Right to die with dignity - Page 5

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

RTH, is your utilitarian theory applicable only to the neighbor's family or one's own family as well?

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

By the way, between humans (supposedly the intelligent species with a capacity to think) and the rest of the animals (with limited intelligence), whose "ideals" and "practices" should someone follow, with the underlying understanding that what's been observed in nature is, negligible at best and totally insufficient at worst?

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

Are you saying that what is good for the goose (rest of the animals in this case) is good for the gander (humans in this case)?

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

If animals mate in the open, should humans do that too?

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I am all for practical Eugenics where infants with serious congenital defects that make fully healthy functional lives impossible should be humanely terminated.

Why the natural contempt Mister. K, it's just a modest proposal. Is it because it does not meet your altruistic standards? Do we know for sure that altruism is always the course of action for greater good, and no good can come from more egoistic or pragmatic approaches.

Yes, the quest for knowledge and understanding is always a valid argument. There are some caveats.

But is all knowledge worth having? Are we intended to know everything?

I'll admit I have a contradictory stance. I am yes for the former, because by nature I am a curious child. I want to know more and more. However, I do feel that sometimes we overstep the boundaries of knowledge.

How far are we willing to go in the quest for knowledge?

These humans with birth defects. Mothers carrying children. Are we willing to pull many of them aside for exclusive and full scientific research. How many tests can we conduct? How many risky drugs or procedures can we try before we are successful? Are we comfortable making knowledge more important than their lives before we find answers? Most likely I am assuming while you favor knowledge, you are not in favor at knowledge at any cost. I'm also assuming that you don't find it justified to use a human life as a lab rat in order to know and understand better. You might even argue that with modern technology we can conduct this research humanely without being intrusive or making a human life submit in the pretext of knowledge. But is that complete knowledge? Are we going to try every permutation and combination? Little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. With what degree can of certainty can you assure that this knowledge will be absolutely complete, reliable, and safer – sometime in the distant future.

Finally just because we know or understand something, does not mean we can fix it.

Nature prevails. There is always that degree of nature that is above all our capabilities. We can try fixing one thing or another, but invariably nature prevails and finds new ways to create problems. Sometimes the cure today, can become the disease tomorrow. With what degree of certainty can we guarantee that this will not be the case. With what degree of certainty can you guarantee that genetic DNA fixes will not be susceptible to natural evolution and mutation.

To me the benefits are far too obscure and unknown. To me that time, money, and effort is better invested in other humans who can be easily made into contributing members of society, not in unsustainable humans siphoning of society. Once every other human issue is resolved and we are that utopian society. Then maybe we can play the games with nature. For now there are more practical and economical approaches.

If tomorrow I'm a vegetated being for any reason, I've told my family to pull the plug. No need to siphon resources and medical benefits for a gone case. Better invested in someone who will come back for sure and do some good.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

On what basis did we determine that human beings are the intelligent species ...

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

and the ways and norms of humans is preferred and proven better on this earth.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

These supposedly intelligent species blew a hole in the ozone, dropped the atomic bomb, spewed oil all over the Atlantic, drove species to extinct. When it comes to natural order, sustenance of species, maintaining balance in nature - I doubt our intelligent ideals and practices have been the best course.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Why the natural contempt Mister. K, it's just a modest proposal.

While Jonathan Swift was satirical, you are being real.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Is it because it does not meet your altruistic standards?

You bet. Whatever happens, never let the moral compass waver.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

If tomorrow I'm a vegetated being for any reason, I've told my family to pull the plug. No need to siphon resources and medical benefits for a gone case. Better invested in someone who will come back for sure and do some good.

A grownup taking a decision for himself/herself is not the same as a grownup taking a decision for a baby. As far as I am concerned, the baby, once born, is a human unto itself, fully equipped with rights.

As for the rest of the stuff about knowledge and who prevails over who, nature or humans, I will excuse myself to tackle it at a later time. Hopefully.

