nairi Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 So the concept of saving someone's life is as controversial as euthanasia. In fact, the whole medical/scientific world should be abolished because we are not following god's will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 So the concept of saving someone's life is as controversial as euthanasia. In fact, the whole medical/scientific world should be abolished because we are not following god's will. style_images/master/snapback.png Why is that? I think it is God's will that we help others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 So the concept of saving someone's life is as controversial as euthanasia. In fact, the whole medical/scientific world should be abolished because we are not following god's will. style_images/master/snapback.png I don't think anyone implied such a thing. Argument for argument's sake isn't an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 The question to me is not whether killing the babies is right or wrong, good or bad ... the question is who's going to pay for them? If their parents can afford their care and want to keep them alive, hey, more power to them. Just don't ask me to support a terminally ill or a severely retarded child that is going to be nothing but a drain on society with no potential to contribute anything back. Put them and us out of their misery ... and the sooner the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 So you couldn't blame us if we as a society would want to see your children put down if they happened to be handicapped. Why should we share your burden? I'll rather buy me a SUV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 Exactly. I would never expect society to foot the bill for my "moral" dilemmas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 If individuals are seen as a liability by some this can also be projected to societies at large. I assume you have nothing to complain and cry about that Armenians were seen as a liability once by others to get rid of. They were also justified according to their own reasoning weren't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 I think your views would change completely if you were to be (in your terms) 'cursed' with a child or relative suffering from some form of mental or physical retardation. Look at the blind - most blind people are now, thanks to the graces of our society, able to work/communicate/live successful, beneficial lives. It wasn't that long ago that if you were born blind you had little hope - what would have happened if we as a society had simply deemed them to be a burden, and killed them off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 The question to me is not whether killing the babies is right or wrong, good or bad ... the question is who's going to pay for them? If their parents can afford their care and want to keep them alive, hey, more power to them. Just don't ask me to support a terminally ill or a severely retarded child that is going to be nothing but a drain on society with no potential to contribute anything back. Put them and us out of their misery ... and the sooner the better. style_images/master/snapback.png Sometimes I think you should not say anything... here an example of "sometimes." How could you say something like this, I wonder. BTW, why should our health care system pay for the treatments of illnesses caused by smoke, alchool, what about gun owners? What about car drivers? Why should those not driving pay by their taxes the part of healthcare system etc... Why should I breath the poluted air caused by cars when I don't drive?  Why don't we kill animals that are not in our food chain? Afterall, their IQ is probably lower than the most retarded child, and probably their life expectancy is lower than tha few years that an ill child could expect to live? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 I think your views would change completely if you were to be (in your terms) 'cursed' with a child or relative suffering from some form of mental or physical retardation. Look at the blind - most blind people are now, thanks to the graces of our society, able to work/communicate/live successful, beneficial lives. It wasn't that long ago that if you were born blind you had little hope - what would have happened if we as a society had simply deemed them to be a burden, and killed them off? style_images/master/snapback.png Agree 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 BTW, why should our health care system pay for the treatments of illnesses caused by smoke, alchool, what about gun owners? What about car drivers? Why should those not driving pay by their taxes the part of healthcare system etc... I don't think we should pay for the health care needs in instances where things are directly caused by smoking and alcohol and other drug abuse ... same goes with obescity (unless it's an actual medical problem and not just poor diet and lack of exercise). But this is beyond the subject here. The question here is why should we force a terminally ill baby to a life of hell?  Vava, I don't think blindness or a general handicap is a "terminal disease". I fully agree with you that many of those types of kids can grow to be valuable members of society. I was referring to kids that are born with SEVERE defects and/or diseases when we know with high certainty that they will NOT have any form of a life outside of a medical facility and are only dragging on their lives to make ourselves feel better "morally". Will we be able to cure more and more things in the future? Sure. But I see euthanasia as quite justified. And I highly doubt this would change if it were my child. I would pull the plug myself if the need arose ... and furthermore, if I were myself to one day become terminally ill and unable to take care of myself with grim outlook on recovering, I wouldn't hesitate much before staring down at the other end of my 9mm and pulling the trigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 Sip, I have a very hard time reading the last few posts you have here. I think you are saying all these things because you just have not been faced with any of them(And I hope that you never do), but your prospective on "life" would be greatly different if you had. As far as the baby think I tend to agree with the practice in Holland, but not whole heartedly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 Azat, maybe under different circumstances my view would be different ... I don't know. But I have never been one of those who values life too much. I think human life is highly highly overrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 Azat, maybe under different circumstances my view would be different ... I don't know. But I have never been one of those who values life too much. I think human life is highly highly overrated. style_images/master/snapback.png  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted December 4, 2004 Report Share Posted December 4, 2004 Azat, maybe under different circumstances my view would be different ... I don't know. But I have never been one of those who values life too much. I think human life is highly highly overrated. style_images/master/snapback.png It all depends on whose life it is. We all do bad things to our bodies, we even go 4=wheeling in the desert. But have you asked your parents, your siblings or even your friends and aquaintances how they value YOUR life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted December 5, 2004 Report Share Posted December 5, 2004 (edited) It all depends on whose life it is. We all do bad things to our bodies, we even go 4=wheeling in the desert. But have you asked your parents, your siblings or even your friends and aquaintances how they value YOUR life? style_images/master/snapback.png Arpa jan, why do you think they force him to go 4=wheeling?  