What is immoral about casual and friendly sex between adults?

[ppp]

German law does grant the patient a say in the doctor's choices.

The doctor is not the donor. The patient has no say in the donor's choices. Your lies of omission are still lies.

 

[thomas t]

Ah I misread. You wrote " The patient has no say in the donor's choices."
Instead of doctor's choices.
So that's not lying what I did @Joe W . I misread.

Now to the content:
No, the patient does not have a say in the dono's choices.
But beforehand, he agreed to this setting. He agreed to not having a choice in the donor's choices.... beforehand!
The doctor had to inform the patient about this.... beforehand, and this is what he agreed to.

 

[ppp]

Ah I misread. You wrote " The patient has no say in the donor's choices."
Instead of doctor's choices.
So that's not lying.

I don't believe you . Swear by God and Jesus and your hope of eternal Salvation that have not lied, evaded or engaged in any subterfuge at any point over the last week in our conversation.

 

[thomas t]

I don't believe you . Swear by God and Jesus and your hope of eternal Salvation that have not lied, evaded or engaged in any subterfuge at any point over the last week in our conversation.

I ensure you. Swearing is not allowed for Christians.
I evaded any point that would have led us further away from the topic, though. But I didn't evade the important points!

 

[ppp]

I ensure you. Swearing is not allowed for Christians.

Some sects do. Some sects don't. Either way, your word is not enough. Especially when you are still trying to pretend that being informed is equivalent to having a say in what another party does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

then I call the ambulance.
They go to hospital and they will decide there what to do next,
I'm not a doctor. Only doctors can review the situation right.
Before starting to even think of scenarios you presented... in practice it's better to call the ambulance.

Good job ignoring the excellent point he made.
Too devastating to your argument perhaps?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think that the patient did not consent to the donor's option to leave the treatment mid-process. This is part of the rules. If he consented to the treatment then you expect the patient to have consented to this part of the regulation, too. If he really did not know that the donor has this set of rights, it's the doctor's fault or the hosptal's. It's not up to the donor to assume that the hospital did not inform the patient about the donor's right to withdraw mid-process.

What @Joe W is trying to tell you, is that the patients opinion in this matter is irrelevant.

The patient's agreement or disagreement, his overall opinion, concerning the donor's rights to withdraw (at any time) is irrelevant.

No person is obligated to start OR continue at any time.
The fact is that the patient has no choice in the matter and depends entirely on the goodwill and ability of a potential donor to start and continue the process.

The only matter of consent here for the patient are simply allowing treatment to take place or not. Which in donor treatments, means accepting the offer of a donor - who, again, can withdraw at any time. The patient has NO say at all in wheter or not the donor starts or continues the procedure - whatever the procedure may be.

In Germany for instance, hospitals must inform the patient about any treatment. It's part of German law. See (German source) Einwilligung des Patienten: Rechtliche Details, die Ärzte kennen sollten.
EDITED to add link.

Yes. Which has nothing to do with the rights of the donor.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

no, it misses the point.
In the treatment you expect the patient to have consented. The hospitals informed them.
When it comes to abortion (as casual sex leading to more abortions)... you don't expect the unborn life to consent.
That's the difference.
Your analogy is moot.

You misapply the analogy.

The unborn's life consent in the analogy is analogous to the patient's consent to receive treatment, IF a donor is so kind to agree to donation. The patient's consent is wholy irrelevant to that donor's goodwill of providing whatever the patient needs.

The consent of the patient is thus to receive treatment, if a donor can be found that is willing to do his part.

So in case of pregnancy, the patient is the unborn. "consent" analogous to the example would thus mean that the unborn gives permission to the mother to carry it in her whomb. The mother being the donor. And the consent in terms of giving permission to said mother to carry it, is thus irrelevant to the mother's rights just like it is to the donor's rights.

you're ignoring consent here, as I siad

You're confused about what the consent is actually for and what it actually implies and, more importantly, does NOT imply. As @Joe W keeps trying to tell you.

As I said in my last point: your analogy omits the consent part of the patient/ the fetus.

The patient's consent to receiving treatment is irrelevant to the donor's rights to participate in that treatment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here in Germany for instance, doctors are required by federal law to let the patients know and let them have a say in the treatment. The patients must consent to the treatment they get

Which is irrelevant to the rights and goodwill of potential donors which might be needed for said treatment.

Just because a patient agrees to the treatment of a kidney transplate should doctors find a kidney, doesn't mean that someone is going to be forced to give up a kidney.....................................

Without consent the doctor must not start the treatment.

And with consent, the doctor is still going to have to find a donor that is actually willing to participate.

 

[thomas t]

Some sects do. Some sects don't. Either way, your word is not enough. Especially when you are still trying to pretend that being informed is equivalent to having a say in what another party does.

I don't live in a sect.
You put forward your reproaches. So the onus is on you to provide the evidence. Evidence for your reproaches. There is none.
"Especially when you are still trying to pretend that being informed is equivalent to having a say in what another party does."
I say: the patient has a say in what the doctor does. Including the treatment yes or no.

 

[ppp]

I say: the patient has a say in what the doctor does. Including the treatment yes or no.

Why are you telling me about the patient and the doctor?

 

[thomas t]

I didn't ignore the purportedly excellent point Joe made, in my opinion.

The only matter of consent here for the patient are simply allowing treatment to take place or not. Which in donor treatments, means accepting the offer of a donor - who, again, can withdraw at any time. The patient has NO say at all in wheter or not the donor starts or continues the procedure - whatever the procedure may be.[...]
Yes. Which has nothing to do with the rights of the donor.

