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

[marjoramblues]

Chaz: You have not yet addressed this issue.

What issue have I not yet addressed ?

I have offered a reply to GIA, based on defining 'cure option' as a 'course of medical therapy';and 'kill' as an active decision to cease someone's life. Positive action to introduce morphine.

The latter, as well as 'Allowing to die' by decision not to treat - negative action to withhold 'cure option', have moral and legal implications for any doctor. If the action is seen as a 'kill', evil or immoral, then punishment may follow, or not.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz: You have not yet addressed this issue.

What issue have I not yet addressed ?

Thee issue: for a human to kill, when a cure option is available, is evil and immoral.


I have offered a reply to GIA, based on defining 'cure option' as a 'course of medical therapy';and 'kill' as an active decision to cease someone's life. Positive action to introduce morphine.

A cure is not the same as a course of treatment, and allowing to die is not the same as killing.
.

[marjoramblues]

I have addressed the question sufficiently.
And spent more time on it than is warranted.

[Greatest I am]

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.

No argument if there is consultation with the victim.

In the case of divine intervention and killing, consultation is not there.

Regards
DL

[chaz wyman]

I have addressed the question sufficiently.
But was it necessary?
And spent more time on it than is warranted.

More than true.

[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.

No argument if there is consultation with the victim.

There is no victim here.

In the case of divine intervention and killing, consultation is not there.

There is no divine intervention, so no consultation is possible

Regards
DL

[marjoramblues]

DL: No argument if there is consultation with the victim.
In the case of divine intervention and killing, consultation is not there.

For the sake of argument, I will go along with the term 'victim' to describe the patient whose life has ceased as a result of doctor intervention. There will be cases where consultation is not possible;the patient is deemed 'unfit' to understand or give 'informed' consent. Even if 'fit', consultation might have been less than complete. The doctor takes the final decision which can be viewed as right or wrong; either way the doctor is not necessarily evil or immoral.

If there is any 'divine intervention' on offer, then any 'consultation' might have been between the doctor and 'God' in the form of prayer. The good doc heard the voice of 'God' and based his action on this. Humans do all sorts in the name of their 'God'. If defined as 'goodness' then this 'God' can do no wrong.

So, what is your point, again ?

[Greatest I am]

DL: No argument if there is consultation with the victim.
In the case of divine intervention and killing, consultation is not there.

For the sake of argument, I will go along with the term 'victim' to describe the patient whose life has ceased as a result of doctor intervention. There will be cases where consultation is not possible;the patient is deemed 'unfit' to understand or give 'informed' consent. Even if 'fit', consultation might have been less than complete. The doctor takes the final decision which can be viewed as right or wrong; either way the doctor is not necessarily evil or immoral.

If there is any 'divine intervention' on offer, then any 'consultation' might have been between the doctor and 'God' in the form of prayer. The good doc heard the voice of 'God' and based his action on this. Humans do all sorts in the name of their 'God'. If defined as 'goodness' then this 'God' can do no wrong.

So, what is your point, again ?

That I agreed.

If no consultation possible then the doctor will administer his oath the way he sees fit. He is his own God at that point.

Regards
DL

[marjoramblues]

MB: So what is your point, again?

DL: That I agreed.
If no consultation possible then the doctor will administer his oath the way he sees fit. He is his own God at that point

I meant what was the point of your OP and saying: 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.

What are the implications, if any - of our agreement?

As for the doctor's oath, then it appears this is controversial and may no longer be compulsory? In the UK, I think there are Guidelines instead ? Just for interest,one modern oath states: '...Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God...'
- written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Tufts University. [my bolds]

Thanks,DL, for kick-starting some thoughts. All's well that ends well ?

[Greatest I am]

My pleasure. Thanks.



My "If you do not; please do not reply.", at the end of

"I hope that we will all agree that for a human to kill, when a cure option is available, is evil and immoral."

Was just my way of saying that if your morals are that poor that we cannot agree on this, then you are not worth talking to.

By -- your --- here, I do not mean you. It was just me being personal to any fools who did not agree and my trying to discourage them from wasting our time.

Regards
DL

[marjoramblues]

OK, I asked earlier: What are the implications, if any - of our agreement?
Meaning: 'So what?'

What is your conclusion- or hypothesis ?

I am amazed at your thought that someone might not be worth talking to.

[Greatest I am]

The implication is that we are on the same moral page.

As to people not worth talking to.
FMPOV, I already talked to them via the O P and if they are that far from agreement then they are too lost in their dogma to think for themselves and I have no time for them.

I am not interested in their ------ God can do whatever he likes because he is God, or some other such stupidity.

Regards
DL

[marjoramblues]

Back-track time, if I can.

1. From the OP: you hoped that we would all agree that for a human to kill, when a cure option is available, is evil and immoral. Anyone disagreeing should not reply.
2. This I felt was not in the spirit of philosophy, so I replied in disagreement with the proposition.
3. You eventually agreed with my conclusion that 'it is not always the case that for a human to kill...'
4. I asked what did this agreement imply/show
5. Your reply: that you agreed
6. I reframed my question:what is your conclusion/hypothesis
7. Your reply: the implication is that we are on the same moral page

1. I asked why you did not want anyone, who disagreed with the proposition, to reply
2. Your reply : anyone who disagreed had poor morals and not worth talking to; referrring to them as 'fools' who would waste time. Too lost in their dogma to think for themselves, you have no time for them - you are not interested in their God can do whatever he likes...

Does that sound right to you ?
I disagreed, so I have poor morals etc...
You then agreed with me, and so we are on the same moral page ?

I don't think so. Someone who chooses to put forward a dissenting point of view is not necessarily dogmatic or a God-believer. Perhaps you can see this now ? Or are you too lost in your dogma...

[Greatest I am]

I don't think so. Someone who chooses to put forward a dissenting point of view is not necessarily dogmatic or a God-believer..

True. But he would be quite an immoral person and I have no time for such.

Regards
DL

[marjoramblues]

I don't think so. Someone who chooses to put forward a dissenting point of view is not necessarily dogmatic or a God-believer..

True. But he would be quite an immoral person and I have no time for such.

Even if someone who disagrees is the biggest baddest boggiest son-of-a-bitch, do you think that it is right to deny them their voice, especially on a philo forum ? Some thought Socrates and Christ to be wicked but weren't they worthy of respect ?

If we have no time for people who think differently to ourselves; then we, stuck in dogma, miss out on opportunities for progress.

Full, frank and fearless discussion. I think John Stuart Mill had something to say about that...