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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (10890)	10/23/1998 11:20:00 PM
From: pezz	Respond to of 67261

Euthanaisa cont. << why don't you fill me in>> There are three classes of argument.1. the one you have mentioned . That is the idea that this will be used politically to remove the unwashed and or unwanted. 2.The idea that people sick and in despair will submit to this procedure because they are essentially not in their right mind. And 3.the religious position that you don't aide in the extinction of a human life under any circumstances. I believe that this last reason is often [ not always of course ] the underlying reason behind the first two. Understand this is more than just pulling the plug on a veggie.People in chronic and severe pain with no hope of recovery [ even though not life threatening ] may wish assisted suicide. I believe I understood the example correctly. I just didn't make my point clear. The "hospital broke the law" by this I meant that the hart and soul of any such law must be voluntary consent . The hospital did not get this consent in your example. If the person is unable to answer the question of consent and no living will is available perhaps the testimony of relatives as to the patients beliefs may suffice. I would stress that the burden of proof must be on the assisted suicide people. My response to number 1. would be consent. Again this would be the hart and soul of any law.Perhaps in the presents of an attorney and or relatives. Number 2 is more difficult although I think it is some what bogus.Perhaps a psychological evaluation by experts. I don't really like this as it seems to take the decision making process out of the hands of the individual. I must profess my bias against the psychiatric community. But it or some thing similar may be necessary.As for number three you can guess my response I am sure.If your religion forbids it, don't do it.Otherwise mind your own business! My main concern as I am sure you have guessed is freedom for the individual from government control. pez ps long winded for sure but lots of ground to cover.