The way I see it, there's a big difference between prolonging life and prolonging death. In a lot of cases, it's the second one.
And, to be perfectly blunt, doctors need to stop hiding behind the 'do no harm' bit. Most modern medicine involves doing quite a bit of harm, to good effect. Do no harm? So much for surgery. So much for chemotherapy.
I get that it's scary to think that suddenly you are the chooser of the slain. I don't have a good answer for that. But something needs to be done; the system as it is is untenable.
Out of curiosity, what happens when a loved one contests those documents? What happens when your doctor decides that there's a five percent chance you could recover? One percent?
Why make the patient suffer for three days? Why not end it right then and there?
The difference between humans and animals is that doctors have industrial-strength pain-killers they will administer to humans. No matter how excruciating the pain, doctors can keep you drugged into a dream world, and can similarly keep you entirely unconscious for an indefinite period. If you could choose your method of departure, being drugged out of your mind on coke would be the near the top of most people's lists, so morphine or similar isn't a bad alternative.
Not so. My grandfather had an interesting thing happen, where his intestine started dying by inches. They tried excising the dying bits, but the rest kept dying too. So, palliative care.
They were quite frank about the fact that he was in enough pain that no painkiller they had would work on him. He was drugged into utter unconsciousness, yet still his face was spasming with pain. Yet when I suggested maybe they just up the dose, they said 'Any more would kill him.' 'Well, doctor,' I said, 'what are his chances?' 'None,' they said. 'He will die within a week. There's nothing we can do.' 'Exactly,' I said. And they looked at me like I was a monster, while they did everything they could to prolong his death. Not his life, his death.
Yet if I treated my dog that way, I'd be up on animal cruelty charges.
Or, to restate: "Work for free, or you're fired. Either way, you're not getting paid."
It's a real bad road to start to go down.
No, but being forced to work with no pay is incorrect as well.
Being fired for failing an assignment? Fine. Contracted work with milestones and what not, with per-completion payment? No problem.
Government telling people that they will work, for free? Bad juju.
Ok, here's the problem with that analogy. I'm not a major nation-state. I don't have access to an intelligence apparatus. I don't have access to trained interrogators. I don't have access to Sodium pentothal, let alone other lovely drugs with no lasting side effects.
Similarly, to fit in your analogy, but extend it along it's logical course, if this guy really wants to hurt me, honestly believes that his god requires him to hurt me, he'll last 'several hours' without saying a damn thing.
Or, even better, he'll 'hold out' for two or three hours, then 'confess' where the loved one is. Only he'll purposefully give an incorrect address.
Or, upon him missing checking in with his kidnapperly cohorts, they'll FUCKING GO SOMEWHERE HE DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT. Even IF, for some UNGODLY reason, he happens to know where to go, instead of being told to go to a rendezvous point, give an 'all clear' signal, such as smoothing his hair with his right hand, rather than the 'I'm being followed, kill the hostage' signal, which is to shoot some dandruff off of the left shoulder with the right hand.
I see what you're saying, and I understand, and I agree that, objectively speaking, being waterboarded is probably 'better' than being, say, branded with hot irons.
The problem is, being tortured doesn't get people to speak truth. It gets people to speak whatever will make the hurting stop. It's not a means of information extraction. There are FAR more effective and safe ways of extracting information.
No, torture is proving a point. And it's not a point that any decent person/group should be making.
Wikipedia: The Encyclopedia that anybody (whom we approve) can edit.
They refuse to privilege, in any way, expertise, so why should they engage in demotion of non-expertise?