| Ka-pi96 said: I don't think that makes the comparison flawed. "life for all" is still a decision, and when applied to those that don't want to live is very comparable to deciding to kill those that don't want to die. I mean, I get why they do it (probably legal obligations and stuff like that) but the "life must be saved at all costs" ideology really irks me. I'd personally much rather be left to die instead of forced to live longer and suffer in agony for ages, especially if it was something terminal so instead of preventing your death they're just delaying it and prolonging your suffering instead. Actually, better than that even would just be a bullet to the head, that would be the humane thing to do. |
I think that this is a largely different discussion.
If there is one option (help this person), there is no decision. Doctors are not by any means judging the worth of individuals and deciding who to save which makes it fundamentally different than the government judging the worth of individuals and deciding who to kill.
