|
Post by Bokonton on Aug 3, 2009 18:25:07 GMT 10
Apart from my 'Welcome!' thread, I do believe that this is my first thread! Ahem, anyway... Earlier on this forum we discussed many issues, including Euthanasia. I recently found a very interesting discussion on the subject, entitled " If you have children you must be compulsorily Euthanised at age 70'. www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22596&page=4The thread itself was made in response to an original post by a user : "I believe it would be beneficial to the human race if people who have children are compulsorarily euthanased at the age of 70. This would neither increase nor decrease the population of the world as the parent would only be forfetting a few years of their average life expectancy.
As I have said in one of my previous threads, I believe it is selfish to bring kids into this world, but if people do have them, they should accept a slightly below average lifespan.
This would mean that only really wanted children would be born. Also, the world's population would never grow too large and cause problems like extreme food and resource shortages, far worse than we have already." Do you know of anyone, or any one nation who would agree with this statement?Is it part of any one nation's laws? And what are your (/your nations')views on the subject?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Mckerra on Aug 3, 2009 19:07:18 GMT 10
I doubt you would find many people ever supporting compulsory euthanasia.
Lavalon has in the past had a law regulating voluntary euthanasia.
|
|
|
Post by Bokonton on Aug 3, 2009 19:09:18 GMT 10
Well, it is a very Nazi belief, and there are a few Neo-Nazi nations out there...
|
|
|
Post by commiczar on Aug 4, 2009 3:31:49 GMT 10
Greetings !!
Always interesting...and quite often a very volatile subject, for the most obvious of reasons; as it seems to spark some of our innermost personal and religious views, beliefs, and thoughts, which we usually tend to keep hidden deep within.
The closest thing to endorsing any form of euthanasia here in the Imperium, would be an *indirect* version of voluntary assisted-dying, which comes in the form of a "Living Will"; whereby, an individual who may be terminally ill, can declare with said document, that he or she has chosen to not be put on any life-support system in the event of there being no possible means of any degree of survival, or with little-to-no "quality-of-life" expected.
Some states and nations ban such legal instruments, and most ( not all ) religious institutions / denominations reject such; as it goes against-the-grain of religious doctrine.
Such a document is a personal and internal view of life in general, and one's own life specific, and how one defines life and living, and the "quality-of-life"; which suggests that such a proclamation should not to be entered into lightly, and without due diligence.
Regards !! ___________
|
|
|
Post by Bokonton on Aug 4, 2009 6:09:06 GMT 10
Yes, Living Wills are supported in Bokonton, but only to a certain extent. However, my Grandfather recently had a stroke which left him in a coma for some time. He had left a 'Living Will' of this sort, which my father agonised over as to override or respect. He finally made the decision to respect the will when my Grandfather contracted a Respiratory Infection, but he fortunately recovered. Now my Grandfather has regained his speech very well, but has lost much of memory, and some could say his quality of life is very poor (he is completely a new person, his old identity pretty much died the day he had a stroke, and he is now physically handicapped). Now, euthanasia could become an issue in more than one way in this 'Case Study'. There are several 'turning points' in the situation, where another action could have been taken, but was not. One argument could be to have overridden his Living Will, Another could be to have my Grandfather compulsorily euthanised as present, Whilst another argument still would be that, as he is over 70 and a father of 2, he should be dead anyway.
This is certainly a personal subject!
|
|
|
Post by commiczar on Aug 4, 2009 7:27:35 GMT 10
Greetings !!
I can not speak for all legal localities, but if a legally drafted "Living Will" is enforced to the individual's fullest extent, and his or her medical caretakers are made aware of the document and all of the provisions therein, then it should be difficult for even family members to over-ride said request. ( of course, exceptions do occur )
As I said, almost all states and nations hold various views as to whether or not euthanasia should be legal, and various versions of the manner in which such an act should be administered.
The dominant religion of any given land has much to say and sway; with regards as to whether or not euthanasia is even given a platform on which to be debated, defended, or even discussed. ( the Church(s) holds a powerful lobby over legislatives / and even a stronger hold over their respective flocks )
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On a more personal note:
I sympathize with Your's and Your Family's situation with Your GrandFather; as the loss of anyone's memory is a loss for all of his or her Family and Friends as well.
