Yeah, this will fool God. Like Amish with phones in their barns.
I imagine the Amish would have to use a battery-powered suicide machine.
Sounds like slitting a throat and blaming the knife.
Does this mean I could set a time-bomb in someone's house and I wouldn't be responsible for taking their life? Cool! But wouldn't that make an Islamic suicide bomber innocent if they used a timer to set off the bomb? Or does this not apply to non-Jews?
There is a complete difference between using a machine to switch lights on and off on the Sabbath and using a machine to kill someone.
In the case of the Sabbath, it's purely a matter of time. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with turning a light on or off; it's only wrong for some people on the Sabbath. So, the program the machine on some other day, and it takes over.
But it is intrinsically wrong to kill someone, on the Sabbath or on any other day. Displacing the time does nothing to fix that. And sins of omission (i.e., not turning the machine off when it gives the alarm) are essentially the same as sins of commission.
This is nothing but hypocrisy. A whited sepulcher, to use the biblical phrase.
Machines? How humane.
This reminds me of when Jesus tried to tell the Jewish leaders that they were trying too hard to follow the letter of the Law without following the spirit of the Law.
The people (of the U.S) fell for the same kind of thing when it allowed Terri Schiavo to be starved and dehydehydrated to death last spring.
Euthanasia ping!
Pro-Life ping
Stupidity.
It is not the machine.
It's a human.
This is twisting Jewish tradition in such a way as to deny it.
Foolish, hypocritical casuistry. (look it up)
Setting a timer to do something later is morally the same as doing it at once.
Example: setting a timer to explode later is morally the same as exploding immediately.
ping....
Who made the machine? Monkeys?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3180403,00.html
Having read several articles on the same Knesset bill, I don't think this is actually euthanasia at all. True, this account of it is more than a little bit ambiguous. The headline says it's "euthanasia," but one of the other articles said that neither active euthanasia nor the termination of nutrition would be permitted.
But turning off a respirator, or refusing treatment which is burdensome and futile, is not, in itself, euthanasia. Not if the intention is to make the dying patient less encumbered and more comfortable.
It's an intention to deliberately kill which defines euthanasia and makes it morally offensive. Taking a dying person off a ventilator can be done with a sincere intention of making the end more personal, more comfortable, and without an intention of killing them.
This is not so much a Terri Schiavo situation (=murder) as it is a Karen Ann Quinlan situation. In an important case about 25 years ago, Karen Ann Quinlan, despite removal from her ventilator, lived for nine more years, still sustained by tube feeding. When asked if he wanted the feeding tube removed, Karen's father answered, "Oh no, that's her nourishment".
So as far as I can see from the article, this legislation may not involve the intention to kill. In effect, if it means that a dying patient will retain the ability to refuse extraordinary interventions and choose a palliative treatment model, it is morally acceptable.
(We'll find out if I'm wrong if they say, "And if the patient doesn't die, we'll have a gentile nurse come in and smother him with a pillow.")
I would venture to say that the fear of painful, invasive, expensive and useless treatment in one's last weeks of life is what causes some people to say, "Oh, just kill me." This is very wrong. People MUST have both a right to ordinary care at all times (including nutrition and hydration, and effective pain medication) to make them comfortable, and the freedom to decline or end futile chemo, radiation, drugs, surgery, ventilator, and other too-burdensome treatments.
Note that I said there are times when certain treatments could be judged "too burdensome." I didn't say the LIFE could be judged "too burdensome." Nobody has a right to make that judgment. That is strictly God's jurisdiction.
ping
Everything has its context. If readers here would like the facts on which to actually base comments, you are welcome to visit my Blog where I have written on this in several posts.
By the way, Wesley J. Smith, noted anti-euthanasia attorney and author, called the above Telegraph article "stupid" because it has misrepresented the Israeli law.
http://meiraonline.blogspot.com/2005/12/euthanasia-in-israel-part-3-know-facts.html
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2005/12/israel-not-doing-euthanasia-by-machine.html