Euthanasia

[Fedaykin]

.. poll ..

[TailgateNut]

I am solely responsible for my existance. My life is no one elses' business.

Side Note: I know a few who should consider putting the world out of its' misery due to their existance.

[cutthemdown]

I am solely responsible for my existance. My life is no one elses' business.

Side Note: I know a few who should consider putting the world out of its' misery due to their existance.

When did you change your name to afew?

[Garcia Bronco]

I see both sides of the argument from an intellectual perspective.

[alkemical]

depends on which side of the bed i wake up on.

[Fedaykin]

I see both sides of the argument from an intellectual perspective.

So, in other words intellectually you agree you have no right over anyone else's life and their choice to end it, but you can't commit to actually follow through and not attempt to subject them to your arbitrary concept of morality?

That's what I read from your statement.

[Garcia Bronco]

So, in other words intellectually you agree you have no right over anyone else's life and their choice to end it, but you can't commit to actually follow through and not attempt to subject them to your arbitrary concept of morality?

That's what I read from your statement.

On second thought I think it should be legal, but I do not believe the Governemnt should be able to force people to die.

[Fedaykin]

I mean I could justify it for reasons of population control or those that would abuse society through reproduction, but I also feel like it's wrong for the Governemnt or any body of legislation to control the reproductive rights of another.

I think you are confused, we're talking about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

NOT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

[Garcia Bronco]

I think you are confused, we're talking about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

NOT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I was. Doh!

[cutthemdown]

Forced euthenasia to bring down medical costs.......Hmmm that might work.

[Hotrod]

As long as their taxes are paid I could care less if someone wants out of the big game.

[TailgateNut]

Forced euthenasia to bring down medical costs.......Hmmm that might work.


:clown:

[cutthemdown]

As long as their taxes are paid I could care less if someone wants out of the big game.

LOL so if they owe taxes they have to live and pay them first? LOL classic!!!!!:~ohyah!:

[cutthemdown]

:clown:

You go in for a sore throat, they punch number into a computer. The computer looks at how much tax you have paid over last 5 yrs, your age, how many kids you have, then calculates your worth to society.

It then spits out what doctor can do to treat you.

If it spits out the death card, well, you go straight to a room where you watch Raider games over and over in slow motion. Room has one window, that is 500 feet off the ground. Put a big dumpster out for people to jump in when they can't take it anymore.

By the way if you survive the jump you get lifetime health credits, no one deserves to have to watch Raiders in slow motion more then once in a lifetime.

[Hotrod]

LOL so if they owe taxes they have to live and pay them first? LOL classic!!!!!:~ohyah!:

With this crazy spending going on in Washington we cant afford slackers Ha!

[cutthemdown]

With this crazy spending going on in Washington we cant afford slackers Ha!

what if the donate some organs or something?

[Hotrod]

what if the donate some organs or something?

I guess that would be ok there is a pretty good black market on organs these days. Maybe we should let a doctor open them up and make sure what kind of value the organs have first.....you know just to be safe. ;)

[TexanBob]

I believe in a right to self-euthanasia but not doctor assisted. The hypocratic oath is to "do no harm" and helping someone kill themselves violates that ethic and perhaps also the conscience of the care provider.

However, if someone wants to off themselves (owing taxes or not), they should be able to rent a hospital room, be given a tightly-controlled potion and administer this to him or herself, no judgements and no questions asked.

While this happens, no person is allowed to enter the room and the person choosing to die either has to expire in the room or return the potion to the administrator before being allowed to walk out. IOW, I want there to be no way he/she can sneak out with the potion or find some other way where it can be used to murder someone.

[gunns]

I put I don't know. I don't feel I have the right to decide for others (thus vote for a law that would make it illegal). I don't know that I could do it and if it were a loved one that would be tough. It has to be their decision.

[kappys]

What preconditions would be needed in this scenario?

Many people overdose on potentially lethal medications and present to the hospital for care - often not of their own volition. In such cases care can be forced upon them to save their lives and afterwards treat their depression.

Are we talking about euthanasia only for terminally ill people, or for everybody?

[Hotrod]

I kind of like how the options are loaded.

Option A Yes of course. I also like puppys and flowers
Option B No I'm an asshole

LOL

[Garcia Bronco]

What about life insurance. If you off-yourself it's null and viod if I am not mistaken.

[Fedaykin]

What preconditions would be needed in this scenario?

Many people overdose on potentially lethal medications and present to the hospital for care - often not of their own volition. In such cases care can be forced upon them to save their lives and afterwards treat their depression.

Are we talking about euthanasia only for terminally ill people, or for everybody?

We already have a process for creating a do not resuscitate order, so a similar process could be set up for this. As with a DNR, there would be safe guards (e.g. mental competency screening, terminal condition requirement, etc.)

