Skip Navigation

Canada Will Legalize Medically Assisted Dying For People Addicted to Drugs

www.vice.com Canada Will Legalize Medically Assisted Dying For People Addicted to Drugs

Some drug user activists have likened the move to "eugenics" and say Canada should be funding more harm reduction.

Canada Will Legalize Medically Assisted Dying For People Addicted to Drugs
236

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
236 comments
  • "Judging these individuals here"

    Are you illiterate? Would you like to prove this statement to me?

    "Nobody is claiming that you are obligated"

    One is not obligated, this had nothing to do with me specifically.

    "Who are you to say that they're undeserving of that help"

    Because there is no obligation to enable an action based on a desire. This is simply you (and others who make this argument) carving out a moral imperative simply because it justifies something you already want (post-hoc justification).

    • Mixing insults with the straw man argument that this has anything to do with morality is a fallacious argument on its face. And feigning ignorance of the meaning of your own words while asserting an intellectual argument is peak mental gymnastics. And I’m not trying to justify anything— it’s you who is trying to justify denying people medically-approved care due to your stated morality and a refusal of some “obligation” that doesn’t actually exist.

      Nobody but you is claiming any “obligation” to anything. This is matter between an individual and their medical providers, not one which involves you in any way. So, once again who are you to judge these people as undeserving of the state’s assistance if their medical providers approve them for it?

      • "That this has anything to do with morality"

        You literally claimed that people have an inherent right, and even in this comment you are heavily implying that not providing assisted suicide is bad. (Both moral claims. In case you don't know morality is just a system of determining if something is good or bad).

        "Nobody but you is claiming any obligation"

        You are claiming that people have a right to be killed by a second party. That second party therefore has some obligation to fulfill that right.

        I'm fairly certain that if everyone in the world refused to meet this obligation, you would still object because it violates the subject's wishes.

        "I'm not trying to justify anything"

        Besides of course permitting a second party to kill someone.

        I'll accept that I'm trying to justify denying this right to have your desire to die fulfilled (as it simply doesn't exist for any other action or desire) because that is simply a moral argument, just like you are making moral arguments regardless of whether you are aware of it or not.

        FYI mixing insults with an argument is not a logical error as commonly claimed. As long as it not part of the premises or reasoning any statement (insult or not) has no effect on the soundness of the argument. Also my argument wasn't that you made a moral claim, it's extremely obvious that you did I would never have bothered to point it out. The argument is that you are arguing for second-party homicide (and impermissible act) to be allowed based on some right to have your wishes fulfilled that simply doesn't exist.

        • Wow, what a hilarious rant full of outright lies and misinformation. Are you capable of telling the truth, or is your position so weak that you can’t make your point without repeatedly asserting debunked points such as imaginary “obligations” or by ignoring those with irremediable lifelong physical and/or psychological suffering as determined by medical professionals? Because you seem to want to use your own ignorance to judge these people rather than let professionals be the arbiters due to your own twisted morality.

          It seems that you just want to see people suffer. Once again: who are you to judge whether someone should suffer rather than be deserving of relief? Why do you refuse to answer?

You've viewed 236 comments.