Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

459

Is this real world?

https://x.com/DrCalumMiller/status/1862077830739136766

Robert Young wrote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on euthanasia. He freely admits that around 40% of cases are without the patient's consent:

"of those terminally ill persons who have been assisted to die about sixty per cent have clearly been cases of voluntary euthanasia as it has been characterised in this entry; of the remainder, the vast majority of cases were of patients who at the time of their medically assisted deaths were no longer competent." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/

This is chilling - he nonchalantly says that "the vast majority" of non-voluntary cases involved a patient who is not competent - that is to say, some of these cases involve a competent patient being euthanised without agreeing to it. This is literally murder.

But it gets crazier. Young says:

"It might be thought that these deaths ought to be regarded as instances of non-voluntary euthanasia. But, in fact, it would be inappropriate to regard them as such. Here is why. For the overwhelming majority of these cases, the decisions to end life were taken only after consultation between the attending doctor(s) and close family members, and so can legitimately be thought of as involving substituted judgements."

Do you see what he is saying? You might think that killing the patient without consent should count as non-voluntary euthanasia - but don't worry, it is still voluntary, because there is a "substituted judgement" - i.e. at least there is someone deciding to kill the patient! Who cares whether it is the patient themselves or their family members or doctors?

These are clear-cut cases of murder. Non-consensual euthanasia - i.e. murder - has become so tolerated in places like the Netherlands and in euthanasia advocacy circles that Young doesn't even seem to realise how insane he sounds.

What is to stop this happening in the UK? If "substituted judgements" count as consensual decisions to be euthanised, then what is to stop doctors and family members making "substituted judgements" for patients and euthanising them once they become inconvenient?

This must be stopped!

Is this real world? https://x.com/DrCalumMiller/status/1862077830739136766 >Robert Young wrote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on euthanasia. He freely admits that around 40% of cases are without the patient's consent: > "of those terminally ill persons who have been assisted to die about sixty per cent have clearly been cases of voluntary euthanasia as it has been characterised in this entry; of the remainder, the vast majority of cases were of patients who at the time of their medically assisted deaths were no longer competent." >https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/ > This is chilling - he nonchalantly says that "the vast majority" of non-voluntary cases involved a patient who is not competent - that is to say, some of these cases involve a competent patient being euthanised without agreeing to it. This is literally murder. > But it gets crazier. Young says: > "It might be thought that these deaths ought to be regarded as instances of non-voluntary euthanasia. But, in fact, it would be inappropriate to regard them as such. Here is why. For the overwhelming majority of these cases, the decisions to end life were taken only after consultation between the attending doctor(s) and close family members, and so can legitimately be thought of as involving substituted judgements." > Do you see what he is saying? You might think that killing the patient without consent should count as non-voluntary euthanasia - but don't worry, it is still voluntary, because there is a "substituted judgement" - i.e. at least there is **someone** deciding to kill the patient! Who cares whether it is the patient themselves or their family members or doctors? > These are clear-cut cases of murder. Non-consensual euthanasia - i.e. murder - has become so tolerated in places like the Netherlands and in euthanasia advocacy circles that Young doesn't even seem to realise how insane he sounds. > What is to stop this happening in the UK? If "substituted judgements" count as consensual decisions to be euthanised, then what is to stop doctors and family members making "substituted judgements" for patients and euthanising them once they become inconvenient? > This must be stopped!
You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (2).
[–] • 1 pt

Actually this has been going on for decades. The difference now is your health and welfare is not important whatsoever. It's how much money will move into that hospital system.

A patient on life support takes up resources and the hospital only gets paid a certain amount of money for whatever it does to provide care. After a while they start to lose money if they can't boot your ass to a nursing home.

Get rid of you and get another patient in: churn and burn. You aint shit unless you are walking out or an organ donor. Hospitals make a shit ton on organ and tissue donors.

As far as 40%? I'll bet it's as high as 75%. Majority patients removed from life support are unable to participate- much less anticipate end of life scenarios. Docs talk and literally coerce families into removing life support "you know your dad wouldn't want to live like this".

Talk to your family and friends about this sort of thing. Talk about organ donation as well. Let them know whether you want that or not. Do not agree to donation after being removed from life support