mj.scuba Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Good luck to Tony, I hope he wins. I saw a documentary about a guy that was in a motorcycle crash and got severe head injuries, he ended up with locked in syndrome. Whilst he was in hospital and still on life support the doctors managed to communicate with him and actually gave him the choice of continued life support until he could live without life support, or for the life support systems to be switched off so he could be allowed to die. He chose to live. This raises some moral questions, like why should Tony not be afforded the same choice just because he is not currently in a hospital on life support systems, yet he receives other "life supporting" activities outside of hospital which without doubt if he did not receive he would eventually die (feeding, bathing). Also, just because medical science allows us to save peoples lives, should this be at any cost, even if they will end up with locked in syndrome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Another person's view is worthless. Then I'm not sure why we're having the discussion If they want to live with an illness that is their choice. If TN wants the option of dying then that is his choice. He has the option..he just doesn't have the means. The means is the issue. Has he not the means to refuse water, medication food etc? Is he of sound mind? He seems to be able to communicate his desire to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 thats not a moral answer:huh: Can you murder someone with consent? I guess you can legally but to me that needs a different word! Morally definitely not! I answered the question with two differing perspectives. One for the doctor and one for myself. They weren't linked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 Then I'm not sure why we're having the discussion Everyone has to reach an objective stance on what the relative term "severely ill" means, and then we can consider Assisted-suicide? Really? Either that or you're ignoring my points to make obscure remarks. He has the option..he just doesn't have the means. If he doesn't have the means then he doesn't have the option, does he? If I have a choice between beans for lunch and eggs for lunch, but I have no way of opening a tin - then I don't have the choice of eating beans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I wasn't asking you to do it. A doctor, a fireman, me, you? You may as well have asked because if it's against the law then the profession would surely be irrelevant. I was asking if, morally, you'd consider it murder? No, you asked me this.... Would you consider it murder if a Doctor gave, with consent, a severely ill man lethal drugs? I answered yes if it was illegal. You also offered me contexts..which I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 I was asking if, morally, you'd consider it murder? Yes or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 A doctor, a fireman, me, you? You may as well have asked because if it's against the law then the profession would surely be irrelevant. No, you asked me this.... I answered yes if it was illegal. You also offered me contexts..which I did. The law is constantly evolving as society changes, you can't therefore state that something is wrong because it is illegal, which is why asking morally is different to asking legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Everyone has to reach an objective stance on what the relative term "severely ill" means, and then we can consider Assisted-suicide? Really? Either that or you're ignoring my points to make obscure remarks. If he doesn't have the means then he doesn't have the option, does he? If I have a choice between beans for lunch and eggs for lunch, but I have no way of opening a tin - then I don't have the choice of eating beans. Obscure remarks?? They would be obscure when you pick from my quote. You selectively omitted this... "Has he not the means to refuse water, medication food etc? Is he of sound mind? He seems to be able to communicate his desire to die". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Obscure remarks?? They would be obscure when you pick from my quote. You selectively omitted this... "Has he not the means to refuse water, medication food etc? Is he of sound mind? He seems to be able to communicate his desire to die". no I don't think he can refuse those things. His wife would probably be charged with neglect if she did not feed him, also he would then create further pain for himself-why would you wish that on someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 You selectively omitted this... "Has he not the means to refuse water, medication food etc? Is he of sound mind? He seems to be able to communicate his desire to die". I've quoted you directly, within context. Because I choose not to answer every question or refute every point does not mean I am distorting your position. Yet stilll ... let us do that. Has he not the means to refuse water, medication food etc? Don't know. That would be an awful death though - to starve or dehydrate in pain. Is he of sound mind? So he seems to me. Yet I'm no expert. He seems to be able to communicate his desire to die Indeed he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.