conuly

But don't we generally put dogs down when they're older? I suppose puppies do get put down. . . I don't know. That gets into a bunch of ethical things, from euthanasia to whether animals can feel.

From:

Bah. You know, I'm more likely to read your articles whenever you say "trigger warning" because then I am poundingly curious to know what's triggery about it... It's a compulsion. Even though they do upset me, the word "trigger" actually reads as "look at this right now as it's bound to be fascinating and horrible!"

From:

conuly

Well, those warnings are for those who have good reason to take them seriously.

From:

Mmm. And who's to say that I might not have good reasons, for some articles?

It might be a good thing to consider mentioning the subject matter of the article, under a cut if you don't want to risk traumatizing anyone. Really, so many people find so many different things triggering that it could have been anything. Personally, I always want to know whether or not it's something that will bother me when there's no context beyond that one word. So I'll always click those links, even though there are some things I will go out of my way to avoid reading. Would writing something like, "Euthanasia article. Possibly triggering" trigger somebody? Personally, I like to know what I'm avoiding.

From:

conuly

Good point. With this, though, I didn't see which heading to put it under.

From:

frogmajick.livejournal.com

the word "trigger" actually reads as "look at this right now as it's bound to be fascinating and horrible!"

You are not alone in this compulsion.

From:

I thought that's what it'd be. A friend showed it to me earlier today. Pissed doesn't even begin to describe it. I was going to tack that onto my post about expendability, but I decided against it.

From:

conuly

Seriously.

"Termination of life without request"?

Over here, we call that murder.

Now, I've got nothing wrong with requested euthanasia - you've got a terminal illness, you're in pain, go for it. It's your life. And I can see how somebody in a coma or on life support might've had the foresight to tell people ahead of time "this is what I want". With luck, they haven't changed their minds. But I don't see how you can decide who does and does not have free will like that.

And spina bifida? Please. Isn't that non-terminal? And thus violating the rules I think I saw stated?

From:

There's more to the requested kind than meets the eye, but I agree with you on the non-requested kind. Also I agree on the idea that people have the right to control their own lives, but the requested kind doesn't give the control it purports to give, and in fact takes away some of that exact kind of control.

If you're interested, this group (http://www.notdeadyet.org/) has a fair bit of information from a perspective that's often ignored in what's usually portrayed in the media as a two-sided debate. My stance is very similar to theirs, for very similar reasons.

From:

conuly

I know there's more to the requested kind. I like to pretend I live in a perfect world. Please don't disillusion me too quickly, okay?

From:

I like to pretend I live in a perfect world. Please don't disillusion me too quickly, okay?

Are you taking a leaf out of my brother's book? :-P

(No offense to my brother if he stumbles across this, but that's exactly the sort of thing he'd say.)

From:

conuly

Hm. Might be. Never met him, though, so I don't know.

From:

If you're going to reply to the following entry, please reply in my journal not yours since it's locked (but trust me it's related):

http://www.livejournal.com/users/wakasplat/85240.html

From:

o_O

Good God. . .

Agreed (to a certain extent -- I'm getting my whole morality things sorted out still) that requested euthanasia is all right. But killing babies? I wonder if they got the parents' permission. . . If the parents gave permission, I might be okay, but if they're just saying, "Sorry, Mom and Dad, your kid's not going to live long, we're putting him/her down. . ."

Excuse me while I go be sick.

From:

I can see potential problems with this, as with anything concerning a person's life at stake. But with that said, this is long overdue.

I want to state somehow legally that if were to be in a situation where the pain is unbearable with no potential for recovery, end it. If I'm nothing but a wasting pile of assisted life with no real chance for recovery, end it. Medical efforts and funds are better invested in people who do stand a chance.

From:

OK, that part said, i see that there are potential BAD things with the decision whether to end it without request. Tough call. :-/ VERY tough call, but I would disagree with it simply because like said, there's no consent. Someone who has potential to live a happy life despite "abnormalties" and someone who does have a chance DOES deserve that shot at life with the medical advancements we have to assist them.

From:

cumaeansibyl.livejournal.com

I've always wondered why we refuse to grant human beings the same mercy we do our dogs.

