Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Nikon
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?
|
a very ex stream example
and nothing would stop them from having a living will
the problem in legislating for extreams is then it starts to slowly take in more than you intended
take your example yep a person who is completely aware and completely unable to communicate ( though i think that that situation will be very rare now ) and we put them down because we would do it for a pet
then once your law ios in place we get the cries of if my pet was unable to walk is incontinent etc due to old age i would put him down surely we should do this for those who cant decide who are in the same situation ?
now you are thinking of those who are old or injured
but its a small step to then say these mentally challenged people are or can be in the same situation often incontinent unable to fully comprehend what the issues are often disabled finding it hard or impossible to walk maybe they would be better off put to sleep ?
just look at abortion and how in the beginning you needed two doctors now they are pushing for nurses to be able to decide ! what was a law to protect women in a desperate situation has moved to women often just having a lifestyle choice
the law as it stands is fine
if you really believed a relative was in the situation you described there are many ways to gain the outcome you desire with out risking your liberty if you just plan properly and even if you end up before a judge in this country it is highly unlikely you would be sent to prison
but with out the law we have soon many relatives will be having their supposed loved ones telling them how hard their life is and how it would be easier to just go to sleep and no matter what safegaurds you put it prolonged suggestion will end up with those who could live happily ending it early to make it easier for their money grabbing relatives