Very sad, but indidputable that a person intent upon killing herself will do it despite the interventions of others. Of course, the key is figuring out whether said person is serious or actually seeking attention or even help for some underlying issue. Ay, there's the rub. Of course, extrapolating from the position that a doctor should be involved along the way to assist in death rather than seek to prevent it is contrary to the Hippocratic Oath (but does anyone even take that any more? or take it seriously, anyway?), since we are all inevitably destined to die, should doctors even administer care? Or should they merely stand by with narcotics, hallucenogenics or anesthetic medications while we, their "patients" slide into oblivion? Once the Divine origin of man is eliminated and we are all transformed into nothing more than meaty robots, there is no reason to prolong life. We have already decided as a society that it is acceptable to kill babies in the womb as well as elderly people who are merely "useless eaters," there are no limits to the depravity that will be condoned.
My "like" is for agreement in what you said. It seems to me there are some choices that should not be addressed under any circumstances, other than to reject them. Euthanasia is a secular choice determined by "authorities" who assume the person who is sentient is also capable of making a rational choice, or if not sentient, has no reason to be kept live.
When a state or government has the authority to make the decision, the chances are nearly 100% that decision will be in its own favor. Canada is allowing, or is considering allowing, if not encouraging children, the mentally ill, and those whose lives, deemed by themselves to be worthless or unendurable, the option of choosing euthanasia. There are no ethics involved in this. None.
Very sad, but indidputable that a person intent upon killing herself will do it despite the interventions of others. Of course, the key is figuring out whether said person is serious or actually seeking attention or even help for some underlying issue. Ay, there's the rub. Of course, extrapolating from the position that a doctor should be involved along the way to assist in death rather than seek to prevent it is contrary to the Hippocratic Oath (but does anyone even take that any more? or take it seriously, anyway?), since we are all inevitably destined to die, should doctors even administer care? Or should they merely stand by with narcotics, hallucenogenics or anesthetic medications while we, their "patients" slide into oblivion? Once the Divine origin of man is eliminated and we are all transformed into nothing more than meaty robots, there is no reason to prolong life. We have already decided as a society that it is acceptable to kill babies in the womb as well as elderly people who are merely "useless eaters," there are no limits to the depravity that will be condoned.
My "like" is for agreement in what you said. It seems to me there are some choices that should not be addressed under any circumstances, other than to reject them. Euthanasia is a secular choice determined by "authorities" who assume the person who is sentient is also capable of making a rational choice, or if not sentient, has no reason to be kept live.
When a state or government has the authority to make the decision, the chances are nearly 100% that decision will be in its own favor. Canada is allowing, or is considering allowing, if not encouraging children, the mentally ill, and those whose lives, deemed by themselves to be worthless or unendurable, the option of choosing euthanasia. There are no ethics involved in this. None.