Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Silent Dave · 07-12-2003, 10:35 PM

Topic: The morality and legislative implications of euthanasia from a secular point of view.

A thread for the formal debate between winstonjen and Tom Sawyer has been opened in FDD. This thread has been opened for discussion and commentary on that debate.

Dave

Enai · 07-13-2003, 06:56 AM

I've just read winstonjen's opening statement and I must say I'm a bit disappointed. When he says:

Quote:

My first argument is that there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia, and to be consistent, individuals must either oppose or support both practices. Passive euthanasia is very similar to starvation in some cases, and terminal patients typically refuse life-extending treatment when they wish to die. However, unless they are physically capable and willing to commit suicide, they are forced, under our present legal system, to suffer a slow death. Legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia will enable patients to stay alive longer. Some may not need to commit suicide, but the availability of such an option will give them peace of mind. James Rachels, in his work "Active and Passive Euthanasia", also argues against the distinction, and believes that active euthanasia is more humane that passive euthanasia.

in my eyes, this is not an argument that active and passive euthanasia are morally equivalent. winstonjen doesn't give a single reason why this would be so!

All in all, I now know what winstonjen wants me (and any other readers) to agree on, but I fail to detect arguments for his positions. He just says "This is so", and I want to know: why?
Enai

winstonjen · 07-13-2003, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Enai
in my eyes, this is not an argument that active and passive euthanasia are morally equivalent. winstonjen doesn't give a single reason why this would be so!

Sorry. I thought I made it clear. Well, the intention in both scenarios is for the patient to die, passive euthanasia just takes place over a longer period of time. If someone stops eating and drinking, surely that can be viewed as suicide. Euthanasia is merely helping someone commit suicide.

Enai · 07-14-2003, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
Sorry. I thought I made it clear. Well, the intention in both scenarios is for the patient to die, passive euthanasia just takes place over a longer period of time. If someone stops eating and drinking, surely that can be viewed as suicide. Euthanasia is merely helping someone commit suicide.

Oh OK. Thanks for clarifying, I now see what you mean.

Enai

winstonjen · 07-14-2003, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Enai
Oh OK. Thanks for clarifying, I now see what you mean.

Enai

No problem. I also thought that the limit was 5000 characters, not 5000 words, but now that it's cleared up, I'll be explaining my points more fully.

KnightWhoSaysNi · 07-20-2003, 08:55 AM

Tom Sawyer has replied to winstonjen in the current formal debate on euthanasia.

I just wanted to bump up this thread.

Jason

Fr.Andrew · 07-20-2003, 02:13 PM

(Tom Sawyer's rebuttal): "So, to sum up, the main reasons behind my objections to euthanasia are, first, that we have a responsibility to those who love us to carry on as long as possible for their sakes..."
(Fr Andrew): To expect someone who's dying in pain "carry on as long as possible" for my sake is a strange expression of love, imo. I think it would be much more loving (and moral) to help them end their pain.

(Tom Sawyer's rebuttal): "...and that our legal system cannot make the determination that some lives are no longer worth living, no matter what good intentions are behind that determination
(Fr Andrew): I don't think the legal system should be involved except in cases where the terminal patient is mentally incapacitated and has no reasonable spokesperson.

Roland98 · 07-20-2003, 06:27 PM

Quote:

From a moral point of view, I think that this issue is the effect that euthanasia has on the people who survive.

Quote:

Maybe I'm just a sentamentalist, but I think that positive feelings, such as comfort, relief, etc, should be given much more weight than negative feelings, such as pain, depression, etc. If someone has to go through a lot of pain to bring a little bit of comfort to those he loves, then he should go through that pain. There's not much that terminally ill people can still do, but they can still bring a little bit of comfort to those that care about them and part of our responsibility to those whom we love is to give them that comfort for as long as we can.

I think these issues make for a poor argument. It suggests that we are indebted to each other in certain areas; that we have a responsibility to give others comfort, irregardless of our own situation. Certainly not legally, but even morally, I don't feel we have any such responsiblity, particularly if one is terminally ill.

Quote:

As a society, we cannot start saying that one life has more value than another, regardless of the state of the person's life.

But don't we already do that? I see a lot of parallels here to abortion debates. In these, the life of the mother is valued over the life of the fetus, particularly in the early stages. So to say we "can't start" saying this is a bit dated, IMO.

Quote:

So, to sum up, the main reasons behind my objections to euthanasia are, first, that we have a responsibility to those who love us to carry on as long as possible for their sakes and second, that our legal system cannot make the determination that some lives are no longer worth living, no matter what good intentions are behind that determination.

And again, I see parallels to abortion, regarding the legal stance. Who should be allowed access to euthanasia? Is it a legal decision? Or is it about the right of a person to have control over their own body, their own life, their own future? To be able to die with dignity, on their own terms?

winstonjen · 07-20-2003, 09:15 PM

I have now posted my second statement, which rebuts Tom's first arguments. I hope it is much better than my opening statement.

Edit: After the post gets approved, of course. Sorry, should have mentioned this before so that people don't waste their time looking for something that isn't there yet. ^_^

winstonjen · 07-21-2003, 05:55 PM

A mistake I made: I posted:

Quote:

If they truly cared for the person in suffering, they would do what is best for them, not what is best for them.

This should have been "If they truly cared for the person in suffering, they would do what is best for the patient, not what is best for themselves."

07-12-2003, 10:35 PM	#1
Silent Dave Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 2,209	Secular Euthanasia Debate: winstonjen vs. Tom Sawyer -- Peanut Gallery thread Topic: The morality and legislative implications of euthanasia from a secular point of view. A thread for the formal debate between winstonjen and Tom Sawyer has been opened in FDD. This thread has been opened for discussion and commentary on that debate. Dave

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-20-2003, 08:55 AM	#6
KnightWhoSaysNi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 2,767	Tom Sawyer has replied to winstonjen in the current formal debate on euthanasia. I just wanted to bump up this thread. Jason

07-20-2003, 02:13 PM	#7
Fr.Andrew Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Betsy's Bluff, Maine Posts: 540	(Tom Sawyer's rebuttal): "So, to sum up, the main reasons behind my objections to euthanasia are, first, that we have a responsibility to those who love us to carry on as long as possible for their sakes..." (Fr Andrew): To expect someone who's dying in pain "carry on as long as possible" for my sake is a strange expression of love, imo. I think it would be much more loving (and moral) to help them end their pain. (Tom Sawyer's rebuttal): "...and that our legal system cannot make the determination that some lives are no longer worth living, no matter what good intentions are behind that determination (Fr Andrew): I don't think the legal system should be involved except in cases where the terminal patient is mentally incapacitated and has no reasonable spokesperson.

07-20-2003, 09:15 PM	#9
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	I have now posted my second statement, which rebuts Tom's first arguments. I hope it is much better than my opening statement. Edit: After the post gets approved, of course. Sorry, should have mentioned this before so that people don't waste their time looking for something that isn't there yet. ^_^

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.