[Fedaykin]

What about life insurance. If you off-yourself it's null and viod if I am not mistaken.

Laws could be amended such that life insurance cannot be revoked if a doctor certifies that the personal is terminally ill. Also, most plans only nullify the policy within a "probation period" to avoid this kind of problem. The last policy I had contained a 24 month suicide clause.

[Fedaykin]

I put I don't know. I don't feel I have the right to decide for others (thus vote for a law that would make it illegal). I don't know that I could do it and if it were a loved one that would be tough. It has to be their decision.

So why not support it's legalization (assuming appropriate safeguards to avoid abuse of course). If you are uncomfortable with it, that's fine, but why should others be prevented from exercising their free will when no one else would be harmed?

[Fedaykin]

I believe in a right to self-euthanasia but not doctor assisted. The hypocratic oath is to "do no harm" and helping someone kill themselves violates that ethic

How is easing someone's suffering and preserving their dignity causing them harm (again, I'm only talking about consensual actions here)?


and perhaps also the conscience of the care provider.


Why prevent those care providers who are willing from doing so (again, assuming appropriate safe guards)?

[kappys]

We already have a process for creating a do not resuscitate order, so a similar process could be set up for this. As with a DNR, there would be safe guards (e.g. mental competency screening, terminal condition requirement, etc.)

What about the depressed person? The way the 2 options are phrased it would seem they should have a right to end their life if they so choose.

[spdirty]

legalize it for liberals only. They suffer enough living with that empty space that sits on top of their shoulders, just put em out of their misery.

[TexanBob]

How is easing someone's suffering and preserving their dignity causing them harm (again, I'm only talking about consensual actions here)?

How is a doctor killing someone preserving their dignity?

But why should only the terminally ill be allowed to "die with dignity?" Why shouldn't anyone have access? What if you just watched a love one die? What if you just lost all your money? Shouldn't you have the right to "die with dignity" just as much as if you had ALS?

[Fedaykin]

How is a doctor killing someone preserving their dignity?

Many would say a quick and painless death is far more dignified than the deaths that many with debilitating diseases have. Maybe you don't agree, but why should your concept of dignity take precedence over those who are affected?


But why should only the terminally ill be allowed to "die with dignity?"
Why shouldn't anyone have access? What if you just watched a love one die? What if you just lost all your money? Shouldn't you have the right to "die with dignity" just as much as if you had ALS?

The point is that often the terminally ill lack the ability and/or means to do so themselves. Able bodied individuals don't need euthanasia, they can take care of the job themselves if they so choose.

[TexanBob]

Many would say that fighting through the ravages of an illness, even a terminal one, is noble. They say suicide is an ignoble - even cowardly - way to die.

Pretty soon it won't matter because, under Obamacare, the terminal will just be denied care except maybe a painkiller. Obama said so himself in his infomercial. Granny won't get her surgery if the health ministers deem it to risky. Better to give her a pill and let her die.

It's what they do in Britain now although they kill largely by neglect.

[Fedaykin]

Many would say that fighting through the ravages of an illness, even a terminal one, is noble. They say suicide is an ignoble - even cowardly - way to die.


If that's how you want to go out, then do it. However, why do you feel you need to attack and belittle those who prefer otherwise? Why is is so important to you (and don't claim it isn't, people don't start throwing around personal attacks at people, like calling them cowards, if they don't have a serious emotional investment).

[sisterhellfyre]

So why not support it's legalization (assuming appropriate safeguards to avoid abuse of course). If you are uncomfortable with it, that's fine, but why should others be prevented from exercising their free will when no one else would be harmed?

Oregon has an assisted suicide law which we've passed by ballot initiative -- twice. The law requires a psychiatric evaluation, plus two separate diagnoses of terminal illness by licensed medical professionals. If the patient's request clears those hurdles, the doctor is allowed to prescribe a lethal dosage (usually barbiturates). The patient then has to be able to personally take the drugs; they cannot be given by someone else. The Feds have been trying to shut down this law since it passed the first time.

To me this makes a lot of sense. It gives terminally ill patients an option in choosing how to end their own lives, avoid unnecessary suffering, and maintain their dignity to the end. I wouldn't want anyone BUT me to have this power of choice over how, if or where I end my life. It's my life, my responsibility, and ultimately my death. I would not want that power over anyone else's life, either.

Suicide is easy, whether the federal government likes it or not.

[TailgateNut]

legalize it for liberals only. They suffer enough living with that empty space that sits on top of their shoulders, just put em out of their misery.

....and don't make it an option for rightards. If they get a common cold, kill 'em.

[kappys]

The point is that often the terminally ill lack the ability and/or means to do so themselves. Able bodied individuals don't need euthanasia, they can take care of the job themselves if they so choose.

Yet so often they fail, and we even criminalize the failure to suceed.