From:

conuly

*shrugs*

I'm not getting into this discussion with you again. I'm just saying, I know a surprising number people who might've been euthanized as babies and are glad they weren't.

Me, I draw the line for "abortion isn't acceptable anymore" long before birth.

From:

moggymania.livejournal.com

Ah, but that's you speaking as somebody that wouldn't have been put down at/near birth.

Speaking as somebody that *would* have been euthanized were infanticide legal, I'm personally extremely happy that people couldn't force their idea of "mercy" on me based on how *they* would want to be treated.

From:

But don't we generally put dogs down when they're older? I suppose puppies do get put down. . . I don't know. That gets into a bunch of ethical things, from euthanasia to whether animals can feel.

From:

Bah. You know, I'm more likely to read your articles whenever you say "trigger warning" because then I am poundingly curious to know what's triggery about it... It's a compulsion. Even though they do upset me, the word "trigger" actually reads as "look at this right now as it's bound to be fascinating and horrible!"

From:

conuly

Well, those warnings are for those who have good reason to take them seriously.

From:

Mmm. And who's to say that I might not have good reasons, for some articles?

It might be a good thing to consider mentioning the subject matter of the article, under a cut if you don't want to risk traumatizing anyone. Really, so many people find so many different things triggering that it could have been anything. Personally, I always want to know whether or not it's something that will bother me when there's no context beyond that one word. So I'll always click those links, even though there are some things I will go out of my way to avoid reading. Would writing something like, "Euthanasia article. Possibly triggering" trigger somebody? Personally, I like to know what I'm avoiding.

From:

conuly

Good point. With this, though, I didn't see which heading to put it under.

From:

frogmajick.livejournal.com

the word "trigger" actually reads as "look at this right now as it's bound to be fascinating and horrible!"

You are not alone in this compulsion.

From:

I thought that's what it'd be. A friend showed it to me earlier today. Pissed doesn't even begin to describe it. I was going to tack that onto my post about expendability, but I decided against it.

From:

conuly

Seriously.

"Termination of life without request"?

Over here, we call that murder.

Now, I've got nothing wrong with requested euthanasia - you've got a terminal illness, you're in pain, go for it. It's your life. And I can see how somebody in a coma or on life support might've had the foresight to tell people ahead of time "this is what I want". With luck, they haven't changed their minds. But I don't see how you can decide who does and does not have free will like that.

And spina bifida? Please. Isn't that non-terminal? And thus violating the rules I think I saw stated?

From:

There's more to the requested kind than meets the eye, but I agree with you on the non-requested kind. Also I agree on the idea that people have the right to control their own lives, but the requested kind doesn't give the control it purports to give, and in fact takes away some of that exact kind of control.

If you're interested, this group (http://www.notdeadyet.org/) has a fair bit of information from a perspective that's often ignored in what's usually portrayed in the media as a two-sided debate. My stance is very similar to theirs, for very similar reasons.

From:

conuly

I know there's more to the requested kind. I like to pretend I live in a perfect world. Please don't disillusion me too quickly, okay?

From:

I like to pretend I live in a perfect world. Please don't disillusion me too quickly, okay?

Are you taking a leaf out of my brother's book? :-P

(No offense to my brother if he stumbles across this, but that's exactly the sort of thing he'd say.)

From:

conuly

Hm. Might be. Never met him, though, so I don't know.

From:

If you're going to reply to the following entry, please reply in my journal not yours since it's locked (but trust me it's related):

http://www.livejournal.com/users/wakasplat/85240.html

From:

o_O

Good God. . .

Agreed (to a certain extent -- I'm getting my whole morality things sorted out still) that requested euthanasia is all right. But killing babies? I wonder if they got the parents' permission. . . If the parents gave permission, I might be okay, but if they're just saying, "Sorry, Mom and Dad, your kid's not going to live long, we're putting him/her down. . ."

Excuse me while I go be sick.

From:

I can see potential problems with this, as with anything concerning a person's life at stake. But with that said, this is long overdue.

I want to state somehow legally that if were to be in a situation where the pain is unbearable with no potential for recovery, end it. If I'm nothing but a wasting pile of assisted life with no real chance for recovery, end it. Medical efforts and funds are better invested in people who do stand a chance.

From: