RE: MAGICBRAD...
Euthenasia...alright. Maybe a touchy issue for some, as it deals with the subject of DEATH. One might ask why it is an issue, or what makes it an issue. Well, the issue with Euthenasia is whether or not someone should have the right to end their own life. What does one say to a person that absolutely can not go on. Of course one has to consider the circumstances, such as condition of said person and/or reasons for wanting to end it. For example, if someone is terminally ill, not moving, serving no purpose other than existing, probably for the sake of others, and wants to end it, should this be allowed? Is it morally righteous? My personal opinion would be that yes, they should be able to do so. It seems that being forced to live in a near death condition for the sake of someone other than their own self would be to take the one of the only things this person has left, the ability to decide their own fate...IT'S THEIRS. I realize that some who spend time in a coma come out of it years afterwords and live a normal life, so I guess the question would have to be as to what the standard is for those that are allowed to committ suicide with the assistance of a physician. I think that if there is no possible way of bringing a person back from terminal illness, it is entirely up to that person to do what they will, and maybe others should respect that decision.
We confront a problem in relation to what to do with those that have other kinds of pain, such as those who are severely depressed, those that are in such psychological distress that they choose to end their life. It's strange, because some people that are terminally ill can't choose to end their life one way or another as they are hooked up to various machines that keep them alive (see "One" by Metallica), and those that are in severe psychological distress ultimately still have control over their fate,(I know, I'm assuming here that we choose our own fate, but that is yet to be determined, he he) just not legally. In a case of such distress it would seem that there are options and we decide that such a person isn't fit to make decisions for themselves, though as I've said, that decision is ultimately in their own hands, just not legally. I did a bit of surfing and found a site that deals with Euthanasia, and is apparantly all for it. Also, here's one that's not so for it. So, any ideas?
posted by TheZenFly at 12:40 AM
1 Comments:
Hey man, I gave you plenty of opportunity to disagree with me, it just so happens that you agree with me, or that there was nothing for you to argue against. If you wanted to play devil's advocate, you could have addressed the idea that there should be a certain standard for those that can commit physician assisted suicide and argued about why there should or shouldn't be any such standards. Or you could have argued that morals are relative, or that terminally ill patients shouldn't be allowed to make such a choice. That's what a devil's advocate would do; purposely argue against the seemingly obvious conlusion for the purposes of poking holes in an argument. I thought I laid my position out as briefly as possible, it just so happens that you agree with it. If you don't agree with someone about something, you're not playing devil's advocate by arguing with them, you're simply arguing because you disagree. The devil's advocate agrees, but argues for the above mentioned reason...that's why it is reffered to as "playing" (acting, pretending,faking) the devil's advocate. Also, I thought that one purpose of a debate was to present one with something they can't disagree with, and I did that...Ciao
Post a Comment
<< Home