JohnTravolskiJuly 18, 2017 at 18:532900 views9 comments
Is it possible to do something that violates somebody's rights even if he or she consents to it? If so, would you be able to give an example of why you think that way?
I think you need to become clearer on what you mean by "rights" for example do I have the right to suicide, and do you have the right to assist or stop me?
, includes life, I have the right to life. What does that mean to you John? My life is mine to do what I want with it? To end it if I want to? Don't rules, laws, morality, violate my right to live or not to live regardless of whether I consent to them or not.
Assumed consent? Explicit consent? Informed consent? Forced consent? Consent on behalf only one's self, or consent which affects the freedom of other people?
We should always be suspicious of anyone wanting to override rights, and we should be very careful in understanding what consent does and does not mean.
Perhaps this would be better illustrated through an example:
Suppose this is a matter of euthanasia. The patient may explicitly consent to it because they're in horrible pain, but does this violate their rights in any way?
If not, would we be violating their rights if they didn't consent (they wanted to remain alive, but they're still in pain)? If so, which rights?
Perhaps this would be better illustrated through an example:
Suppose this is a matter of euthanasia. The patient may explicitly consent to it because they're in horrible pain, but does this violate their rights in any way?
If not, would we be violating their rights if they didn't consent (they wanted to remain alive, but they're still in pain)? If so, which rights?
What rights are you talking about? If it's in a state with legal euthanasia, no legal rights are involved. There is no clear consensus on fundamental human rights.
One may or may not excercise a right, and to not excercise it is not to violate it. The Miranda right to 'remain silent' upon arrest is not broken when you speak, for example, but simply not excercized. It would be broken if you were forced or compelled to speak under duress.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 19, 2017 at 00:31#880330 likes
One may or may not excercise a right, and to not excercise it is not to violate it. The Miranda right to 'remain silent' upon arrest is not broken when you speak, for example, but simply not excercized. It would be broken if you were forced or compelled to speak under duress.
Suppose this is a matter of euthanasia. The patient may explicitly consent to it because they're in horrible pain, but does this violate their rights in any way?
If not, would we be violating their rights if they didn't consent (they wanted to remain alive, but they're still in pain)? If so, which rights?
A doctor makes a vow to do no harm. The patient in asking to be euthanized, asks doctor to void his vow, in order to help end the horrible pain, which both of you know will end in your death regardless of his actions. In many nations doctors who participate in euthanasia are guilty of a crime. The idea is that the right to life is not the right to death.
The doctor's vow not to harm understood literally, is the letter of the law. This vow has has a pragmatic component, such as not requiring extraordinary means to keep someone alive. It is in its pragmatic aspect, in its real life, lived aspect that euthanasia is in spirit of the law, where it is preferable to end a life to avoid a slow agonizing death. It ought to be allowed (with certain constraints) in my opinion. It's the spirit of the law which negates the letter of the law.
Comments (9)
K, but , includes life, I have the right to life. What does that mean to you John? My life is mine to do what I want with it? To end it if I want to? Don't rules, laws, morality, violate my right to live or not to live regardless of whether I consent to them or not.
You could do a better job of stating what it is you are thinking of.
Quoting JohnTravolski
What kind of consent?
Assumed consent? Explicit consent? Informed consent? Forced consent? Consent on behalf only one's self, or consent which affects the freedom of other people?
We should always be suspicious of anyone wanting to override rights, and we should be very careful in understanding what consent does and does not mean.
Suppose this is a matter of euthanasia. The patient may explicitly consent to it because they're in horrible pain, but does this violate their rights in any way?
If not, would we be violating their rights if they didn't consent (they wanted to remain alive, but they're still in pain)? If so, which rights?
What rights are you talking about? If it's in a state with legal euthanasia, no legal rights are involved. There is no clear consensus on fundamental human rights.
Excellent post
A doctor makes a vow to do no harm. The patient in asking to be euthanized, asks doctor to void his vow, in order to help end the horrible pain, which both of you know will end in your death regardless of his actions. In many nations doctors who participate in euthanasia are guilty of a crime. The idea is that the right to life is not the right to death.
The doctor's vow not to harm understood literally, is the letter of the law. This vow has has a pragmatic component, such as not requiring extraordinary means to keep someone alive. It is in its pragmatic aspect, in its real life, lived aspect that euthanasia is in spirit of the law, where it is preferable to end a life to avoid a slow agonizing death. It ought to be allowed (with certain constraints) in my opinion. It's the spirit of the law which negates the letter of the law.