In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950225170433.8301A-100000 at corona>,
Patrick O'Neil <patrick at corona> 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
Now I can agree with this, let's say a doctor refuses to
treat you for aesthetic reasons, to wit, he doesn't like
your face..... Yeah, sounds okay to me, I llliiikkkeee that!
'...varied or sundry reasons' -- works for me.