Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   


church denies man catholic funeral
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Atheism Versus Religion
Author Message
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2774

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Lester wrote:
1. There are also people with terminal illnesses who DON'T want to commit suicide, if they have something that those others don't, then all options have not been exhausted.


I agree that there are people who are terminally ill who don't want to die.

And? Their existence does not negate the existence of people who feel differently.


I don't think you understood, what I meant was that if there are some people who are terminally ill and don't want to die, then there is some difference between them and those who are terminally ill and *do* want to die, and if this is true, then every option hasn't been exhausted.

Quote:
Quote:

2. It's not deciding what your fate will be, but rather deciding that you will have no fate,


Death at a specific time of your choosing is certainly a fate.


No, it's choosing the END of fate, not the fate itself.

Quote:
Quote:

besides, if someone has a terminal illness do you really think that they'll be completely sane?


Yes.
They'll be quite unhappy about it, most of the time. But being unhappy isn't a mental illness.


One, no-one is completely sane, two, if there so unhappy why would they speed it up, and three, theres a reason people with terminal illnesses are advised to go and see psychiatrists, because they usually have a mental problem they need to get over.

Quote:
Quote:

Or that they want to spend their last minutes in a psychiatric evaluation?


Some wish to die. As a matter of procedure, they would have to undergo psychiatric evaluation before being helped with their suicide. It's not a matter of whether or not they want a psychiatric evaluation. If they want to die, that's the price they must pay. If they can't handle undergoing a psychiatric evaluation before offing themselves, then they clearly don't want to die very badly.


Where do we get the resources to do this? It's not the governments job to kill it's citizens.

Quote:
Quote:

Besides all that, psychiatric evaluations are not hard and fast yes and no, you don't get clear answers all the time,


Yes. That is why we have people called "psychologists", who study this stuff for a living.
An evaluation to determine soundness of mind isn't all that grueling.


I didn't say it was grueling, I was just saying that it is possible for one proffessional and another to disagree, which would lead to mentally ill people killing themselves.

Quote:
Quote:

and it's that blurring of the lines that will lead to a slippery slope.


You haven't demonstrated any logic that would lead to that conclusion. "Slippery slope" arguments are iffy by their very nature, and yours is especially so without any sound reasoning.


Slippery slope arguments aren't iffy, they're very well documented. As for the logic behind it, thats what the sentence above it was supposed to demonstrate.

Quote:
Quote:

3. At least you can suffer, it's better than nothing.


I know that you feel that way.
Some people disagree; they'd rather get it over with.
Your personal preferences are not what determine how other people may lead (or not lead) their lives.
[/quote]

It's a democracy ain't it? My personal preferences and opinion have a whole lot to do with how people lead their lives.
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
Lester wrote:
1. In my experience those who want to die only feel that way because they feel that they have no connection with anyone, and that their life is meaningless, and that no-one would care if they did, or that nothing would be any different if they did thats not personality, thats giving up.

2. We don't know more about their lives, we know that it's the governments responsibility to protect those lives so that people can make their own decisions with them.

3. You need the right to death to have the right to life?? Bull! They are mutually exclusive, if you have the right to death then you don't have the right to life anymore, because you throw it away.
1. If your debilitation is so great as to break your connection with the world without denying you life, that's a different issue.

2. Okay, again, what about vegetables?

3. The right to death is a part of the right to life, if my life is my own, I can determine its existence. Just like if a sandwich is my own and I wanna throw it away, it might be irresponsible and stupid in nearly every case, but its MY sandiwch. I know the analogy doesn't actually apply, but this is a characteristic of ownership and personal control. Nobody owns me but me, and while they have a responsibility to do their best to make my life bearable or convince me not to end it, the final right needs to be mine, or it's the government that owns me. Your statement doesn't make logical sense, you have some sense that human life is intrinsically valuable aside from any other factors including quality, potential, or anything else. If a person has been denied the ability to be a person, that person is, in my view, already dead.


1. No it's not a different issue, it's the same issue, people of all walks of life wanting to kill themselves.

2. The law here is clear, it should be given to the legal guardian, but I view this in much the same way I view abortion, while I personally wouldn't want the plug pulled, people should be able to do it. Unless you can recover from brain death, which I don't think you can.

