Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2014 23:55:58 GMT -5
Dmmichgood quote - " OK, BERT! YOU'VE STEPPED OVER THE LINE! Where is your Proof that euthanasia has widened to include anybody who wanted "someone else to die?" I've been an advocate for euthanasia for a very long time! I have spoke at meetings where there was standing room only! People want control over the end of THEIR life, not other peoples lives. What do you define as a terminal case? Why must it be only where pain is involved? How would it be if you were completely dependent on life support in the form of a respirator & unable to move any of your body yourself? Should you have to be in "pain" in order to be able to end your life? Should you or anyone else or the government or any religion have the right to tell you that you must live out your miserable life until you die at some supposed "right time?" I am a nurse. I have witnessed the deaths of more people that I can possible remember. Have you ever witnessed dying?"I just Googled "euthanasia" and "abuse" and got the following, first hit... www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/holland-background/This concerns a "Remmelink Report." It's not a "right to die" argument per se, but rather the "abuse" and "slippery slope" which bothers thinking people. If this single web site is correct we: kill people without their consent - autonomy argument kill people without their knowledge - autonomy argument kill people without informing them of alternative medical choices - autonomy argumentIn Holland they: kill people without reporting it. kill people in comas. kill babies and children kill psychiatric patients falsify death certificates kill patients to avoid providing adequate medical care - ie diabetes, rheumatism, bronchitis etc.. kill adolescents kill to contain medical costs destroy the trust between patient and doctor and force many people to seek ways to avoid this barbaric "medical treatment."quote " Euthanasia, by its very nature, is an abuse and the ultimate abandonment of patients." Euthenasia, like the "sexual revolution" is rich in ironies, and quickly became another moral slippery slope. If you think "slippery slope" is just a "logical fallacy" then please read the link above. or just Google "euthanasia" and "abuse."
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 24, 2014 1:53:21 GMT -5
Dmmichgood quote - " OK, BERT! YOU'VE STEPPED OVER THE LINE! Where is your Proof that euthanasia has widened to include anybody who wanted "someone else to die?" I've been an advocate for euthanasia for a very long time! I have spoke at meetings where there was standing room only! People want control over the end of THEIR life, not other peoples lives. What do you define as a terminal case? Why must it be only where pain is involved? How would it be if you were completely dependent on life support in the form of a respirator & unable to move any of your body yourself? Should you have to be in "pain" in order to be able to end your life? Should you or anyone else or the government or any religion have the right to tell you that you must live out your miserable life until you die at some supposed "right time?" I am a nurse. I have witnessed the deaths of more people that I can possible remember. Have you ever witnessed dying?"I just Googled "euthanasia" and "abuse" and got the following, first hit... www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/holland-background/This concerns a "Remmelink Report." It's not a "right to die" argument per se, but rather the "abuse" and "slippery slope" which bothers thinking people. If this single web site is correct we: kill people without their consent - autonomy argument kill people without their knowledge - autonomy argument kill people without informing them of alternative medical choices - autonomy argumentIn Holland they: kill people without reporting it. kill people in comas. kill babies and children kill psychiatric patients falsify death certificates kill patients to avoid providing adequate medical care - ie diabetes, rheumatism, bronchitis etc.. kill adolescents kill to contain medical costs destroy the trust between patient and doctor and force many people to seek ways to avoid this barbaric "medical treatment."quote " Euthanasia, by its very nature, is an abuse and the ultimate abandonment of patients." Euthenasia, like the "sexual revolution" is rich in ironies, and quickly became another moral slippery slope. If you think "slippery slope" is just a "logical fallacy" then please read the link above. or just Google "euthanasia" and "abuse." Bert -- take a pill and get some sleep, or someone will be coming to get you and you'll be too terrified to escape. Next time don't read the headlines as you're checking out of the super market, it will scare you.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 24, 2014 1:56:34 GMT -5
Dmmichgood quote - " OK, BERT! YOU'VE STEPPED OVER THE LINE! Where is your Proof that euthanasia has widened to include anybody who wanted "someone else to die?" I've been an advocate for euthanasia for a very long time! I have spoke at meetings where there was standing room only! People want control over the end of THEIR life, not other peoples lives. What do you define as a terminal case? Why must it be only where pain is involved? How would it be if you were completely dependent on life support in the form of a respirator & unable to move any of your body yourself? Should you have to be in "pain" in order to be able to end your life? Should you or anyone else or the government or any religion have the right to tell you that you must live out your miserable life until you die at some supposed "right time?" I am a nurse. I have witnessed the deaths of more people that I can possible remember. Have you ever witnessed dying?"I just Googled "euthanasia" and "abuse" and got the following, first hit... www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/holland-background/This concerns a "Remmelink Report." It's not a "right to die" argument per se, but rather the "abuse" and "slippery slope" which bothers thinking people. If this single web site is correct we: kill people without their consent - autonomy argument kill people without their knowledge - autonomy argument kill people without informing them of alternative medical choices - autonomy argumentIn Holland they: kill people without reporting it. kill people in comas. kill babies and children kill psychiatric patients falsify death certificates kill patients to avoid providing adequate medical care - ie diabetes, rheumatism, bronchitis etc.. kill adolescents kill to contain medical costs destroy the trust between patient and doctor and force many people to seek ways to avoid this barbaric "medical treatment."quote " Euthanasia, by its very nature, is an abuse and the ultimate abandonment of patients." Euthenasia, like the "sexual revolution" is rich in ironies, and quickly became another moral slippery slope. If you think "slippery slope" is just a "logical fallacy" then please read the link above. or just Google "euthanasia" and "abuse." Bert your report was from an anti-'right to die' group.
