Not treating a person isn't what's denying the person the right to live. Nature, or the disease, is doing that. A life-extending medical treatment is a service that we can accept or deny.

You are a doctor, and you see a person X that is about to die from a disease that can be prevented given sufficient care. The problem is the following:

Story:

You are a doctor, and you see a person X that is about to die from a disease that can be prevented given sufficient care. The problem is the following:

1. Treatment is too expensive, and regular insurance does not cover the patient ` s treatment.

As a society, if we were to deny patient X treatment, then it follows that:

2. It is acceptable to denying patient X the right to live.( ie: there is no right to life).

If we accept 2 as true, then it follows logically that:

3. You do not have the right to life.

If 3 is true, then it follows that:

4. The government do not have any authority to protect you from violent acts against you, and your family.



Since 4 is unacceptable, then we reject 4, thus implies, we reject, 3, and 2.

added:

Here is a more illustrative example. If i am a layman( by analogy: government), and i see you, and your family being slaughtered by a madman. Do i interfere? I think it is right to interfere. If this example succeed, there there is a good reason for us to help others, and others to us.

Can't agree with your anology at all, it's nonsens.

What did i say:
The assumption is that we can prevent a person from dying.

Yes, I get this. But your #2 doesn't necessarily follow from #1. Denying treatment is not the same as denying the right to live. Murdering a person is denying their right to live, but kicking them out of the hospital and letting nature take its course is different.

If you have problems with what i said, then attack my argument. You can` t do that, so it seems you are not even capable of doing that.

Actually that is not the problem at all, people rarely get denied life saving treatment.
The problem is all those expensive things that might (a range of probabilities) help.
It is the two million dollar treatments with 20% success and the fact that the money could be spent on education or some other priority.
How much is your life worth?

If I had sight of your claim holding reason, I would, but since your claim are too far from any reason, it would be a waste of time.

Are you sure it is not because you are incapable of rational thought?

I am very good at rational thinking, infact when I worked I was excelent at solving problems, even though I have no formal education. I solved problems which highly professional people couldn't. I tryed to leave a newspaper but was called back 3 times to solve problems.

Do i sense a sign of insecurity from you? You don ` t need to convince me, because i don` t care.

Get back on topic. If you disagree, then attack my argument. If you don` t attack my argument, then it is reasonable for me to assume you are incapable of doing so.

In any serious buisness, one would normally try to help workers, explaining how they ought to do things and such, if their problem falls under a certain lvl of needed help, it would be illogically to waste time try to explain things for them, they get fired instead.

You mention your non-education, and "superior problem solving skill", because you are deeply insecure about your own ability. It is sad, but your issue is not my concern. If it matters, I am better at philosophy than you. Not only do i know more, but i can actually engage in abstract reasoning!

No, quite the contrary, I know I'm a competent person, and you are in the woods with your feeble confused psycology.

You clearly can't see what is relevant and irrelevant, spare me.

You are like an UFO sighter who insist UFO's are alien space crafts, and I already there give up reasoning with you, then you go on about your babble, and just can't realize when the initial claim is wrong, what good is it to reason with a person who insist on beliveing in babble?

Story:

You are a doctor, and you see a person X that is about to die from a disease that can be prevented given sufficient care. The problem is that the treatment itself is too expensive, and regular insurance does not cover the patient ` s treatment.

As a society, if we were to deny patient X treatment, then it follows that:

1. An agent( by analogy: government) knowing person X can be saved from disease, and not doing anything about it.

If 1 is true, then it follows that:

2. It is acceptable to denying patient X the right to live.( ie: there is no right to life).

If we accept 2 as true, then it follows logically that:

3. You do not have the right to life.

If 3 is true, then it follows that:

4. The government do not have any authority to protect you from violent acts against you, and your family.



Since 4 is unacceptable, then we reject 4, thus implies, we reject, 3, and 2.

added:

Here is a more illustrative example. If i am a layman( by analogy: government), and i see you, and your family being slaughtered by a madman. Do i interfere? I think it is right to interfere. If this example succeed, there there is a good reason for us to help others, and others to us.

I think whatever this is supposed to mean needs a whole lot of work before it even begins to make any sense. :perplexed:

Story:

You are a doctor, and you see a person X that is about to die from a disease that can be prevented given sufficient care. The problem is that the treatment itself is too expensive, and regular insurance does not cover the patient ` s treatment.

As a society, if we were to deny patient X treatment, then it follows that:

1. An agent( by analogy: government) knowing person X can be saved from disease, and not doing anything about it.

1 I can't see how you infer 4 from three.


2 Also in three, it doesn't follow like you say, because in 1 the right to life can apparently be purchased.

3 As far as your illistrative example, the police (by analogy: government) have already been purchased and commissioned to interfere when they see you being slaughtered.

4 I think whatever this is supposed to mean needs a whole lot of work before it even begins to make any sense. :perplexed: