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

[Anonymous]

Just heard this interesting question...

[Anonymous]

Who is making the determination? The person or someone else?

[Anonymous]

No.

"person" = someone who has been born

[Anonymous]

Function where?
Doctors in hospitals decide to withhold treatment all the time.
Sometimes to premature babies, or even very old people
Ambulance crews and rescuers also sometimes have to decide

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Function where?
Doctors in hospitals decide to withhold treatment all the time.
Sometimes to premature babies, or even very old people
Ambulance crews and rescuers also sometimes have to decide

How often are those decisions based on the person’s insurance — and how much is left?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Function where?
Doctors in hospitals decide to withhold treatment all the time.
Sometimes to premature babies, or even very old people
Ambulance crews and rescuers also sometimes have to decide

How often are those decisions based on the person’s insurance — and how much is left?

One can only speculate, but you have to be quite far gone.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

You mean, like, a death panel?

[Anonymous]

“Right” becomes a confusing concept when talking about the profoundly ill or disabled. Maybe the right is about living what time they have been given with kindness and support. Maybe what’s right is about a death with dignity. Maybe prolonged agitation and suffering is the cruelty. Maybe, I. The cruel world we live in, a family can never hope to provide proper care, which can make the life we are talking about a life of torture. Or not.

These questions are complicated and yes/no votes tell us nothing useful.

[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.

Why is that progressive or less cruel than leaving it to the family?

[Anonymous]

When is a life not a life? What are rights and who is granting them?

[Anonymous]

OP, are you asking if a person who is profoundly depressed, sought and received treatment and still feels their quality of life is unacceptable should have the right to die?

[Anonymous]

Are you suggesting murder? This isn't just about withholding advanced lifesaving from some theoretical fragile preemie.

Would you like me to shoot my child just because she's handicapped? Maybe you'd like to be the one to push her down the stairs? This is a real child, with friends, hobbies, interests, mind you.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

No