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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (105710)	3/24/2005 9:25:08 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793706

of course that judgement was made based on hearsay evidence. we don't convict, sentence and execute criminals in this country on that basis The comparison with criminals that I keep seeing misses an important point--criminals don't want to die. Ordinary people, innocent of crime, which is what we're talking about here are mixed in whether or not or under what circumstances they would want to live or die. So we use hearsay and whatever else we can to try to divine their wishes when they haven't told us in writing. Is that a good thing to do? Maybe not, but the intent is both rational and constructive. We try to do the best we can for both those who want to live and those who want to die equally. Does it miss sometimes? Surely. But it's right more often than just assuming that everyone who hasn't produced a written directive wants to live. That's a greater kindness for the most people kind of argument. I don't know if that's the best approach. Maybe we should force all those who were negligent in articulating their preferences to life whether they would want to or not. That's a personal responsibility approach. I think a case can be made either way.