3. That same argument could be used to not prosecute the killers of people involved in gangs, after all, it was their life to throw away. Even those who are stripped of all rights are still alive, in your opinion they may be dead, but to themselves, they have their thoughts, and that spark of life should hold back the darkness for as long as possible.


1. No, a person who has A life is different than someone who merely has LIFE. You're dictating values to them, this is no more acceptable than telling someone to share any other personal decision with you. I understand that you feel like death is a decision of a completely different level than any other, and that human life of any kind is somehow sacred beyond anything else in existence. And I have great respect for that opinion although I don't share it. But it's a personal opinion and should only apply to your personal actions. Others should have the right to feel differently.

2. Okay, so if someone completely brain dead can be killed, what about someone in a coma who had a 5% chance of waking up in 20 years but will never move or speak again? Do I, as a private citizen, have a right to dictate in my will that in such a case, I should not be indefinitely sustained for the faint hope of having something a teeny bit like a life far in the future? Once again, I ask, who owns MY spark of life? Is it me? The government? My Community? Humanity as a whole? God? If I'm not allowed to make decisions about its existence, only about what to do with it, there must be some higher power that does. And that's an interesting argument coming from (I'm assuming, my apologies if I've misjudged you) an atheist.

3. This is just unbelievably stupid and I expect better of you. And you know it's not my thing to say that to people. Someone performing a dangerous activity and being murdered is a completely different situation. If I join a gang, I may be desparate or have a whole host of other motivations, and I may not highly value my own life, but clearly my primary desire is not to die or I would do so more efficiently. If I've had all my limbs removed and can't see or hear and I want to die, there's really just about zero similarity to your example.

4. "in your opinion, they may be dead, but to themselves they have their thoughts, and that spark of life should hold off death as long as possible." You're pointing out that in this case, the person is still conscious and fully aware, and has the right to individual judgement. But then you say they don't have the right to make the only decision still available to them, whether or not that existence is worth having. I agree that it would be best if they chose to live, but if you claim they're so individual and aware and conscious, why will you not allow them individual choice to make a decision you yourself have never had to face? I think abortion is actually a good analogy here, not just for vegetative people's guardians, but for other cases as well... you, like many others, know that you would never do it. That is an admirable choice, and one you MUST have absolute right to make in that situation. Others may make a different choice, and they need to have the freedom to do that as well. What you're advancing right now is that because everyone has free choice, they should be completely free to have the same values as you do. Additionally, I feel that in cases of both unwanted pregnancy and chronic, fully debilitative illness, you or I cannot know how it would feel to make the choice unless we are truly faced with it in our own lives. For this reason, I believe that I cannot be 100% sure that given that situation, I would make either one choice or another, and therefore I have no right to dictate a decision to those who must make a choice. And like abortion, someone who wishes to end their own life should be informed of all other possibilities and encouraged to take them. But should they choose otherwise, their rights are being stolen by outsiders who do not fully understand the complex emotions involved in their predicament.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2508

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:

I don't think you understood, what I meant was that if there are some people who are terminally ill and don't want to die, then there is some difference between them and those who are terminally ill and *do* want to die, and if this is true, then every option hasn't been exhausted.


Or: some people feel differently about things than others do.

Quote:

No, it's choosing the END of fate, not the fate itself.


"Fate: an event (or a course of events) that will inevitably happen in the future"

Quote:

One, no-one is completely sane,


Depends on how you define "sane".

Quote:
two, if there so unhappy why would they speed it up,


To get it over with.

Quote:

and three, theres a reason people with terminal illnesses are advised to go and see psychiatrists, because they usually have a mental problem they need to get over.


Yeah. Being on the verge of death can do that to you.

But is that the same thing as being unable to make competant decisions about one's own fate?
No.

Quote:

Where do we get the resources to do this? It's not the governments job to kill it's citizens.


Uhm. It doesn't cost that much to have a session with a psychologist. And who would pay for it? The same people who normally pay for these things! Medical insurance, and those receiving the treatment.


Quote:

I didn't say it was grueling, I was just saying that it is possible for one proffessional and another to disagree, which would lead to mentally ill people killing themselves.


If you want certainty in anything in life, you'll always be disappointed. There's always a margin of error, in everything. That's part of life.

Quote:
It's a democracy ain't it? My personal preferences and opinion have a whole lot to do with how people lead their lives.


