NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

OK. I have one objection which is religious and therefore irrelevant to anyone but myself, but another I have is that there is a slippery slope from someone's clearly expressed wishes (which it may not be possible to verify against their current wishes, although that cuts both ways) to various individuals or bodies with responsibility over others deciding it is In Their Best Interests, And What I'm Sure They'd Want If We Could Ask Them, and then it's downhill from there. Once the killing starts it becomes easier and easier to justify (and yes, I am opposed to capital punishment as well, so at least I'm consistent). I would also make a sharp distinction between medical staff discontinuing treatment and actively taking steps to end a life: in the latter case you are putting a terrible burden on someone by asking them to become a killer, even with consent.
That said, I think (and I don't think it's a "Western" thing: Western civilisation is used a lot as a whipping boy these days, when it's actually rather good...I'm really tired of Hippie bullshit) there's a tendency now to focus on saving lives at all costs with too little attention paid to whether the life you are going to extraordinary lengths to save is one that the person would want, or whether we are condemning them to years of living hell. The problem is that medical technology has advanced to a point that our instincts and ethics don't know how to handle - in so many cases now it is possible for a person to survive terrible injury, but not in any real sense recover. Hence a dilemma that previously was much less common.

<blockquote data-quote="Kevin Daly" data-source="post: 80069" data-attributes="member: 913">OK. I have one objection which is religious and therefore irrelevant to anyone but myself, but another I have is that there is a slippery slope from someone&#039;s clearly expressed wishes (which it may not be possible to verify against their current wishes, although that cuts both ways) to various individuals or bodies with responsibility over others deciding it is In Their Best Interests, And What I&#039;m Sure They&#039;d Want If We Could Ask Them, and then it&#039;s downhill from there. Once the killing starts it becomes easier and easier to justify (and yes, I am opposed to capital punishment as well, so at least I&#039;m consistent). I would also make a sharp distinction between medical staff discontinuing treatment and actively taking steps to end a life: in the latter case you are putting a terrible burden on someone by asking them to become a killer, even with consent.That said, I think (and I don&#039;t think it&#039;s a &quot;Western&quot; thing: Western civilisation is used a lot as a whipping boy these days, when it&#039;s actually rather good...I&#039;m really tired of Hippie bullshit) there&#039;s a tendency now to focus on saving lives at all costs with too little attention paid to whether the life you are going to extraordinary lengths to save is one that the person would want, or whether we are condemning them to years of living hell. The problem is that medical technology has advanced to a point that our instincts and ethics don&#039;t know how to handle - in so many cases now it is possible for a person to survive terrible injury, but not in any real sense recover. Hence a dilemma that previously was much less common.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kevin Daly, post: 80069, member: 913"] OK. I have one objection which is religious and therefore irrelevant to anyone but myself, but another I have is that there is a slippery slope from someone's clearly expressed wishes (which it may not be possible to verify against their [I]current[/I] wishes, although that cuts both ways) to various individuals or bodies with responsibility over others deciding it is In Their Best Interests, And What I'm Sure They'd Want If We Could Ask Them, and then it's downhill from there. Once the killing starts it becomes easier and easier to justify (and yes, I am opposed to capital punishment as well, so at least I'm consistent). I would also make a sharp distinction between medical staff discontinuing treatment and actively taking steps to end a life: in the latter case you are putting a terrible burden on someone by asking them to become a killer, even with consent. That said, I think (and I don't think it's a "Western" thing: Western civilisation is used a lot as a whipping boy these days, when it's actually rather good...I'm really tired of Hippie bullshit) there's a tendency now to focus on saving lives at all costs with too little attention paid to whether the life you are going to extraordinary lengths to save is one that the person would want, or whether we are condemning them to years of living hell. The problem is that medical technology has advanced to a point that our instincts and ethics don't know how to handle - in so many cases now it is possible for a person to survive terrible injury, but not in any real sense recover. Hence a dilemma that previously was much less common. [/QUOTE]

Verification