2014 ICEL - Peter Singer & Charles Camosy debate: Ethics of euthanasia and assisted suicide

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
  • 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.

КОМЕНТАРІ • 52

  • @karinaandersen2618
    @karinaandersen2618 9 років тому +33

    a doctors mantra, is DO NO HARM, keeping someone living with the most incredible pain & disability is DOING HARM

    • @claudiaferreira2662
      @claudiaferreira2662 9 років тому

      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.

    • @daniel-fd9ih
      @daniel-fd9ih 8 років тому +1

      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.

    • @TryingtoTellYou
      @TryingtoTellYou 10 місяців тому

      Is a doctor inflicting harm or is the illness inflicting harm? You know the answer, it just doesn't suit your narrative.

    • @joecheffo5942
      @joecheffo5942 Місяць тому

      @@TryingtoTellYou I was actually crippled by an antibiotic my doctor have me, one far more powerful then needed, and did not give me the warnings. Now I want assisted suicide. Its a FQ antibiotic (big name, lookin it up) it cripples thousands per year but doctors and big pharma are mostly shielded from lawsuits. Many of the drugs they give cause terrrible harm. This one took a totally healthy person with just a suspected prostate infection, and destroyed my body, Don't tell me doctors do no harm. They give harmful medicines and and they fairly often give uneeded procedures as well. When they mess up they just shrug, no right to die after they give you permanent pain and disability. It's inhuman and immoral.

  • @paulamondoux2643
    @paulamondoux2643 9 років тому +37

    Singer is one of the clearest philosophers out there.

    • @tomdalzell2407
      @tomdalzell2407 9 років тому +1

      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.

    • @toaonua523
      @toaonua523 9 років тому +12

      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.

    • @karinaandersen2618
      @karinaandersen2618 9 років тому

      Paula Mondoux as always pro choice is the correct choice

    • @killlalaland
      @killlalaland 9 років тому +5

      +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...

    • @mariuszamfirescu5390
      @mariuszamfirescu5390 4 роки тому

      @@killlalaland hai sictir !

  • @Loesters
    @Loesters 6 місяців тому +1

    Proud to be Dutch. We care for the autonomy of the person, as it should be.

  • @toaonua523
    @toaonua523 9 років тому +20

    I wish it was more heavily addressed that the Slippery Slope argument IS a logical fallacy. Great debate though!

    • @Frohicky1
      @Frohicky1 8 років тому +1

      If you tax people just a little bit, soon you're down the slippery slope taxing everyone for everything, so no taxes!

    • @clayandputtyvideos1647
      @clayandputtyvideos1647 4 роки тому

      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.

    • @AwkwardAdolescent
      @AwkwardAdolescent 4 роки тому +1

      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.

    • @gleon1602
      @gleon1602 2 роки тому

      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

    • @joecheffo5942
      @joecheffo5942 Місяць тому

      @@AwkwardAdolescent It's a falacy.

  • @sgt7
    @sgt7 9 років тому +1

    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)?

  • @gabrielx95
    @gabrielx95 3 роки тому +4

    Amazing debate.

  • @lendrestapas2505
    @lendrestapas2505 3 роки тому +6

    Camosy‘s arguments do not convince me at all

    • @carlos12t25
      @carlos12t25 3 роки тому

      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

    • @gleon1602
      @gleon1602 Рік тому

      What exactly is not convincing about it?

  • @Panda-ju7eb
    @Panda-ju7eb 4 роки тому +5

    anyone here from iihs...?

    • @박서현1030
      @박서현1030 4 роки тому

      me..! it's nice to see you here ^0^

    • @쎄지자
      @쎄지자 4 роки тому

      ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ

  • @Actuary1776
    @Actuary1776 8 місяців тому

    Why is the short little guy constantly sniffling?

  • @karinaandersen2618
    @karinaandersen2618 9 років тому

    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

  • @suzanneennis3743
    @suzanneennis3743 7 років тому +1

    I was looking for the Karina Anderson channel. Have I come to the right place? XD

  • @ieagleson1
    @ieagleson1 9 років тому +2

    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.

  • @karinaandersen2618
    @karinaandersen2618 9 років тому

    Sir Terence David John "Terry" Pratchet, produced a documentary, it was an insight into people's choices to euthanasia

  • @karinaandersen2618
    @karinaandersen2618 9 років тому

    my grandmother, grandfather & two aunties under went volunteer euthanasia in the early 1970's onward, their bodies their choice

  • @karinaandersen2618
    @karinaandersen2618 9 років тому

    euthanasia, I have never known it to be any less that a last decision

  • @Johanna040713
    @Johanna040713 9 років тому +4

    At 3:00... So does Singer think abortion is wrong? In abortion you take someone's life without him/her requesting it, right?

    • @MarcusSchmalzlockus
      @MarcusSchmalzlockus 9 років тому +16

      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.

    • @tomdalzell2407
      @tomdalzell2407 9 років тому +6

      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.

    • @toaonua523
      @toaonua523 9 років тому +6

      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?

    • @claudiaferreira2662
      @claudiaferreira2662 9 років тому +1

      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.

    • @toaonua523
      @toaonua523 9 років тому +2

      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?

  • @dubbelkastrull
    @dubbelkastrull 2 роки тому

    38:23 bookmark