That's the same thing people say when they want to ban gay marriage.

I don't know where you live, but in the united states, we don't have a democracy. We have a republic. And for exactly this reason. A tyrany of the majority is no better than having a single tyrant. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean it's right.

Desiring to control other people's behavior based on your own personal preferences is wrong.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2774

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
1. No, a person who has A life is different than someone who merely has LIFE. You're dictating values to them, this is no more acceptable than telling someone to share any other personal decision with you. I understand that you feel like death is a decision of a completely different level than any other, and that human life of any kind is somehow sacred beyond anything else in existence. And I have great respect for that opinion although I don't share it. But it's a personal opinion and should only apply to your personal actions. Others should have the right to feel differently.

2. Okay, so if someone completely brain dead can be killed, what about someone in a coma who had a 5% chance of waking up in 20 years but will never move or speak again? Do I, as a private citizen, have a right to dictate in my will that in such a case, I should not be indefinitely sustained for the faint hope of having something a teeny bit like a life far in the future? Once again, I ask, who owns MY spark of life? Is it me? The government? My Community? Humanity as a whole? God? If I'm not allowed to make decisions about its existence, only about what to do with it, there must be some higher power that does. And that's an interesting argument coming from (I'm assuming, my apologies if I've misjudged you) an atheist.

3. This is just unbelievably stupid and I expect better of you. And you know it's not my thing to say that to people. Someone performing a dangerous activity and being murdered is a completely different situation. If I join a gang, I may be desparate or have a whole host of other motivations, and I may not highly value my own life, but clearly my primary desire is not to die or I would do so more efficiently. If I've had all my limbs removed and can't see or hear and I want to die, there's really just about zero similarity to your example.

4. "in your opinion, they may be dead, but to themselves they have their thoughts, and that spark of life should hold off death as long as possible." You're pointing out that in this case, the person is still conscious and fully aware, and has the right to individual judgement. But then you say they don't have the right to make the only decision still available to them, whether or not that existence is worth having. I agree that it would be best if they chose to live, but if you claim they're so individual and aware and conscious, why will you not allow them individual choice to make a decision you yourself have never had to face? I think abortion is actually a good analogy here, not just for vegetative people's guardians, but for other cases as well... you, like many others, know that you would never do it. That is an admirable choice, and one you MUST have absolute right to make in that situation. Others may make a different choice, and they need to have the freedom to do that as well. What you're advancing right now is that because everyone has free choice, they should be completely free to have the same values as you do. Additionally, I feel that in cases of both unwanted pregnancy and chronic, fully debilitative illness, you or I cannot know how it would feel to make the choice unless we are truly faced with it in our own lives. For this reason, I believe that I cannot be 100% sure that given that situation, I would make either one choice or another, and therefore I have no right to dictate a decision to those who must make a choice. And like abortion, someone who wishes to end their own life should be informed of all other possibilities and encouraged to take them. But should they choose otherwise, their rights are being stolen by outsiders who do not fully understand the complex emotions involved in their predicament.


1. The problem I have is this, if you don't view human life as intrinsically valuable then why institute any social programs at all? Why even bother with the capitalist idea of private charities? We might as well be animals snorting around reaching for survival and nothing else. I see that in society, sure, but I also see something else, and I'd much prefer we realy on that. So perhaps it is a difference of opinion, but if it is, then I don't understand how those with the other opinion would be able to support any other human endeavour.

2. 5% of waking up during the course of twenty years? Or five percent chance at the END of twenty years? (While I'm certainly against religon, I have to believe that there is something bigger than all this, even if that something is just grand human delusion.)

3. You said no-one owns you but you, by taking that risk it is *your* choice to die if the cards don't play out in your favour, if our lives are solely our own then we *cannot* expect the government and society to deal with those who have taken them from us, because it was our decision. Sure, mebbe they were desperate, mebbe by joining the gang they'd get money to pay their family, but hey, mebbe the guy wanting state suicide is desperate, mebbe by killing himself he won't have to force his family to pay medical bills. It's completely amoral to use that kind of reasoning.

