Inalienable Rights To Immortality
dashley at TENET.EDU
Sat Feb 25 21:27:24 EST 1995
Your position that people don't have rights to medical treatment will merit
debate. Serious contemplation at least, in light of impending
breakthroughs in anti-aging research.
Actually, it's hard to determine which writer in this thread suggested such.
And then, if we don't have rights to medical treatment (immortality), we
would certainly be interested in how to earn the privilege of receiving
Civil rights lawyers will flourish on this one.
On Sat, 25 Feb 1995, Patrick O'Neil wrote:
> 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.
More information about the Ageing