Euthanasia

[yiran]

Wow, this was just a little thing that sprang into my mind, and you took it all very seriously and responded with a lot of things.

I have no right to tell anyone this, but I'd like it more if vulgarity was kept out; I mean, it doesn't really contribute to the actual discussion.

Anyway, here goes some of my responses.

2) I've coined a saying that goes like this: you can only respect everyone's point of view if you don't take religious prohibitions into consideration.

I have to say even though I'm not theist, I have to disagree with you. Religion plays an integral part of contemporary society, and disregarding it might be okay on this message board, but you might get in a mess in real life.

Your other counterarguments are completely fine though, at least from my point of view.

It's legal where I live and we're still, you know, functioning?

Then again I guess in the eyes of the American religious right we are SODOM AND GOMORRAH.

Well, you have to admit a few countries and two U.S. states isn't exactly a majority in the world. :P

like, there's this person who's going to die, but then we hook them up to a machine and bam! they'll live. I have no idea why, because I think it can be extremely wonderful, but it also frightens me a bit.

Also organ transplants. Messing around with cells and genetics. Cloning. Stuff that falls into the "manipulating fate" category.

Okay, about fate; I don't think medically altering your body is messing with fate. First of all, we're all biologically designed to stay alive (and create offspring, but that's another topic altogether), so what's wrong with us trying to do that? Even though medical procedures may not be "natural", it's still doing what we should rationally be doing.

And really, what defines natural? I mean, humans evolved naturally, right? Then why aren't our creations defined as natural? Ugh, too many rhetorical questions, AND getting off topic.

Regarding fate, I'm skeptical about its existence, but I don't deny there is a possibility of something of that sort. Still, if you get around to using medical stuff to manipulate your body, wouldn't that be part of your fate?

-

Back to euthanasia. I had my assessed discussion today, and got the joint-highest mark in my class :D Anyway, my real point isn't to brag (sorry if it came out that way), but it's that when we were arguing, the opposing side said corruption by the doctor was a real threat. I originally scoffed at the thought, saying "Wouldn't it be easy to check the valid consent?"

But after I thought about it afterwards, there was actually a problem with that; for instance, if the patient is unable to give consent, how do you know the family's intents aren't malicious? i.e. they want to kill the patient off so that they don't need to spend more money? I know these types of families are extremely rare, but they definitely still exist. Same for the original point about the doctor; say the patient was conscious but didn't want euthanasia, what could stop the doctor from making him/her undergo euthanasia if he/she had no family to prove anything?

Well, I guess rare cases are that; rare. But still, they should be taken into account.

Eh, I hope this post makes enough sense.

 

[Tarvos]

Well, you have to admit a few countries and two U.S. states isn't exactly a majority in the world. :P

My point was that the countries that have it are all better off economically and socially than the USA. So apparently we're doing something right. (Yes, even Belgium. Fuck Belgium).

 

[surskitty]

Back to euthanasia. I had my assessed discussion today, and got the joint-highest mark in my class :D Anyway, my real point isn't to brag (sorry if it came out that way), but it's that when we were arguing, the opposing side said corruption by the doctor was a real threat. I originally scoffed at the thought, saying "Wouldn't it be easy to check the valid consent?"

But after I thought about it afterwards, there was actually a problem with that; for instance, if the patient is unable to give consent, how do you know the family's intents aren't malicious? i.e. they want to kill the patient off so that they don't need to spend more money? I know these types of families are extremely rare, but they definitely still exist. Same for the original point about the doctor; say the patient was conscious but didn't want euthanasia, what could stop the doctor from making him/her undergo euthanasia if he/she had no family to prove anything?

Well, I guess rare cases are that; rare. But still, they should be taken into account.

Eh, I hope this post makes enough sense.

Aaaaaaaand that's why the Netherlands requires consultation with a second doctor before euthanasia's legal.

If the family's intent is malicious (and I wouldn't say that's 'extremely rare'), the person isn't going to regain consciousness enough to communicate, and the person never made a statement beforehand as to what should happen in that case, ... there's not really much anyone can do. It's not like people come with signs over their heads saying 'COMPLETELY EVIL'. If you've strong feelings about whether or not you should be removed from life support or whatever in that scenario and you're not sure you can trust your family, that's what wills are for. :/

 

[yiran]

My point was that the countries that have it are all better off economically and socially than the USA. So apparently we're doing something right. (Yes, even Belgium. Fuck Belgium).

Examples of how it's better off economically and socially than the USA, please? From my knowledge (which isn't that great, at least not regarding geography), USA is the currently leading power in the world, with China as its most prominent competitor. Some people put it the other way around, but either way, I don't really see how the "euthanasia-legal" countries are a lot better off. No offense.

Aaaaaaaand that's why the Netherlands requires consultation with a second doctor before euthanasia's legal.

If the family's intent is malicious (and I wouldn't say that's 'extremely rare'), the person isn't going to regain consciousness enough to communicate, and the person never made a statement beforehand as to what should happen in that case, ... there's not really much anyone can do. It's not like people come with signs over their heads saying 'COMPLETELY EVIL'. If you've strong feelings about whether or not you should be removed from life support or whatever in that scenario and you're not sure you can trust your family, that's what wills are for. :/

Yeah, Netherlands avoided that problem with a smart way :P

Anyway, after re-reading my post I just realised that my example is really bad; I mean, it is legal for the family to withhold financial support, right? I don't know about the law. But yeah, wills do solve that problem. Still, you have to admit the thought's quite unnerving.

 

[Music Dragon]

Examples of how it's better off economically and socially than the USA, please? From my knowledge (which isn't that great, at least not regarding geography), USA is the currently leading power in the world, with China as its most prominent competitor. Some people put it the other way around, but either way, I don't really see how the "euthanasia-legal" countries are a lot better off. No offense.

It's not all about power, you know. There's equality, happiness, justice... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Netherlands beat the US in terms of employment rate, Satisfaction with Life Index, Human Development Index, and percentage of people not living in poverty.

 

[Superbird]

Zackrai, are you theist? Curiosity question.

opaltiger- I'm fine with prevention, and even certain surgeries. What gets me though, is the stuff that is "There is 100% chance of this person dieing if we do not perform x medical procedure." At that point, I think it's pushing it. A paper cut probably won't kill you in the long scheme of things, but like, kidney failure more likely than not will if left untreated. Some medical advances even astound and intrigue me, like this discovery they made where you can use a certain kind of RNA to cure a certain kind of blindness. I think that is one of the coolest things. However at the same time it scares me a little. I think you may be right about the machines, though.

I realize that everyone has been bashing on Zackrai, but if he is Christian, then...

19Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

This is from the bible, and what it obviously implies is that you are not allowed to tamper with your body, only God may do that; it works in the same way as buying an item in a store: if you haven't bought it yet, you cannot tamper with it, only the shopkeeper may do that. This passage implies that God bought us, humans, so we may not tamper with His property.

Music Dragon- I don't agree with you on your view of manipulating fate. I have no problem with your opinion, I think your logic is stable, but the way I see it, if someone has heart failure, or their liver gives out, there's probably a reason. Whether this is a spontaneous thing or something that has cultivated from years of poor body maintenance, I think the person should accept what life has handed them. My point is that if someone has a diseased liver, or a cancerous lung, we shouldn't swap them out with a different one and say "all better" (which is hyperbole, but). I'm fine with certain drug treatments, and other means of curing ailments, but it's when we start to manipulate the human form is when it bothers me. I just don't think it's ethically right.

I guess what's frightening me about medical procedures is the fact that I'm really desensitized to the idea of death? Death doesn't bother me so much, but for some reason taking drastic measures to prevent it does.

And I think this statement is being misinterpreted. I don't think Chief Zackrai is altogether against making an effort to save someone's life, but he's probably more comfortable with not doing it and he may not really see the point -- "If they're going to die anyway in the long run, they might as well spare themselves the pain, especially if they've lived a long, full life already." In addition to this, I think he's also bringing up the following point, in other words: "If someone has a life-threatening condition, like heart failure, and they brought it entirely upon themselves by, despite their education not to at that risk, still not doing the right thing, then what right do they have to escape the consequences?" It is considered by almost everyone, religious or not, that everyone ought to be honest and have integrity. Everyone should admit to their actions and accept the consequences for them. I think this is the same concept.

Or prehaps I'm misinterpreting it myself.

 

[Music Dragon]

I realize that everyone has been bashing on Zackrai, but if he is Christian, then...

[...]

This is from the bible, and what it obviously implies is that you are not allowed to tamper with your body, only God may do that; it works in the same way as buying an item in a store: if you haven't bought it yet, you cannot tamper with it, only the shopkeeper may do that. This passage implies that God bought us, humans, so we may not tamper with His property.

Well:

As for the idea of making modifications to the human body - are you also against glasses, pacemakers, prosthetic legs, blood donations? What about sex reassignment surgery? Piercings? Hair dye? Coloured contact lenses?

And I think this statement is being misinterpreted. I don't think Chief Zackrai is altogether against making an effort to save someone's life, but he's probably more comfortable with not doing it and he may not really see the point -- "If they're going to die anyway in the long run, they might as well spare themselves the pain, especially if they've lived a long, full life already."

It didn't say anything of the sort. And as for "sparing them the pain" - most of the time, that is the exact opposite of what you're doing when you deny someone medical treatment.

In any case, there's a difference between "I'm comfortable with death and don't see the point in living" and "I think it is unethical of other people to receive medical treatment that would help them survive when they're actually fated to die".

In addition to this, I think he's also bringing up the following point, in other words: "If someone has a life-threatening condition, like heart failure, and they brought it entirely upon themselves by, despite their education not to at that risk, still not doing the right thing, then what right do they have to escape the consequences?" It is considered by almost everyone, religious or not, that everyone ought to be honest and have integrity. Everyone should admit to their actions and accept the consequences for them. I think this is the same concept.

Oh, come on. If someone has a heart attack because they've been eating hamburgers and sweets all their life, would you honestly think that the right thing to do is to say "Sorry, you brought this on yourself, you don't deserve any help" and leave them to die? Generally speaking, when I see people make mistakes and end up in trouble, I'd say the ethical thing to do is to help them, not tell them to suck it up. And that's especially true when it's a matter of life and death. Besides, of all the people out there who need organ transplants, how many of them do you think are directly responsible for being in that situation?

And anyway, Zackrai specifically said that it's fine with "certain drug treatments and other means of curing ailments", so obviously it's not the idea of treating an undeserving person that bothers it.

 

[yiran]

It's not all about power, you know. There's equality, happiness, justice... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Netherlands beat the US in terms of employment rate, Satisfaction with Life Index, Human Development Index, and percentage of people not living in poverty.

Ah, I see. Anyway, this is quite irrelevant to euthanasia, so please don't mind when I don't continue discussion on it. :O

And regarding the whole Chief Zackrai-bashing thing – most of us are just pointing out fallacies in his arguments. Sure, there are one or two that may have gone a bit over-emotional, but it doesn't seem like there was any harm intended. In any case, I still oppose his point on modifying the human body due to trying to follow "fate", and it's because those actions can be considered as part of your fate, since otherwise they wouldn't happen (if you believe in fate).

To be honest, I do agree with the argument that "you should be responsible of your body", but only to a certain extent. Superbird's not directly saying to leave a person to die, he's just saying that the person has some fault in his/her own health conditions if that were to happen.

 

[Music Dragon]

To be honest, I do agree with the argument that "you should be responsible of your body", but only to a certain extent. Superbird's not directly saying to leave a person to die, he's just saying that the person has some fault in his/her own health conditions if that were to happen.

I don't dispute that there comes a point when you simply can't afford to waste resources on a person who clearly has no intention of changing their ways, but I'm sure most people who need organ transplants aren't that bad.

And anyway, no matter Superbird's interpretation, this isn't at all what the original statement was about:

Whether this is a spontaneous thing or something that has cultivated from years of poor body maintenance, I think the person should accept what life has handed them.

In other words: "it doesn't matter if the person in question brought it upon themselves or not".

 

[Tarvos]

Ah, I see. Anyway, this is quite irrelevant to euthanasia, so please don't mind when I don't continue discussion on it. :O

It's plenty relevant. It shows that the countries applying euthanasia can do so on good moral grounds and it's an addition to a highly valued life that can be put into practice reasonably using the proper legislation. May I note that the Dutch are absurdly cautious about euthanasia (to a fault I would say) and that many doctors don't enjoy performing it, even if it's not on religious grounds.

There is absolutely no moral reason to be against society because the societies that do have it also implement it properly and despite not being the most military proficient country (hey yiran, have you looked at the size of us on a map?), we are consistently quoted as one of the happiest countries and most pleasant places to live in. We have high GDP per capita, low amount of people below the poverty line, we have a free press, low corruption, pretty good healthcare for everyone, etc. (Although I'll grant we can do better on the educational front).

Now look at the other countries that have implemented euthanasia. Switzerland is one. Belgium is another. I don't need to tell you that Switzerland is full of really rich people who can do anything they want with their life and organize it properly, right? Even with their evil bankers? ETA: ok it's only assisted suicide, but that's still a whole lot better. Instead it's Luxembourg who have implemented it. Which might as well be Switzerland for the purposes of this discussion

Belgium is a funny country, but I'd still rather live in Belgium than the USA, and for all Belgium's faults (and there are plenty), they also have euthanasia, and they still do plenty of things right.

Here's three places that have already implemented euthanasia and are no worse off than before the implementation!

The problem is that moral opposition to euthanasia is usually based on sketchy and outdated moral values. I can understand the "let's kill gramps so we can inherit the money" motivation, that is a very real threat, but as Viki explained you can work around that. But I've seen people suffer and be terminally ill for ages and trust me at some point you really just want to stop the whole tedious process. It's madness.

 

[Chief Zackrai]

I looked at the part when I said "Whether this is a spontaneous thing or something that has cultivated from years of poor body maintenance, I think the person should accept what life has handed them." and I realized that was stupid. I meant to say (and I have no idea how it came out the other way, I tend not to think sometimes when I post) basically that, but only for people who do it to themselves.

Anyway.

Then you're going to have to explain your own view.

Well, for one thing I don't think not having breakfast tomorrow is life altering. Before I go on, I would like to note that I know what you're going to think when I explain my view of it to you. You're going to think about how what I'm saying is ridiculous and we DO have the technology, so our choice of action SHOULD be to save this person's life. And I agree with you. IF the person is the victim. Like in a car accident, if one of the drivers is drunk and he hits the other driver. I'm all for saving the guy that got hit, but the other guy? I don't think he deserves the medical care, if he even needs it. Many drunk drivers walk away from accidents with no injury.

Anyway, the way I like to think about fate is this: things aren't necessarily set in stone, but there is a general way things are meant to happen. Like if someone gets hit by a bus. They're probably meant to die there. Now, they could have taken the time to tie their shoe, and have missed the bus by a few seconds, but they didn't and now this is what is meant to happen. (NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT TYING YOUR SHOE SAVES YOU FROM BUSES, OR THAT THE PERSON IN THAT EXAMPLE EVEN DESERVED IT, JUST AN EXAMPLE. caps for emphasis) I don't think that everything is set in stone forever, but certain decisions lead to certain events. You're the one making the decisions, it's your job to own up to them (thinking, the bus example is not a good one). This brings me to my point I made earlier. Let's say we have two people. One of them is a heavy drinker and has lost the function of his kidneys, and the other spontaneously gained kidney failure. I'd be comfortable with giving dialysis to the heavy drinker, but I'd wouldn't want to give him a new set. I'd definitely want to give dialysis to the other guy too, and if he has a family member who can donate, that's cool too, probably. Something I forgot to mention earlier is that it's mostly the organ harvesting part of transplants and stuff like that that bothers me. I don't think we should have freezers full of old hearts, lungs, and livers, just because they could help a person in the future potentially. That is crossing the line, in my opinion.

Say I'm standing on a railway track and a train is heading towards me at a high speed. If I step out of the way, I'll live; if I don't, I'll almost certainly die. Is it wrong of me to save myself from certain death through that one action? There's nothing wrong about that, right? Surely there's a reason I ended up on that railway track (probably drugs again), but that doesn't mean I should just accept "what life has handed to me" and stand still and wait to get killed, when it is within my power to change things for the benefit of everyone involved. I'm sure you agree with me on that. So what is the qualitative difference between avoiding a moving train and accepting a new kidney?

How is it the same? I don't see how dodging a train even comes close to kidney transplant.

As for the idea of making modifications to the human body - are you also against glasses, pacemakers, prosthetic legs, blood donations? What about sex reassignment surgery? Piercings? Hair dye? Coloured contact lenses? At what point does it stop being unethical to try to change things about our bodies that we're not pleased with, like, say, their imminent complete failure?

I have no problem with any of the things you listed. I don't see how changing your hair, eye color, or certain piercings (I hate gauges. Not necessarily the people wearing them, I just think they're creepy and make you look asinine.) change the human form. Most of that is changing color, not form. Piercings, well, it depends on what they are and where they are but I'm usually fine with them. Sex reassignment surgery I'm good with, but that is brought upon by psychology and not one's own stupid decisions, like kidney failure can be.

You're entitled to your opinion, and it's only natural for us humans to feel things that are completely irrational every once in a while, but when those feelings tell you that it's not okay to save people's lives, I really think you should have something to back that up beyond "it don't sit right with me, man, it don't sit right with me". The right to have an opinion can only take you so far. At some point you're going to have to try to make sense, or other people will call you on it, at least when it comes to moral judgements, and especially when it comes to life and death.

Then why do you keep barraging me with accusatory questions? I get that the way I think about this isn't "normal", but it's how I see it, and I don't understand why you can't just let it be. I'm sorry that I think people should field the consequences for their actions. Also if you accept the fact that people can have irrational opinions, how can you possibly expect any sort of explanation? You even said that some opinions are irrational, and you're okay with that.

If the result of complete inaction is "excruciating pain followed by death", can you really blame a person for acting?

If the result of inaction is that, and your choice is inaction, then no.

Wow, what. Please stop spouting victim-blaming and ableist bullshit; I'm contemplating submitting this to Chronic Illness Cat.

How is someone a victim if they're making stupid decisions? If a person decides to be an underage drinker and they pay the consequences for it, I don't feel bad for them. I also don't think it's up to the rest of society to take care of them.

So by this logic, if my piece of shit heart goes any more piece of shit, and given that I don't eat well and I don't exercise, you think I should die. This is what you are saying, right now. Do you not see anything fucked up about that?

Well, not as severely as you're taking it, but in a way. Again, I get that it's weird, and I get that it's a tad antisocial. However, that does not change the fact that you know you have a bad heart and you're not actively trying to rectify it. (also, if you take that as offensive, then I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. If you have some sort of genetic heart disorder, or some other form of pre-existing heart disease, then I do apologize, but my argument stands for people that brought it upon themselves.)

Also Superbird, that is where I was going, and I like to think of myself as a theist, as bad of one that I am.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

So, for you, if someone doesn't take care of their health so much and gets potentially fatally sick because of it, you think the proper response is to let them die rather than help them get better and give them the chance to improve their health?

If so, that leads to some pretty amazing absurdities. For example, you could have two young men who grow up eating very badly and exercising little. At 18, one of them decides to start eating healthier and exercising more, while the other continues. At 24 they both develop a potentially fatal heart disease. The one that started exercising first receives treatment, but, as for the other one, even though he swears that he'll eat healthier and exercise more if he's treated, in your world, he's just allowed to die. However, since he would have improved his health after getting better and become like the other guy, the man's only crime is developing a heart disease before having a huge revelation about his unhealthy practices, a crime for which you think he should be sentenced to death.

Also, what's your problem with organ donation?

 

[shy ♡]

Okay, wait. My entire family has depression. It's genetic. Is it then my fault that I am bipolar? Like, do I take some blame for it, because it was genetically passed down to me?

What about sudden infant death syndrome? Is that the infant's fault? Or children who get cancer? Is that their fault? Or children who are raped and abused and murdered? Their fault too? What about all the people in the world who are literally starving? Is that their fault? I could literally go on forever because your argument is complete bullshit.

 

[Adriane]

I looked at the part when I said "Whether this is a spontaneous thing or something that has cultivated from years of poor body maintenance, I think the person should accept what life has handed them." and I realized that was stupid. I meant to say (and I have no idea how it came out the other way, I tend not to think sometimes when I post) basically that, but only for people who do it to themselves.

When you talk about cheating fate, how do you know that actually getting saved by having a transplant or surgery (or etc.) isn't also fate? Fate in general is pretty weak to bring up in any argument.

I'm all for saving the guy that got hit, but the other guy? I don't think he deserves the medical care, if he even needs it. Many drunk drivers walk away from accidents with no injury.

Nobody condones drunk driving at all. But do you really not see a problem with "this person made a really bad decision and deserves to die for it"? And how is the last sentence relevant?

Anyway, the way I like to think about fate is this: things aren't necessarily set in stone, but there is a general way things are meant to happen. Like if someone gets hit by a bus. They're probably meant to die there. Now, they could have taken the time to tie their shoe, and have missed the bus by a few seconds, but they didn't and now this is what is meant to happen. (NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT TYING YOUR SHOE SAVES YOU FROM BUSES, OR THAT THE PERSON IN THAT EXAMPLE EVEN DESERVED IT, JUST AN EXAMPLE. caps for emphasis) I don't think that everything is set in stone forever, but certain decisions lead to certain events. You're the one making the decisions, it's your job to own up to them (thinking, the bus example is not a good one). This brings me to my point I made earlier. Let's say we have two people. One of them is a heavy drinker and has lost the function of his kidneys, and the other spontaneously gained kidney failure. I'd be comfortable with giving dialysis to the heavy drinker, but I'd wouldn't want to give him a new set. I'd definitely want to give dialysis to the other guy too, and if he has a family member who can donate, that's cool too, probably. Something I forgot to mention earlier is that it's mostly the organ harvesting part of transplants and stuff like that that bothers me. I don't think we should have freezers full of old hearts, lungs, and livers, just because they could help a person in the future potentially. That is crossing the line, in my opinion.

Crossing what line? The line that they could... actually save peoples' lives? You're coming across as being against donation and harvesting because of squeamishness.

Piercings, well, it depends on what they are and where they are but I'm usually fine with them.

I just have to interrupt here to say that they're not your piercings and I'm pretty sure the person with the piercings it not out to please you.

Sex reassignment surgery I'm good with, but that is brought upon by psychology and not one's own stupid decisions, like kidney failure can be.

Then why do you keep barraging me with accusatory questions? I get that the way I think about this isn't "normal", but it's how I see it, and I don't understand why you can't just let it be. I'm sorry that I think people should field the consequences for their actions. Also if you accept the fact that people can have irrational opinions, how can you possibly expect any sort of explanation? You even said that some opinions are irrational, and you're okay with that.

Others are perfectly entitled to feeling and stating that your rationale is terrible, especially when said rationale boils down to "It is okay for a life to end due to a bad decision when that life is savable."

How is someone a victim if they're making stupid decisions? If a person decides to be an underage drinker and they pay the consequences for it, I don't feel bad for them. I also don't think it's up to the rest of society to take care of them.

I am quite positive Viki did not decide to have a bad heart, just as I am quite positive everyone who suffers chronic illnesses feel it would be nice to not have said chronic illnesses.

I hate smoking and drinking with a fiery passion. Hate hate hate hate it. I also realise that alcoholism is a thing and cigarettes are wildly addictive. It is incredibly hard to quit, and many people who want to try numerous times and still may not be successful. You don't know the context behind every case of lung cancer or liver failure. But what we do know, is that it's possible to help people in many different ways. I would seriously suggest a paradigm check.

Well, not as severely as you're taking it, but in a way. Again, I get that it's weird, and I get that it's a tad antisocial.

It's not particularly effective to dismiss unpopular opinions as "weird" or "antisocial". This is like a debating equivalent of weasel words.

However, that does not change the fact that you know you have a bad heart and you're not actively trying to rectify it. (also, if you take that as offensive, then I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. If you have some sort of genetic heart disorder, or some other form of pre-existing heart disease, then I do apologize, but my argument stands for people that brought it upon themselves.)

For future reference, please refrain from commenting on something as serious as this without actually knowing the context.

 

[Chief Zackrai]

Yeah, all of that stuff does sound terrible when you take it out of context! I wonder how that works?

Nobody condones drunk driving at all. But do you really not see a problem with "this person made a really bad decision and deserves to die for it"? And how is the last sentence relevant?

I think you misread the part about the car accident. It says "if he even", not "even if he". That makes the last sentence relevant. It seems like a small detail that shouldn't matter, but it does. The sequence "if he even needs it" implies that he probably got off lucky and isn't injured. the sequence "even if he needs it" implies that regardless of if he got injured or not, we don't think twice about him.

Crossing what line? The line that they could... actually save peoples' lives? You're coming across as being against donation and harvesting because of squeamishness.

It's not squeamishness, it's biblical respect. I know I said I'm not particularly religious, but I do take some cues from the bible.

I just have to interrupt here to say that they're not your piercings and I'm pretty sure the person with the piercings it not out to please you.

I'm trying to find the part when I said they were trying to impress me.

Others are perfectly entitled to feeling and stating that your rationale is terrible, especially when said rationale boils down to "It is okay for a life to end due to a bad decision when that life is savable."

You know, I'm trying to find the part when I said that what Music Dragon said was a bad thing. All I said was "I don't know why you keep questioning me if you're alright with it".

I am quite positive Viki did not decide to have a bad heart, just as I am quite positive everyone who suffers chronic illnesses feel it would be nice to not have said chronic illnesses.

I hate smoking and drinking with a fiery passion. Hate hate hate hate it. I also realise that alcoholism is a thing and cigarettes are wildly addictive. It is incredibly hard to quit, and many people who want to try numerous times and still may not be successful. You don't know the context behind every case of lung cancer or liver failure. But what we do know, is that it's possible to help people in many different ways. I would seriously suggest a paradigm check.

Did I say I knew every situation of every person ever? Not that I recall.

It's not particularly effective to dismiss unpopular opinions as "weird" or "antisocial". This is like a debating equivalent of weasel words.

Did I say it was? No, it seems I didn't.

For future reference, please refrain from commenting on something as serious as this without actually knowing the context.

I didn't know she was giving a hypothetical? I guess I'm sorry for apologizing in case I offended?

I'm really sorry if most of this comes off as petty and offended, but honestly I am offended at this point! I understand that the way I'm looking at this isn't "normal" or generally accepted, but at the same time examining it's every detail in an insulting and with forty refuting arguments at the ready isn't the way to go about finding out my motives!

And you seem to have missed the part of my last response where I blatantly said I made a mistake and fixed it. Also every part where I've said if the person isn't directly at fault for their misfortune I'm alright with treating them. If the person brought it upon themselves, as in their decisions up to this point in time have led to this condition, I think they deserve to suffer the consequences. You're not going to change my views on the matter, so I'd like to request that you guys kindly stop giving me the third degree about this.

 

[surskitty]

You don't know the situation for anyone other than yourself, so why do you feel justified in judging?

And no, unfortunately, the thing about my heart's not a hypothetical, so .... I do have something more fundamentally wrong with my heart than the not-exercising (it's more I can't exercise because it doesn't work well), but that applies to most people with health issues. It's possible that if someone acted differently, they'd've not had the same consequence, but that doesn't mean they deserve it. That is why this is victim-blaming.

You don't know why someone became an alcoholic; you don't know what else might be a factor in eventual liver failure; you don't know how many alcoholics manage to not have their livers fail. Actually, if people on the waiting list for a liver transplant (and the list is usually quite long) drink alcohol at all, they get kicked off, so your comparison is still stupid.

I'm sorry you don't want your viewpoint to be questioned, but I don't see how it is that you expect to stroll into the Debating Hall and spout bullshit without it being responded to. If you're not comfortable with the idea of receiving a transplant or a pacemaker or whatever the fuck else meets your definition of 'defying fate', you don't have to, but you'd sure as hell better not give anyone else shit for deciding they'd rather not die an avoidable death.

 

[Chief Zackrai]

When did I ever say I was judging for anyone else? Right, at the part when I didn't! When did I say anyone who thinks other than me, and thinks that transplants and the sort are the greatest thing ever is utterly and entirely wrong? Oh right, at the part when I didn't! When did I say I know everyone's story, and am therefore the ultimate authority on everything? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd have to say the part when I didn't!

I'm sorry your heart is bad, and I'm sorry you can't do anything about it, but it seems that you are precisely the kind of person whom I've been excluding from my opinion!

Also, I don't see how anything I've said is bull****. If what I've said is, then basically what everyone else has said is, too, because everyone else has basically said the same stuff I've said, except from the opposite viewpoint and directed at me.

 

[ultraviolet]

How is it the same? I don't see how dodging a train even comes close to kidney transplant.

It's the same because failure to act changes your fate in the same way that acting changes your fate. If MD stays in front of a train, it is a choice. If he moves, it's also a choice. Both of these things have equal effects upon his fate, in the same way getting a kidney transplant or not getting a kidney transplant have equal effects on someone's fate. Furthermore, how on earth can anyone determine what someone's fate actually is? How do you know that it isn't someone's fate to do serious damage to their liver and then get a liver transplant? Why would fate exclude giving ourselves medical treatment if we get unwell? Why would someone's fate not be to do something really bad but not have to face the consequence of death? Why would fate favour someone who looks after their liver more than someone who doesn't? Is there some kind of unseen karmic system to this that you're not sharing? You need to properly define what you mean by fate before you start using it as a reason why some people should die and some people shouldn't.

I really don't think that this has anything to do with fate at all; it's that you find the idea of someone not looking after their body (or something) and then getting treatment for it morally reprehensible. There's no universal 'right' or 'wrong' - nobody deserves medical treatment more or less than anyone else. What people are finding offensive is that you appear to be suggesting that some people deserve medical treatment more than others.

Something I forgot to mention earlier is that it's mostly the organ harvesting part of transplants and stuff like that that bothers me. I don't think we should have freezers full of old hearts, lungs, and livers, just because they could help a person in the future potentially. That is crossing the line, in my opinion.

So if you're okay with people needing organ transplants through no fault of their own, how exactly are they supposed to get those organs? What happens when there's nobody around to give someone a compatible organ if there are none stocked away just for that emergency? If you personally find it distasteful that there are 'freezers full of old hearts, lungs, and livers', then fine - I don't think anyone particularly is fond of the idea - but consider that not having them means death not only for people who haven't looked after their bodies, but also for people who have.

You need to be aware that there is a difference between 'I personally find something distasteful' and 'I don't think this should be allowed to happen'. Nobody really revels in the idea of giant freezers full of body parts or getting rid of unborn fetuses or killing off people who would rather be dead. But people want them to be around so people's quality of life is better. Imagine being the person who desperately needs a blood transfusion but doesn't share a blood type with anybody they know and because there's no reserves, they'll probably die. They exist because they're more or less a medical necessity and it's the most ethical and effective solution we have. I think organ donation is pretty gross! But I think people dying when there are perfectly good organs around that could save their life is more gross. If I die and my organs are pretty okay, I could posthumously save someone's life. I could save lots of lives if lots of my organs are okay! Not many people get to save a life when they're alive, let alone when they're dead and literally can't do anything. It's gross but gross things happen to be part of life, whether you like it or not.

