Euthanasia without Consent

[Rivenrock]

..

[Avatar]

Legally speaking, it may be no more justifiable than having legal alcohol even though some people may drink themselves to death.

Terrible analogy. Legal alcohol is nothing like involuntary euthanasia. Not even close.

Perhaps, but the analogy has nothing to do with what is being legislated, but rather with the fact that any legislation is open to abuse, and that the possibility that some people are going to abuse it, shouldn't be justification for denying legality.

But is there a moral difference between withdrawing feeding, and deliberately overdosing somebody on morphine? Only insofar as the person involved's conscience is concerned.

If they are, as was the case with my own grandmother, ceasing to feed someone because they are so close to death that their body's systems are shutting down (the only reason she lasted 10 more days was because her heart was very strong), or if they are giving what would normally be regarded as an addictive amount of morphine in order to management chronic pain while someone is dying (in spite of the fact that this may hasten death), then yes there is an enormous moral difference.

If they are ceasing to feed someone or giving them more morphine than is required for pain management, then that is involuntary euthanasia, and cannot be used for comparison, because it is the very thing we are debating.

If the case is similar to that of your grandmothers, then perhaps I could accept a moral difference, although I'm not clear on exactly the moral difference that you are referring to. But this topic deals specifically with those who will continue to live, so long as they are fed. We are falling into the trap of mixing our metaphors, if you will. We've essentially mixed in factors pertaining to voluntary euthanasia in here. Not to mention the fact that I'm basically arguing something that I disagree with, except perhaps in this specific circumstance. (Not that I really have a problem with that, but I would just like it to be clear.)

And while we shouldn't count the cost of preserving any life, my question is "Why?". Why are these lives being preserved? What purpose is served? Is there any purpose beyond the salve to our consciences?

If you can't think of a reason to preserve these lives, then why do you claim that we shouldn't count the cost? These two things contradict.

Sorry, my own lack of clarity here. In the usual course of things, we should not count the cost of preserving life, because there is a substantive life to be preserved. Is there a purpose in preserving the lives of these children, who will never grow into adulthood, or any semblance of it beyond perhaps, the physical? What purpose is served by preserving these children in a world that they will never know? One that they will never experience, or even understand the existence of?

For all we know, in 15 years, that child could be lying there wishing silently that it didn't have to endure a single day more of its life. We can't know.

Exactly. We can't know. I also believe that, especially legally, we can't assume.

And yet any course of action requires some assumption. If we follow your way, we assume that they would prefer to exist in a hospital bed, devoid of any meaning or possibility. We must assume. My way, we leave the assumption to those who are involved. In fact, if we accept that the parent has the legal responsibility of choices for those children, then to all intents and purposes, it can be considered voluntary if the parents wish to do it.

My father coaches wheelchair athletes. Some of them once thought they would rather be dead than in a wheelchair. Then they became paraplegics. Suddenly they found that there was still plenty of life to live. We able-bodied folk have no business imagining that someone (physically/mentally) less fortunate than us does not have any reason to live.

Now you will say, 'but I'm talking about people with no capacity for choice, etc etc.' But are you? Earlier didn't you refer to parents 'raising a handicapped child'. The braindead can't BE 'raised'. In your mind, were you really seeing someone with 'no capacity for choice', or just someone who could be considered a 'burden'?

Put it down to unclear explanation on my part. All of this discussion is intended only to refer to those who have no capacity for choice, and never will have. In no way do I intend to imply otherwise, and anything that could be interpreted that way, has been down to my own failure to be consistently specific.

- If someone is braindead, with family permission, take them off life support. If they die, so be it...

That is pretty much what I'm saying, although admittedly with the added step of assisting them with those active steps. If they are brain-dead, and if the family chooses it, (not gives permission, which implies somebodies elses idea, but choice, i.e. the choice of the parents), then there should be no problem.

In fact, that statement suggests that we agree on the principle of the question. That it should be up to the family to make the choice for the person if they have no capacity to do so for themselves. That is essentially my only position on the matter.

At no time take active steps to hasten death. And I honestly don't believe that we need to ask 'why?' we are preserving life. It's self-evident.

And this, it turns out, is the only point that we substantially disagree on. If it is alright to allow them to die through our inaction, even if they haven't explicitly said so, then it is only a small (to me) differnce between actively encouraging that death through medical procedures. The difference between allowing it through inaction, and allowing it through action, seems to be merely a question of moral semantics, with no value except to the person making the choice.

--Avatar

[Skyweir]

I love you rivenrock!! your posts are always without doubt a delight to read .. methodical and well argued.

just brilliant!

we all try to post clearly and well .. but you always succeed!

you even make clear our thoughts!! LOL
((av & rivenrock))

[dennisrwood]

Avatar: i think you mean deliberate inaction and deliberate action. as i do nothing about the Rwanada situation, but it is not deliberate?

[Avatar]

Fair enough. Deliberate action or inaction.

Although, it may be an interesting question whether actions or inaction can be non-deliberate. Afterall, in your example, we still choose to do nothing. We can do something. It may not be much, it may be as little as donating some money/time/whatever, but we, "undeliberately"(?) do nothing.

Interesting question indeed.

--Avatar

[dennisrwood]

being aware of what you're ignoring would be the difference? like I know about Rwanda's problems. but until today had no clue there were problems in East Timor. of course i can no ignore East Timor and that's deliberate.