Is it moral to kill when a cure options is available?

[Greatest I am]

Is it moral to kill when a cure options is available?

It is said that God can do whatever he likes. He is after all, God. He created everything and can destroy it at a whim if he chooses to do so. I do not believe this but will grant it as a truth for this O P.

Given that God can kill or cure, and given that we are to emulate, follow and try to be like him; it would seem that we too are to believe that sometimes it is better to kill than cure. I cannot think of any good situation to do this but that is just me. Perhaps you can.

Scriptures show God killing many or having men kill many. Scriptures show God curing on a few occasions but killing seems to be his preferred method.

Life, be it from God or nature, should be venerated. God does not seem to venerate human life even as he claims man to be his most precious and loved creation and even placing us above the angels. This indicates that he should venerate our lives yet it does not seem to.

In our human world, if a doctor who could cure his patient decided to kill him, he would be jailed and considered an evil person. In the believer world, a God who could cure and decides to kill is considered good and praised for his killing. A double standard. I hope that we will all agree that for a human to kill, when a cure option is available, is evil and immoral. If you do not; please do not reply.

Is it moral for God to kill when a cure options is available?

Does your God need to have good morals or does it matter?

Regards
DL

[chaz wyman]

What is the matter with you?

Stop judging the invisible.

[Greatest I am]

What is the matter with you?

Stop judging the invisible.

Thanks for showing your moral position.

Regards
DL

[chaz wyman]

What is the matter with you?

Stop judging the invisible.

Thanks for showing your moral position.

Regards
DL

There is no moral position here.

What you see is an observation that you are obsessed even angry with your loss of faith.
Get over it!

[Impenitent]

Is it moral to kill when a cure options is available?

It is said that God can do whatever he likes. He is after all, God. He created everything and can destroy it at a whim if he chooses to do so. I do not believe this but will grant it as a truth for this O P.

Given that God can kill or cure, and given that we are to emulate, follow and try to be like him; it would seem that we too are to believe that sometimes it is better to kill than cure. I cannot think of any good situation to do this but that is just me. Perhaps you can.

Scriptures show God killing many or having men kill many. Scriptures show God curing on a few occasions but killing seems to be his preferred method.

Life, be it from God or nature, should be venerated. God does not seem to venerate human life even as he claims man to be his most precious and loved creation and even placing us above the angels. This indicates that he should venerate our lives yet it does not seem to.

In our human world, if a doctor who could cure his patient decided to kill him, he would be jailed and considered an evil person. In the believer world, a God who could cure and decides to kill is considered good and praised for his killing. A double standard. I hope that we will all agree that for a human to kill, when a cure option is available, is evil and immoral. If you do not; please do not reply.

Is it moral for God to kill when a cure options is available?

Does your God need to have good morals or does it matter?

Regards
DL

ask Abraham...

-Imp

[bobevenson]

It is said that God can do whatever he likes.

Whatever he likes? Anybody who assigns a sex to God is a fool, and a damned fool at that!

[Arising_uk]

Whatever he likes? Anybody who assigns a sex to God is a fool, and a damned fool at that!

Will the boozo be saying what this 'God' is anytime soon?

Anybody who assigns a 'God' at all is a fool and a bloody loon to boot.

[Greatest I am]

It is said that God can do whatever he likes.

Whatever he likes? Anybody who assigns a sex to God is a fool, and a damned fool at that!

I agree.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Whatever he likes? Anybody who assigns a sex to God is a fool, and a damned fool at that!

Will the boozo be saying what this 'God' is anytime soon?

Anybody who assigns a 'God' at all is a fool and a bloody loon to boot.

I agree.

Regards
DL

[marjoramblues]

Greatest I am : I hope that we will all agree that for a human to kill, when a cure option is available, is evil and immoral. If you do not; please do not reply.

Replying whether you like it or not. Just for the hell of it.

It depends on what you mean by 'kill'. And if we're talking about doctors specifically, then they don't generally act in an evil way to put someone to death. However, it is interesting to note the combative language used in ill/health matters.

A person might 'lose the battle'. We 'fight' the 'flu. A case of winners and losers where doctors can play 'God' to keep people alive. Life is not to be given up easily; and cures sought to prolong it.

Cures or treatments to restore health - fine. But nothing is certain; a cure option might produce or prolong severe ill health. In cases where the cure is worse than the disease, then the lesser 'evil' might be to withdraw treatment and administer heavy analgesia (morphine) which can both ease extreme pain and lead to cessation of life.

So, it is not always the case that it is evil or immoral for a human to kill when a cure option is available.

[chaz wyman]

Greatest I am : I hope that we will all agree that for a human to kill, when a cure option is available, is evil and immoral. If you do not; please do not reply.

Replying whether you like it or not. Just for the hell of it.

It depends on what you mean by 'kill'. And if we're talking about doctors specifically, then they don't generally act in an evil way to put someone to death. However, it is interesting to note the combative language used in ill/health matters.

A person might 'lose the battle'. We 'fight' the 'flu. A case of winners and losers where doctors can play 'God' to keep people alive. Life is not to be given up easily; and cures sought to prolong it.

Cures or treatments to restore health - fine. But nothing is certain; a cure option might produce or prolong severe ill health. In cases where the cure is worse than the disease, then the lesser 'evil' might be to withdraw treatment and administer heavy analgesia (morphine) which can both ease extreme pain and lead to cessation of life.

So, it is not always the case that it is evil or immoral for a human to kill when a cure option is available.

The question is pretty empty, as no one is killing rather than curing.

[marjoramblues]

Chaz: The question is pretty empty, as no one is killing rather than curing.

The question is pretty much a conceptual one, isn't it ?
Reframed: Is it true that if a human kills, when a cure option is available, then that human is evil and immoral ?

[chaz wyman]

Chaz: The question is pretty empty, as no one is killing rather than curing.

The question is pretty much a conceptual one, isn't it ?
Reframed: Is it true that if a human kills, when a cure option is available, then that human is evil and immoral ?

No, its meaningless, conceptual or not. Killing other humans is generally thought to be immoral. The existence of a 'cure' is of little consequence.

[marjoramblues]

Chaz: No, its meaningless, conceptual or not. Killing other humans is generally thought to be immoral. The existence of a 'cure' is of little consequence.

I would argue that a conceptual question related to moral principles, death and doctors is important in medical ethics.

I agree that killing other humans is generally thought to be immoral; but not always.

The existence of a 'cure' option as 'a course of medical therapy' is of consequence in patient/doctor decision-making. However, such 'cures' may only be temporary and cause much suffering. Some doctors might persuade the patient that it is worth going through with it, and relevant information as to risk may not be fully given or appreciated.

Some patients (perhaps doctors themselves) have full realisation of the consequences and refuse to consider 'cure' options. The decision is taken to use morphine to ease pain and end life in dignity.

I re-state my conclusion: it is not always the case that it is evil or immoral for a human to kill when a cure option is available.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz: No, its meaningless, conceptual or not. Killing other humans is generally thought to be immoral. The existence of a 'cure' is of little consequence.

I would argue that a conceptual question related to moral principles, death and doctors is important in medical ethics.

I agree that killing other humans is generally thought to be immoral; but not always.

Obviously - war, capital punishment, euthanasia.

The existence of a 'cure' option as 'a course of medical therapy' is of consequence in patient/doctor decision-making. However, such 'cures' may only be temporary and cause much suffering. Some doctors might persuade the patient that it is worth going through with it, and relevant information as to risk may not be fully given or appreciated.

Persuading a person that they are better off not taking the treatment is not the same as "killing". And there being a "cure" option is not indicated in a case where you are better off not taking treatment. Doctors always recommend a cure if that leads to a longer life.
You might want to consider the moral position of a doctor refusing treatment when the patient cannot afford to pay, though.

Some patients (perhaps doctors themselves) have full realisation of the consequences and refuse to consider 'cure' options. The decision is taken to use morphine to ease pain and end life in dignity.

Yes, not "killing". Allowing to die is not the same as killing.

I re-state my conclusion: it is not always the case that it is evil or immoral for a human to kill when a cure option is available.

You have not yet addressed this issue.