4. This kind of reasoning is rather obtuse as well, to say that I can't weigh in on matters because I've never been in that situation? So I shouldn't donate money to the poor, because I've always been well off, or I shouldn't send a man to jail for murder because I've never had my wife cheat on me and I can't be sure what I would do in that situation.
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
1. No, a person who has A life is different than someone who merely has LIFE. You're dictating values to them, this is no more acceptable than telling someone to share any other personal decision with you. I understand that you feel like death is a decision of a completely different level than any other, and that human life of any kind is somehow sacred beyond anything else in existence. And I have great respect for that opinion although I don't share it. But it's a personal opinion and should only apply to your personal actions. Others should have the right to feel differently.

2. Okay, so if someone completely brain dead can be killed, what about someone in a coma who had a 5% chance of waking up in 20 years but will never move or speak again? Do I, as a private citizen, have a right to dictate in my will that in such a case, I should not be indefinitely sustained for the faint hope of having something a teeny bit like a life far in the future? Once again, I ask, who owns MY spark of life? Is it me? The government? My Community? Humanity as a whole? God? If I'm not allowed to make decisions about its existence, only about what to do with it, there must be some higher power that does. And that's an interesting argument coming from (I'm assuming, my apologies if I've misjudged you) an atheist.

3. This is just unbelievably stupid and I expect better of you. And you know it's not my thing to say that to people. Someone performing a dangerous activity and being murdered is a completely different situation. If I join a gang, I may be desparate or have a whole host of other motivations, and I may not highly value my own life, but clearly my primary desire is not to die or I would do so more efficiently. If I've had all my limbs removed and can't see or hear and I want to die, there's really just about zero similarity to your example.

4. "in your opinion, they may be dead, but to themselves they have their thoughts, and that spark of life should hold off death as long as possible." You're pointing out that in this case, the person is still conscious and fully aware, and has the right to individual judgement. But then you say they don't have the right to make the only decision still available to them, whether or not that existence is worth having. I agree that it would be best if they chose to live, but if you claim they're so individual and aware and conscious, why will you not allow them individual choice to make a decision you yourself have never had to face? I think abortion is actually a good analogy here, not just for vegetative people's guardians, but for other cases as well... you, like many others, know that you would never do it. That is an admirable choice, and one you MUST have absolute right to make in that situation. Others may make a different choice, and they need to have the freedom to do that as well. What you're advancing right now is that because everyone has free choice, they should be completely free to have the same values as you do. Additionally, I feel that in cases of both unwanted pregnancy and chronic, fully debilitative illness, you or I cannot know how it would feel to make the choice unless we are truly faced with it in our own lives. For this reason, I believe that I cannot be 100% sure that given that situation, I would make either one choice or another, and therefore I have no right to dictate a decision to those who must make a choice. And like abortion, someone who wishes to end their own life should be informed of all other possibilities and encouraged to take them. But should they choose otherwise, their rights are being stolen by outsiders who do not fully understand the complex emotions involved in their predicament.


1. The problem I have is this, if you don't view human life as intrinsically valuable then why institute any social programs at all? Why even bother with the capitalist idea of private charities? We might as well be animals snorting around reaching for survival and nothing else. I see that in society, sure, but I also see something else, and I'd much prefer we realy on that. So perhaps it is a difference of opinion, but if it is, then I don't understand how those with the other opinion would be able to support any other human endeavour.

2. 5% of waking up during the course of twenty years? Or five percent chance at the END of twenty years? (While I'm certainly against religon, I have to believe that there is something bigger than all this, even if that something is just grand human delusion.)

3. You said no-one owns you but you, by taking that risk it is *your* choice to die if the cards don't play out in your favour, if our lives are solely our own then we *cannot* expect the government and society to deal with those who have taken them from us, because it was our decision. Sure, mebbe they were desperate, mebbe by joining the gang they'd get money to pay their family, but hey, mebbe the guy wanting state suicide is desperate, mebbe by killing himself he won't have to force his family to pay medical bills. It's completely amoral to use that kind of reasoning.

4. This kind of reasoning is rather obtuse as well, to say that I can't weigh in on matters because I've never been in that situation? So I shouldn't donate money to the poor, because I've always been well off, or I shouldn't send a man to jail for murder because I've never had my wife cheat on me and I can't be sure what I would do in that situation.


1. No matter how many times I say it, you refuse to understand my point that whether life exists is very different from the quality of life. Helping people who want help is different from forcing people to live who don't want to. We don't force people to accept welfare or medicare or any other social service, we accept their right to deny it.

