Comment by lo_zamoyski
1 year ago
It seems you are following the ethical course, and this is commendable. As you may already know, in ethics we distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary (or disproportionate) care. But while we may licitly refuse disproportionate care, at least in many cases, we cannot intentionally cause the death of anyone (ourselves or another; the "self-ownership" thesis is likely responsible for the view that we can licitly do anything to ourselves as if we were some kind of property, but we are not objects, and what is morally good is objective and not fully accounted for by consent, or utility). We may not purposefully speed up anyone's death, but we can, in some cases, where proportionality is preserved, permit treatment or refuse treatment, knowing that an unintended side effect is the hastening of death (like, perhaps, alleviation of pain).
In any case, know that such circumstances as yours, if we respond to them rightly, perfect us in the virtue of charity, the highest and greatest of virtues.
I wish your son, you, and your family comfort and joy. Do not despair. Fear not. Pax vobiscum.
I find your comment very distasteful. It is written as if you know The One True Path, and anyone who strays from Your Path is unethical.
I find your comment particularly distasteful in light of the fact that you were replying to a comment by the writer in which he acknowledged that people might make different choices if placed in the same situation that he was in.
Finally, some of the things you wrote are obviously wrong. For example:
>We may not purposefully speed up anyone’s death
Nonsense. If someone is trying to kill me, I may be justified in killing them.
> what is morally good is objective and not fully accounted for by consent, or utility.
Could you elaborate here? I'm curious what is meant by this.