He didn’t just claim that medical marijuana reduces pain, he claimed that it reduces pain, and therefore people who oppose euthanasia should support it. This argument implicitly assumes, not just that medical marijuana prevents pain, but also that there are no other reasons (including non-pain related reasons) which outweigh the benefit from preventing pain.
In other words, given his argument, any argument that medical marijuana is in general bad—including claims that it is misused for non-medical purposes—is responsive. So is any argument that asserts that pain relief is relatively infrequent, because he is (implicltly) balancing pain relief against other reasons, and the other reasons affect the result more if pain relief is infrequent. Just because his claim is that it reduces pain doesn’t mean that counter-arguments must be limited to asserting that it causes more pain elsewhere.
I got the impression that the anti-euthanasia guy is mostly repeating one argument—that you can always remove pain, therefore the argument of killing people to prevent them from feeling unnecessary pain is always false.
...From what I have seen, hospitals for terminally ill patients are more or less torture chambers.
But sure, if you had argued that we should view marijuana use as approaching torture in badness, or even that the opposition takes this view, that would be responsive.
Now the Catholic Church does in fact seem to oppose marijuana across the board. As an outsider I find this ludicrous (will they treat it more like wine once someone claims it can become the breath of Christ?) but certainly I would not have downvoted you had you presented your claim as an explanation of the (specifically Catholic) opposition and not implied that I should share your objection.
I’m not Catholic and not specifically trying to explain a Catholic position. I am trying to justify it, however (without claiming that the justification is the one used by Catholics).
But sure, if you had argued that we should view marijuana use as approaching torture in badness, or even that the opposition takes this view, that would be responsive.
I find it difficult to imagine what pieces of evidence one could give for hospitals being like or not like a torture chamber. I also find it difficult to imagine that he’s seen or measured pain levels in many actual torture chambers in order to be able to meaningfully compare hospitals to them. In other words, calling it a torture chamber is an applause light, and doesn’t actually say anything more than just “there is unnecessary pain”, which as I’ve pointed out, I did respond to.
That is evidence for there being unnecessary pain, which I don’t deny.
Edit: I suppose that’s too strong. If the pain is part of a tradeoff against worse consequences it might be necessary. So change that to “that is evidence for there being pain that produces negative utility to the patients, which I don’t deny”.
He didn’t just claim that medical marijuana reduces pain, he claimed that it reduces pain, and therefore people who oppose euthanasia should support it. This argument implicitly assumes, not just that medical marijuana prevents pain, but also that there are no other reasons (including non-pain related reasons) which outweigh the benefit from preventing pain.
In other words, given his argument, any argument that medical marijuana is in general bad—including claims that it is misused for non-medical purposes—is responsive. So is any argument that asserts that pain relief is relatively infrequent, because he is (implicltly) balancing pain relief against other reasons, and the other reasons affect the result more if pain relief is infrequent. Just because his claim is that it reduces pain doesn’t mean that counter-arguments must be limited to asserting that it causes more pain elsewhere.
Viliam:
But sure, if you had argued that we should view marijuana use as approaching torture in badness, or even that the opposition takes this view, that would be responsive.
Now the Catholic Church does in fact seem to oppose marijuana across the board. As an outsider I find this ludicrous (will they treat it more like wine once someone claims it can become the breath of Christ?) but certainly I would not have downvoted you had you presented your claim as an explanation of the (specifically Catholic) opposition and not implied that I should share your objection.
I’m not Catholic and not specifically trying to explain a Catholic position. I am trying to justify it, however (without claiming that the justification is the one used by Catholics).
I find it difficult to imagine what pieces of evidence one could give for hospitals being like or not like a torture chamber. I also find it difficult to imagine that he’s seen or measured pain levels in many actual torture chambers in order to be able to meaningfully compare hospitals to them. In other words, calling it a torture chamber is an applause light, and doesn’t actually say anything more than just “there is unnecessary pain”, which as I’ve pointed out, I did respond to.
Will you now retract the downvote?
Have some evidence—medical professionals refuse end of life care
That is evidence for there being unnecessary pain, which I don’t deny.
Edit: I suppose that’s too strong. If the pain is part of a tradeoff against worse consequences it might be necessary. So change that to “that is evidence for there being pain that produces negative utility to the patients, which I don’t deny”.