Logicboy03:


Wow .....just wow

Reyginus: This is one of those tautological questions like, is a barchelor a married man?, does a carpenter make furniture, is the black goat black in colour?

To a answer a question like this the way you did, you must fall into the assumption that a dead man is something that has life, in the first place. Though answers are somethings provided but a look at it will show that they are repeating what already is in the question.

A dead man is a man who doesn't exist anymore. First, he doesn't exist. So anything you say about him with respect to existence would be completely wrong.

Just the same thing when I tell you that there is a food on the desert that doesn't exists but go ahead to say that it is very delicious. To be delicious, it has to first exist.

I thought that by calling synecdoche you would understand perfectly what I am talking about. Anyways, no problem.

I don't think so. The thing is, we cannot say that a person who cannot afford a treatment bill is asking for Euthanasia.

wikipedia: "In summary, we have argued ... that the death of a human being, A, is an instance of euthanasia if and only if (1) A's death is intended by at least one other human being, B, where B is either the cause of death or a causally relevant feature of the event resulting in death (whether by action or by omission); (2) there is either sufficient current evidence for B to believe that A is acutely suffering or irreversibly comatose, or there is sufficient current evidence related to A's present condition such that one or more known causal laws supports B's belief that A will be in a condition of acute suffering or irreversible comatoseness; (3) (a) B's primary reason for intending A's death is cessation of A's (actual or predicted future) suffering or irreversible comatoseness, where B does not intend A's death for a different primary reason, though there may be other relevant reasons, and (b) there is sufficient current evidence for either A or B that causal means to A's death will not produce any more suffering than would be produced for A if B were not to intervene; (4) the causal means to the event of A's death are chosen by A or B to be as painless as possible, unless either A or B has an overriding reason for a more painful causal means, where the reason for choosing the latter causal means does not conflict with the evidence in 3b; (5) A is a nonfetal organism."

Reyginus: Is this 'certain level' by nature of being a 'certain level' good or will the 'certain level' be evil?
Better still
Will any good 'certain level' render a good phenomenon impotent or will the 'certain level' promote a good phenomenon?

Logicboy03:


Wow .....just wow

Mr Troll: you are just running around dodging the question. you can see that giving the patient a painless death instead of allowing him to continually suffer pain until death is the moral thing to do. haggling about the definition of dead and how a dead person does not experience the relief is simply obfuscation.

Mr Troll:
I didn't agree with that assumption.



have you heard of passive euthanasia?

anyhow, take a look at this explanation and tell me what you think...

quivah:
the 'certain level' by nature of being a 'certain level' evil..
It will promote a good phenomenon..

It should..

Reyginus: What is the legal definition of murder?


Which law are we talking about here?

Do we now agree completely because it is allowed by the law even when we can see for ourselves that a man shouldn't decide when another dies.

Reyginus: Honestly speaking , I don't think you know the weight of what you are saying. I don't dodge questions, bro.

How do you answer a question like this: What part of the desert do you find polar bear?

Number 1 plainly leaves the right of A's existence to B which is not a healthy position.

Number 2. When he is acutely suffering, A cannot be in a position to make a decision for him. Acute pain unlike a chronic one is minor. This contradicts number 1.

Number 3. a.The problem is still the same with number 1. It suggests that every decision is left only to B who cannot tell if A is still yearning for existence, not that even if he is not, it is automatically right. Even though there is room for number 2 to contradict it.

b. This also suggests that one there is an evidence for B there shouldn't be any for A. Which again appears to be the problem with 1 and 3a.

Number 4
This shifts the question to the morality of suicide. Do you think that acute suffering is enough for suicide?

Number 5. This is irrelevant.

Kay 17:

Murder is defined as unlawful killing. Note that some killings are considered lawful. Euthanasia if legally permissible, would not be murder.

Kay 17:
There are many examples parent-minor relationship, principal-agent relationship, even employer employee relationship. A person's consent is satisfactory in lieu of another's.

Reyginus: If it will promote a good phenomenon doesn't it imply that your certain level will allow a morally good Evolution to happen or will it prevent a morally good Evolution?

Mr Troll: lol.



i'm afraid you did not fully understand the explanation I presented. it was meant to explain it in cases where the patient is unable to give consent e.g coma... it is, if A is unconscious and B is otherwise responsible for A i.e intimate family member

Mr Troll:


why not? saying acute pain is not like chronic pain is irrelevant and pointless.

Mr Troll:

yearning for existence? what does this mean? A is terminally ill, yearning for existence will not keep you alive. you are still going to die, albeit painfully.

Mr Troll:

no. that is not what 3b is saying. it is saying that if there is sufficient evidence to show that the cause of the death will not be more painful than if A is left alone or allowed to die naturally.

Mr Troll:


what how did you come to this conclusion from 4?

quivah:
thought my prev post should give you the ans!

Anyways,former .

Reyginus: Good. Better have it in mimd. Do you consider death a process engineered by Evolution or you will either agree that death is not engineered by Evolution?

quivah:
our dying experiences is engineered by evolution psychologically..

That's all I know here..

Reyginus: By psychologically do you mean that our dying experience is engineered only in the mind or that it is something more than it?

