On 24 Feb 1995, Brian Rauchfuss - PCD wrote:
>> If significant life-extension is available but is denied, is this really
> different from mass-murder? Would it not be better, at least to offer
> people the choice between reproduction and life-extension (note that 2 or
> less children per couple does not create an exponential population problem).
No it would not be murder. No one has a "right" to life extension any
more than they have a right to transplant organs. When doctors withold
treatment for a patient for varied or sundry reasons, it is cannot be
considered murder. Since when did you or I have an inalienable right to
chemotherapy. You cannot take a hospital or doctor to court for murder
if you are not given such a treatment. The contrary view would then be
that anyone who didn't choose to have artificial life-extension treatment
is comitting suicide, which is ridiculous. I'm certain some repellent
lawyer(s) would LOVE to establish all kinds of goofy laws and precedents
so that they can sue even more, but their opinions and desires are
irrelevant and better ignored...they ARE lawyers, afterall.