My Father-In-Law has recently been diagnosised with the initial on-set of Alzheimers Disease ( AD ), and then one of my former Son-In-Law's Father has suffered in an extreme degree for over a decade; whereby, both of these men's lives have been altered, as well as all of each of their own respective posterity.
I wish You and Your's well.
Regards !! _______________________________________________
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Aug 4, 2009 7:33:44 GMT 10
Some years ago my old man had a stroke (age 78 or something), and he wasn't doing well then, catched pneumonia and what not. The hospital, several 100 kilometres from here, wasn't doing a good job and I had to kick the doctors' asses remotely to get them into the gears and to give the man a chance. What can I say, my dad completely recovered from the stroke. He'll be 84 this year, and he's doing fine, even travelling around in his own car. At no time I would have opted for euthanasia, I think it's even a shame to ponder this unless at a very final stage someone is suffering from so much physical pain that even palliative meds can't stop this.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Aug 4, 2009 8:39:38 GMT 10
Personally, I'm a strong supporter of retrospective abortion for cretins, fools, buffoons and other mistakes of nature.
;D
|
|
|
Post by Bokonton on Aug 4, 2009 17:42:49 GMT 10
If my father had control of that kind of technology, I don't think I'd still be here... ;D
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Aug 4, 2009 17:53:07 GMT 10
If a sentence like that is written without any sign that indicates irony, it's quite a "fascist" statement, so be careful.
|
|
|
Post by Bokonton on Aug 4, 2009 20:17:50 GMT 10
If a sentence like that is written without any sign that indicates irony, it's quite a "fascist" statement, so be careful. Who was that meant for?
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Aug 5, 2009 4:11:51 GMT 10
The "retrospective abortion" joke.
|
|
|
Post by Bokonton on Aug 5, 2009 4:27:24 GMT 10
haha, thought so, just checking
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Aug 14, 2009 9:09:59 GMT 10
I really think these sorts of forums would benefit from having a small electric iron icon, to signify the use of irony for those whose education has failed them.
|
|
|
Post by Bokonton on Aug 15, 2009 20:46:45 GMT 10
Writing and interpreting irony in the written word isn't easy, you know
|
|
|
Post by Rex TorHavn on Aug 19, 2009 3:43:52 GMT 10
Anyone remember “Logan’s Run?” The Society there was a closed environment (it was thought that “Outside” was poisonous and/or contaminated, so the Computer making such decisions “felt” (if that’s the word) that it was acting for the benefit of the Whole. A sapient wolf would, in the presence of such “facts,” probably agree. However, a sapient wolf, or Lykoshan, would never have a Computer make that kind of decision, since no machine (even an A.I., could never be considered a member of the Pack… not being a person.
The closest you can get to that kind of attitude/law is in Lykosha. The people are ruled by a Packleader, andd each region is headed by a clanleader.
In Lykosha, as in the wolfpack, the Clanleader has authority over life and death: s/he may, for the good of the clan, decide if an individual clanmember, especially if that individual is terminally ill or unable to function, etc. might be put down. S/he may also, if need be, depend on the advice/counsel of the clan’s doctors, etc. in the determination of that decision.
A clanleader may only act for the good of the clan, and must be ready to explain/defend that position on request. The Packleader/Jarl may inquire, or an individual may apply to have that decision questioned/challenged.
If euthanasia/suicide is the desire of the clanmember, may the clanleader or Packleader veto it? Presumably, a Lykoshan would be requesting same for medical or etc. reasons, and a clanleader is bound to act for the good of the clan only.
There should be very few reasons why such a request would be refused (the individual still being pregnant with a completely viable fetus might be one reason; as the death of the second individual who is healthy would be murder). This scenario has not yet been addressed… yet, it’s an interesting note.
As for TorHavn, the Crowns would not step in and make such decisions for the citizens, but a TorHavnian has the overall right to decide such for him/herself. All TorHavnians have the right of choice in such matters.
|
|