Reyginus:

It is either a thing is wrong or it is not. We can only know if Euthanasia is right or wrong by looking at the meaning of existence and lack of it. What is to be made non-existent better to be unhealthy in existence?

Reyginus: If I may ask, is there anyone like patient-family relationship and what does the rationale behind it look like?

quivah:
http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/iage/201312/death-experience

Kay 17:

As I have said earlier, I will look at the intents. The question "is it done in good faith" will be examined. An instance wherein non existence is preferrable is one of hopelessness.

Kay 17:



The examples I gave were merely to disprove and dismantle your misconception that the consent of B can be satisfactory in lieu of A's. Most fidicuary relationships are set up that way.

I still insist Euthanasia is still a medicine.

Reyginus: I don't understand what the text is talking about or how it relates to the question I asked.

Mr Troll: Ok, let's take it slow Rey...why do you think Euthanasia is a wicked act?

quivah:
Our dying experiences relate to the mind. Same with death..

While physiologically, death comes in numerous ways... destroyed tissues,heart Ps! Anything that has got any harms to do with important parts of the body... <<< here; in sickness or accident.

But in old age: mostly worn out tissues ..


Evolution has something to do with death...which i hope i can explain better...

This should answer your q!

Reyginus: Very good. Since you are of the opinion that Evolution as a morally good phenomenon engineers death, would it be right to interfere with death or you agree that it would be wrong?

quivah:
Your prev questions are same with this.
Again, at certain levels.. its right to interfere with death...

Nb; here as regards to this topic,no body is interfering with death..

quivah: ^ at this point I would rather back out ..

Gimme a mention when the main points for the topic is needed! And not some Q's that's leading no where..

Reyginus: For non-existence to be preferrable it has to be a state of existence but if it a state of existence it can no longer be non-existence.

We can not be speaking of preferring something which is alive over something that is out of life. For anything to be preferrable above the other the two must first be in existence.

Reyginus: But like we know, the work of a medicine is to cure the ailing patient and in its disperse of duty the restoration to normalcy must be palpable.
You cannot claim to have helped somebody who is dead and incapable of experiencing pain or pleasure.

The only thing medicinal about Euthanasia is that it uses drugs to perpetrate its wicked act.

Reyginus: Are you still following at all, bro. I think you should have concentrated on the burden your question created but you seem to be mixing it up with the information from wikipedia.

The problem was whether a dead man feels pain or not and not about what Mr A has to tell our dictator, Mr B.

C'mon bro, with the little we have been through, I don't think I will make a mistake in assuming you are man of science.

If I am right in my assumption. This is why I think you are wrong in saying that it is irrelevant.

The wikipedia article you presented always with the aid of an 'either' conjuction, presents two options.

In one of our options it was assumed that it could be as a result of acute pain. In medical science, we are told of the existence of two forms of pain-acute and chronic. Correct me if I am wrong.

The acute type is minor and usually non-repetitive over a vast duration, and cannot cause complete muscoloskeletal degeneration, and responds faster to musculoskeletal resorption while the chronic pain type is deadlier and only of the two types capable of bringing man to extinction.

If the above is true as my lecturers and anatomy textbooks would have me believe, then the only pain capable of metaphorically dwarfing a human into contemplating Euthanasia will be the chronic type.

Except the article meant acute for local pain.


You are seriously asking, bro? Ask your wikipedia brother


Maybe I understand the below in the wrong sense:

' 3 (b) there is sufficient current evidence for either A or B that causal means to A's death will not produce any more suffering than would be produced for A if B were not to intervene. Please explain.

Read for yourself, bro.

(4) the causal means to the event of A's death are chosen by A or B to be as painless as possible, unless either A or B has an overriding reason for a more painful causal means, where the reason for choosing the latter causal means does not conflict with the evidence in 3b.

Kay 17:

That's your arbitrary, dogmatic fragile moral premise. You were to weigh which of non existence and existence was moral, and you managed to use existence to justify nonexistence's immorality. Such a faulty thought process.

Kay 17:


As I said earlier, it is not in every case a doctor's duty is to restore normalcy. Sometime/ many times, a doctor is faced with an incurable disease. His main duty is to care.

Kay 17:

Euthanasia (repeatedly said) in some cases relieves the extreme pain and other times restores the human dignity and spiritual value as it rescues a patient from the most dehumanising conditions of the terminal disease.

Mr Troll: the whole of that extract I posted tries to show how euthanasia is NOT murder even if it wasn't done with the consent of the patient. If you have a problem with the explanation simply show, I'm getting tired of the rigmarole. Show how euthanasia is a wicked act or how instead of letting someone die painfully, you give him a painless death.

Kay 17: ^^

@regynius

Anaethesia (pardon my spelling) works similarly to death. The patient under such medicine, does not feel any pain or pleasure. However his unconscious state is desirable for surgeries rather than allow the patient writhe and wriggle about in pains.

Kay 17:

As to my dignity argument. You haven't had a strong commandeering, almost omnipotent father with wealth and connections. Yet because of Parkinson's Disease, he is reduced to a babbling baby, helpless, graceless, lost all his powerful countenance and awaiting an ignominous end. You might not understand.