Lucifer1904
Well-Known Member
Thread Closed
Last edited:
I'm unclear about these 'ethics'. Is there a differentiation between the removal of mechanical life support from a body incapable of supporting life on it's own and administering a lethal injection to a body that is capable of supporting life on it's own? Does your ethics differentiate between lethal injection and one quick clean shot to the temple? Knife across the jugular? Beheading with a sword or guillotine? If so, why? Isn't a quick and painless kill a quick and painless kill?This came up in our ethics class when I was in nursing school. The way you've explained it, is precisely how it should be conducted. This ensures that the patient has provided the necessary consent and that the healthcare team is preserving beneficence. The only time prior consent is not necessary is if, and only if, the patient is brain-dead and base-brain reflexes are nonexistent.
I'm unclear about these 'ethics'. Is there a differentiation between the removal of mechanical life support from a body incapable of supporting life on it's own and administering a lethal injection to a body that is capable of supporting life on it's own? Does your ethics differentiate between lethal injection and one quick clean shot to the temple? Knife across the jugular? Beheading with a sword or guillotine? If so, why? Isn't a quick and painless kill a quick and painless kill?
Does your 'ethics' differentiate between two private parties engaging in consensual murder, or does it give a special dispensation to someone wearing scrubs? If so, why? Are you saying only people who've paid for a medical degree has earned the right legally take lives?
What happened to Primum non nocere, "First, to do no harm?" How does your 'ethics' square killing with doing no harm?
Let the mental gymnastics begin.
In regards to the discussion, the factor of animals was not meaning in the production of products used by humans. It was in the aspect of Humans choosing to euthanize animals such as Dogs and Cats.Animals yes, people no. They are not remotely the same in any way shape or form. To even make the comparison between the two is a bit offensive.
Do you eat beef, chicken, fish? Wear leather shoes, have a leather jacket, sit on a leather sofa or seats in your car? Euthanasia of animals. Unless you're somehow pro torture before eating them. Me, I prefer my meat animals have a quick, clean, painless kill.
Let's also hope you differentiate between the consumption of human flesh and use of human leather. Given your user name, I question. I hear among some of your followers, it's a thing.
For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither [any thing] hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.
Having confronted this issue with both of my parents, we chose to alleviate their suffering the best we could short of actively killing them. In the case of my father with Alzheimer's, it about killed me to watch him suffer and a piece of me died the day I walked in to visit and he no longer knew who I was. My mother ended up in a nursing home after a failed suicide. After a couple of years, she ultimately chose to starve herself to death by refusing to eat.Even if there is no DNR in place, be it an animal or human, do you really want to see your loved one suffer like that? Even with painkillers available? I'm not saying I would be able to do it myself but it is a question that pops up in those situations. I had to watch my 92 year old grandmother suffer for a week and a half before she died. Yes she was on morphine. And I'm sure you'll now ask, well then how do you know she was suffering. Her body language and the sounds she made. And then the statement, her morphine was not being administered correctly. It was.
So again. Do you really not care about watching them suffer?
If you're not physically there to see it it may take away some of the feelings but the question still stands.
Despite the emotional attachment one might have to a pet, a pet is still an animal and our attachment to it is subjective. In India cows are revered, for me they're dinner. For me a dog or a cat is a pet, in many Asian countries they're stir-fry. Many raise rabbits, chickens, or pigs as pets, many raise them for food.In regards to the discussion, the factor of animals was not meaning in the production of products used by humans. It was in the aspect of Humans choosing to euthanize animals such as Dogs and Cats.
I am saying regarding your emotional attachment, the same can go for humans as it could be the decision for your parents or other family that you have an emotional attachment to. Therefore it is not justification to subjugate one race to slavery or eliminate another through genocide. Simply put, emotional attachment makes a large difference in your decision on euthanasia. If you were emotionally attached to a single cow out of a hundred would you still be willing to kill that single cow?Are you saying the value of a life, human or animal depends on the subjective emotional attachment we place on it? If so, isn't that also justification to subjugate one race to slavery or eliminate another through genocide?
By that logic then euthanasia is assisted suicide.I will start, I believe that euthanasia is not justified with humans or animals unless the person being euthanized authorized it before-hand. Its the same as murder or manslaughter as you do not have consent to take that person/animals life no matter the situation
For me, emotional attachment makes no difference in my decision regarding euthanasia. It is the difference between man and beast. I take it you don't suffer that distinction?I am saying regarding your emotional attachment, the same can go for humans as it could be the decision for your parents or other family that you have an emotional attachment to. Therefore it is not justification to subjugate one race to slavery or eliminate another through genocide. Simply put, emotional attachment makes a large difference in your decision on euthanasia. If you were emotionally attached to a single cow out of a hundred would you still be willing to kill that single cow?
There are scenarios where it can be such in a technicalities sense. 'Doctor Assisted Suicide'By that logic then euthanasia is assisted suicide
Naturally a human being has a harder time making that decision with someone or something it has an emotional attachment to.For me, emotional attachment makes no difference in my decision regarding euthanasia, it is the difference between man and beast. I take it you suffer that distinction?
I don't think it is a technicality. Since when does consent make something not murder? You've called euthanasia murder if the person doesn't consent. So by that definition if you have consent it's either assisted suicide or murder or bothThere are scenarios where it can be such in a technicalities sense. 'Doctor Assisted Suicide'
Under what scenarios is euthanasia, not assisted suicide? Is there wiggle room in the definition I'm missing?There are scenarios where it can be such in a technicalities sense. 'Doctor Assisted Suicide'
But you see no inherent value of a human life beyond that of an animal, correct? The value of the life and struggle with the decision to euthanize is entirely based on your personal subjective emotional attachment to the animal. Human, dog, cat, cow, pig, guinea pig, ortolan, peacock, whatever.Naturally a human being has a harder time making that decision with someone or something it has an emotional attachment to.