I read that the police were extinguishing the guy who set himself on fire yesterday only two minutes after it began. Obviously, the guy did not want to live. Putting out the fire so quickly does not ease his suffering and would only increase it if he were to live. As long as nothing else is at risk of catching fire perhaps it would be best to stay away. What do you think?

  • folkrav@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 months ago

    Human life is to be protected, rescued etc. in all cases.

    Where does a DNR and medical assistance in dying fit in this?

      • folkrav@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Yes, but you also said it should be protected in “all cases” but went on about “exceptions”. Assistance in dying doesn’t fit this criteria that would make it acceptable as most definitely not everyone agrees with it. Some DNRs don’t either. The idea that the “whole society” needs to agree is also pretty disputable, and comes with its own set of moral issues. The question of professionals being “properly” trained on the matter as well (what does this mean?).

        I just think it’s a lot more complex than “save everyone always”, and the exceptions aren’t that straightforward.

        • HubertManne@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think his mention of doctors at the end while talking about exceptions is what he is talking about. He was not specific but it was clear, at least to me, that he was talking about assited suicide, dnr, and such.