+

What @Joe W is trying to tell you, is that the patients opinion in this matter is irrelevant.

The patient must agree to the terms and conditions of the whole treatment. At least in Germany.
So, if the doctor does not have the approval of the patient to start the treatment, the doctor must not start it.
So, in other words, the patient agrees beforehand that their opinion will be irrelevant concerning the donor's decisions with regard to a potential termination later.
So beforehand, the patiens approval does play a role. Without it, the treatment doesn't get started.

You're confused about what the consent is actually for and what it actually implies and, more importantly, does NOT imply. As @Joe W keeps trying to tell you.

actually I'm not. It's as I told Joe before.

So in case of pregnancy, the patient is the unborn. "consent" analogous to the example would thus mean that the unborn gives permission to the mother to carry it in her whomb. The mother being the donor. And the consent in terms of giving permission to said mother to carry it, is thus irrelevant to the mother's rights just like it is to the donor's rights.

I agree with you on the red part.
But the mother never got the unborn's perceivable consent to kill it.
The patient consented to the donor's right to withdraw anytime, in contrast. I'm referring to Joe's example, here.
So I don't misapply the analogy here.

The patient's consent to receiving treatment is irrelevant to the donor's rights to participate in that treatment.

I never claimed otherwise.

Which is irrelevant to the rights and goodwill of potential donors which might be needed for said treatment.

Just because a patient agrees to the treatment of a kidney transplate should doctors find a kidney, doesn't mean that someone is going to be forced to give up a kidney..................................... [...]
And with consent, the doctor is still going to have to find a donor that is actually willing to participate.

I never claimed otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The patient must agree to the terms and conditions of the whole treatment. At least in Germany.

Which has no relevancy to a potential donor's willingness to donate his bodily resources.

So, if the doctor does not have the approval of the patient to start the treatment, the doctor must not start it.

And if the patient does agree to the treatment, the doctor still needs to find a potential donor who is willing to donate.

So, in other words, the patient agrees beforehand that their opinion will be irrelevant concerning the donor's decisions with regard to a potential termination later.

The patient has no choice in the matter. We are talking about the donor's rights. The patient agreeing or disagreeing is of no relevance to those rights. They can't be overrided.

So beforehand, the patiens approval does play a role

It does not. Not to the potential donor's rights, anyway.

Without it, the treatment doesn't get started.

Then the donor's rights, which he still has, are irrelevant, since the patient wants to die or take a gamble, apparantly.

If the patient wants to live, (s)he'll be dependend on the donor's willingness to move forward or not.

No matter the situation, the donor's rights remain unchanged.

actually I'm not. It's as I told Joe before.

You are. You are doing your outmost best to avoid acknowledging the rights that the potential donor has at any given time, no matter the opinions, demands or whatever else the patient might have.

There is nothing that the patient can do which would strip the donor from his/her rights.

I agree with you on the red part.
But the mother never got the unborn's perceivable consent to kill it.

The mother isn't killing it, just like me refusing to give you a kidney isn't killing you - assuming not getting my kidney means certain death for you.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if the unborn can or cannot give consent. Either way it wouldn't override the mother's rights. And without consent (ie: approving of treatment), treatment would have to be terminated. Which in the case of pregnancy, ironically would mean abortion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why are you telling me about the patient and the doctor?

Because he wants to stay very clear of the donor. The donor's rights, in particular.

 

[ppp]

Because he wants to stay very clear of the donor. The donor's rights, in particular.

He is just making up fictional motives that are not even salient. Floundering around saying random stuff, then insisting that it is relevant. So much for Christianity being a moral system .

 

[Bird123]

At the *very* best acting on the feeling of unconditional love causes one to do what one thinks is best for the other. Unfortunately, what one feels is best can be horribly, terribly, tragically wrong.

Most often people acting on what they claim to be unconditional love, still place their goals for the person they claim to love unconditionally over that person's own goals and agency. Seven of the most self-serving words spoken are, "I did it for your own good."

Also, doing what is best for another does not require unconditional love. It does not even require unconditional like. Just moral principles that support such actions.

There is an almost limitless number of variables with the human situation. Unconditional Love is the path forward regardless of how it turns out. Lessons that follow only fine tune the effort leading to better results as one moves forward.

Some of this might fall under some people's definition of moral principles. On the other hand moral principles can lead a path to so many petty things like blaming, judging, anger, wrath, wanting pay back and even hate. I stand by Unconditional Love as the only viable choice.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[ppp]

There is an almost limitless number of variables with the human situation. Unconditional Love is the path forward regardless of how it turns out.

That's the difference between us. I care about the actual effects of one's actions and attitudes upon actual human beings. You care trumpeting the slogan, irrespective of outcome. Pfui.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

That's the difference between us. I care about the actual effects of one's actions and attitudes upon actual human beings. You care trumpeting the slogan, irrespective of outcome. Pfui.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

You do not understand. The results are what matter. On the other hand, it's about the results for everyone not just one individual.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[ppp]

Unconditional Love is the path forward regardless of how it turns out.

You do not understand. The results are what matter

Make up your mind.

 

[thomas t]

So now you start talking about me already...

He is just making up fictional motives that are not even salient.

no.

Floundering around saying random stuff, then insisting that it is relevant.

no, that's not true (bolded part).

concerning your question - when your mind seems to be already set when you answer the question yourself without having heard my reply... I won't answer it.
I'm interested in an open debate. One of the sort where participants listen. But not in this one here when minds seem to be set beforehand.