Sipchik, we were talking about you again today. Yerb es galu LA mi hat kez tesnenq. Edited December 5, 2004 by Azat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 5, 2004 Report Share Posted December 5, 2004 who's we? Â ... and dear Arpa, no one's perfect ... not even those who care way more than they should about me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 I think your views would change completely if you were to be (in your terms) 'cursed' with a child or relative suffering from some form of mental or physical retardation. Look at the blind - most blind people are now, thanks to the graces of our society, able to work/communicate/live successful, beneficial lives. It wasn't that long ago that if you were born blind you had little hope - what would have happened if we as a society had simply deemed them to be a burden, and killed them off? style_images/master/snapback.png I wouldn't go so far as to suggest anything based on what they contribute to society or whether they are an economic burden as Sip puts it. I just think about the pain and misery and drawn-out hurt in this tiny percentage of cases. And, Sasun, I won't go into the life-is-tough-who-said-it-wasn't-speak. It's the easy way out of this. You totally discount the psychological toll of that sort of thing (taking care of someone 24/7) has in the long run. And imagine this being only one pocket of 24/7 and this being your kid crying, knowing it's going to die sooner or later. I'd say sooner rather than later. Maybe I'd change my mind if I were the parent, or I'd think differently. But from where I stand I can only acknowledge the nastiness of certain situations and empathise with those that do choose to carry out this practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 The problem is that you can't know for sure. Those who opt for this still have a burden to pay. There is no need to feel sorry for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 And, Sasun, I won't go into the life-is-tough-who-said-it-wasn't-speak. It's the easy way out of this. How is it an easy way out? I thought it is the more difficult but right way. You totally discount the psychological toll of that sort of thing (taking care of someone 24/7) has in the long run. How do you know that there is a psychological toll? A loving parent will care for his/her child no matter what, and there won't be any psychological effect. And imagine this being only one pocket of 24/7 and this being your kid crying, knowing it's going to die sooner or later. I'd say sooner rather than later. We all die sooner or later but do not weep. But from where I stand I can only acknowledge the nastiness of certain situations and empathise with those that do choose to carry out this practice. style_images/master/snapback.png How about empathising with the child that barely had any life and is being killed by those who are supposed to nourish him? I know one way of empathising - if you really care about the parents who are unfortunate enough to have a very sick child then try to help them out by sharing their burden. Killing the child is not a solution. A doctor is not supposed to kill, a doctor is supposed to heal. That is a very simple truth to me. However, certain complications are added to this truth and it becomes twisted and reversed. Now a doctor kills and gains the praise of certain parts of society, and the act of killing is considered a progressive act. If that is the right thing, then why not invade the "evil" parts of the world and kill all problematic people? Why try to educate and civilize them? Why treat them as worthy human beings? Surely they are a burden for the "good" parts of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Some people can't be helped. Especially if they carry the eliminationist mindset. I think this term was coined by Daniel Goldhagen. Seemingly humane and enlightened people are capable of committing anything given the circumstances and often find a rationale for it. In this case it's probably a cultural trait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 A doctor is not supposed to kill, a doctor is supposed to heal. style_images/master/snapback.png  This is compleatly untrue. A doctor is supposed to treat, not heal. Most of the conditions can not be healed but treated, if healing there was, a doctor would be most of the time, jobless. This is an importanr distinction, because it changes the role of a doctor, and what they are supposed to do in some conditions when there is NO treatment... When there is no treatment, the doctors main task is to help, and help in this cases would be a matter of interpretation. I still have problem with killing, but I do make the distinction between stopping treatment, because it is worthless, and injecting a foreign substance to end life. I agree with the first, but strongly disagree with the second option. Oh and Sip, why is human life overrated and according to what? I didn't knew there was a standard in rating life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 (edited) Oh and Sip, why is human life overrated and according to what? I didn't knew there was a standard in rating life. I guess according to the good old supply and demand ... Also, if a life folds, it is considered more valuable than the one that doesn't fold  There are thousands of pages on google dealing with this ... but ask yourself this: if you were stranded somewhere and needed help from others to survive, how much resources should the others spend to rescue you? That will give you an idea of how much you are worth. For the moment, let's not even consider the case where someone might be risking his or her life to save yours ... just treat the problem purely economically.  And if you have a hard time with this problem, consider why air plane hijackers don't ask for infinite amount of stuff when they have lives of humans at their hands. Edited December 6, 2004 by Seapahn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 And if you have a hard time with this problem, consider why air plane hijackers don't ask for infinite amount of stuff when they have lives of humans at their hands. style_images/master/snapback.png Isn't the opposite true? Before they used to do it for publicity. Now they are asking for the world. People aren't even used as a bargaining chip anymore. The more demands the less value they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 How do you know that there is a psychological toll? A loving parent will care for his/her child no matter what, and there won't be any psychological effect. Of course there will be. The fact that you know your child is in great pain and is suffering has a big psychological toll. Personally, I agree with euthanasia because I believe life with torture and pain and without dignity is not worth living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.