What would you expect from such a group ?
Go & find proof of all those allegations. They have no substance, they are the the usual scare tactics
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 24, 2014 11:09:19 GMT -5
Seems like the world would rather you live a long time miserable than a shorter time happy. People should have the right to choose death over pain, loss of most functions etc. Chronic pain is very tiring and draining, it wears you down and as it increases to levels where you are so highly medicated you can't function anyway, it should be a choice imo. I live with chronic pain, and I know what it is like. If there comes a time when I can't function in the world because of medications to help with the pain, I will want a choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2014 11:44:44 GMT -5
i know it sounds cruel but euthanasia is a bad idea, terminating a soul that hasn't committed some heinous crime is always bad...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 24, 2014 14:37:44 GMT -5
i know it sounds cruel but euthanasia is a bad idea, terminating a soul that hasn't committed some heinous crime is always bad... Why? Why can't I choose to do whatever I wish with my 'soul' if I even have one? And if we do have souls, why is it ok to terminate souls that have committed a terrible crime and it's not okay to terminate those who are suffering terribly? Wouldn't it make more sense that no one should be terminated, or both?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 24, 2014 14:43:52 GMT -5
part of Bert's post: quote "Euthanasia, by its very nature, is an abuse and the ultimate abandonment of patients."
Euthenasia, like the "sexual revolution" is rich in ironies, and quickly became another moral slippery slope. If you think "slippery slope" is just a "logical fallacy" then please read the link above.
or just Google "euthanasia" and "abuse." Bert -- take a pill and get some sleep, or someone will be coming to get you and you'll be too terrified to escape. Next time don't read the headlines as you're checking out of the super market, it will scare you. Attack the messenger? DMG, having a certain agenda (anti - right-to-die) doesn't mean researchers lie. Have you read something that refutes this particular study?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 24, 2014 16:55:57 GMT -5
i know it sounds cruel but euthanasia is a bad idea, terminating a soul that hasn't committed some heinous crime is always bad... So we require that the good people live in their suffering and misery and we kill the criminals to put them out of their misery. Hell will be full enough, no??? Why keep the good people alive -- in hopes that they will eventually commit a crime and deserve to die. Gosh.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 24, 2014 16:58:24 GMT -5
part of Bert's post: quote "Euthanasia, by its very nature, is an abuse and the ultimate abandonment of patients."
Euthenasia, like the "sexual revolution" is rich in ironies, and quickly became another moral slippery slope. If you think "slippery slope" is just a "logical fallacy" then please read the link above.
or just Google "euthanasia" and "abuse." Bert -- take a pill and get some sleep, or someone will be coming to get you and you'll be too terrified to escape. Next time don't read the headlines as you're checking out of the super market, it will scare you. Attack the messenger? DMG, having a certain agenda (anti - right-to-die) doesn't mean researchers lie. Have you read something that refutes this particular study? There's lots to refute. And some researchers do lie -- particularly if they're trying to keep people from going to hell. But they're not really researchers -- they're salesmen for an ideology. And that by definition is "biased".
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jun 24, 2014 17:06:41 GMT -5
As a hospice volunteer, my specialty is sitting vigil with the dying. Most of my patients are given drugs to quiet the "death rattle" and to "alleviate pain". I've seen a lot of patients die shortly after being given meds. In my opinion, meds are given more for the family and not the patient. Most patients who are actively dying of old age and system/organ failure go through a period of twitching of the arms and legs. While it isn't pretty, it is hard to watch. Doesn't seem to bother the patient any. Neither does the so-called death rattle seem to bother the patient, but one never knows for sure. The bottom line is, call it what you will, but if that isn't euthanasia, I don't know what is.
When my husband's mother was in the hospital with liver cancer, she had to have fluid buildup pumped out of her body daily. After several days with no sign of recovery or healing, the doctor said that he was stopping all medical treatment.
EUTHANASIA: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals.
So by this definition, my mother-in-law was a victim of euthanasia.
Pulling the plug on life support patients could also qualify as euthansia under this definition.
How many times have we heard that when medical treatment is stopped that the person "is in God's hands now". Where they not in God's hand when they got sick in the first place?
