Philosophy Now Forum

Skip wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Euthanasia and assisted suicide .... I think they can be synonymous: depends on the context.

No. The fundamental and crucial difference is in who makes the decision. That is in no way interchangeable.

Well duh. THAT IS A CONTEXT. Euthanasia means good death. Neither term implies WHO is making the decision.

Assisted suicide also has negative connotations as 'suicide' is definitively a sin to many people.

We're no making them take advantage of it.

I've no idea what you are talking about now,

Euthanasia is literally a 'good death'. and on that basis what I would prefer to call "assisted dying" should lead to a euthanasia.

Greek isn't one of our official languages. Euthanasia, here, means killing gently to spare someone suffering. Yes, it has been done by people to beloved mates, parents and children, and by medical personnel to terminal patients - which is not legal. To pets, it is. So, whether it sounds good or bad depends on the sufferer's species.
Definition:the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease. You area talking bullshit.

But its a game of semantics.

And prejudices.

In my own case, the decision was made on a combination of logic, moral conviction, empathy and self-interest. I'm yearly more aware of the possible obstacles I may face in terminating my own life when (not if) it becomes untenable.

I hope you achieve your euthanasia whenever it occurs.

Well duh.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I knew that as I typed but did not think I'd be pedanticised.

Ordinarily I avoid gratuitous pedantry when the meaning is perfectly clear but I'm rather fastidious on this particular subject because it's such an emotionally laden question in the public debate. Thoughtful and intelligent people have aligned themselves on both sides of this question and their views are entitled to be considered on the assumption that they hold them out of a genuine sense of moral conviction. I find that in my country the hotheads on both sides of the argument seem to have taken centre stage and in many cases they're not even arguing the same question.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Euthanasia as an active verb does not sound so good. But its a game of semantics.

I agree that in a forum such as this the semantic game is not much of an issue because it can be easily resolved through closer questioning. However in the modern world a 30 second media soundbite constitutes a debate and a significant question of social policy can quickly lose its entire focus because of the misapplication of language.

Maybe I need to see more populist media, but I see neither term as pejorative.
Can you describe the negative connotations down under to each please.

The issue is less prominent in the public debate than it was some years ago but it's probably fair to say that the populist media does indeed regard the terms euthanasia and assisted suicide as synonymous, and probably neither as pejorative. The negative connotations which are associated with the use of the term euthanasia are mainly a reflection of the stance taken by those who are actively advocating in favour of assisted suicide. It is mostly this group who insist on making the distinction but it's probably fair to say that the general population ordinarily doesn't. It's also the case that the general population seems to be overwhelmingly in favour of assisted suicide but in my view this approval is based on only a sketchy understanding of the issues involved. Assisted suicide has been going on for many years without any need for intrusion by the law and sometimes it's simply better not to turn over a rock unless you're absolutely certain what might jump out at you.

That would have been all right, except for two problems. The busybodies who yell : "Sin! Sin!" and the law-enforcement agents who must act on the accusations. So a few high-profile examples are made and medical personnel are frightened into inaction when both reason and compassion would prompt them to help. The issue needs to be out in the open, and legally defined, so that it's no longer at the mercy of a self-righteous minority who feel entitled to make the rules for everyone.

Skip wrote:That would have been all right, except for two problems. The busybodies who yell : "Sin! Sin!" and the law-enforcement agents who must act on the accusations. So a few high-profile examples are made and medical personnel are frightened into inaction when both reason and compassion would prompt them to help. The issue needs to be out in the open, and legally defined, so that it's no longer at the mercy of a self-righteous minority who feel entitled to make the rules for everyone.

What you say is true but those who delight in finding sin in others have no significant voice in this country, where religious belief is mostly regarded as a quaint historical curiosity. Likewise our law enforcement authorities are known to take a very pragmatic approach to such issues as long as they don't attract the attention of the media. My wife has been a medical professional for all of her working life and specialising in the area of geriatric medicine and palliative care for most of it. I have nothing but the deepest respect for the way in which the profession deals with these issues as they currently present themselves and I know that many of them are fearful of the idea of rocking a boat which is by and large sailing smoothly. Once politicians and lawyers start poking their noses into such intensely private matters there is a real risk that they'll do more harm than good, even with the most noble of intentions.