On a more serious note - what about the patient who has overdosed on a lethal combination of drugs but is still awake, alert and refuses medical care. If he does not receive medical care he dies, if he does receive it he lives. Should we force care on him? This is a common scenario so it needs a real answer.

What if he overdoses on something like tylenol, refuses care, and then changes his mind 3 days later when he is in liver failure and wants a transplant. Should he be offerred one? Assuming no, then should he be offerred care in an ICU with meticulous and very expensive care for a week while doctors try to save him from death(since a fair percentage can survive without liver trasnplants if treated well).

[spdirty]

....and don't make it an option for rightards. If they get a common cold, kill 'em.

problem is us righties are firm believers and practitioners of the second amendment. But pussy ass liberals, most live in cities together and dont carry weapons so we can just round y'all up and put you guys in dea...happy camps, where your suffering will end with dignity. :thumbs:

[TailgateNut]

problem is us righties are firm believers and practitioners of the second amendment. But p***Y ass liberals, most live in cities together and dont carry weapons so we can just round y'all up and put you guys in dea...happy camps, where your suffering will end with dignity. :thumbs:

This "pussy ass liberal" is a gun toting expert marksman who can smell and take out a righty with one shot to his tiny brain.

I may live in the city, but grew up a "country boy", for lack of better terms.

Make my day MFer.

"The second amendment,Americas original Homeland defense":strong:

[sisterhellfyre]

Just a brief fact-break, then we can all get back to the usual mudslinging...

British Conductor, Wife Die at Swiss Suicide Clinic

"British maestro Edward Downes, who conducted the BBC Philharmonic and the Royal Opera but struggled in recent years as his hearing and sight failed, has died with his wife at an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland. He was 85 and she was 74.

The couple's children said Tuesday that the couple died "peacefully and under circumstances of their own choosing" on Friday at a Zurich clinic run by the group Dignitas.

"After 54 happy years together, they decided to end their own lives rather than continue to struggle with serious health problems," said a statement from the couple's son and daughter, Caractacus and Boudicca."

For the rest of the story...

http://tinyurl.com/krh66t

IMO and FWIW, I think it was a beautiful and brave thing that the elderly Downes did. (Aside from their horrible name choice for their son.)

[epicSocialism4tw]

This is yet another example of how the liberalist philosophy can be morally debased. It clearly shows that humanism cannot uphold a system of morality that places an utmost value on human life.

[TailgateNut]

This is yet another example of how the liberalist philosophy can be morally debased. It clearly shows that humanism cannot uphold a system of morality that places an utmost value on human life.


and your comment defines the problem with the religious right. Live by our twisted morals, or else. :spit:

[Rohirrim]

Just a brief fact-break, then we can all get back to the usual mudslinging...

British Conductor, Wife Die at Swiss Suicide Clinic

"British maestro Edward Downes, who conducted the BBC Philharmonic and the Royal Opera but struggled in recent years as his hearing and sight failed, has died with his wife at an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland. He was 85 and she was 74.

The couple's children said Tuesday that the couple died "peacefully and under circumstances of their own choosing" on Friday at a Zurich clinic run by the group Dignitas.

"After 54 happy years together, they decided to end their own lives rather than continue to struggle with serious health problems," said a statement from the couple's son and daughter, Caractacus and Boudicca."

For the rest of the story...

http://tinyurl.com/krh66t

IMO and FWIW, I think it was a beautiful and brave thing that the elderly Downes did. (Aside from their horrible name choice for their son.)

And how about the daughter? I guess they took their "Britishness" very seriously.

[Rohirrim]

This is yet another example of how the liberalist philosophy can be morally debased. It clearly shows that humanism cannot uphold a system of morality that places an utmost value on human life.

Or you can writhe in pain until your merciful god decides to take you... however long that takes. ;D

[TailgateNut]

Or you can writhe in pain until your merciful god decides to take you... however long that takes. ;D

Righties love inflicting pain.

[Beantown Bronco]

What about life insurance. If you off-yourself it's null and viod if I am not mistaken.

Oddly enough, the life insurance I get through my employer covers suicide, but only after the first year of employment. Still trying to figure that one out myself. No joke.

[Rohirrim]

Righties love inflicting pain.

Only on others. Particularly the poor. It's the Christian thing to do. ROFL!

[Hotrod]

legalize it for liberals only. They suffer enough living with that empty space that sits on top of their shoulders, just put em out of their misery.

LOL

[Fedaykin]

Yet so often they fail, and we even criminalize the failure to suceed.

On a more serious note - what about the patient who has overdosed on a lethal combination of drugs but is still awake, alert and refuses medical care. If he does not receive medical care he dies, if he does receive it he lives. Should we force care on him? This is a common scenario so it needs a real answer.


This is not a new question. We already have do not resuscitate orders.


What if he overdoses on something like tylenol, refuses care, and then changes his mind 3 days later when he is in liver failure and wants a transplant. Should he be offerred one? Assuming no, then should he be offerred care in an ICU with meticulous and very expensive care for a week while doctors try to save him from death(since a fair percentage can survive without liver trasnplants if treated well).

Again, not new. Transplants are authorized by committees who likely would reject someone who had previously refused care. However, other care should be provided if the person asks for it.

[Fedaykin]

To the trolls (you know who you are):

If you have no respect for the seriousness of this topic, then I request that you kindly remain under your bridges.

[gyldenlove]

This is yet another example of how the liberalist philosophy can be morally debased. It clearly shows that humanism cannot uphold a system of morality that places an utmost value on human life.

Why should human life have the utmost value?

What about the greater good? good of humanity? good of the world? what about life?

Why should we choose to follow a moral as set forth several hundred years ago?

[Fedaykin]

This is yet another example of how the liberalist philosophy can be morally debased. It clearly shows that humanism cannot uphold a system of morality that places an utmost value on human life.

This is somewhat OT, but I'll respond.

Very few if any systems of belief place the utmost value on human life. Certainly not the abrahamic religions which you are clearly referencing. If they did, most forms of war, capital punishment and all other manner of things simply would not be tolerated.

More to the point, why does easing someone's suffering not place value on their life? Does quality of life not factor in to the equation for you at all?

[sisterhellfyre]

This is yet another example of how the liberalist philosophy can be morally debased. It clearly shows that humanism cannot uphold a system of morality that places an utmost value on human life.

Au contraire, McLlama. The humanist system of morality places the utmost value on human life as that human chooses to live it. It's his life, or her life, and belongs to nobody else. That includes the choice of when, if or how to end that life without guilt trips from the Great Sky Boogeyman or rabid rantings from Its followers.

(Yes, I usually ignore you and I think we're both pretty content with that... but every now & again you just come up with a whopper. Work for Burger King much?)

[sisterhellfyre]

But why should only the terminally ill be allowed to "die with dignity?" Why shouldn't anyone have access? What if you just watched a love one die? What if you just lost all your money? Shouldn't you have the right to "die with dignity" just as much as if you had ALS?

Sure, Bob. Everyone has a right to die with dignity and respect at a time of their own choosing. There are plenty of ways to end one's life that are quick, painless and effective. It's just that most people don't do enough research to get it right, so the methods they choose are crude, messy, ineffective, or all of the above. Whistle the tune with me, from the old M*A*S*H series: "Suicide is painless..."

FWIW, tho, I wouldn't advocate suicide for people in the midst of depression, trauma, grief, etc. If someone wants to die, it's their choice but it's a choice that should be made rationally, with clear mind and conscience.

[epicSocialism4tw]

This is somewhat OT, but I'll respond.

Its "OT" to you because you don't understand what you believe. You aren't familiar with the influence of the humanist movement within the modern Democratic party, and you don't understand why "Abrahamic religions" have resisted such things as abortion and euthanasia. You admitted as much in this post.

Very few if any systems of belief place the utmost value on human life. Certainly not the abrahamic religions which you are clearly referencing. If they did, most forms of war, capital punishment and all other manner of things simply would not be tolerated.

There is incongruence here based in your misunderstanding of "abrahamic religions". Your point of view does not take into account the nature of man, which has always been a critical feature of Christian philosophy.

The topic of war is so far removed from that of euthanasia that you would need a 24 hour flight to get from one to the next. Same goes for capital punishment. The only thing that is related among them is that people die by a willful act. Thats it. In the case of euthanasia, people kill themselves when they are least able to make the decision rationally. In the case of capital punishment, people put themselves into the path of the train so to speak when they perform such a heinous criminal act that justice can only be served by their removal from the community permanently. In the case of war, people make the choice to fight to protect their families and communities from those who would kill them and take away everything that they have ever known.

More to the point, why does easing someone's suffering not place value on their life? Does quality of life not factor in to the equation for you at all?

Here's where liberals need to start thinking for once about the consequences of their emotion-fueled decision making. Why should one person be supported federally to take their own life when others wilfully chose to fight. How many patients have gone through traumatic experiences to the point of death only to see them turn around and live a good life? Are we really going to place value on one person's quality of life over anothers? If we do, how does that effect their insurance? How does it effect their eligibility for certain government programs? What is the cost of that? Where is a line drawn here between those eligible for euthanasia and those who arent? Who qualifies to legally kill themselves? What happens with their life insurance policy? When are they deemed sane enough to make such a decision? When does a condition qualify for euthanasia? Who is liable when a family sues a doctor because the euthanized family member was not deemed sane for such a decision by their family? I could continue on forever about the problems inherent within a policy of euthanasia.

