2014 ICEL - Peter Singer & Charles Camosy debate: Ethics of euthanasia and assisted suicide
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 พ.ย. 2014
- Discover more: ow.ly/E2l4B
Professor Peter Singer (Princeton) and Associate Professor Charles Camosy (Fordham University) debated the ethics of euthanasia and assisted suicide at the International Conference on End of Life in Brisbane, 2014.
The conference was co-hosted by QUT’s Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Dalhousie Health Law Institute and Tsinghua Health Law Research Centre.
![MOBYE - มีใจทำไมไม่จีบ (ASAP) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dCOdz92FU18/mqdefault.jpg)
a doctors mantra, is DO NO HARM, keeping someone living with the most incredible pain & disability is DOING HARM
karina andersen A doctors oath squashes his mantra, "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest such counsel.
I don't know where you got your information on a doctor's mantra but that obviously isn't it.
doctors have four core principals Justice, autonomy, beneficence and nonmaleficence they may sometime contradict each other... but that's why we have ethics committees at hospitals.
Is a doctor inflicting harm or is the illness inflicting harm? You know the answer, it just doesn't suit your narrative.
Proud to be Dutch. We care for the autonomy of the person, as it should be.
Amazing debate.
I wish it was more heavily addressed that the Slippery Slope argument IS a logical fallacy. Great debate though!
If you tax people just a little bit, soon you're down the slippery slope taxing everyone for everything, so no taxes!
I know. And it comes from the shitty religion why people use the excuse of "slippery slope" when they abandon rational decisions and rational laws.
Depends on how you use it actually. I haven't watch the debate yet so you might be right that it's fallacious in this case I'm not sure.
Slippery slope isn't always a fallacy. More importantly, if autonomy is all that matters in the euthanasia debate, then euthanasia should be legal for all people who request; otherwise, we'd be infringing on their medical autonomy. That's the point Charles was making
Singer is one of the clearest philosophers out there.
Paula Mondoux So were Aldof Hitler, Josef Goebbels, Pol Pot, Mao, and even Jim Jones. But, all of them, like Peter Singer, were clearly evil.
Tom Dalzell It's irrational to judge any ideology you disagree with as evil. Create a counterargument, or be invalid.
All of the people you listed had very interesting and reasonable, albeit controversial ideologies.
Paula Mondoux as always pro choice is the correct choice
+Tom Dalzell odd thing to say about someone who's primary objective is to get people to donate more money to the poor and be kind to animals, but, ok...
@@killlalaland hai sictir !
Should the government have the right to prevent two consenting adults from entering into a contract (assuming the contract does not bring great harm to others)?
Sir Terence David John "Terry" Pratchet, produced a documentary, it was an insight into people's choices to euthanasia
the most fantastic thing is that when a person wants to have stronger pain medication with the knowledge that death will come quicker is more humane
I was looking for the Karina Anderson channel. Have I come to the right place? XD
anyone here from iihs...?
me..! it's nice to see you here ^0^
ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ
Why is the short little guy constantly sniffling?
euthanasia, I have never known it to be any less that a last decision
38:23 bookmark
Why should the fact that the culture I am embedded in informs what I value and informs what sort of life I regard as valuable, a condition which it would seem no one can escape, undermine the idea that I have a sufficient degree of autonomy. In fact, being so embedded would seem to be rather a condition for achieving autonomy.
Camosy‘s arguments do not convince me at all
I SAID THE SAME THING.. I HATE WHEN PEOPLE JUST READ OFF OF SLIDES.. IT AMKES ME FEEL LIKE THATS NOT WHAT THEY BELIEVE ITS JUST WHAT THEY LEARNED.. YOU NKOW WHAT I MEAN.. AT LEAST PETTERS SPOKE HIS MIND
What exactly is not convincing about it?
my grandmother, grandfather & two aunties under went volunteer euthanasia in the early 1970's onward, their bodies their choice
At 3:00... So does Singer think abortion is wrong? In abortion you take someone's life without him/her requesting it, right?
Johanna040713 An embryo/fetus is not a person. Especially an embryo lacks any form of consciousness. It's just a biological thing, not a subject.
MarcusSchmalzlockus Every human embryo is instantly a unique person. The embryo will not become anything but a human being and not just any human being but a unique person unlike any other in the history of the world. The embryo with have its own physical features, intellect, personality, etc. The embryo can not be unformed. It can only be killed, murdered.
Tom Dalzell You could say every sperm and egg is potentially it's own unique person yes? Yet we rationally know that they, and embryonic masses are no conscious or self-sufficient.
You cannot ignore the FACT that humanity is inherently a narcissistic cancer on this planet. Why encourage more mindless life, instead of supporting the life we already have?
Toa Onua If we wanted to support the humanity we have on earth at this very moment we would be speaking out against major corporations polluting our planet and NOT devising new ways to cover up others individual mistakes (this of course excuses cases of rape). But doctors go against their oath every time they kill and infant or every time they assist in a suicide. Life is life and we as individuals have no say on the matter of ending a anothers life.
Claudia Turino
I totally agree with your initial points, yet you're not making any connection to your claims that doctors are going against their oath. I quite clearly specified that BECAUSE humanity is narcissistic, the vast majority of individuals are more empathetic to a meaningless, human embryo, than every other species on this planet.
For example, please pardon the rhetorical question, but tell me why the intellectual advancements in biological medicine are generally ONLY within human medicine, and not the much more broad and biologically empathetic philosophies of veterinary medicine?