Obvious Leo wrote:
The issue is less prominent in the public debate than it was some years ago but it's probably fair to say that the populist media does indeed regard the terms euthanasia and assisted suicide as synonymous, and probably neither as pejorative. The negative connotations which are associated with the use of the term euthanasia are mainly a reflection of the stance taken by those who are actively advocating in favour of assisted suicide. It is mostly this group who insist on making the distinction but it's probably fair to say that the general population ordinarily doesn't. It's also the case that the general population seems to be overwhelmingly in favour of assisted suicide but in my view this approval is based on only a sketchy understanding of the issues involved. Assisted suicide has been going on for many years without any need for intrusion by the law and sometimes it's simply better not to turn over a rock unless you're absolutely certain what might jump out at you.

In a British hospital I saw a doctor administer the coup d' grace, in the form of a painkiller to my mother the day she died. No one was consulted, no one said a thing, and the killing was done with calm and decency.
That doctor did the right thing given the circumstances,but I can't help feeling that had I been a Christian the doctor might have been putting himself in a very professionally precarious position. There is no doubt I could have made an objection that would have caused a great deal of trouble for the hospital.
The law is clear enough. What I saw was technically a murder, or at least some sort of manslaughter. Politicians are fucking cowards on this matter, and lack the balls to do what is necessary.
Loved ones who have done their duty to their partners have put themselves at great legal risk. And from time to time have suffered the indignity of a court case and punishment.
The whole situation is a sad indictment of the political process.

The non-religious arguments against assisted suicide are variations on the theme of "What prevents murder?" . That's a silly argument, since the answer is: nothing. Nothing ever has. People commit murders for whatever reasons, and those motives won't change, and crime won't stop, just because I get to decide when to go. But the persecution of a few brave wives, doctors, fathers and nurses - political footballs thrown to the moral mob - might stop.

Skip wrote:The non-religious arguments against assisted suicide are variations on the theme of "What prevents murder?" . That's a silly argument, since the answer is: nothing. Nothing ever has. People commit murders for whatever reasons, and those motives won't change, and crime won't stop, just because I get to decide when to go. But the persecution of a few brave wives, doctors, fathers and nurses - political footballs thrown to the moral mob - might stop.

Agreed.

I thought that because of all her hard work Debbie Purdy was going to have changed something. But in the end the morons in Parliament bottled out like a bunch of mice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-25741005

The poor woman was forced to starve herself to death.

We had one of those http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/15/world ... icide.html
Her case was probably the most influential in changing people's minds. The Supreme Court had struck down that decision, but the conservative government stalled on legislation as long as it could, to please its fundie supporters.

But none of this will help us with the self-determined weapons.

I must admit that I've always found the notion of "rules of warfare" to be rather a bizarre one. A war is not like a game of cricket where we're supposed to give our opponents a fair chance of winning. War is all about killing people and it strikes me that the more efficiently this is done the quicker it will be over. Harry Truman figured this out.

One big global street-brawl.
In the end, the intelligent weapons will sit down to a warm pint of lube and hash out a treaty.

Skip wrote:One big global street-brawl.
In the end, the intelligent weapons will sit down to a warm pint of lube and hash out a treaty.

If they were truly intelligent they might even say: Fuck the humans, let them fight their own stupid wars. I'm off to the pub.

The state needs autonomous weapons when later on it plans to create a global government and enslave humanity even further going into the future. At least that is the plan anyways.

HaHaHa wrote:The state needs autonomous weapons when later on it plans to create a global government and enslave humanity even further going into the future. At least that is the plan anyways.

The Daleks have other plans for humanity bwahaha!... Actually, those were the plans....

Dalek Prime wrote:

HaHaHa wrote:The state needs autonomous weapons when later on it plans to create a global government and enslave humanity even further going into the future. At least that is the plan anyways.

The Daleks have other plans for humanity bwahaha!... Actually, those were the plans....

Can you be more specific what those plans are?