The Python wrote:Nyxonia wrote:I think that agony from an incurable illness is too narrow. There are other conditions where euthanasia should be valid. For example, if the person was in a crippling condition that has severely compromised their quality of life. They may not be in pain but maybe they are a quadrapalegic . Or what about someone who has an inoperable brain tumor (or something like ALS) where they provide prior informed-consent?
So maybe under 1. iii. you add those caveats.
For example; I have a standing order that if I am to suffer a condition that makes me incapable of mental functioning and conscious awareness (the things that make me, me) I do not want my life extended.
As a mental turnip I might not be in pain, but that is no existence
Alright, this will be discussed with the co-authorQvait wrote:"First, we believe there to be a grammatical error in the above provision, which should state 'No member nation...' instead of the plural form."
Mea culpa, fixedQvait wrote:"Second, we oppose the inclusion of the above provision, which only serves to delay providing euthanasia services to qualifying patients. Furthermore, licensed medical professionals should not be imposing their preconceived opinions on patients and should do the job that they signed up for, which is to provide medical care and services to their patients."
Why?
First, forcing objecting doctors to perform euthanasia is unethical in general. Can't literally any other doctor that doesn't object do the euthanasia? Second, forcing objecting doctors to perform euthanasia would likely result in less people willing to become doctors if they will be forced to perform euthanasia even if they object. Third, "as long as said professional directs patients to easily and readily accessible euthanasia services" implies that in the unlikely case that no other euthanasia service is accessible nearby, then they would have to perform the euthanasia in the unlikely event. Fourth, what Bears Armed said.
Ooc: I'm going to lead with a note that I support the draft and the underlying policy. But, Python, you aren't really addressing why forcing doctors to aid in euthanasia regardless of personal belief is unethical. You've stated a few times that X is unethical without providing a warrant for why. Your argument would probably fare better if you didn't hold your conclusion out as an a priori assumption.