It would instantly kill those with the disease, but it would ensure that the disease was never an issue in the future.
On one hand, you would end lives, and on the other you would save them. My personl opinion is to do it, more lives would be saved than lost.
2007-07-03 09:27:04 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
No, probably not, because there are people with AIDS that are innocent victims and because the cure may be there tomorrow. Actually, morality would most likely be the only end to AIDS.
2007-07-03 09:45:54 · answer #1 · answered by dawnUSA 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I cannot believe that anyone could possibly believe something like this. If you want a population dead, there are ways other than finding cures for their deadly illnesses. If you don't want them around, why not just suggest execution? It's fast, saves money, time, and ends all those annoyances that are associated with helping sick people. What you're proposing is quite similar to what Hitler was proposing. Weed out specific types of people--the unwell, the burdens; the "retarded," the old. People who exist right now are far more important than those of the uncertain future.
2007-07-03 16:54:33 · answer #2 · answered by teeleecee 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would be against it, even though I am against the type of persons who "created" the disease and spread it.
But, I seriously doubt if that would end the disease: if it did, cholera, smallpox, chicken pox, measles and all the others should have been eradicated. And then, there is the all-time champion: the "Black Plague".
Sorry, that is just wishful thinking. But, I would say, that if people don't change, worse diseases are in store for mankind.
2007-07-03 16:32:29 · answer #3 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
How is it ethical to expedite death. Do you know the future of medical treatment?
2007-07-03 16:31:25 · answer #4 · answered by Dr weasel 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