Depends on the regulation put in place and circumstances
Last edited by Henrin; 02-08-15 at 06:56 AM.
Yawn. Jack Kevorkian, convicted murderer. Deny it all you want. If you don't believe killing folks in aggression in my state would land you in prison for the rest of your life, I suppose you could try it, but I wouldn't recommend it.No it doesn't. That is just your skewed opinion on a doctor who, in his medical expertise, can see the suffering of an individual and at that individuals request allow them to pass peacefully. There is nothing about that - that is aggressive, unethical, or murderous. Period.
No they wouldn't. With precedence set in the U.S. by some states - and the fact that the reason for the assisted suicide would be taken into consideration. There would be no reason for serious charges.
So what, you're claiming that your theoretical Kevorkian-esque contract killer "doctor" is killing them on accident? This is a hired killing, it is intentional and premeditated.I know it's meaning. Murder, by law, is defined as killing with malice aforethought.
Old archaic, huh? Do you work for the Department of Redundancy Department, Redundancy Division?Nothing in this sentence is a fact that can't be amended by further regulatory wording written into some book for legislation. You appeal to the authority to old archaic words of man is noted, but your insistence that such fallible decrees can not be updated continues to be the wrench in your argument.
Okay here are some archaic words of man. I sort of respect them for some reason, I dunno.
This is the mission statement of the United States. Like most libertarians, I agree with it wholeheartedly.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
You can't sell yourself into slavery. You're not allowed to do so even if you want to. You can work for someone for no money if you choose to, but you cannot become their property and you will ALWAYS retain the liberty to stop doing so.
You can give away your property, but you can't give away your right to own property.
You can't give someone else permission to kill you, or rather, even if you do, it doesn't matter, killing you would still be an act of aggression because they are initiating force against you.
Killing other humans is wrong unless it's necessary to do so in self-defense, to defend your own rights against the aggression of others. I don't even support execution.
If the maxim "killing is wrong unless absolutely necessary to defend yourself" is something you consider unethical and archaic, then that's your right to think that, and it's my right to be thankful I do not live anywhere near someone who is openly "morally flexible" on the principle of whether or not killing other humans in aggression is okay, since, you know, I happen to be a human and I kind of hope other people will not kill me. As a rule, I'm wary of those who promote needless killing.
Last edited by JayDubya; 02-08-15 at 07:21 AM.
"Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke
Hell, some people equate not forcing fluids with euthanasia - they seriously call it "passive euthanasia." How dumb is that? NOT giving someone medication or fluids or something else they DON'T want is equated with killing them. That's just basic autonomy. Healthcare is a service; your patient (or their MPOA, etc.) comes to you and requests something, giving you permission to do so. Without that permission, you can't do things. NOT doing something they DON'T want should be obvious (with the possible ethical exception of when a parent is refusing to provide life-saving care for their kid, but that's its own topic entirely).
* * *
To be clear, what Kevorkian did which landed him in prison for murder was to administer lethal medication which killed his patient. He filmed this and 60 minutes aired it. He dared the state to arrest him on that film. They did, which is correct, because he was indisputably a murderer.
I had made the assumption we were talking about the physician killing the patient. Everything I have said is about that. Nothing in any response to me up to this point has contradicted that assumption, and I do believe the people I am arguing against think it's okay for a physician to kill their patient.
If you kill yourself, I am okay with that. I am not okay with aggressive killing; you cannot commit aggression against yourself. As an analogy, if someone else were to force you to use cocaine, that would be aggressive harm to your body; if you choose to use cocaine, you are only harming yourself.
On the specific topic of being given something to consume yourself which will kill you, that is more morally fuzzy. You're right, you could just as well buy a gun and shoot yourself.
Last edited by JayDubya; 02-08-15 at 07:44 AM.