Killing yourself is never dignified. Only a philosophy that does not value human life would hold to the ideal that killing yourself is somehow a respectable thing to do. The same people that think such things also agree with the ignorant ideas that man is worthless and is similar to a virus. They also tend to agree with such abhorrant ideas as abortion and "justifiable" murder. Its a slippery slope, and a slope that had been intentionally cordoned off by wise and good-hearted people that came long before this current generation of Americans who have no perspective on what it means to struggle to live, and the value of having the people you love around you for as long as possible.

[epicSocialism4tw]

FWIW, tho, I wouldn't advocate suicide for people in the midst of depression, trauma, grief, etc. If someone wants to die, it's their choice but it's a choice that should be made rationally, with clear mind and conscience.

Well, I think its safe to say that any proper physician would not deem a person in the throws of battling for their life as having sound mind to make the decision to kill themselves.

[TailgateNut]

Its "OT" to you because you don't understand what you believe. You aren't familiar with the influence of the humanist movement within the modern Democratic party, and you don't understand why "Abrahamic religions" have resisted such things as abortion and euthanasia. You admitted as much in this post.



There is incongruence here based in your misunderstanding of "abrahamic religions". Your point of view does not take into account the nature of man, which has always been a critical feature of Christian philosophy.

The topic of war is so far removed from that of euthanasia that you would need a 24 hour flight to get from one to the next. Same goes for capital punishment. The only thing that is related among them is that people die by a willful act. Thats it. In the case of euthanasia, people kill themselves when they are least able to make the decision rationally. In the case of capital punishment, people put themselves into the path of the train so to speak when they perform such a heinous criminal act that justice can only be served by their removal from the community permanently. In the case of war, people make the choice to fight to protect their families and communities from those who would kill them and take away everything that they have ever known.



Here's where liberals need to start thinking for once about the consequences of their emotion-fueled decision making. Why should one person be supported federally to take their own life when others wilfully chose to fight. How many patients have gone through traumatic experiences to the point of death only to see them turn around and live a good life? Are we really going to place value on one person's quality of life over anothers? If we do, how does that effect their insurance? How does it effect their eligibility for certain government programs? What is the cost of that? Where is a line drawn here between those eligible for euthanasia and those who arent? Who qualifies to legally kill themselves? What happens with their life insurance policy? When are they deemed sane enough to make such a decision? When does a condition qualify for euthanasia? Who is liable when a family sues a doctor because the euthanized family member was not deemed sane for such a decision by their family? I could continue on forever about the problems inherent within a policy of euthanasia.

Killing yourself is never dignified. Only a philosophy that does not value human life would hold to the ideal that killing yourself is somehow a respectable thing to do. The same people that think such things also agree with the ignorant ideas that man is worthless and is similar to a virus. They also tend to agree with such abhorrant ideas as abortion and "justifiable" murder. Its a slippery slope, and a slope that had been intentionally cordoned off by wise and good-hearted people that came long before this current generation of Americans who have no perspective on what it means to struggle to live, and the value of having the people you love around you for as long as possible.

Why not simplify and erase all of your questions.

A person should have the right to decide if he wants to live or die. Period.

Your rambling makes no sense to a sensible human being.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Why not simplify and erase all of your questions.

A person should have the right to decide if he wants to live or die. Period.

I agree with this in principle but as with everything else in life, the situation is much more complicated than that.

If someone wants to kill themselves, they have every opportunity without having to do so institutionally. Its pretty ridiculous to even have to say that, but people miss the point in these discussions because they get into the simpleton arguments. You absolutely CAN kill yourself RIGHT NOW. There is not a government agency monitoring your every move to prevent acting out your suicide. A person has every opportunity to act out a suicide.

Institutionalizing it is where the problem comes in.

Your rambling makes no sense to a sensible human being.

It made no sense to you. I know that you are on your best days a raging emotionoholic, so I dont know if this puts you in a position to deem a thing sensible or not.

[TailgateNut]

I agree with this in principle but as with everything else in life, the situation is much more complicated than that.

If someone wants to kill themselves, they have every opportunity without having to do so institutionally. Its pretty ridiculous to even have to say that, but people miss the point in these discussions because they get into the simpleton arguments. You absolutely CAN kill yourself RIGHT NOW. There is not a government agency monitoring your every move to prevent acting out your suicide. A person has every opportunity to act out a suicide.

Institutionalizing it is where the problem comes in.



It made no sense to you. I know that you are on your best days a raging emotionoholic, so I dont know if this puts you in a position to deem a thing sensible or not.

..and the difference of suicide by one's own "hand" and suicide with assistance is???

Cost?
The moral implication of assisting someone?

[epicSocialism4tw]

..and the difference of suicide by one's own "hand" and suicide with assistance is???

Huge.

Cost?
The moral implication of assisting someone?

There is much cost.

