0 Votes
RE: The need for moral absolutes
I got in a discussion with my step-dad about something that relates. There was a report on the news about someone who had been arrested for gross negligence of a large number of animals in his home. I raised the point that I thought it was wrong to treat animals badly, but who is the government to tell someone they have to care for a pet? If I find a dog, take care of it for a year, then decide I don’t want it anymore, who is the government to tell me I can’t remove my care? (This is assuming my actions don’t harm others, of course.)
RE: The need for moral absolutes by Jackson
If I find a dog, take care of it for a year, then decide I don’t want >it anymore, who is the government to tell me I can’t remove my care?
But the government doesn’t tell you you can’t remove your care of the animal… it just requires you to remove your care in the established method (namely, taking the animal to the pound or animal shelter or even giving it away).
On the other topic, I find it interesting (and disturbing) that euthanasia includes both methods of ending a patients life…
1. By lethal injection (or other active means of ending the patients life). (ACTIVE)
2. By SUSPENDING extraordinary medical treatment that is keeping the incurable patient alive. (PASSIVE)
Personally, I have no problem with the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. I mean it is EXTRAordinary treament. I think that is a decision that the family/guardian of the patient should have every right to determine (in the cases where the patient themselves cannot make the decision).
My beef with euthanasia is when death is CAUSED to a patient. This then leaves the realm of ommitting treatment to committing an action that leads to death. That I have a problem with.
As for what purpose the pain and suffering have, I just don’t know. And I don’t think that if we allow ACTIVE euthanasia then doctors will start killing everybody off just because they want to.
For me, it is more a philisophical/pyschological issue. How does being diagnosed with a terminal illness affect a patients state of mind? Do they realize that that means there are still possibilities of treatment that could prolong their life (as with AIDS or cancer)? Do they realize that the doctor hasn’t told them that they will definitely die tomorrow in the most painful way possible? Are they rationally choosing to pursue death or are they acting out irrationally against the fact that they have been given a death sentence? Who is qualified to determine what is happening in the patients psyche?