[CLOSED] Euthanasia, The consent of taking your own life - ENDS 15TH APRIL, 2017

[FlyingJesus]

Read my post I just posted xoxox
Does that bring clarification to what you just posted

No because it's still true that passive isn't anything to do with having consent or not

Don't expect him to agree - its not worth trying. Tom only agrees if it personally advances his ego.

Or perhaps I'm just interested in what's actually true rather than people changing what words mean

[Brad]

No because it's still true that passive isn't anything to do with having consent or not

I did technically quote this back on page two:

Active euthanasia

Active euthanasia occurs when the medical professionals, or another person, deliberately do something that causes the patient to die.

Passive euthanasia

Passive euthanasia occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either don't do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that is keeping the patient alive.

• switch off life-support machines
• disconnect a feeding tube
• don't carry out a life-extending operation
• don't give life-extending drugs

So I do know the difference between passive and active. I'd like to know where I had stated otherwise.
As all my posts regarding Passive vs. Active have been towards and surrounding this quote.

[FlyingJesus]

Your entire reasoning for saying that you can somehow be pro-active but anti-passive was to do with consent:

Why would anyone support giving people cocktails of death-inducing drugs but think turning off a computer is too much

Because when you give a cocktail to an individual with the death inducing drug.. if they agree to it- they are agreeing to do it. They are accepting it.
If they are not able to make the decision of turning off the computer, then it's involuntary, and there is no consent.

You quite literally exchanged the terms passive and nonconsensual

[Landon]

interested in seeing what you'd say, and were nothing to do with my own beliefs

Ohhhh okay, that makes sense to me.

[peteyt]

it's always going to be a difficult subject. i do believe if someone is in serious pain with no cure they should have the right. I remember when they discovered my grandads cancer had came back and was in his bones. he didn't last long after that yet there are people who last for ages in lots of

it's tricky because those who are very ill might not be able to agree to it. The guy in you before me is an interesting example. He has lots of issues yet seems very smart. He can't do the stuff he used to do and can be in pain but could possibly have a normalish life

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Brad]

Thank you to all who had participated in this Debate. It is now closed.
Remember that there will be a couple more debates posted by the beginning of next week.


To go to the Official Member's Debate: "Does Biblical Jesus Reflect Historical Jesus?", Click Here
To go to the HxEE Official Debate, Click Here