Cable Forum - View Single Post

Lord Nikon · 29-04-2010, 05:47

Consider this.
A 20 yr old is involved in an accident and his spinal cord is severed. The only thing keeping him alive is a respirator, his brain functions are undamaged, he is unable to communicate yet his sight and hearing are undamaged. On life support he can survive another 6 years or so. What life does he have? Is keeping him alive in his own interests?

Someone has a debilitating disease which takes their mental faculties and leaves them in intense pain, they are no longer of sound mind or body and cannot make the decision to end their life for themselves. Is it humane to keep them alive?

Neither scenario above would result in any compunction to end the life of the sufferer if it was a family pet, yet we balk at making the same choices for a human. The Hippocratic oath states to 'Do no harm' yet is it not harmful to subject people to conditions we would not subject an animal to? Surely these are the questions that are pertinent. If we are capable of making the choice responsibly for pets, why not for humans who are in constant pain, or debilitated to the point where there is no hope of recovery and life becomes endless suffering?

The comparison IS valid. We do not balk at the choice for those we question the sentience of, yet we do balk at the choice when the subject is human. Why? Is not a human also due the same dignity we bestow upon animals? or are we not worthy of that?

29-04-2010, 05:47	#63
Lord Nikon Inactive Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: NW UK Posts: 3,546	Re: A Duty To Die? Consider this. A 20 yr old is involved in an accident and his spinal cord is severed. The only thing keeping him alive is a respirator, his brain functions are undamaged, he is unable to communicate yet his sight and hearing are undamaged. On life support he can survive another 6 years or so. What life does he have? Is keeping him alive in his own interests? Someone has a debilitating disease which takes their mental faculties and leaves them in intense pain, they are no longer of sound mind or body and cannot make the decision to end their life for themselves. Is it humane to keep them alive? Neither scenario above would result in any compunction to end the life of the sufferer if it was a family pet, yet we balk at making the same choices for a human. The Hippocratic oath states to 'Do no harm' yet is it not harmful to subject people to conditions we would not subject an animal to? Surely these are the questions that are pertinent. If we are capable of making the choice responsibly for pets, why not for humans who are in constant pain, or debilitated to the point where there is no hope of recovery and life becomes endless suffering? The comparison IS valid. We do not balk at the choice for those we question the sentience of, yet we do balk at the choice when the subject is human. Why? Is not a human also due the same dignity we bestow upon animals? or are we not worthy of that?