2. If you accept a reasonable possibility of life after death, shouldn't that INCREASE your acceptance of willful death? Why does it matter about the coma? If there's a very, very tiny chance that someone's life may be slightly viable at some later point, and they've expressed their wish not to use their family's limited resources on twenty years of in hospital life support, do they have that right? This is, notice, a situation in which keeping them alive would cost thousands upon thousands of dollars, they probably will not wake up, and they do not want this to happen. Do we have a responsibility to forcibly continue life support? If we do, who should be forced to pay?

3. No, being murdered does not mean you chose to throw your life away. When other people kill you, they forcibly took your life from you. How is this the same as anything that happens consensually? Stop telling me murder is consensual.

4. Okay, you sort of have a legitimate point. You're certainly welcome to have an opinion. But in the case of a victimless crime like suicide by terminal patients, why do you believe your opinion should dictate or limit their potential decisions? Why is it your business what a person chooses to do to their own body? It simply is not.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2774

PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
1. If someones got a sword through their chest the ambulance doesn't wait for him to say, "yes! I want to live!" before they try and fix him do they?

2. Because a life after death will not be extended by dying sooner, whereas regular life *will* be extended by not dying sooner.

3. I'm not saying murder is consensual, but I'm saying if you think, "it's their life to throw away" then someone going into a situation where you are more than likely going to be killed(gang shootings whatever) then meh, who cares, "it's their life to throw away". I'm just saying that way of thinking is dangerous.

4. How is it a victimless crime? Someone has died, just because the victim and the perpertrator are the same person doesn't mean it's not a crime.
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
1. If someones got a sword through their chest the ambulance doesn't wait for him to say, "yes! I want to live!" before they try and fix him do they?

2. Because a life after death will not be extended by dying sooner, whereas regular life *will* be extended by not dying sooner.

3. I'm not saying murder is consensual, but I'm saying if you think, "it's their life to throw away" then someone going into a situation where you are more than likely going to be killed(gang shootings whatever) then meh, who cares, "it's their life to throw away". I'm just saying that way of thinking is dangerous.

4. How is it a victimless crime? Someone has died, just because the victim and the perpertrator are the same person doesn't mean it's not a crime.


1. No, of course not. We always assume somebody wants to live, because they almost always do, and probably should. But anyone has the right to deny medical treatment if they specifically request that, so if he says "no, don't treat me!" they can't force it on him. This is both written into US legal code, and logical and moral.

2. Isn't life after death eternal? Therefore, getting to eternity sooner doesn't make it end sooner.

3. There's really no connection, it was their life to do something stupid and dangerous with but that has ZERO relation to the acceptability of someone else taking advantage of that and killing them. You're imagining a slippery slope where there's a very clear dividing line.

4. Yes, technically, it is currently against US law. That makes it a crime. But you really have nothing to go on besides that. If the victim, in a reasonably calm, lucid state of mind, becomes a victim willfully, has something immoral been done? You're going to keep trying to convince me it has, but with no evidence other than your delusion that YOU get to decide that everybody else's life is important even if it's a living Hell for them to continue it. All you are is asserting your own morality over that of other people. This issue has nothing to do with a single thing human beings do to one another. It relates solely and completely to what individuals choose to do to themselves. I ask, once again, why is it your jurisdiction or even your business?
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2774

PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
1. If someone has a sword through their chest and said to the ambulance people "leave me be" they would still try and heal him.

2. Exactly, so your life after death won't change a bit, but on the chance that there is no life after death, to end it completely would be to take way the one chance that person had.

3. It's not even a slippery slope, it's the exact same thing, it's a clear line for you because you, like most liberals I would think, assume that people who put themselves in that position don't really have that kind of choice, but the problem is that there are people who don't see like that, there are people who think women who get raped were asking for it because they wore clothes to make them look good!! *cough*o'reilly*cough*

4. Becomes a victim willfully? That makes it okay!?!? this is the same thing as point 3!! Bullshit, if you could prove that a woman got raped on purpose would you still say the man should go free!?!?
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
1. If someone has a sword through their chest and said to the ambulance people "leave me be" they would still try and heal him.

