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: Lane3 who wrote (106608)	3/29/2005 6:11:23 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793649

I don't mean to imply that LB was arguing this (not you, either) but I have seen it argued by people on this thread. I don't want to point any fingers. As I understand your argument (and LB's) it's that you want to have the option to end your life as you see fit, even if you can't carry out your wishes because you are incapacitated. But I think you and he would agree that you don't believe that being PVS is a threshold requirement, you'd want this option even if you were fully conscious but paralyzed. This would be a consistent and coherent position. I fail to see what being PVS brings to the discussion, except for the fact that the person cannot express their wishes. Unless somehow being PVS gives others the moral right to do things that they would otherwise not have the right to do, and so far nobody has explained that argument to me.