With the federal seal of approval, the government deems suicide a reasonalbe alternative to life, which is a monumental philosophical shift for Americans. It devalues life and tells the populace that its okay to go ahead and off yourself because nobody really cares anyhow. The philosophical cost is immense.

Then you have the institutional cost. More paperwork, more beauracracy, more lawyers, more hoops to jump through, higher taxes, higher insurance costs, etc. I dont even want to think of the malpractice implifications on law and insurance for doctors. And then you dont want the govt. to step in and sanctify these Dr. Kevorkians and remove them from the possibility of being held accountable for their actions because they then become a wicked, evil arm of the government.

[Rohirrim]

Why not simplify and erase all of your questions.

A person should have the right to decide if he wants to live or die. Period.

Your rambling makes no sense to a sensible human being.

Sometimes, when the drama llama is truly befuddled (which is quite often), he simply lathers on the bs in an effort to baffle everybody. I also enjoy his juvenile assumption that only his philosophy, or his simplistic interpretation of it, is worthy of merit. Have you ever noticed that the implicit argument that often oozes out of the fundies is the concept that the liberal idea of individuality is abhorrent to them? Strange, given that they live in a country whose entire philosophical framework is based on the foundation of rights being endowed, by the creator, to the individual.

[TailgateNut]

[QUOTE=TailgateNut;2472032

Huge.



There is much cost.

With the federal seal of approval, the government deems suicide a reasonalbe alternative to life, which is a monumental philosophical shift for Americans. It devalues life and tells the populace that its okay to go ahead and off yourself because nobody really cares anyhow. The philosophical cost is immense.

Then you have the institutional cost. More paperwork, more beauracracy, more lawyers, more hoops to jump through, higher taxes, higher insurance costs, etc. I dont even want to think of the malpractice implifications on law and insurance for doctors. And then you dont want the govt. to step in and sanctify these Dr. Kevorkians and remove them from the possibility of being held accountable for their actions because they then become a wicked, evil arm of the government.

Once again you take something as simple as injecting a lethal substance and turn it into astrophysics.

Higher taxes???
Institutional cost would be reduced once the cadaver is removed from the room.
Higher insurance costs??? WTF? If medical insurance companies know that terminally ill may opt to "off themselves" it should reduce costs.

Good grief, you Texans are a stupid bunch.

[Fedaykin]

Its "OT" to you because you don't understand what you believe. You aren't familiar with the influence of the humanist movement within the modern Democratic party, and you don't understand why "Abrahamic religions" have resisted such things as abortion and euthanasia. You admitted as much in this post.

There is incongruence here based in your misunderstanding of "abrahamic religions". Your point of view does not take into account the nature of man, which has always been a critical feature of Christian philosophy.


I understand quite well both what I believe and why the abrahamic religions resist these things. You're just making empty claims in a failed attempt to intimidate me with a special knowledge fallacy.


The topic of war is so far removed from that of euthanasia that you would need a 24 hour flight to get from one to the next. Same goes for capital punishment. The only thing that is related among them is that people die by a willful act. Thats it. In the case of euthanasia, people kill themselves when they are least able to make the decision rationally. In the case of capital punishment, people put themselves into the path of the train so to speak when they perform such a heinous criminal act that justice can only be served by their removal from the community permanently. In the case of war, people make the choice to fight to protect their families and communities from those who would kill them and take away everything that they have ever known.


You miss the point entirely, and confirm what I said earlier. The point is that no system of beliefs values life (in and of itself) above all else. You complain that humanist philosophies don't value human life the utmost, but you provide an example where you agree that other things are more important. For example, you say that "justice can only be served by [heinous criminal's] removal from the community permanently". Ergo, you admit justice is more important than human life.


Here's where liberals need to start thinking for once about the consequences of their emotion-fueled decision making. Why should one person be supported federally to take their own life when others wilfully chose to fight. How many patients have gone through traumatic experiences to the point of death only to see them turn around and live a good life?


I could counter with the much more relevant question of why should the government enforce the suffering of individuals? Why do you resist people's rights over their own life so much?


Are we really going to place value on one person's quality of life over anothers?


No, the point is to allow the affected person the ability to quantify and qualify their OWN quality of life and weight there options and take action on their decision (and specifically to seek help when needed) without legal impediment. No one would be put in a position to make a value judgment about someone else's life.

My position is entirely on the side of individual rights and individual responsibility.


If we do, how does that effect their insurance? How does it effect their eligibility for certain government programs? What is the cost of that? Where is a line drawn here between those eligible for euthanasia and those who arent? Who qualifies to legally kill themselves? What happens with their life insurance policy? When are they deemed sane enough to make such a decision? When does a condition qualify for euthanasia? Who is liable when a family sues a doctor because the euthanized family member was not deemed sane for such a decision by their family? I could continue on forever about the problems inherent within a policy of euthanasia.


