h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think one of the main considerations is the rapid advancement in medical research. Say I had a terminal, painful disease and chose to end it. The disease could allow me to live for another year or even two perhaps. In that time it is conceivable that a partial or even full cure would be discovered. For that reason alone, unless the disease has absolutely no chance of a cure, euthanasia would be suspect.

however, if you lived 100 or so years ago, then there probably wouldnt be medicine that could keep you alive (alleviate the pain etc) for those 1 or two years while a cure was being found. it seems like humans are struggling to be immortal with the comstant advances in medicine, and i'm not entirely sre if thats a good thing. (dont know if thats come out v well-i know what i want to say, but it is hard to put into words!)

I agree that the struggle with death and disease looks like an attempt to become immortal but really, would you sentence anyone to death not knowing if they could be a Mozart in a year or two? I don't think it's about immortality, it's about humanity.

Re this question:

"Would you sentence anyone to death not knowing if they could be a Mozart in a year or two?"

How about Would you sentence anyone to death not knowing if they could be a Hitler in a year or two?

Nobody knows what may or may not be, and it is pointless pondering.

If you believe, by reduction that life if pointless, then I suppose nothing really matters. If you believe that we can't make such decisions, then why do we? If you believe that nature should take it's course then why are you using a computer?

In reply to:

"If you believe, by reduction that life if pointless, then I suppose nothing really matters. If you believe that we can't make such decisions, then why do we? If you believe that nature should take it's course then why are you using a computer?"

Pardon? I referred directly to your post "Would you sentence anyone to death not knowing if they could be a Mozart in a year or two?"

Where on earth do you get the idea that I think nothing really matters or that we can't make such decisions - and where did I say that nature should take its course?

These are all massive assumptions on your part, and I can only conclude that you were looking for any excuse whatsoever to ask these questions as my post in no way engendered any of them. If you would like to ask me further questions, I will certainly answer any that are coherently phrased, and better still in some way cogent to the actual text typed here, and not to the subtext apparently in your head.

In direct opposition to the sentence "Would you sentence anyone to death.....Mozart in a year or two" I asked "Would you sentence anyone to death not knowing if they could be a Hitler in a year or two?" This, a rational question, follows logically from your own. As I stated, nobody knows what may be or not be. As you seem to require some further explanation let me clarify: Nobody knows if somebody dies what their potential was, for good or evil. Nobody can know. Therefore it is pointless pondering.

As for the rest - well, it seems to me you are simply waiting for a chance to spout whatever comes into your head, regardless of the actual message posted.

Awaiting your reply with great interest:

My apologies, and my regrets for representing myself so badly.

I meant by reduction, reductive reasoning which unfortunately can be defined sometimes by *Reducto ad absurdum*.

I merely meant that the ultimate thread of your argument was that if we needn't worry about either side of the statement we needn't worry about anything. I apologise once again. It was specious and a flight of fancy. You were talking about as you say *pointless pondering* and I was taking the statement to extremes.

All I can say is I was having a bad day.