2. Exactly, so your life after death won't change a bit, but on the chance that there is no life after death, to end it completely would be to take way the one chance that person had.

3. It's not even a slippery slope, it's the exact same thing, it's a clear line for you because you, like most liberals I would think, assume that people who put themselves in that position don't really have that kind of choice, but the problem is that there are people who don't see like that, there are people who think women who get raped were asking for it because they wore clothes to make them look good!! *cough*o'reilly*cough*

4. Becomes a victim willfully? That makes it okay!?!? this is the same thing as point 3!! Bullshit, if you could prove that a woman got raped on purpose would you still say the man should go free!?!?
1. No, actually, they're bound to respect his right to refuse treatment. There are loopholes to that, such as him being unconscious as he soon will be from loss of blood. But the basic concept is that medical care isn't forced upon anybody, it's a matter of CONSENT.

2. But why is it ethical to FORCE a person to take a chance they don't want? You still haven't explained why it should be okay to tie a lucid human being to a bed and keep them completely immobile so they can experience unimaginable pain and remain alive against their will. It's only life if you can and want to live it.

3. Consent is a pretty clear dividing line, and almost everyone knows that's true. Besides, the people who might disagree with me on that will tend to be hardcore right-to-lifers anyway, and they'll side with you that the person should always be alive. And I absolutely agree that we need to err on that side. But I don't agree that it has to be the answer 100% of the time.

4. I love the examples you bring up, most of them fit very well. And my answer is, well, yes. "Getting raped on purpose" is known as "consensual sex." This is because we as a society understand that it isn't rape if she's clear of mind and wants it. But you're going to turn around and tell me its different, because like your last two examples, I think it's the same issue as the one at hand but you won't. If an adult man has some rough sex with an adult woman and she wants it, the government has no right to prosecute that just because they don't like the look of that bruise she got. It's her personal decision about her own body, just like if she had some good reason for not wanting her heart to beat anymore. Like the rough sex, I would disagree with that choice, but like the kinky painful sex, it's her own body and her own decision. I think this is the central facet of this argument and it's where we need to focus.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2774

PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
1. There is absolutely no way an ambulance would just leave the person to die, and thats a good thing! Ambulance's perform medical procedures on failed suicide attempts, even though clearly that person wanted to die.

2. I'm not saying it is ethical, but it is far better than killing someone, or letting them kill themselves. I choose the lesser of two evils.

3. What exactly would you constitute consent? Surely someone who joins a gang knows that there is a possibility he will die, and yet people join anyways, doesn't that mean he has accepted, and consented to, the possibility of his death?

4. I think you misunderstand, the man should not go free if he didn't think it was consensual, and that was the crux of the example, no matter what the victim's point of view on the matter, the perpertrator has done something wrong. Thats why we still prosecute kidnappers whose hostages develop stockholm syndrome.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2508

PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
1. There is absolutely no way an ambulance would just leave the person to die, and thats a good thing! Ambulance's perform medical procedures on failed suicide attempts, even though clearly that person wanted to die.


If they provided medical assistance over his clear and lucid demands that it not be reendered, they could be sued.
Back to top
Docsmitter
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 308
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Lester wrote:
1. There is absolutely no way an ambulance would just leave the person to die, and thats a good thing! Ambulance's perform medical procedures on failed suicide attempts, even though clearly that person wanted to die.


If they provided medical assistance over his clear and lucid demands that it not be reendered, they could be sued.


Its true mate, my friends boy is in a lifeguard program and went to court ( thank god he one ) as some lady said been given MTM was a violation even though I do believe it saved her life. The only thing is I thought Rescue breathing was a more common practice.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2774

PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Clear and lucid? Whose clear and lucid at a time when they need medical assistance?
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2508

PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
Clear and lucid? Whose clear and lucid at a time when they need medical assistance?


Most people.

You know full well that physical injury does not diminish mental capacity in any legally significant way.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2774

PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Lester wrote:
Clear and lucid? Whose clear and lucid at a time when they need medical assistance?


Most people.

You know full well that physical injury does not diminish mental capacity in any legally significant way.


Now thats not true, statements made when a person thinks he's dying have higher legal signifigance than when not. People who are physically abused by the police and confess have those confessions mean less than when not.

Physical condition very much matters in law.
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Atheism Versus Religion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics