Comment on [deleted]

NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• folkrav@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Human life is to be protected, rescued etc. in all cases.

  Where does a DNR and medical assistance in dying fit in this?

  source

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    There I would expect you to read also the other parts of my comment…

    source

    • folkrav@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yes, but you also said it should be protected in “all cases” but went on about “exceptions”. Assistance in dying doesn’t fit this criteria that would make it acceptable as most definitely not everyone agrees with it. Some DNRs don’t either. The idea that the “whole society” needs to agree is also pretty disputable, and comes with its own set of moral issues.

      I just think it’s a lot more complex than “save everyone always”, and the exceptions aren’t that straightforward.

      source

      • HubertManne@kbin.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I think his mention of doctors at the end while talking about exceptions is what he is talking about. He was not specific but it was clear, at least to me, that he was talking about assited suicide, dnr, and such.

        source
• weariedfae@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I don’t disagree with you entirely but there are some areas that do have defined societal rules where life saving is not the legal obligation. Now, this varies by state (some have samaritan laws) but many places you are not under a legal obligation to administer life saving aid. For example, providing CPR in areas considered medical backcountry.

  I think it’s already a mixed bag and the default position is not “protect/rescue human life in all cases” legally. Morally I would say it’s a personal decision, I know I would most of the time in scenarios I can think of but obviously there are scenarios I can’t think of.

  My point is it’s already murky and there are already exceptions.

  source

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    There are no Good Samaritan laws anywhere that require life saving aid.

    They only go so far as to require that you alert emergency services; (though not every state goes that far.)

    What Good Samaritan laws really do is provide protections as long as you’re stay to reasonable actions.

    For example, it’s common for CPR to crack ribs. Without these protections, you’d be liable for that. (For the record, even if you do want to help; etc, always check to see if it’s safe first. Be selfish. You can’t save shit if you’re a body on the ground, too.)

    source
• cybersin@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Human life is to be protected, rescued etc. in all cases.

  Exceptions need to have very clear and very strict rules

  Bruh.

  source
• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Human life is to be protected, rescued etc. in all cases.

  We need to stay absolutely clear with that, because everything else creates terrible moral problems, for you and all the people around.

  lol. What a perfectly black and white world you live in. Your harsh reality causes a lot of terrible moral problems too. Like assisted suicide for people who are terminally ill. You would insist they live in excruciating pain, unable to communicate, or otherwise live life without extensive life support; simply because …. Why again?

  We should have a right to suicide (though maybe not in a manner that puts others at risk.)

  source

  • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I think that’s where this commenter was leaning, though, with their final comment. Assisted suicide should absolutely be available to those suffering terminal illnesses and the like. But, the rules surrounding it must be very clear and anyone assisting suicide under those rules must be very well educated.

    In the absence of assisted suicide rules, or where existing ones don’t apply to a specific case, then human life should be protected as a default setting.

    source

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Naw. Why should I be bound by your religious views?

      It’s either my life and I have the right to end it, or not. If I have the right to end it, I should be allowed to get competent help to do so.

      I agree that one should not suicide, but, if I knew that I would be falsely imprisoned just because I mentioned it to my doctor (“for my benefit”) then I can never actually get real, meaningful help away from it.

      Further, now, how do you define pain? Physical pain? Emotional pain?

      source

      • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Jesus, you couldn’t possibly have misinterpreted my reply more than you just have:

        • No religious view was expressed - I’ve been a staunch atheist for nearly 40 years, since I was old enough to tell my mum I didn’t believe in any of it.
        • I never said people shouldn’t suicide - I’m very much a supporter of assisted suicide. I’m saying that, if the rules around assisted suicide don’t apply, then the default action for people sworn to protect human life should be to stop suicides. You know - the point of this entire post.
        • Who said anything about pain? No need to put words in my mouth.

        source
• bogdugg@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Human life is to be protected, rescued etc. in all cases.

  We need to stay absolutely clear with that, because everything else creates terrible moral problems

  I see no issue with assisted suicide if the person is or was determined to be of sound mind when they made that choice. In fact I believe it is more morally questionable to deny it.

  source