SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ilaine who wrote (105063)3/20/2005 3:28:27 PM
From: Lane3   of 793845
 
So, by definition, Terri is being euthanized.

I stand corrected, technically. That's an odd definition. I assume it's a legal liability construct as opposed to a moral or practical construct.

The salient moral distinction is whether whatever-we-call-it is voluntary or involuntary. Acceding to a request to not force feed is very different from denying desired nourishment.

I would argue that giving disabled persons food and water is a basic human right

I would argue, instead, that giving food and water to a disabled person who wants food and water may be a basic human right but forcing it on someone who wants to die is just as much a denial of a basic human right. CB, you seem to be insisting that people eat and live whether they want to or not. I strenuously disagree with that.

I understand that this particular case is not a perfect example of that distinction, but the principle is critical.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News