the government covers the healthcare.

Oh...............I see.
but that's for vegetative state. Euthanasia is for living patient but in severe pain with no hope of a cure anytime soon.
Is there an advanced decision document for that?

Avicenna:

Oh...............I see.
but that's for vegetative state. Euthanasia is for living patient but in severe pain with no hope of a cure anytime soon.
Is there an advanced decision document for that?

That's exactly what I'm saying. The law assumes that when you are in severe pain you are not in a mentally capable state to give consent over your death that's where an advanced decision document comes in to play

A second one is a lasting power of attorney document. . .this puts you under the care of someone else and that person now has the power to make that decision on your behalf. However he can only make such a decision after being advised by the doctors concerning what is in your best interest.

The lasting power of attorney must also have been in place before your condition commenced.

Avicenna:
OK, fair enough.
but
Why i look at it from the perspective of the patient is that the patient may be ME or maybe YOU. It could be anybody.
I want you to honestly answer this question;
What if it was you?

Individualising social problems mostly lead to different perspective. Of course every individual, including me, would want the most personally beneficial position in any situation. That's why everybody takes bribe. It enriches the taker but impoverishes the group.

When people see a thief being lynched, most of them would urge people on, thank their gods and some would even participate in the lynching. Would they have the same reaction if it was their own brother that is being lynched? So there you have the answer to your question. Points of view change when things become personal.

Avicenna:

You won't only If you are assured of funds to keep you 'alive'.
I understand some people's anxiety at keeping families unnecessarily burdened
by paying the cost of keeping them alive on the remote hope of recovery.
This doesn't apply to people with excess funds.

note, this is not euthanasia.

This point of view raises a lot of other questions why we we should be very cautious about this euthanasia thing. What do you mean by "to keep you 'alive'"? Is staying alive a burden on one's family? We might as well do away with unemployed people still living with their parents. Infact while we are at it why don't we euthanise disfigured babies and every other family member whose continued existence poses unnecessary burden on their families?

Family is more than finance and being healthy and happy. My family is still my family "in sickness and in health". And I hope they feel the same about me.

Mr anony:
That's exactly what I'm saying. The law assumes that when you are in severe pain you are not in a mentally capable state to give consent over your death that's where an advanced decision document comes in to play

A second one is a lasting power of attorney document. . .this puts you under the care of someone else and that person now has the power to make that decision on your behalf. However he can only make such a decision after being advised by the doctors concerning what is in your best interest.

The lasting power of attorney must also have been in place before your condition commenced.

Ok, thanks
If I may ask, does this cover any painful, debilitating disease or condition with no cure in the foreeseeable future?

Or just for the specific vegetative patients?

Alfa Seltzer:

Individualising social problems mostly lead to different perspective. Of course every individual, including me, would want the most personally beneficial position in any situation. That's why everybody takes bribe. It enriches the taker but impoverishes the group.

When people see a thief being lynched, most of them would urge people on, thank their gods and some would even participate in the lynching. Would they have the same reaction if it was their own brother that is being lynched? So there you have the answer to your question. Points of view change when things become personal.

Ok.

Alfa Seltzer:

This point of view raises a lot of other questions why we we should be very cautious about this euthanasia thing. What do you mean by "to keep you 'alive'"? Is staying alive a burden on one's family? We might as well do away with unemployed people still living with their parents. Infact while we are at it why don't we euthanise disfigured babies and every other family member whose continued existence poses unnecessary burden on their families?

Family is more than finance and being healthy and happy. My family is still my family "in sickness and in health". And I hope they feel the same about me.

That is why I noted it is not euthanasia. And I quoted that alive because the person has a VERY remote chance of recovery. His muscles will merely suffer atrophy and he will grow older but he most likely will not recover or even improve. This is a persistent vegetative state. Some people try to avoid that by signing an advance decision form.
It is a decision made not to burden his/her family.
You will agree this burden cannot be compared to unemployed youths or babies or children or unproductive members of society.

Euthanasia, on the other hand, is a request for assisted suicide due to 'incurable' diseases and conditions causing interminable pain. These patients are very much alive and may even live long enough BUT in severe pain.

I must admit, my support for euthanasia as it is, has diminished but I know there's a way to avoid all the pitfalls and design a specific, rigid procedure for Euthanasia. Afterall, It is the individuals that make the group. Individual concerns cannot be totally ignored.

Avicenna:
Ok, thanks
If I may ask, does this cover any painful, debilitating disease or condition with no cure in the foreeseeable future?

Or just for the specific vegetative patients?

I don't know exactly what it can and cannot cover but I think you get to choose the specific conditions it covers So for instance you can have one covering brain damage but not spinal injury and no I don't think it is restricted to vegetative states.