🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Merel <pete@zip.com.au> wrote:

>d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) writes:

>>> Hindus and Islam all consider
>>>>euthanasia wrong, you do not have to be religious to oppose it.
>>>No, but it helps.

>>_Any_ form of education regarding humanity, values and morality helps.

We have got many more considerations:
1-historical: no religion foresaw the financial staking in favor of
therapeutic onslaught. This now interferes with the normal termination
of life. Our elders knew that we were all condemned to death. Their
euthanasia involved accelarating the normal death process. Ours
involves restraining the insidious versed interests  of  invasive
therapists.

>Investigating this distinction, instead of claiming an exclusive
>on morality, is the only way we're going to move this debate forward.

2-contractual:  Delivering on ones`s promise is a moral stand.
When a patient  enters into a treatment agreement with his therapist
he expects  results. If, after a given period of time he does not  get
them,  he has a god given right to  withdraw his  agreement. This is
voluntary euthanasia. And this is where our argument needs to start. 
.
Other considerations:

3- Sensory perception : treatment induced  prolongation of ailing
disorientes every body including the therapists and the politicians.

4- Economic: we are all condemned to death. what is the cost/benefit
ratio to all parties for an extra day lived by an imminently dying
patient?
 
>>Enacting a law which legalises deliberate homicide under certain
>>conditions is a fundemental change to the fabric of society. It is a
>>huge step to take. 

No law was required when it was decided to practice glorified hospital
tortures with taxpaxers money.
>l deliberate killing is illegal) and  affects_everyone_. 
There was agony  on the cross remember. But it was shortened by a
lance bearing  roman soldier.
Madeleine Croft