= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jiro comments on [Link] Death with Dignity by Scott Adams - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (92)
You have reasons for not wanting to kill another human being. Promoting "don't kill" to a terminal goal and forgetting that you have reasons for not wanting to kill, and therefore that you should be willing to kill when those reasons don't apply, is a lost purpose. (I'd link you to the post here about lost purposes but it is horrible.)
Also, in this specific case, the doctor has a legal monopoly. Getting and administering euthanasia drugs without a doctor is illegal, even where physician-assisted suicide is legal. If you want the doctor to be able to opt out of killing, then you should also remove the legal monopoly which forces the patient to use a doctor in order to be killed.
Moreover (according to a five minute wikipedia search), not all doctors swear the same oath, but the modern version of the Hippocratic oath does not have an explicit "Thou shalt not kill" provision and in fact, it doesn't even include the commonly quoted "First, cause no harm".
Obviously taking a person life, even with his/her consent, may violate the personal ethics of some people, but if that is the problem the obvious solution is to find a different doctor.
This isn't specific to euthanasia but applies to all prescription drugs. As long as the law doesn't let people decide to take even minor mostly-harmless medications without a doctor's approval, it will certainly not make an exception for drugs designed to kill people. Changing these laws is far harder yet than changing the laws prohibiting suicide and (non-medical) assisted suicide in general.
There are lots of drugs people can take without doctor's approval. It's just ones with harmful side-effects that are a problem. Drugs for euthanasia are, for all intents and purposes, 100% effective with no side-effects.
Drugs for euthanasia are sugar pills with 100% occurrence of lethal side effects.
A side effect is something other than the intended effect. If you used it as a placebo, then it would have a 100% occurrence of lethal side effects, but as it is it has none.
That's true. I'll amend my statement: the law forbids harmful (eg lethal) medicine, not just harmful side effects. A deliberately lethal medicine is simply a poison. The law forbids both killing and suicide, so deliberate poisons are obviously illegal.
I'm not saying this is a good state of things; just that there's no hope of it changing. People will not be allowed to buy euthanasia drugs without a doctor's approval, because it will be seen as legalizing both suicide and poison that could be used to murder someone.
The dose makes the poison and that has been known for ages. You can kill a man with water.
"Euthanasia drugs" only make death pleasant and painless. Often they are just an overdose of opiates.
They are a poison. The fact that they can do other things is irrelevant if you're using them as directed for a poison. Although I suppose there might be problems if someone claims to be suicidal so they can underdose and use it for opiates.
I don't think you get it. Everything is poison in the appropriate dose. What usage is "as directed" is irrelevant if you can freely acquire the necessary amounts.
Which is one reason most opiates, and most other drugs you can easily overdose on and die (as opposed to water), are not legal to buy without prescription.
Actually, no, the reason why you can't buy opiates without a prescription is because they are addictive psychoactives.
You can very easily overdose on Tylenol (acetaminophen, paracetamol), but it will take you a while to die from liver failure. You can buy unlimited amount of Tylenol in every pharmacy.
Like I said, dangerous overdoses and side effects are one reason, not the only reason.
Which drugs are legal, and which don't require prescriptions, is in large part a matter of historical contingency, lobbying and politics. But there are other reasons too, and dangerous side effects or overdose effects are among the more important ones.
I have no problem with saying that doctors shouldn't be able to use moral reasons to refuse to prescribe other prescription drugs, either.
What kinds of non-moral reasons should they use, then? Or should people be able to legally buy and use all legal medicine freely?
"Non-moral reasons" is shorthand for reasons that do not involve morality that is not intrinsic to performing the duties he is being paid for. For instance, "I refuse to give the patient drug X, because drug Y will cure the patient and drug X will not" is a moral reason insofar as wanting the patient to be cured is a question of morality, but it would be okay. "I refuse to give the patient drug X because God tells me not to give people drug X" would be an unacceptable reason. This actually happens for contraceptives.
One solution is to prohibit such doctors from practicing medicine. Another solution is to permit them to opt out for moral reasons, but only if
Letting people buy all medicine freely has its own problems because the doctor's refusal to prescribe also implies the doctor refuses to use his expertise to tell the patient what medicine he needs.