thenexttodie wrote:To start with, How about when a person has been drinking, should we kill him or let him commit suicide if he says he wants to die? .
So just to recap, next has no answer to the Netherlands guidelines for processing an euthanasia request and continues to ignore the evidence that blows his argument out of the water. Which is fine, next doesn't bother making coherent arguments and he's free to do so. This is why I don't engage you since you're an insincere troll and keep proving that point time and time again.
Tree wrote:You're treading into dangerous territory here. I can understand terminal illness where the person has absolutely no chance of long term survival, but rights being unalienable also means that you cannot simply forfeit them on a whim, just because you feel like it. It's how you can keep the masses from voluntarily signing off their freedoms to a tyrant.
How this sentence came into being regarding the original topic, I have no idea. Why is having a law as what the Netherlands has written akin to potentially allowing the masses to off themselves on a whim? Did you also not look deeper than the Breitbart article?
Tree wrote:What is the difference between consenting to be killed by another person and consenting to be a slave then? Should we allow people to voluntarily sell or place themselves into slavery and then enforce such slave contracts if they later change their minds and try to escape from their master? I don't think so, that's barbaric. Is voluntary cannibalism okay? Is necrophilia okay as long the deceased gave written consent before death? In many cases, consent alone is a poor basis to allow people to do anything they want. There's a certain level of degeneracy that just shouldn't be encouraged if you want to have a stable civilization.
Wat. Again did we read the same article?
Tree wrote:People can kill themselves for stupid reasons like their girlfriend left them or whatever and many times we will be unable to do anything about it before it's too late. DOESN'T mean we have to facilitate it, doesn't mean we have to make it easy for them, in fact painful deaths are a very good deterrent to many suicides. Even if we grant that it's "their right" to end their lives, it's also my right to refuse to kill them or to give money to someone who would. Don't make us complicit in this..
Again, did we read the same article?
Tree wrote:There's also the issue of the Hippocratic Oath and the fact that that for most humans, normal sane humans, killing other humans can be a very traumatic experience. You can quite literally get PTSD from it even when it's not your fault like let's say the guy just stood in your way and you didn't have time to slow down even with the legal speed, and I don't mean the phony Twitter PTSD you get from trolls calling you ugly. So legally requiring medical professionals to kill someone or even to let them die just because they say they want to with no other consideration whatsoever other than "it's their right to end their life" (no it's not) is grossly immoral. If I were a doctor I would quit. I'd rather scrub toilets for a living than be legally required to kill perfectly healthy, completely innocent human beings or even to facilitate their deaths.
The idea also comes into conflict with what officers are required to do. They're supposed to act when they see someone in danger including if they try to kill themselves.
And often suicide disrupts public life. Many choose to end their life by jumping in front of an incoming train which seriously disrupts traffic for hours, makes a huge mess and costs the public and private sector money to clean up. Many times someone suicidal will be a danger to others as well. .
Alright so to summarize your diatribe, basically if someone is suffering beyond their ability to cope through an incurable disease, crippling addiction, etc there should NEVER be a process or law in place to end that suffering. Read the actual requirements on the euthanasia law
The problem we have here is that there are situations that one must consider this for the well being of a patient. Yes, there will always be alternatives and should always be preferable to ending a life but there will always be situations where "right to die" is granted. All the things you just described have nothing to do with what this law is actually trying to accomplish.
Personally, I have it written in my will that if I become a vegetable or I have experienced brain death I want to be taken off life support. My family knows my wishes and my expectation is that I will be allowed to die as the person I was, not the slab of meat that know inhabits a hospital bed. Why? Because it costs someone living money to keep me alive and causes undue burden on them and possibly "disrupts public life or cause PTSD in my loved ones." Do you not see why your argument is silly?
Now to be fair, while I think the spirit of the law is just there are always other issues.
A lot of this depends on the personal integrity of the physician opting to invoke the Euthanasia law and generally I prefer there to be independent oversight making sure the process is carried out correctly. Now THAT would be a better argument to have on this subject rather than going off on this slavery tangent. I await to see if you are capable of making nuanced arguments.