Should a person’s right to life depend on how well they can function?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should make that decision for a person. We should put it in writing BEFORE we get so decrepit that we can’t wipe our own asses. I know that’s when I want to be put down. And so does my family.

What about your baby - who can’t wipe her own ass?

Did anyone really want to wipe your ass when you got to be born?

I don’t think babies are classified as decrepit. They are in fact the opposite.

Babies are 100% dependent for basic survival.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this in Religion? Is there some faith that advocates this?

Yes, secular humanism.

I don't think that is correct. Mostly I would say a secular humanist would place great weight on the right of the person to decide for themselves. Also, if a secular humanist does not believe in life after death, then experiencing as much of life as possible might be especially important. Utilitarianism is another thing entirely.

Anyway, plenty of people, religious and not religious--decide every day for themselves or family members to forego treatment that might keep them alive longer in the face of dire medical conditions.

To the pp who asked why this question would come under religion--of course it would. I'm a UU, but I know that the Catholic Church has pretty specific teaching as to what kinds of care can be withheld and under what circumstances. Jehovah's Witnesses can't accept blood products and there may be other religions with teachings that impact what kinds of medical procedures can be done. Besides the fact that this is a moral question and moral teachings are a fundamental aspect of most (if not all) religions.

I've known many very old people who are religious who say they don't understand why God doesn't take them and be done with it because they are plenty ready to go!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Decision should be made by some small panel like a jury. They can decide if it’s worth it to society they someone continues or if it’s better they expire. That’s the most progressive way to deal with this.

Seig Heil. Are you a Nazi?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this in Religion? Is there some faith that advocates this?

Yes, secular humanism.

I don't think that is correct. Mostly I would say a secular humanist would place great weight on the right of the person to decide for themselves. Also, if a secular humanist does not believe in life after death, then experiencing as much of life as possible might be especially important. Utilitarianism is another thing entirely.

Anyway, plenty of people, religious and not religious--decide every day for themselves or family members to forego treatment that might keep them alive longer in the face of dire medical conditions.

To the pp who asked why this question would come under religion--of course it would. I'm a UU, but I know that the Catholic Church has pretty specific teaching as to what kinds of care can be withheld and under what circumstances. Jehovah's Witnesses can't accept blood products and there may be other religions with teachings that impact what kinds of medical procedures can be done. Besides the fact that this is a moral question and moral teachings are a fundamental aspect of most (if not all) religions.

I've known many very old people who are religious who say they don't understand why God doesn't take them and be done with it because they are plenty ready to go!

None of these circumstances or questions involve examining a person's contribution to society (functionality) and then deciding whether the person's has a right to live. Please identify a religion or system of morality that imposes such a examinations on persons with disabilities, and then carries out murders based on their decisions. What comes to mind? Hmmmm.