Court forcing 16 yr old with cancer into chemo

Morrigoon · 05-23-2007, 02:17 PM

I suppose you've got me there, Alex. I do hold some conflicting positions. You could say my 'line' is jagged.

But I think there is a difference between refusing to allow someone to introduce something into their body, and forcing them To introduce something into their body. Refusing to allow entry (eg: drugs) is supporting the body in its "natural" state, versus forcibly introducing something (like chemo) which is forcing a non-naturally occurring disposition. Even if the naturally-occurring one is terminal.

In other words, if they're already dying, not forcing them to live is one thing... taking someone who isn't dying and doing something to them which may kill them is another.

05-23-2007, 02:17 PM	#1
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	I suppose you've got me there, Alex. I do hold some conflicting positions. You could say my 'line' is jagged. But I think there is a difference between refusing to allow someone to introduce something into their body, and forcing them To introduce something into their body. Refusing to allow entry (eg: drugs) is supporting the body in its "natural" state, versus forcibly introducing something (like chemo) which is forcing a non-naturally occurring disposition. Even if the naturally-occurring one is terminal. In other words, if they're already dying, not forcing them to live is one thing... taking someone who isn't dying and doing something to them which may kill them is another. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes