Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Pentz
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 59

Posted 11/14/2006 5:10 AM (GMT -6)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=416003&in_page_id=1770

Wow.

Nate

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/15/2006 5:11 PM (GMT -6)

I only skimmed it, and I know there's a debate to be had here, but I have to say that I don't know how I feel about it.

Tom

Daniel D. Farmer
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2006
Total Posts : 4

Posted 11/15/2006 6:14 PM (GMT -6)

Isn't there an inconsistency in our behavior when we put an animal down because it is suffering too much (or whatever) but we refuse to do the same for a human being in any circumstance? The 'putting down' language is probably too harsh, but we recognize that, at least as far as animals are concerned, there is such a thing as 'mercy killing'. I don't think it's particularly outlandish to suggest the same could be true for human beings.

As far as disabled infants are concerned, I would only consider in cases where the baby has something like Tay Sachs Disease (cf. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/taysachs/taysachs.htm#What_is) (I think a prenatal diagnosis of Tay Sachs would also warrant abortion as an option--though certainly not a certainty).

The 'slippery slope' here is a concern about not falling into eugenics of some sort. There is a danger here, I'm just not sure how to adjudicate between that fear, and a certain unreasonable-ness in terms of withholding mercy.

Any thoughts?

-Daniel-

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/15/2006 9:46 PM (GMT -6)

I'm feeling ya too Daniel. But then again, we do EAT animals pretty regularly, though we don't eat humans. We do recognize a categorical difference in value. But I hear ya.

Tom

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 11/16/2006 8:28 AM (GMT -6)

I remember thinking during the Terry Shiavo situation how weird it was that once it was decided she was to die, the ethical WAY to kill her was slowly through starvation. To do it quickly through a lethal injection or whatever would have been unethical. Seemed very artificial to me.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 11/16/2006 8:57 AM (GMT -6)

I thought the same exact thing, Corey.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/16/2006 12:59 PM (GMT -6)

I agree Corey. Folks were inconsistent. If she's to die, then do it.

But...there's always the argument that what we're doing is not bringing about death, but simply not involving ourselves in the prolonging of life, which means it's basically up to God and the miraculous to prolong life. We kind of take our hands off the situation and leave 'nature' to determine the outcome. But to have injected a lethal dose would be to have interjected ourselves in a positive way once again, just in a way that determines a different sort of outcome. What about those who don't want to determine things either way but want to leave it up to God? Is that always a cop out?

Tom

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 11/17/2006 9:09 AM (GMT -6)

Tom: What about those who don't want to determine things either way but want to leave it up to God? Is that always a cop out?

Jeff: I think there is logic to this. But based on this reasoning, the only reason why the state would have done a mercy killing, I think, is if she was suffering or if it was costing the state huge amounts of money. I remember people offering to raise money for the expenses at the time, so that was not the issue. So refresh my memory; was she supposedly suffering? I truly don't remember.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 11/20/2006 8:14 AM (GMT -6)

She wasn't suffering and was in a vegitative state I believe.

Didn't we have a knock-down debate over Terry?

Tom

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 11/23/2006 1:55 PM (GMT -6)

Well, if she wasn't suffering and private donors were willing to pay for the expenses, I don't see how the state could have used the argument you're defending. See what I mean? How could the state claim they were allowing for miraculous intervention when they were demanding her death even though she wasn't suffering and the expenses could be handled privately? I can't see how they could be coherent.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/23/2006 6:06:51 PM (GMT-6)

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 11/27/2006 10:44 AM (GMT -6)

The decision to starve Terry to death was, in my opinion, intended to "wash the hands" of the perpetrators; it was not in Terry's best interest to die this way.

Daniel D. Farmer
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2006
Total Posts : 4

Posted 11/27/2006 4:30 PM (GMT -6)

Terri was "starved" to death (is it really starving if there's no one home?) because euthenasia is illegal. From a legal standpoint, her (ex-)husband was allowed to let her die, but not allowed to cause her to die. Whether or not that's a morally defensible position, the matter was decided by law (once it was--rightly--judged that her ex-husband was the best one to make the choice, rather than her parents).

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:52 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual