🚀 go-pugleaf

Iain Jameson <Iain.Jamesonx@dsto.defence.gov.au> writes:

> jan@orchide.dialix.oz.au (jan) wrote :
> 
> >>Iain Jameson <Iain.Jamesonx@dsto.defence.gov.au> writes:
> 
> > 
> >> Wrong again. If a person is suffering a terminal illness, and they
> >> decide to end their suffering, then intervention is required,
> 				  ^^^^
> >> and should be given.
>    ^^^
> > 
> 
> 
> Replace 'then intervention' by 'and intervention' and replace
> 'and should be given' by 'then it should be given'.
> 
> 
> >Should be given: by whom?
> 
> >Are you suggesting that someone, who has the skill, is *obligated*
> >to assist regardless of his/her ethical standpoint?
>    
> >Jan
> 
> 
> No, I simply mixed up two words. Sorry about that.

OK.  I think I understood the gist of what you were
saying. 
 
> If intervention is required, and wanted by the terminally
> ill person, it should be given.
> 
> No one is forcing the doctor to help.
> 
> If a doctor doesn't want to help, then they shouldn't have to.

Understood.  However your use of the words "should be given"
imply an obligation whether coercion is employed or not.
 




Jan