When did I ever say I was judging for anyone else? Right, at the part when I didn't! When did I say anyone who thinks other than me, and thinks that transplants and the sort are the greatest thing ever is utterly and entirely wrong? Oh right, at the part when I didn't! When did I say I know everyone's story, and am therefore the ultimate authority on everything? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd have to say the part when I didn't!

But you are judging people who don't look treat their bodies well; you don't think they deserve medical treatment. By grouping all of these people together and suggesting they don't deserve organ transplants because they share that one characteristic, you're actively ignoring the possibility of them having a story at all!

Also, I don't see how anything I've said is bull****. If what I've said is, then basically what everyone else has said is, too, because everyone else has basically said the same stuff I've said, except from the opposite viewpoint and directed at me.

'they're saying the same thing but opposite!!' what

My point is that Serious Business is really, really not the place to come in here and share your personal preferences about sensitive issues if you're not willing to do some critical thinking and reflection on your own discourse. If you're just kind of squicky about organs going to alcoholics but don't actually think that they should be legally denied new organs, then that's not the kind of opinion you should be sharing here. If you have a passive opinion and don't actually think things should change, then you shouldn't be sharing it here. Serious Business is for serious business, after all!

If your opinion honestly is that, then what the hell are you complaining about? This is a debating forum and people are allowed to disagree with you; get over it, or consider not posting here.

 

[Butterfree]

Chief Zackrai, people aren't dissecting your posts because your views aren't "normal". They're dissecting your posts, and are kind of angry about it, because they find your view morally abhorrent and you posted it in a debating forum, where things people object to are going to be objected to. If you're not prepared to really support the viewpoint that not only do you personally have these feelings on the matter but other people ought to feel the same, then you don't belong in a debating forum.

Arguments like your appeal to the Bible? Are pretty meaningless, because most of your opponents here are atheists. You need to argue from premises your opponents can share, or there is no reason they should give your argument a second thought. If someone agrees that the word of the Bible should be followed, you can debate with them whether that passage really applies to organ transplants or whatever, but "because the Bible says so" is not something you can sling around in a general debate unless you want to have to subsequently argue for the validity of the Bible as a source of moral authority.


I actually do see where you're coming from in your argument about responsibility. Sure, it seems people whose actions led to their poor health deserve the consequences more than people who were born with poor health and can't do anything about them.

But the problem is that the world isn't a neat, inherently karmic place where the punishment automatically fits the crime. People suffer death and horrible pain as a result of disease that they perhaps could have prevented, but that doesn't mean not having prevented it was actually a capital offense. Even if you think they deserve their condition a little more than those who weren't responsible for it in any fashion, that does not mean they deserve to die. Take a person who, disoriented and in great distress, crosses a street without looking and gets hit by a car. Do you think they shouldn't get an organ transplant because, well, they were irresponsible by forgetting to look? I could make the story less sympathetic - say they were drunk and forgot to look because of that - but that doesn't mean the person now deserves death and shouldn't be helped to the furthest extent medical science allows.

What if it were someone you cared about? Even good, normally responsible people make mistakes. Even people who do in fact have a problem with responsibility can be good people that you probably couldn't look in the eye and tell them they deserve to die because some happenstance led to their particular irresponsibility actually manifesting in a fatal form.

Myriads of people don't bother wearing helmets when cycling. Only some of them have accidents. Does it seem fair to you for those people to die while all the others who are exactly as irresponsible don't?

And no, don't pull out "I never said that!" I'm not saying you said that; I'm asking you what you think of these situations.

 

[Tarvos]

I would like to note that in the Netherlands, no one bothers wearing a helmet when cycling. The reason is probably that due to the seriously insane amount of cyclists (we are a bicycle country), we have created a whole cyclist INFRASTRUCTURE (usually bike lanes are separate), and adding that to smooth terrain (flat) you end up having very little risk of accident. I know of no adult person who will wear a helmet riding a bike, unless they're a pro cyclist.

I know that in Canada, it is mandatory (and it makes sense - the risk of accident is way bigger because Canada isn't made to be traversed on a bicycle, plus the terrain is way more rugged).

I don't know, maybe someone can confirm this, but what are the Danish regulations for cyclists? As I recall, Danes have a similar attitude towards bicycles.

So what is determined as an acceptable risk to take also varies per country and per cultural mentality :)