Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

homefone t1_jaeemc0 wrote

>“Forcefully snuffing out someone’s life” who often cannot remember their own name

This is borderline eugenics. There are a lot of groups of people who can't remember their own name, and therefore, can't consent to be euthanized.

Whether that's a life worth living to me or anybody else is irrelevant, what matters is if euthanasia for the dying is worth the ethical rabbit holes it creates, and I don't think it is.

−1

socialist_frzn_milk t1_jaef276 wrote

So…you just selectively edited my post and either didn’t read or didn’t bother to address the rest of it. Good work. Just like every anti-choice activist on Earth. Sentimentalizing human life and pretending that medical freedom doesn’t matter if it makes YOU personally uncomfortable.

Also, I’d love to know how allowing terminally ill patients to choose their time and manner of death is some sort of “rabbit hole”.

2

homefone t1_jaegtyx wrote

>Sentimentalizing human life

...That's supposed to be bad?

>So…you just selectively edited my post and either didn’t read or didn’t bother to address the rest of it

I did address it. What you wrote seems to imply that people who can't remember their own names etc. have lives not worth living. In that case, yeah, I do find it prudent to point out the fairly obvious eugenic implications of that argument. And, whether you think someone in that condition has the faculty to consent to be euthanized.

>Just like every anti-choice activist on Earth.

I'm still waiting on how this is connected to abortion?

0

socialist_frzn_milk t1_jaeikg1 wrote

Sentimentalizing human life is connected to being anti-choice and if you can’t see how, you’re absolutely anti-choice.

And the fact that you think that there would be no psych eval or screening process in place boggles my mind. What, did you think doctors would just blow terminally ill patients’ heads off with shotguns if they decided to die with dignity?

1