Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Why are some people for capital punishment &

BblackkBbirdd
Posts: 919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 2:18:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
against euthanasia? It seems strange for us as a society to favour non-consensual killings (though, whether one can consent to murder in the first place is debatable) over a consensual one, especially when some of the reasons used against euthanasia (as taught to me by my school) apply to capital punishment to some extent e.g. worries about the effect of performing euthanasia on doctors, terminally ill people may not be able to fully consent'/make the 'right' decision...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 2:45:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 2:18:52 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
against euthanasia? It seems strange for us as a society to favour non-consensual killings (though, whether one can consent to murder in the first place is debatable) over a consensual one, especially when some of the reasons used against euthanasia (as taught to me by my school) apply to capital punishment to some extent e.g. worries about the effect of performing euthanasia on doctors, terminally ill people may not be able to fully consent'/make the 'right' decision...

I'd argue that one is punishment, and the other is out of duress.
Only the mentally infirm would choose to end a life, therefore, they are not able to consent to suicide.
How's that?
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 3:01:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 2:45:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/2/2014 2:18:52 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
against euthanasia? It seems strange for us as a society to favour non-consensual killings (though, whether one can consent to murder in the first place is debatable) over a consensual one, especially when some of the reasons used against euthanasia (as taught to me by my school) apply to capital punishment to some extent e.g. worries about the effect of performing euthanasia on doctors, terminally ill people may not be able to fully consent'/make the 'right' decision...

I'd argue that one is punishment, and the other is out of duress.
Only the mentally infirm would choose to end a life, therefore, they are not able to consent to suicide.
How's that?

I think that is kind of shaky. The assumption is that all euthanasia candidates are mentally ill. I would think a good many of them are full of pain and tired of the artificial support especially nearing certain end of life. Would you classify those as mentally infirm?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 3:03:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 3:01:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/2/2014 2:45:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/2/2014 2:18:52 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
against euthanasia? It seems strange for us as a society to favour non-consensual killings (though, whether one can consent to murder in the first place is debatable) over a consensual one, especially when some of the reasons used against euthanasia (as taught to me by my school) apply to capital punishment to some extent e.g. worries about the effect of performing euthanasia on doctors, terminally ill people may not be able to fully consent'/make the 'right' decision...

I'd argue that one is punishment, and the other is out of duress.
Only the mentally infirm would choose to end a life, therefore, they are not able to consent to suicide.
How's that?

I think that is kind of shaky. The assumption is that all euthanasia candidates are mentally ill. I would think a good many of them are full of pain and tired of the artificial support especially nearing certain end of life. Would you classify those as mentally infirm?

I'd classify those as duress.
Can I pistol whip and torture you until you beg for death?
(for the record, I am not sure where I stand on either issue, I think I am pro both, but I am offering a reconciliation for the OP)
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 3:12:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ok that fits a lot better. Duress.

Should terminally ill cancer patients have a right to refuse treatment? Would you say they lose that choice because duress is involved? Should an entire nation be forced to support hospitalization in every painful circumstance because all pain is linked to duress; therefore, free choice is tossed unceremoniously out the window?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 3:18:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 3:12:21 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Ok that fits a lot better. Duress.

Should terminally ill cancer patients have a right to refuse treatment? Would you say they lose that choice because duress is involved? Should an entire nation be forced to support hospitalization in every painful circumstance because all pain is linked to duress; therefore, free choice is tossed unceremoniously out the window?

Inaction =/= action
Refusing treatment for cancer is not the same as hiring a hitman.
Or rather, me letting you die from lack of treatment is different then me injecting too much morphine.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 3:21:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 3:18:51 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/2/2014 3:12:21 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Ok that fits a lot better. Duress.

Should terminally ill cancer patients have a right to refuse treatment? Would you say they lose that choice because duress is involved? Should an entire nation be forced to support hospitalization in every painful circumstance because all pain is linked to duress; therefore, free choice is tossed unceremoniously out the window?

Inaction =/= action
Refusing treatment for cancer is not the same as hiring a hitman.
Or rather, me letting you die from lack of treatment is different then me injecting too much morphine.

I don't think inaction applies here. The cancer patient is actively refusing treatment where his inaction of that choice would cause the hospital to assume he needed treatment.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 3:26:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 3:21:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/2/2014 3:18:51 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/2/2014 3:12:21 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Ok that fits a lot better. Duress.

Should terminally ill cancer patients have a right to refuse treatment? Would you say they lose that choice because duress is involved? Should an entire nation be forced to support hospitalization in every painful circumstance because all pain is linked to duress; therefore, free choice is tossed unceremoniously out the window?

Inaction =/= action
Refusing treatment for cancer is not the same as hiring a hitman.
Or rather, me letting you die from lack of treatment is different then me injecting too much morphine.

I don't think inaction applies here. The cancer patient is actively refusing treatment where his inaction of that choice would cause the hospital to assume he needed treatment.

