Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 23:55:29 GMT -5
Quote - "So which is the problem: Nitschke or euthanasia?"
Both. Nitschke once said he wanted to pursue some agenda against society, but most issues were already well occupied by peace nicks, eco radicals, feminists and the like. He wanted an issue all his own. And he got it. He's quite a liar, really. It annoys me that when he is interviewed no-one challenges him on his 1980's stance, or his 1990's stance, or his 2010's stance. Perhaps because he comes over as a rather vicious personality.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 4, 2014 2:11:08 GMT -5
Quote - "Bert, all I'm asking for is that the law doesn't state that I must be kept alive beyond what I choose! Why do think that I shouldn't have that choice? Why must I be kept alive because you are against me being able to decide that for myself? Why must I be kept alive just because of your fears?" Not MY fears - lots of people's fears. Your "right" has already licensed abuse on a large scale. All your many posts against the right of a person to end their life indicate they are YOUR fears!
It is NOT abuse to allow me the right to decide when I have had enough!
What IS abuse is when societies, religions and fears cause them to insist that I MUST live until a natural death (if any death is natural).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 2:38:33 GMT -5
So you don't believe what I have posted here?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 4, 2014 7:45:10 GMT -5
This thread has gone strangely quiet. wait 3 days Then who shall roll the stone away?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jul 4, 2014 8:12:43 GMT -5
Then who shall roll the stone away? The word stone there is not a literal stone, it's a metaphorical stone, so you just wish it away. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jul 4, 2014 8:54:22 GMT -5
The way I see it is; a strong religious belief can interfere with making moral choices. For example, one may put their dog out of it's misery at the end of life yet not support death with dignity for a human because of strong religious belief of going to hell. youtu.be/4GKF8-kLC1M
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 4, 2014 9:46:39 GMT -5
So you don't believe what I have posted here? I'm not sure why you think that instances of doctors, health care workers, or even family, killing patients against their will would increase because of euthanasia laws, which allow suffering, terminally ill patients to die, if that is their will.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 4, 2014 13:30:17 GMT -5
So you don't believe what I have posted here? Nope!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 4, 2014 15:39:11 GMT -5
Then who shall roll the stone away? All the he-men are gone. We'll have to call in a TNT expert.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 4, 2014 15:41:27 GMT -5
So you don't believe what I have posted here? I'm not sure why you think that instances of doctors, health care workers, or even family, killing patients against their will would increase because of euthanasia laws, which allow suffering, terminally ill patients to die, if that is their will. They've been doing it all along. They can't start doing it now just because it becomes legal. Right !!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 18:17:31 GMT -5
Yes, some form of euthanasia is as old as humanity itself. But this ancient euthanasia was done quietly, fearfully, in the "dark corner" as someone put it - a concession we were stepping over a line. And this "line" separated us from judicial, medical, socialogical murder. Remove that line and you simply have NO IDEA what it will lead to, given human nature. But what is happening in some countries today, in killing people because they are old, comatose, handicapped, depressed or lonely is PRECISELY where many feared euthanasia could spread. And we are not finished yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 18:18:52 GMT -5
So you don't believe what I have posted here? Nope! Uh... think I need to figure out how to embed graphics in this new Proboard. And go find that guy with his head in the sand.
ps In one way I am glad you are in denial - it shows you have some humanity, and find what is happening to VULNERABLE PEOPLE quite revolting.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 4, 2014 20:40:02 GMT -5
Yes, some form of euthanasia is as old as humanity itself. But this ancient euthanasia was done quietly, fearfully, in the "dark corner" as someone put it - a concession we were stepping over a line. And this "line" separated us from judicial, medical, socialogical murder. Remove that line and you simply have NO IDEA what it will lead to, given human nature. But what is happening in some countries today, in killing people because they are old, comatose, handicapped, depressed or lonely is PRECISELY where many feared euthanasia could spread. And we are not finished yet. Maybe you murdered someone in a past life.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 4, 2014 20:41:37 GMT -5
Nope! Uh... think I need to figure out how to embed graphics in this new Proboard. And go find that guy with his head in the sand.
ps In one way I am glad you are in denial - it shows you have some humanity, and find what is happening to VULNERABLE PEOPLE quite revolting. Let's hear it for denial, then.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 4, 2014 23:01:37 GMT -5
I'm not sure why you think that instances of doctors, health care workers, or even family, killing patients against their will would increase because of euthanasia laws, which allow suffering, terminally ill patients to die, if that is their will. They've been doing it all along. They can't start doing it now just because it becomes legal. Right !! There was a case of a doctor in England who murdered countless number of patients before they caught up with him. I think Bert's concern is that murderers will use euthanasia laws as a smokescreen for more insidious acts. But someone who would take the life of someone else against their will, even a very ill person, is a murderer, and murder is not something to which the common caring person resorts. While a murderer might take advantage of euthanasia laws to off someone; they'd have other means before euthanasia came along. What's the poison that's undetectable, for example? So, I'm thinking that the net effect of euthanasia laws on murder statistics is negligible. This is not a slippery slope. Euthanasia of a suffering person at their behest is not wrong. There are fates worse than death, situations where foreshortening a life of terrible suffering is clearly the logical alternative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 23:35:13 GMT -5
Quote - "There was a case of a doctor in England who murdered countless number of patients before they caught up with him. I think Bert's concern is that murderers will use euthanasia laws as a smokescreen for more insidious acts. But someone who would take the life of someone else against their will, even a very ill person, is a murderer, and murder is not something to which the common caring person resorts. While a murderer might take advantage of euthanasia laws to off someone; they'd have other means before euthanasia came along. What's the poison that's undetectable, for example? So, I'm thinking that the net effect of euthanasia laws on murder statistics is negligible.
This is not a slippery slope. Euthanasia of a suffering person at their behest is not wrong. There are fates worse than death, situations where foreshortening a life of terrible suffering is clearly the logical alternative."
I sat with a man who had days to live. He couldn't swallow, or take liquids, even intravenously. I said to his family that I "can't bear to sit and watch this man die like this." An hour after the family had a word with the doctor that dear old man died. Nothing more was said.
That was euthenasia as I remember it. Discrete, trembling, respectful of slippery slope "legitimizing."
When it was no longer a fearful semi-legit thing to do it suddenly became acceptable to euthanase handicapped kids, coma patientes, lonely people... PRECISELY what previous generation of doctors feared.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 5, 2014 1:08:06 GMT -5
Quote - "There was a case of a doctor in England who murdered countless number of patients before they caught up with him. I think Bert's concern is that murderers will use euthanasia laws as a smokescreen for more insidious acts. But someone who would take the life of someone else against their will, even a very ill person, is a murderer, and murder is not something to which the common caring person resorts. While a murderer might take advantage of euthanasia laws to off someone; they'd have other means before euthanasia came along. What's the poison that's undetectable, for example? So, I'm thinking that the net effect of euthanasia laws on murder statistics is negligible.
This is not a slippery slope. Euthanasia of a suffering person at their behest is not wrong. There are fates worse than death, situations where foreshortening a life of terrible suffering is clearly the logical alternative."
I sat with a man who had days to live. He couldn't swallow, or take liquids, even intravenously. I said to his family that I "can't bear to sit and watch this man die like this." An hour after the family had a word with the doctor that dear old man died. Nothing more was said.
That was euthenasia as I remember it. Discrete, trembling, respectful of slippery slope "legitimizing."
When it was no longer a fearful semi-legit thing to do it suddenly became acceptable to euthanase handicapped kids, coma patientes, lonely people... PRECISELY what previous generation of doctors feared. No, it is has NOT "became acceptable to euthanase handicapped kids, coma patients, lonely people... " Bert, You keep on saying that euthanasia means one can legally murder!
You keep giving incidents as "evidence" which might be true or not.
If true, they are NOT euthanasia, -they are murder! Murder is still illegal!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 5, 2014 1:12:56 GMT -5
Quote - "There was a case of a doctor in England who murdered countless number of patients before they caught up with him. I think Bert's concern is that murderers will use euthanasia laws as a smokescreen for more insidious acts. But someone who would take the life of someone else against their will, even a very ill person, is a murderer, and murder is not something to which the common caring person resorts. While a murderer might take advantage of euthanasia laws to off someone; they'd have other means before euthanasia came along. What's the poison that's undetectable, for example? So, I'm thinking that the net effect of euthanasia laws on murder statistics is negligible. This is not a slippery slope. Euthanasia of a suffering person at their behest is not wrong. There are fates worse than death, situations where foreshortening a life of terrible suffering is clearly the logical alternative." I sat with a man who had days to live. He couldn't swallow, or take liquids, even intravenously. I said to his family that I "can't bear to sit and watch this man die like this." An hour after the family had a word with the doctor that dear old man died. Nothing more was said.
That was euthenasia as I remember it. Discrete, trembling, respectful of slippery slope "legitimizing."
When it was no longer a fearful semi-legit thing to do it suddenly became acceptable to euthanase handicapped kids, coma patientes, lonely people... PRECISELY what previous generation of doctors feared.Bert - murderers don't go out looking for people to kill just because they think they can make it look legal. Most murderers act on impulse without any consideration for the law at all. As for people who "euthanize" relatives at home, do you think the law is going to allow wholesale euthanasia without guidelines. The simplest one of all is to have a living will on record so that whoever assists you in your departure will not be investigated for murder. If I'm not mistaken there is also normally some record in the medical community that the person is terminally ill, as well as the ever present coroner's demand for an autopsy.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 5, 2014 10:25:52 GMT -5
Quote - "There was a case of a doctor in England who murdered countless number of patients before they caught up with him. I think Bert's concern is that murderers will use euthanasia laws as a smokescreen for more insidious acts. But someone who would take the life of someone else against their will, even a very ill person, is a murderer, and murder is not something to which the common caring person resorts. While a murderer might take advantage of euthanasia laws to off someone; they'd have other means before euthanasia came along. What's the poison that's undetectable, for example? So, I'm thinking that the net effect of euthanasia laws on murder statistics is negligible. This is not a slippery slope. Euthanasia of a suffering person at their behest is not wrong. There are fates worse than death, situations where foreshortening a life of terrible suffering is clearly the logical alternative." I sat with a man who had days to live. He couldn't swallow, or take liquids, even intravenously. I said to his family that I "can't bear to sit and watch this man die like this." An hour after the family had a word with the doctor that dear old man died. Nothing more was said.
That was euthenasia as I remember it. Discrete, trembling, respectful of slippery slope "legitimizing."
When it was no longer a fearful semi-legit thing to do it suddenly became acceptable to euthanase handicapped kids, coma patientes, lonely people... PRECISELY what previous generation of doctors feared.Bert - murderers don't go out looking for people to kill just because they think they can make it look legal. Most murderers act on impulse without any consideration for the law at all. As for people who "euthanize" relatives at home, do you think the law is going to allow wholesale euthanasia without guidelines. The simplest one of all is to have a living will on record so that whoever assists you in your departure will not be investigated for murder. If I'm not mistaken there is also normally some record in the medical community that the person is terminally ill, as well as the ever present coroner's demand for an autopsy. When my brother in law was dying he wanted to stay at home. His daughter and sister were both nurses and so we all took turns helping them with him. We were told that it would be investigated by the police if he died at home even though he was terminal. That was the rule. So at the end we did take him to hospice to avoid that. It isn't as easy as Bert is saying. If someone is inclined to murder people, then they will find a way. That doesn't mean we should not have a system in place that gives terminal people a choice, or those living in a great deal of pain where they no longer have a quality of life. It's about choice in the end.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 5, 2014 18:34:38 GMT -5