This is all irrelevant red herring arugment. The only relevant question is if the government has the right to prevent people from taking their own life.


Killing yourself is never dignified. Only a philosophy that does not value human life would hold to the ideal that killing yourself is somehow a respectable thing to do. The same people that think such things also agree with the ignorant ideas that man is worthless and is similar to a virus. They also tend to agree with such abhorrant ideas as abortion and "justifiable" murder. Its a slippery slope, and a slope that had been intentionally cordoned off by wise and good-hearted people that came long before this current generation of Americans who have no perspective on what it means to struggle to live

Pure ad hominem fallacy.

and the value of having the people you love around you for as long as possible.

Again, no one has a right to tell other's what to do with their own life, for any reason. Do you really think it is reasonable to force someone to live in agony just because you are too selfish to let them go?

[gyldenlove]

There is much cost.

With the federal seal of approval, the government deems suicide a reasonalbe alternative to life, which is a monumental philosophical shift for Americans. It devalues life and tells the populace that its okay to go ahead and off yourself because nobody really cares anyhow. The philosophical cost is immense.

Then you have the institutional cost. More paperwork, more beauracracy, more lawyers, more hoops to jump through, higher taxes, higher insurance costs, etc. I dont even want to think of the malpractice implifications on law and insurance for doctors. And then you dont want the govt. to step in and sanctify these Dr. Kevorkians and remove them from the possibility of being held accountable for their actions because they then become a wicked, evil arm of the government.

I am not sure if the memo has reached you yet, but the government has been in the business of killing people for a long time. The difference is that these people actually want to die, I am sure the good soliders who went to Iraq and died as part of an acceptable level of casualties didn't want to.

What do you think costs more in terms of manpower, paperwork and money:

1. A doctor who has a signed statement cosigned by independent witnesses to inject a lethal dose of morphine in a terminal patient?

2. A teenager found killed on some subway tracks or with their brains blown out?

I bet you, the amount of police investigation, post mortem examination, corroner investigation and lab work involved with a run of the mill suicide is 100 times more than any assisted suicide.

If people decide to be euthanised their next of kin can begin grief counceling and prepare, whereas during months of becoming increasingly more vegetative the next of kin can do nothing. Why do you think it is we say it is a good way to go when it is fast and painless and a bad way to go if you spend months becoming more and more vegetative and suffering?

But hey, at least I am not the one who buys into the whole Jesus thing with easing suffering and respecting your fellow man.

[kappys]

This is not a new question. We already have do not resuscitate orders.



Again, not new. Transplants are authorized by committees who likely would reject someone who had previously refused care. However, other care should be provided if the person asks for it.

You are skirting the point so let me illustrate a real type of case.

25 Year old otherwise healthy person wants to die. She is depressed, or existential, or anticipates salvation via an overhead comet,etc, and overdoses on tylenol. She does not want medical care. She will die within 5 days if care is not forced on her within the next 8 hours.

Based on the philosophy of your argument it seems that we should not intervene - that she has the right to commit suicide by tylenol overdose if she wants to.

Do we have a right to force live saving care on this patient?

If yes then at what point do we lose that right?
At what point can patients reasonably refuse care?

I don't think euthanasia is entirely reprehensible. I certainly think people should consider very carefully how much end of life care they want and would never discourage someone from electing to be a Do not Rescuciate patient. However we do need ot have clear limits on these actions

[epicSocialism4tw]

I don't think euthanasia is entirely reprehensible. I certainly think people should consider very carefully how much end of life care they want and would never discourage someone from electing to be a Do not Rescuciate patient. However we do need ot have clear limits on these actions

A do not resucitate patient has willfully disclosed their wishes while in a rational frame of mind.

A person in the midst of tragedy literally has a different brain chemistry. Our legal system acknowledges mitigating cirumstances in cases that involve decisions that were made at times of extreme mental stress...postpartum depression cases, insanity, etc. I would argue that a suicidal patient who is struggling though chemotherapy, etc. could be fit into that category fairly easily if they were getting suicidal. Especially given that there is a plainly visible physiological explanation for their change in mood.

[epicSocialism4tw]

My position is entirely on the side of individual rights and individual responsibility.

Ha!

No its not. An individual has the right RIGHT NOW to go out and commit suicide. What you are advocating is an institutionalization of the practice, which is a whole different monster.

Its funny...some people use aguments like yours as if they advocate the advancement of human rights, when in actuality you are further submerging them in beauracracy where rights are trimmed off like fat so that the system doesnt get weighted down.

Silly kids.

[snowspot66]

Oddly enough, the life insurance I get through my employer covers suicide, but only after the first year of employment. Still trying to figure that one out myself. No joke.

Probably to keep people in dire financial straights from getting a job there and offing themselves right away so their family gets the money. I'm sure it's been done before by desperate people thinking they had no other option to help their family.

