It seems you never expect that there is painful dilemma in life.



所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛http://www.xys.org/cgi-bin/mainpage.pl

送交者: mangolasi 于 2005-4-01, 14:56:54:

回答: No, the difference is the definition of "death" 由 boxer 于 2005-4-01, 14:29:28:

I do feel uncomfortable to get rid of the existing people born without conscience, or even handing their guardian the right to get rid of. But I also feel uncomfortable to deny guardian this right immediately. I don't know whether abandonning them later is more benign than letting them die in infancy. But "shall not abandon or let die" and "that's your fate and take it" argument is really evil, because it does harm--direct, visible harm to the consious guardian if he/she doesn't enjoy taking care of the unconscious whose interest, neverthness to say, more vague than the conscous (in common secular people's eyes). Thus I incline to hand in the right to the guardians.

And that's only a "right" as the original author emphasized. Not collective action. So please rest at easy on the concern "some strong will people could have the power and chance to screw all of us".

And that's not an "arbitary" change of definition of "death". It's hardly "freely" since courts had been involved for many years. And that's a case of "right to die". The only ambiguity here is on the part of evidence to show Terri had such a will.

And as medical technology advances, it's more possible for us to keep people's heart beating and breath, but no farther than that. It's very likely to see such cases of living will being absent (no matter how hard you promote the living wills). Unfortunately, resource is limited. Hence, gray area is inevitable.

Then we are not only in need of the definition of "death" and "life", we might need to distinguish "death" "life TIME" and "life itself", and may be more.



所有跟贴:


加跟贴

笔名: 密码(可选项): 注册笔名请按这里

标题:

内容(可选项):

URL(可选项):
URL标题(可选项):
图像(可选项):


所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛http://www.xys.org/cgi-bin/mainpage.pl