Originally posted by: Summer3

I think once a person is certified that he or she is medically or physically in very bad shape ( esp with advanced age) he or she should have to right to ask the doc to terminate their life.

Most people do not want to be an unnecessary burden and lose all self respect.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

The human race is perhaps the only species which views Eugenics or even Euthanasia with so much trepidation. In nature eugenics is the norm. Pack animals kill a newborn or an injured pack member. The purpose is two fold, survival of the current pack, and survival of the fittest - enhanced gene pool. Such behavior is observed in most species. It goes to the whole survival and evolution - only the healthiest and fittest of the species procreate. There is no room for weakness of any form in nature.

Now this does not mean that any disability or disorder is killed off. In fact animal behaviorists have observed blind, lame, deaf members being the alpha. Its not always alpha male either - alpha females have been known to take charge of packs and challenge alpha males. Its about instinctual alpha behavior. What is alpha behavior, what constitutes weakness in nature is something biologists and behavioral only guess at. The emotional/psychological aspect of humans seems to make us detached from natural instinct.

Ancient humans practiced Eugenics. We saw in 300 how Spartans would throw deformed newborns of a cliff. Historic records show that even females would coldly kill the child after birth if it was not healthy to current norms. Children were made to go on wild expeditions, fight each other to death to ensure only the fittest ones grow to adult hood. Of course in todays times it probably is shocking.

Is Eugenics right? Well I actually think it is natural way we tend to ignore. I'm not for throwing babies of cliffs or teenagers fighting to the death. I'm not for the racial form of Eugenics as the Nazis followed. But I am all for practical Eugenics where infants with serious congenital defects that make fully healthy functional lives impossible should be humanely terminated. What is the line? That will probably be a controversy, but I feel we can come with a practical biologically feasible line. Its not a moral or social right, its merely utilitarian for the race - its following the course of nature.

Actually euthanasia works the same. Packs abandon the old and weak. In fact in many species when old and close to death - the old/injured animal themselves isolate themselves to a lonely place to die. Its putting pack before self. Human race, family, before self.

Yes, its all coldly utilitarian.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

However, natural selection or survival of the fittest is not codswallop either. Animals are also known to perform some forms of eugenics or euthanasia, many of the things I mentioned. The pack mentality, oneness with natural order, propagation of species are instincts very strong with animals. Sometimes they do kill their young ones and weak, that can often seem strikingly bizarre to humans. I actually have several animal and nature reference books at home. Maybe sometimes I'll have to go through them and pick out illustrations of both sides protective and killer.

Animals do provide clear examples of Darwin's survival of the fittest theory. However, I also hope that you realize that labeling humans as the more superior species is not just a sign of human arrogance, but also a scientifically proven fact. There are some animals that are considered to have very complex brains, similar to humans. But what makes a human brain more advanced are the areas of abstract thought, self-awareness, and self-expression. Human cognition specifically differs with animal cognition in that humans have the ability to recombine old and new information to process and gain a new understanding. Humans have the ability to relate internal and external experiences and a greater ability to recognize inner feelings and relate them to others. We can relate the past, present, and future, allowing us the ability to make choices.

What good is that ability to "choose" if we are going to behave like other animals?

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

Animals do provide clear examples of Darwin's survival of the fittest theory. However, I also hope that you realize that labeling humans as the more superior species is not just a sign of human arrogance, but also a scientifically proven fact. There are some animals that are considered to have very complex brains, similar to humans. But what makes a human brain more advanced are the areas of abstract thought, self-awareness, and self-expression. Human cognition specifically differs with animal cognition in that humans have the ability to recombine old and new information to process and gain a new understanding. Humans have the ability to relate internal and external experiences and a greater ability to recognize inner feelings and relate them to others. We can relate the past, present, and future, allowing us the ability to make choices.

What good is that ability to "choose" if we are going to behave like other animals?