Post #14,187
10/19/01 2:02:15 PM
|
OK, let's talk about a slippery slope
Excerpt:
Fifteen people in Oregon, we are told, legally committed suicide with the assistance of their doctors in l998. According to the report, not one of them was forced into the act by intractable pain or suffering. Rather, those who died had strong personal beliefs in individual autonomy, and chose suicide based primarily on fears of future dependence.
That isn't how assisted suicide was supposed to work. For many years, we have been told repeatedly by advocates that assisted suicide is to be a "last resort," applied only when nothing else can be done to alleviate "unrelenting and intolerable suffering."
Yet pain wasn't a factor in a single one of the Oregon suicides. Thus, rather than being a limited procedure performed out of extreme medical urgency, legalization in Oregon has actually widened the category of conditions for which physician-hastened death is seen as legitimate. If I may: Well over fifteen women nationwide (don't have exact figures; I'm sure that the numbers are orders of magnitude greater), we are told, legally had voluntary mastectomies preformed with the assistance of their doctors in l998. According to the report, not one of them was forced into the act by a diagnosis of breast cancer. Rather, those who submitted to the procedures had strong personal beliefs in individual autonomy, and chose the procedure based primarily on fears of future cancer.
That isn't how mastectomy was supposed to work. For many years, we have been told repeatedly by advocates that a mastectomy is to be a "last resort," applied only when nothing else can be done to alleviate "unrelenting and intolerable breast cancer."
Yet cancer wasn't a factor in a single one of the voluntary mastectomies. Thus, rather than being a limited procedure performed out of extreme medical urgency, the medical profession has actually widened the category of conditions for which voluntary mastectomy is seen as legitimate. Hmmmm... jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #14,196
10/19/01 2:45:59 PM
|
Er....
you don't seriously mean to suggest a moral equivalence here, do you?
Or are you one of those people who see a woman as nothing more than a pair of tits? No wait. Then you could only sanction assisted suicide when done to females.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #14,207
10/19/01 3:43:32 PM
|
I think you know better.
He's talking about the form of the argument.
The anti-assisted-suicide argument is a poor one as presented. And the site you linked originally doesn't seem to (, to me anyway, ) support your contention that there's a "death culture and pressure to suicide".
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #14,283
10/20/01 9:47:50 AM
|
Argument? What argument?
I didn't present any argument. I pointed to the existence of the slippery slope. Look, there it is.
You're acting like a small child who won't admit the milk has been spilled. "Look at all the spilled milk on the floor!" I say. "That's a weak argument" you say.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #14,295
10/20/01 12:12:21 PM
|
You're pointing to invisible pink unicorns.
For someone who prides himself on looking at evidence and probabilities and shades of gray, you don't seem to be doing that in this case.
You've presented slanted, anecdotal discussions of topics which many regard as highly inflammatory. The cites list 3rd-person interpretations of people's frame of mind. That's supposed to be evidence? Unattributed quotes presented with no context is supposed to be evidence? Unattributed paraphrases are supposed to be evidence?
One can point to anecdotal evidence on almost any topic in an attempt to support almost any proposition. That doesn't mean that the proposition is logically supportable.
You've not presented evidence of a "slippery slope", nor of a "death culture and pressure to suicide" IMO. If you have evidence, or a logical discussion on the topic in your own words, I'd like to see it. Your cites don't seem to me to relate to the things you discussed in the starting post in this thread.
Your trolling isn't working to well in this case, if that's your intent. I'm disappointed that you seemingly can't support your position better.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #14,331
10/20/01 4:29:53 PM
|
Careful there.
The trouble with cheap dismissals like that is they work both ways.
I see your pink unicorn and raise you one willful refusal to understand.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #14,539
10/22/01 9:43:22 AM
|
Re: You're pointing to invisible pink unicorns.
One can point to anecdotal evidence on almost any topic in an attempt to support almost any proposition. That doesn't mean that the proposition is logically supportable. Which is, of course, what I was trying to do. (And thank you, Scott, for recognizing it. For at least one person here, reading is a skill that has been mastered.) jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #14,214
10/19/01 4:04:55 PM
|
Puh-LEEZE!
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