Euthanasia is the ACT of killing another - a mercy killing.
So, a doctor not giving treatment is a death sentence, but it is not the same as a doctor ACTIVELY killing the patient with meds.

Similar to stand your ground, where you can protect yourself from danger, but not seek it out. (not the best analogy)
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 3:26:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do you really think there is a difference between the active choice of a cancer patient walking out of a hospital with 3 days to live. And the active choice of a terminally ill man actively deciding to spend the night in a carbon monoxide filled garage?

Does the time difference of 3 days really separate these two choices?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 3:29:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 3:26:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Euthanasia is the ACT of killing another - a mercy killing.
So, a doctor not giving treatment is a death sentence, but it is not the same as a doctor ACTIVELY killing the patient with meds.

Similar to stand your ground, where you can protect yourself from danger, but not seek it out. (not the best analogy)

Oh I misunderstood. You are talking about assisted suicide. A doctor takes an oath to do no harm. What if the Doctor is convinced by a patient that allowing artificial life support is harmful?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 3:33:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 3:29:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/2/2014 3:26:25 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Euthanasia is the ACT of killing another - a mercy killing.
So, a doctor not giving treatment is a death sentence, but it is not the same as a doctor ACTIVELY killing the patient with meds.

Similar to stand your ground, where you can protect yourself from danger, but not seek it out. (not the best analogy)

Oh I misunderstood. You are talking about assisted suicide. A doctor takes an oath to do no harm. What if the Doctor is convinced by a patient that allowing artificial life support is harmful?

Isn't euthanasia called assisted suicide? Isn't it just suicide if it is unassisted?
The oath is irrelevant, since the duress or other mental infirmity is enough to not give consent, ergo, it is murder.
The fact that it is a doctor with meds, or a loving son who shoots his mother in the face, has no relevance.

It is murder without consent, and terminally ill patients (under American law) are likely to be under duress or other mental issues that forbid them from consenting. Extreme emotional disturbance is a legal defense for culpability; it can't work both ways.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 3:38:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think I agree with you about the ACT of assisted suicide. What about the scenario of constructing a suicide machine where a patient could operate with the press of a button. Would that still be assisted suicide even though the Doctor sits idly by while the patient pushes the button? Would that be classified as inaction?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 3:46:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 3:38:15 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I think I agree with you about the ACT of assisted suicide. What about the scenario of constructing a suicide machine where a patient could operate with the press of a button. Would that still be assisted suicide even though the Doctor sits idly by while the patient pushes the button? Would that be classified as inaction?

Not sure...
I just thought of this argument as I posted, and it's kind of scaring me how much sense it makes.

But, a suicide machine (like a suicide booth in Futurama) would likely be no different than a gun or OD on sleeping pills or something else.
A doctor bringing in the machine and "sits idly by" is different.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 5:12:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 3:46:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/2/2014 3:38:15 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I think I agree with you about the ACT of assisted suicide. What about the scenario of constructing a suicide machine where a patient could operate with the press of a button. Would that still be assisted suicide even though the Doctor sits idly by while the patient pushes the button? Would that be classified as inaction?

Not sure...
I just thought of this argument as I posted, and it's kind of scaring me how much sense it makes.

But, a suicide machine (like a suicide booth in Futurama) would likely be no different than a gun or OD on sleeping pills or something else.
A doctor bringing in the machine and "sits idly by" is different.

I believe Kevorkian made these machines; and at the time, it was hotly debated on ethical grounds.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 5:28:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You know... I was looking at the Thanotron, and wondering, why doesn't the government use this machine for Capital Punishment?

It seems like an outrageously humane way to end life.
bulproof
Posts: 25,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 3:11:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 2:45:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/2/2014 2:18:52 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
against euthanasia? It seems strange for us as a society to favour non-consensual killings (though, whether one can consent to murder in the first place is debatable) over a consensual one, especially when some of the reasons used against euthanasia (as taught to me by my school) apply to capital punishment to some extent e.g. worries about the effect of performing euthanasia on doctors, terminally ill people may not be able to fully consent'/make the 'right' decision...

I'd argue that one is punishment, and the other is out of duress.
Only the mentally infirm would choose to end a life, therefore, they are not able to consent to suicide.
How's that?

WOW.........................woopy...............................WOW
Only the mentally infirm would choose to end a life

So those who impose the death penalty are mentally infirm.

I've never heard it described so accurately.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2014 9:31:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 2:18:52 PM, BblackkBbirdd wrote:
against euthanasia? It seems strange for us as a society to favour non-consensual killings (though, whether one can consent to murder in the first place is debatable) over a consensual one, especially when some of the reasons used against euthanasia (as taught to me by my school) apply to capital punishment to some extent e.g. worries about the effect of performing euthanasia on doctors, terminally ill people may not be able to fully consent'/make the 'right' decision...

Because your not allowed to make your own decisions in that area, your "owners" are.

You can't kill yourself cause you are killing without their permission.

In cases of the death penalty they have given their permission.

You can die only when they say it is ok, your own views are irrelevant.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12