[kappys]

Probably to keep people in dire financial straights from getting a job there and offing themselves right away so their family gets the money. I'm sure it's been done before by desperate people thinking they had no other option to help their family.

He's probably more suprised that they would pay out at all for suicide. Most life insurance policies won't pay if the insured commits suicide at any point. At least that's how it used to be, perhaps there has been some legal reform on that point.

[spdirty]

This "p***Y ass liberal" is a gun toting expert marksman who can smell and take out a righty with one shot to his tiny brain.

I may live in the city, but grew up a "country boy", for lack of better terms.

Make my day MFer.

And my shotguns tell me that I dont need to be an expert marksman to take out the toxic air that sits on a leftys shoulders.

Though all we really need to do to get a lefty into the dea...happy camp is say "hey, over there in that utopia Obamessiah is givin away Subaru Outbacks/Volvos/Priuses/Hybrids/gay marriage/pot/abortions" and 98% of leftys will go voluntarily. Then the other 2% we keep around to laugh at.



"The second amendment,Americas original Homeland defense":strong:

By God.

[TailgateNut]

Ha!

No its not. An individual has the right RIGHT NOW to go out and commit suicide. What you are advocating is an institutionalization of the practice, which is a whole different monster.

Its funny...some people use aguments like yours as if they advocate the advancement of human rights, when in actuality you are further submerging them in beauracracy where rights are trimmed off like fat so that the system doesnt get weighted down.

Silly kids.

You are so FOS.

If the authorities find out someone is contemplating suicide, they will arrest and place that person in the loonnie bin for observation. The right to commit suicide.Hilarious!

[epicSocialism4tw]

You are so FOS.

If the authorities find out someone is contemplating suicide, they will arrest and place that person in the loonnie bin for observation. The right to commit suicide.Hilarious!

Thats untrue.

[Spider]

what if it is a loved one ?
how about a kid ?
what about the people you leave behind ?

[TailgateNut]

Thats untrue.


How so!!!

[TailgateNut]

what if it is a loved one ?
how about a kid ?
what about the people you leave behind ?


What if What?

Stop drinking in the wee hours of the morning.

[Spider]

What if What?

Stop drinking in the wee hours of the morning.

should have known ......... I need to break it down for some here ......
what if you have a child with Cancer that is in alot of pain ? do you support helping them commit suicide?
you have a Brother in his 30 's suffering ....
or you have a cousin who has kids and he is in his late 20's and has cancer ?
where is the line drawn ?

[Spider]

Point is genius , it is easy to make these decisions , until they become personal ......

[TailgateNut]

Point is genius , it is easy to make these decisions , until they become personal ......

No, point is, when someone is faced with that decision it is personal. These decisions should be made only by an adult who hasn't been diagnosed with a mental disorder.

I beleive the line should be drawn at children, but any adult should have the option to do as he/she pleases. Regardless of medical, financial, personal reasons.

It's like Jay not wanting to be a Bronco. Good ridance!

[Spider]

No, point is, when someone is faced with that decision it is personal. These decisions should be made only by an adult who hasn't been diagnosed with a mental disorder.

I beleive the line should be drawn at children, but any adult should have the option to do as he/she pleases. Regardless of medical, financial, personal reasons.

It's like Jay not wanting to be a Bronco. Good ridance!I see so if you are over 21 and in lot of pain , they can die , but if you are 17 and in the same pain , you have to tough it out until you are an adult ..........

[epicSocialism4tw]

should have known ......... I need to break it down for some here ......
what if you have a child with Cancer that is in alot of pain ? do you support helping them commit suicide?
you have a Brother in his 30 's suffering ....
or you have a cousin who has kids and he is in his late 20's and has cancer ?
where is the line drawn ?

TailgateNut wants this to be simple, so dont ask questions and expect him to understand them. It makes him crazy.

[TailgateNut]

TailgateNut wants this to be simple, so dont ask questions and expect him to understand them. It makes him crazy.


Whereas you want to over-complicate something simple, simpleton.

In addition: according to the polls result to date, only 3 are against the notion that someones' life/death should be solely based on their decision.

[sisterhellfyre]

Thats untrue.

(In reference to Fedaykin's comment that the authorities will arrest and commit to the loony bin anyone they find is contemplating suicide.)

Yes and no... the standard for arrest and commitment for psychiatric evaluation is that someone's behavior poses a clear and present danger to self or others. In most cases, that amounts to a 72-hour hold for evaluation, observation, and intervention attempts by social workers, crisis counselors, etc. The 72-hour hold can be extended by the medical staff, but that doesn't happen as often as it used to because of the shortage of space in psych wards across the country.

Sheesh, if people would just do it right the first time, a lot of this drama would be completely unnecessary.