right to life?????

[Koi]

What is 'right to life' you could take it as the belief that all human beings have an inalienable right to exist.
If this is the case then you must be against abortion, euthanasia the right to withdraw tubal feeding and medical treatment and so on. So many other things must be taken in to consideration before you say someone has a 'right to life' the circumstances in each case will differ greatly.
I personally believe we live in archaic times, don't give a dog treatment and watch it suffer and you will be up in court. With draw treatment or life support because there is no hope and watch that person slowly fade away and that seems right in law?????????
Having had to make a descision to withdraw my dads life support after a routine operation went wrong and then sit and watch him die over seven hours I say is wrong. We are allowed to do the humane thing for animals but for humans no way, its barbaric and sole destroying to sit and watch a loved one die like that, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
With currently 76% of doctors against aiding death and 80% saying if it was legal they wouldn't do it, it doesn't appear theres much change on the horizon.
So with many things to consider is there really 'right to life'
Are we to concerned about social justice and the protection of human rights, wether we firmly establish the right to life as a foundation or not it will have little significance on rights to housing, food, water etc.

[Springbok]

Tragic

Koi your experience is a tragic one caused by mans error. Man also makes the error of keeping folk alive where it is obvious there is no need for life. Some modern technologies are great and helpful, cancer cures and so on but I feel we must not be allowed to keep people alive because we have the technology when there is no need.

As for the criminal element of this debate. Shall we let all the prisoners out of jail and cure them as they are pyscoloically different to us. People have choices. It is whether we want to be bad or not is what makes the difference. How can anyone say to me that the little Swedish boy that was taken from a hospital in Thailand after the tsnami for the use in God knows what had a choice. That person that did that is not mentally insane or inept. He saw an oppertunity to make money or what ever and did it. No cure there. Also no deterent. I live across the road from a woman whom murdered her 7 year old son so she could have a social life. He was a hinderance. No cure there.

[Gizmo]

[QUOTE=Springbok]Koi your experience is a tragic one caused by mans error. Man also makes the error of keeping folk alive where it is obvious there is no need for life. Some modern technologies are great and helpful, cancer cures and so on but I feel we must not be allowed to keep people alive because we have the technology when there is no need.
QUOTE]

I support your comments Springbok. It is felt that medical intervention is too much at times and whilst compassion must be shown for all living things, the time to withdraw from the situation must be also considered.

If right-to-life means right-to-life how can one consider abortion on the merits of medical opinion. Should the full term of the birth not be completed???
or how can one talk about putting to death convicts who in my eyes have clearly given up some of their rights to be considered as part of society as they have inflicted pain on others unduly to the gain of themselves.

I once again draw the conclusion that each circumstance must be considered on its own merits and not a blanket ban or acceptance!

[Linda]

And doesnt the right to life mean that you have the right to your life. As it is your right, it should also be your choice to weive that right and die if you want (as long as your are menatlly capable of making that decision with a full understanding of its impact)

[marky]

My first wife had MS from the time she was 11 until 38. In that time she got progressively worse, but it accelerated when she was 32 to the stage where she was doubly incontinent, couldn't walk or stand unaided and spent most of those last years in a wheelchair. She always said that if things got too bad she wanted to be allowed/helped to die when she wanted. Luckily for me, an embolism ended her life in hospital before it got to that stage, but if she had got there I probably would have helped her end it.

The most helpful comments though were given to her by an ambulance man, who told her exactly how to end her life in the most relaxed way. It would have meant my supplying her with what she needed and then going away for a couple of days so that I wouldn't be there when she died, as a safeguard.

We currently have a screwed up sense of morality in this country. You can quite happily have a healthy dog, cat, horse etc put down if they are a burden, but a terminally ill person who really would like to end their life quickly and painlessly is made to suffer because of it. Then at the other extreme, you have elderly people suffering from the likes of dementia who would probably live quite happily for years if properly cared for (but probably with little or no quality of life) being neglected, abused and starved to death in some of the appalling residential homes that they are stuck in.

In contrast, murderers, drug dealers and other such dregs of society, who really should be abused and starved to death, are given nice cosy cells, colour TV's and plenty of free legal aid to sue the State (i.e. you, me and all the other tax payers) just because they can't have all that they believe they are entitled to under the Human Rights Act. Personally, having commited such a serious crime, I believe they should not have any rights whatsoever.

Now all we need is a good right wing government to overturn all the bleeding heart liberal crap that's been forced on us by unrepresentative minorities over the last 50 years, get back to proper education in schools proper exams and testing grading systems and proper discipline in class, also loads of coppers back walking the beat to deter criminals, plus hospitals with cleaners that clean, nurses that nurse and civil servants that are both (civil and provide a service). Then this country just might be worth living in again.

There, rant over. Time for a double whisky!!!

QUITE RIGHT TOO.

[riddler]

right to life

The original question was, does anybody, ethically, have the right to life.
So far i have read some gut wrenching personal tragedies of some other members and my heart truly goes out to you, but i think we seem to be confusing the original right to life with the fact that actions or circumstances may affect what we consider to be the right to life. This in itself poses another question as to who do we think we are to decide whether another has the the right to live or not?
I, like every one else think burgulars, rapists, drug dealers, peadofiles and all the other scum that walk this earth should be sumarily dismissed from its surface, and i think its fair to say that like most people i treat other people how i expect to be treated and if EVERYONE thought and acted this way the world would be a better place.
Back to the original question, does anybody have the right to life?
In my eyes, every one has a right to life there actions along the way determine whether they should be allowed to retain that priviledge, and on the other hand the individual should also have the right to relinquish that priveledge when they see fit. To me this seems like uncommon sense, but then again i am just the average hard working person doing my best to get through life as best i can, doing okay so far aswell.

[Chillitt]

as a point of order, if an individual felt their right to life has been infringed, who would they appeal to?

[riddler]

right to life

if their right to life had been infringed, they would be dead!! no one to complain to.

[TonyN]

if their right to life had been infringed, they would be dead!! no one to complain to.

[Chillitt]

no right of appeal? man, thats harsh