Euthanasia (1 Viewer)

[Dr_Fresh]

The hipprocratic oath also is quite explicit in prohibiting abortion

u dumb goon

For this reason, and the dumb reasoning you have outlined, the hypocratic oath is basically only cited by right-wing cranks nowadays. It isn't even taken in lots of schools, think 4 urself.



In reality though, doctors deliberately kill their patients all the time under the guise of 'analgesia', analgesia is a socially acceptable facade for what they're knowingly doing, deliberately decreasing respirations.

M8. There have been revised editions of the hippocratic oath. Off u can't go by something written in 425 BC. Use ur brain.

 

[funkshen]

except many modern versions of the hippocratic oath mention not only protecting patients from harm, but also injustice.

if euthanasia is justice then the doctor has conflicting obligations and perhaps it is the patient's will that should be respected.

 

[anne1010]

M8. There have been revised editions of the hippocratic oath. Off u can't go by something written in 425 BC. Use ur brain.

this is abit off topic but was talking about it to a few people before. as a doctor, what do you do when a 14 year old comes in and asks for birth control.

 

[Graney]

Then why did you cite a 425 BC document?

Okay, so obviously we should add some nuance to 'first do no harm', such as consideration of autonomy.

To apply 'first, do no harm', you have to provide a definition of harm, and how you interpret this to apply to euthenasia. There isn't even a very good definition of health, so. Some people consider death preferable to certain states of existence, if you're not facillitating this preference, are you causing harm through inaction? The patient is dead, but everyone is reasonably satisfied with the outcome, it is appreciated as the best possible outcome by patient, family, physician.

What about a patient with apotemnophilia?

http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/2/75.abstract
http://www.springerlink.com/content/nw13778v8m220693/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2005.00293.x/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00566.x/abstract

 

[Graney]

What about a patient with apotemnophilia?

http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/2/75.abstract
http://www.springerlink.com/content/nw13778v8m220693/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2005.00293.x/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00566.x/abstract

Please also consider this evidence

[youtube]kYyA-nyUIRE[/youtube]

 

[ZombieApocalypse]

I do not understand the video

 

[Cianyx]

htat shit is gonna give me nightmares

 

[Lolsmith]

Fucking hell Graney

 

[Charles Bean]

If my parents and sister were dead i'd get euthanized. My dad keeps talking about how he'll get euthanized when he's older and it's fairly creepy but whatever, i can only agree with him. What's wrong with it anyway, who has the right to keep someone else alive if they don't want to.

 

[Lolsmith]

the government

jesus

 

[Blastus]

 

[weirdguy99]

It should be legal only for purposes in which the individual's death would benefit him/her more than life. There should be no argument -- 'life is too precious/religious beliefs etc.' is of no importance.

 

[cheese_cheese]

It should be legal.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

I think it should be legal. While I personally feel uncomfortable with it, I think that if someone expresses a persistent and consistent wish to die, and they are a fully competent adult, then I really see no reason for not allowing it.

 

[boris]

It should be legal only for purposes in which the individual's death would benefit him/her more than life. There should be no argument -- 'life is too precious/religious beliefs etc.' is of no importance.

how is that quantified

 

[Rafy]

NSW Legislative Council have voted against the euthanasia bill 23-13.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/youre-all-gutless-euthanasia-bill-defeated-20130523-2k3jv.html

 

[funkshen]

Christian Democrat MP Paul Green said God gave life and only God had the power to take it away.

 

[Kiraken]

As for the other reason given in that article, about studies showing that euthanasia was often given without their choice in other countries or something, is this still even valid for this particular piece of legislation? Im not sure on the precise wording but didnt the article mention that according to this legislation, euthanasia would only be a choice for those with sufficient mental capacity to make that choice? Wouldnt that mean it would be impossible for it to be done without their consent, rendering this point against it moot?

 

[Graney]

Of course, the opponents of this bill are moral absolutists. Christian Democrat Paul Green is saying what they're all really thinking but can't say, no one actually believes that slippery slope argument,