Bert - murderers don't go out looking for people to kill just because they think they can make it look legal. Most murderers act on impulse without any consideration for the law at all. As for people who "euthanize" relatives at home, do you think the law is going to allow wholesale euthanasia without guidelines. The simplest one of all is to have a living will on record so that whoever assists you in your departure will not be investigated for murder. If I'm not mistaken there is also normally some record in the medical community that the person is terminally ill, as well as the ever present coroner's demand for an autopsy. When my brother in law was dying he wanted to stay at home. His daughter and sister were both nurses and so we all took turns helping them with him. We were told that it would be investigated by the police if he died at home even though he was terminal. That was the rule. So at the end we did take him to hospice to avoid that. It isn't as easy as Bert is saying. If someone is inclined to murder people, then they will find a way. That doesn't mean we should not have a system in place that gives terminal people a choice, or those living in a great deal of pain where they no longer have a quality of life. It's about choice in the end. You're right. Like a lot of other things, those in positions to regulate and police a lot of things are far more sophisticated about this stuff than the general public gives them credit for.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 5, 2014 22:36:44 GMT -5
Quote - "There was a case of a doctor in England who murdered countless number of patients before they caught up with him. I think Bert's concern is that murderers will use euthanasia laws as a smokescreen for more insidious acts. But someone who would take the life of someone else against their will, even a very ill person, is a murderer, and murder is not something to which the common caring person resorts. While a murderer might take advantage of euthanasia laws to off someone; they'd have other means before euthanasia came along. What's the poison that's undetectable, for example? So, I'm thinking that the net effect of euthanasia laws on murder statistics is negligible. This is not a slippery slope. Euthanasia of a suffering person at their behest is not wrong. There are fates worse than death, situations where foreshortening a life of terrible suffering is clearly the logical alternative." I sat with a man who had days to live. He couldn't swallow, or take liquids, even intravenously. I said to his family that I "can't bear to sit and watch this man die like this." An hour after the family had a word with the doctor that dear old man died. Nothing more was said.
That was euthenasia as I remember it. Discrete, trembling, respectful of slippery slope "legitimizing."
When it was no longer a fearful semi-legit thing to do it suddenly became acceptable to euthanase handicapped kids, coma patientes, lonely people... PRECISELY what previous generation of doctors feared.A key element of legalised euthenasia is respecting the wishes of the dying person. If anything, making those wishes explicit and then responding to them, relieves the family and the medical community of having to make that decision for the patient, and possibly performing an illegal act. Your example doesn't say what was actually done, but assuming that the patient's wishes were respected, there is a huge gap between euthanizing a suffering person who is begging to die, versus your last example of euthanizing the handicapped. I don't see how we go from one to the other.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 5, 2014 23:30:28 GMT -5
Quote - "There was a case of a doctor in England who murdered countless number of patients before they caught up with him. I think Bert's concern is that murderers will use euthanasia laws as a smokescreen for more insidious acts. But someone who would take the life of someone else against their will, even a very ill person, is a murderer, and murder is not something to which the common caring person resorts. While a murderer might take advantage of euthanasia laws to off someone; they'd have other means before euthanasia came along. What's the poison that's undetectable, for example? So, I'm thinking that the net effect of euthanasia laws on murder statistics is negligible. This is not a slippery slope. Euthanasia of a suffering person at their behest is not wrong. There are fates worse than death, situations where foreshortening a life of terrible suffering is clearly the logical alternative." I sat with a man who had days to live. He couldn't swallow, or take liquids, even intravenously. I said to his family that I "can't bear to sit and watch this man die like this." An hour after the family had a word with the doctor that dear old man died. Nothing more was said.
That was euthenasia as I remember it. Discrete, trembling, respectful of slippery slope "legitimizing."
When it was no longer a fearful semi-legit thing to do it suddenly became acceptable to euthanase handicapped kids, coma patientes, lonely people... PRECISELY what previous generation of doctors feared.A key element of legalised euthenasia is respecting the wishes of the dying person. If anything, making those wishes explicit and then responding to them, relieves the family and the medical community of having to make that decision for the patient, and possibly performing an illegal act. Your example doesn't say what was actually done, but assuming that the patient's wishes were respected, there is a huge gap between euthanizing a suffering person who is begging to die, versus your last example of euthanizing the handicapped. I don't see how we go from one to the other. It's that LOOOOONG slope at the Winter Olympics.
|
|
Archie
Junior Member
Non,je ne regrette rein!!!!
Posts: 64
|
Post by Archie on Jul 17, 2014 5:45:38 GMT -5
I sit here beside my dying Dad. It breaks my heart to hear and see him in this condition. He has terminal cancer through-out his body. 3 weeks ago he was having fluid drained out and he told us " I'm ready to go " (to heaven) but alas, God has not called him home. God doesn't "call home " It's the body dying.
I hope and pray, that if I am in this situation , I will have that choice to decide , ok , I'm ready now! Not to be kept alive , waiting !
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jul 17, 2014 6:51:31 GMT -5
Deeply sorry for what you and your dad are suffering through, Archie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 8:40:16 GMT -5
You are all right. A lot of what is going on IS murder. But its murder under the guisse of euthanasia. I don't believe you can have credible "guide lines" when you have made euthanasia open. We made it "hypocrisy" to declare "do no harm" yet quietly terminate a suffering life. But when something is open and "legit" we have taken away the dread of doing harm - and there's no stopping where it will end.
I haven't made up anything I have written here.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 17, 2014 9:49:11 GMT -5
I sit here beside my dying Dad. It breaks my heart to hear and see him in this condition. He has terminal cancer through-out his body. 3 weeks ago he was having fluid drained out and he told us " I'm ready to go " (to heaven) but alas, God has not called him home. God doesn't "call home " It's the body dying. I hope and pray, that if I am in this situation , I will have that choice to decide , ok , I'm ready now! Not to be kept alive , waiting ! I'm sorry to hear about your dad Archie. It's hard watching someone we love suffer. I sat beside my aunt, that was more like a mom to me, and it just seemed so unfair that we cannot choose when there is no hope and we are ready to die. Hugs
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 17, 2014 9:57:11 GMT -5
You are all right. A lot of what is going on IS murder. But its murder under the guisse of euthanasia. I don't believe you can have credible "guide lines" when you have made euthanasia open. We made it "hypocrisy" to declare "do no harm" yet quietly terminate a suffering life. But when something is open and "legit" we have taken away the dread of doing harm - and there's no stopping where it will end. I haven't made up anything I have written here. Well Bert. I don't fear death. I fear living when I have no life. I find that many people want their loved ones to hang in there, even when it would be much kinder to let them go. When my bmom had her stroke back in November, my siblings all wanted to give her a breathing tube and all sorts of other things. This, even though she had asked for a 'no resuscitation' in her living will. She had one of the worst strokes the doctors had ever seen. Completely paralyzed on the left side of her body, could speak just a little but very hard to understand, couldn't eat or drink by herself (so they put in a feeding tube) and she was ready to go. I am the only atheist in the bunch, the rest of them are very devout Christians who believe in a wonderful heaven when we die. So why is it that they fight death more than someone who believes it's the end and they won't see them anymore when they die. After all, when my siblings die they will see her again, but I won't. Never quite understood why death seems to be such a taboo thing to do for those who are absolutely sure their loved ones are going to a 'better place'? It is the kindest thing to do for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jul 17, 2014 13:13:30 GMT -5
I am the only atheist in the bunch, the rest of them are very devout Christians who believe in a wonderful heaven when we die. So why is it that they fight death more than someone who believes it's the end and they won't see them anymore when they die. After all, when my siblings die they will see her again, but I won't. Never quite understood why death seems to be such a taboo thing to do for those who are absolutely sure their loved ones are going to a 'better place'? It is the kindest thing to do for the most part. I ask that question all the time, snow. The only conclusion I can come to is that... like my father... they fear judgement. Delay death and delay the inevitable.
|
|