Please help, please???? (batting eyelashes)

by outnfree 35 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  outnfree

  I was SO happy to read the following quote by JanH in another thread:

  About logic vs reason[ did Jan mean emotion here?], I think a factor may well be that fewer women have high education. It is a worrying trend that women still do not choose education in 'hard sciences.' If a woman have higher education, she is very likely to be in health or social topics. Perhaps this makes them appear more emotional and less logical. Logic is a skill that must be learned, and that applies equally to both genders.[Emphasis mine.]

  As some of you know, I've just begun my first college course as a female 40-something! My first course is "Introduction to Logic."
  As a result I have to write my first term paper! Fortunately for me, the term paper is a specific type of paper called an argumentative paper. It is an inquiry into a moral or ethical issue. The point of the paper is NOT to WIN an argument, but to logically present arguments FOR and AGAINST a particular statement.

  The statement I have chosen for my term paper is "Euthanasia is immoral."

  I would like to ask the opinion of the J-W.com Board members on this subject. I'm supposed to ask others’ opinions in order to find viable counter-arguments to the position I will take -- which I am not going to tell you.

  Now comes the sob-story pitch : Because I have virtually NO local adult interaction in my life as a DA’d JW, I really must rely on YOU as the adults in my cyber-life as those with whom I can exchange thoughts on this subject.

  So, please, what is your opinion? IS Euthanasia immoral? (Remembering that euthanasia is distinct from assisted suicide and there are both “passive” and “active” forms of euthanasia?)

  “The term euthanasia is defined and characterized in many ways, thus clarification of language is important. Euthanasia is often called "mercy killing" and has been taken to mean the act of putting to death someone suffering from a painful and prolonged illness or injury. Active euthanasia means that someone other than the patient commits an action with the intent to end the patient's life, for example injecting a patient with a lethal dose. Sometimes euthanasia is subdivided into a situation in which a patient consents to euthanasia (voluntary) or a situation in which a patient refuses euthanasia (involuntary) or a situation when a patient is unable to consent to euthanasia (nonvoluntary). Active euthanasia is distinguished from assisted suicide. In active euthanasia someone not only makes the means of death available, but serves as the direct agent of death.” -- http://www.nursingworld.org/readroom/position/ethics/eteuth.htm

  "Passive euthanasia involves allowing a patient to die by removing her from artificial life support systems such as respirators and feeding tubes or simply discontinuing medical treatments necessary to sustain life. Active euthanasia, by contrast, involves positive steps to end the life of a patient, typically by lethal injection." (Gifford, E. (1993). Artres moriendi: Active euthanasia and the art of dying. UCLA Law Review 40:1546)

  The right to passive euthanasia has also been termed "the right to die" by some authors (Adams, R., et. al. (1992). Physician assisted suicide and the right to die with assistance. Harvard Law Review 105:2021-22.)

  So whaddaya say? Will you guys help me out here?

  Love,

  outnfree
  of the Not-above-using-emotion-to-get-an-A-in-Logic-class
• 

  teenyuck

  outnfree....I would love to....however, when I took Logic 101, it was about 20 years ago...I was still in (the dubs) and could see no logic to any of the arguements....I got a D, just enough to not fail...

  The professor spoke with me on why I seemed to not understand the issue of "logic" and I explained we would all be living in Paradise soon....Armageddon and all....I think he gave me a D because he felt sorry for me. Being in a cult and all.

  Overall, that was the hardest class, outside of math. I just did not get it.

  Good luck and I am sure you will get some brilliant answers from everyone else. (I do see some logic to Jan's statement...)
• 

  larc

  One quick question. Are you saying that both active and passive euthanasia are imoral or just acitve euthanasia?
• 

  somebody

  outnfree,

  Interesting subject. My personal opinion is that euthanasia is not immoral unless it involves malice. Such as lethal injections used as it is in a death PENALTY.

  peace,
  somebody

  "Air baths are good for preventing colds.. What you do is strip naked mornings and evenings and then bob up and down for a while."~ Golden Age Feb 10 1926 31

  Group air bath,anyone?
• 

  outnfree

  Actually, larc, I did not narrow it down to passive vs. active (although I may have to, in fact, I think I WILL have to) in my argument.

  I wanted to keep all options, including more precise sub-categories, open for a more fruitful discussion.

  If you like, you could oppose or support "ALL euthanasia is immoral."

  Thanks, somebody! I hadn't thought of the death penalty angle.

  outnfree

  When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
• 

  Introspection

  Youths in asia are neither moral nor immoral, they are just people and youths at that.. No seriously, my answer to the real question is about the same, but I can pretend..

  First of all I think it will help if you narrow it down more. But I guess the question of voluntary and involuntary euthanasia is the easiest place to start, as the individual's own wishes are involved. That seems pretty straight forward. In a way whether it's active or passive makes little difference, if you know they are going to die either way. Naturally, if it's nonvoluntary it's a bit more iffy.

  So with that, the easy way might be to say that involuntary euthanasia is immoral. I guess it really would be hard to give specific information until you come to a specific thesis. I will say this though: the whole thing has to do with the avoidance of pain, rather than preserving life or terminating it. Life just keeps going in the big picture, whether a person wants to be a part of it due to the pain involved for them is the matter in question. To some people pain isn't such a big deal, to others life is all about avoiding pain. It depends on the person. Hope this helps.

  * edited to add: It's also not just the pain of the person who is ill, there's the reaction of family member and friends etc.

  "Truth and Falsehood are both whatever, and simutaneously NOT so, rather than not." - Alf the Poet (quoted from a post in alt.buddha.short.fat.guy)
• 

  Been there

  I'll do what I can to help you out, out :).
  You may have to sort it out yourself tho, because I'm not sure how it falls in total, with your explainations.

  I believe in capital punishment. If someone has taken anothers life for there own purpose, I don't think it is immoral to put them to death. My biggest problem is that we feed them for 20 years before we do it. Not very cost effective. I also think that the nice humane, sterile process is too kind for many of them. I think that what they did should be done back to them. Eventually I think crimes might get a little less brutal with a person sitting for 20 years knowing how they will die. Hopefully they were kind to their victims. Don't worry someone would volunteer to do it.

  I do not think it is immoral to pull the plug on someone. Or stop feeding them. Remember Karen Ann Kwinlen??? (sp) They fought for years to get her off life support. She lived for a few more years if I'm not mistaken. It wasn't her time yet.

  I believe in assisted suicide. If someone is very ill and suffering terribly I believe they have a right to go. If they can't do it them selves I don't think it is immoral for someone to assist them. I had an elderly neighbour who had heart trouble. He was always out working in his yard. I learned CPR so I could try and save him if the need arose. After talking over the fence to him for a couple years I knew that man would not want to be saved. I have to say if I saw him go down, I would have waited a few minutes before going to him. I don't think that would have been immoral. The need never arose so I wasn't tested but he got so bad and wanted out so badly he stopped eating and starved to death. I loved that old man.

  Here's the part I'm not too sure of. There can be a such a fine line between Euthanasia and Murder. It may come down to would they want to be here. The purpose of living is not to just exist. Living in a coma is not living. Living in aggony is not living. Hopfully we know the wishes of someone. If you don't know then it may be immoral. An adult JW wishing not to receive blood and they die, it is not immoral. A JW infant or child not being able to receive blood and they want to live but they die, that is immoral. To me that is IMMORAL Euthanasia.

  I wish I could express myself as near as well as alot of people on here can. But this is as good as it gets. Hope this helps you some.

  Been There (Not Ben there)
• 

  ChiChiMama

  Out,
  I hope this is helpful.It is just my opinion on the subject.

  I do not believe that either type of euthanasia is imoral if it is truly mercy killing.That is honoring the wishes of the person.A person has the right to choose to leave this world without suffering so badly and putting further burdons on their loved ones if they so choose.I am only speaking of terminal illness here.

  Both forms of euthanasia are imoral in my opinion if this is not the wish of the person. I would consider it murder and only used as an excuse to get rid of a person except for in the case of Capital Punishment which is a whole different subject.

  I believe it is inhumane to outlaw the option of euthanasia! We treat our animals more humanely than we do humans!

  ChiChi
  
• 

  somebody

  After reading the responses thus far, I agree with Been there when he or she said:

  There can be a such a fine line between Euthanasia and Murder.

  I guess that's why lethal injections for medical reasons is not termed "capital punishment", but "euthanasia".

  If someone has taken anothers life for there own purpose, I don't think it is immoral to put them to death.

  I guess there is such a thing as Active murder and Passive murder then?

  I also think that the nice humane, sterile process is too kind for many of them. I think that what they did should be done back to them.

  (capital punsihment) would equal Passive murder

  and...

  A murder committed in self-defense would equal Active murder?

  Therefore making one imoral and one not.

  Just my thoughts.

  peace,
  somebody

  "Air baths are good for preventing colds.. What you do is strip naked mornings and evenings and then bob up and down for a while."~ Golden Age Feb 10 1926 31

  Group air bath,anyone?
• 

  outnfree

  Puffs honey,

  The very reason I decided to take Introduction to Logic as my first college course was because I was certain that I must have a deficiency in this area having been hoodwinked by the WT so often and for so long! LOL -- Glad you passed, though! Gives me hope.

  Intro,

  After reading your post and larc's question, I think it would be better if I narrowed my thesis statement down, too. Because, although I thought somebody's death penalty angle interesting, this thread could easily turn into an argument over "Capitol punishment ought to be abolished" --- which was an entirely DIFFERENT "Possible Paper Topic" handed out by my professor.

  But to narrow down my thesis statement might narrow down the number of responses I get for or against my position. Then again, if I trust this board to be as opinionated as usual.....

  OK. I will argue that "All forms of active euthanasia are immoral, because active euthanasia is murder and murder is immoral."

  BeenThere,

  Thanks for your help.

  Do you think not rescucitating your neighbor would have been active or passive euthanasia? I think passive and therefore not immoral. Had you decided to, I don't know, deliberately terrorize him into having a heart attack and then stood idly by, would that be active "euthanasia" given your knowledge of his heart condition? Or would it be "murder"?

  ChiChi ,

  Yes, that was helpful. I think intent may have a large part to play in considering the morality of euthanasia.

  We are planning to 'put down' (=kill) our dog by lethal injection because she is old and in pain and her quality of life is suffering. We have to make a judgment call in this, because we don't really know her mind on the matter -- as an animal she's dumb.

  Personally, I know I could never feel right about being a party to active euthanasia if I knew the patient was against it for religious reasons or was just a 'fight to the death' type personality. If they had made an advance medical directive, I would feel more comfortable. If they were dumb -- being in a comatose state, for example -- and hadn't voiced any opinion one way or another, I'd also have great difficulty making a decision to end that person's life. But what if they were comatose AND in a vegetative state? Maybe less difficult to pull the plug on life support?

  somebody,

  Forgive me, Gwen, but passive vs. active murder is ANOTHER topic, and I want the posters to help with MY topic!

  Anyone else????????

  outnfree

  When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift