Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (4658)	2/20/2003 2:44:47 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

I do, in fact, criticize those who would check out upon finding they are terminal, without knowing with any certainty what they will endure. I can understand your not agreeing with this decision for your own life. I'm not sure on what moral principles you would seek to prevent other people who wish to do this from doing it. Why is their life not their own business? The basic principle of goverenment, as I believe it to be, is to govern the interplay of people to prevent one from unfairly treating another, whether it be physically (assault, murder, rape, etc.) or economically (theft, robbery, fraud, etc.) or irresponsibly (negligence law). Also, to provide resources for the common good (roads, defense, etc.) But what in our Constitution justifies such an intrusion on the private lives and decisions of individuals that the law should be brought to bear to try to force people who don't want to live to continue to do so anyhow, assuming that they are capable of making a responsible decision about their lives? That's the issue that really bothers me. Because if the government can intrude on that area of my life, there is no area they can't justify intruding on. It also bothers me that those who would prevent rational suicide feel they have the right to impose through law their moral values on another person who has different moral values, where there is no legitimate societal or goverenmental issue at stake. it is, after all, a lot better to let someone die by assisted suicide than let them die by driving their car at 100 miles an hour head on into another car, which is one of the alternative ways of committing suicide.

To: Neocon who wrote (4658)	2/20/2003 3:52:16 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

I am pretty sure that what was the patient's option will eventually become the family's expectation, in order not to use up heritable resources and to get it behind them. I fear that what was a right to die will become a duty to die, in order not to perceived as "undignified" and selfish. I understand that concern. I, too, think that would be worse than the status quo. It could happen in some instances to some individuals. I wouldn't put it at the "pretty sure" level of probability, though, for a mass cultural change. One thing I have learned the hard way over the years is that slippery slopes are usually figments. I think we can count on the inherent "selfishness" and survival instinct of humans to keep people persisting as long as they damn well please.