I made the decision to euthanize my terminally ill and suffering dog. I would do it again. It was an act of love.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 24, 2014 17:16:09 GMT -5
As a hospice volunteer, my specialty is sitting vigil with the dying. Most of my patients are given drugs to quiet the "death rattle" and to "alleviate pain". I've seen a lot of patients die shortly after being given meds. In my opinion, meds are given more for the family and not the patient. Most patients who are actively dying of old age and system/organ failure go through a period of twitching of the arms and legs. While it isn't pretty, it is hard to watch. Doesn't seem to bother the patient any. Neither does the so-called death rattle seem to bother the patient, but one never knows for sure. The bottom line is, call it what you will, but if that isn't euthanasia, I don't know what is. When my husband's mother was in the hospital with liver cancer, she had to have fluid buildup pumped out of her body daily. After several days with no sign of recovery or healing, the doctor said that he was stopping all medical treatment. EUTHANASIA: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals. So by this definition, my mother-in-law was a victim of euthanasia. Pulling the plug on life support patients could also qualify as euthansia under this definition. How many times have we heard that when medical treatment is stopped that the person "is in God's hands now". Where they not in God's hand when they got sick in the first place? I made the decision to euthanize my terminally ill and suffering dog. I would do it again. It was an act of love. Good points. I am also a hospice volunteer. I have sat with many that are dying and with their families. I am sure the medications that they give them for pain and to ease their breathing does make their death come easier, but also sooner. So in a 'behind the scenes' way, euthanasia is already being practiced, it's just not talked about or recognized as that. When my mother was dying they gave her morphine to help with the breathing because it relaxed the muscles a little and gave her some relief over and above the pain relief. I don't understand why humans can not do the compassionate thing and help when things are terminal anyway.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 24, 2014 23:06:39 GMT -5
As a hospice volunteer, my specialty is sitting vigil with the dying. Most of my patients are given drugs to quiet the "death rattle" and to "alleviate pain". I've seen a lot of patients die shortly after being given meds. In my opinion, meds are given more for the family and not the patient. Most patients who are actively dying of old age and system/organ failure go through a period of twitching of the arms and legs. While it isn't pretty, it is hard to watch. Doesn't seem to bother the patient any. Neither does the so-called death rattle seem to bother the patient, but one never knows for sure. The bottom line is, call it what you will, but if that isn't euthanasia, I don't know what is. When my husband's mother was in the hospital with liver cancer, she had to have fluid buildup pumped out of her body daily. After several days with no sign of recovery or healing, the doctor said that he was stopping all medical treatment. EUTHANASIA: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals. So by this definition, my mother-in-law was a victim of euthanasia. Pulling the plug on life support patients could also qualify as euthansia under this definition. How many times have we heard that when medical treatment is stopped that the person "is in God's hands now". Where they not in God's hand when they got sick in the first place? I made the decision to euthanize my terminally ill and suffering dog. I would do it again. It was an act of love. My manner of death preferences are registered with the clinic where I receive my primary medical care. They will not treat anyone who does not give them those instructions. And yes, that includes instructions on when to pull the plug. As far as I'm concerned, I think the majority of people alive today should appreciate that they are no longer living on God's time, but on the gift of modern medicine. This whole dialogue about euthanasia is not so much about "killing people" as it is about damning people who accept and respect the inevitable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 21:51:00 GMT -5
Dmmichgood quote - " Bert your report was from an anti-'right to die' group. What would you expect from such a group ? Go & find proof of all those allegations. They have no substance, they are the the usual scare tactics PROVE IT!" Strange how people can quote from the TTT website, or The Secret Sect, yet warn you about advocacy groups. In Holland they: kill people in comas. kill people without reporting it. kill babies and children kill psychiatric patients falsify death certificates kill patients to avoid providing adequate medical care - ie diabetes, rheumatism, bronchitis etc.. kill adolescents kill to contain medical costs destroy the trust between patient and doctor and force many people to seek ways to avoid this barbaric "medical treatment."
I will answer each of the claims when I have the time (we have about 100 people in our house today, and I am told to get off the internet!) Quote - (In Holland) kill people in comas.Technically this can't be done, but there are loop holes - ie, in the "patient's interest" or with no prospect of improvement. And this is one reason why Dutch doctors drug induce some comas. "The Netherlands has only 30 long-term coma patients, and since 2002 the country has had a so-called euthanasia law that gives doctors the theoretical possibility of ending treatment if they deem a victim's suffering to be "interminable and unbearable". www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/coma-prince-sparks-euthanasia-debate/story-fnb64oi6-1226462264812?nk=c8ba58c75af2b6c3dea66e256f289568
"A Dutch politician has reopened the “right to die” debate by calling for the country’s prince to be brought home from the London hospital where he is in a coma so his life support machine can be switched off." www.standard.co.uk/news/london/dutch-coma-prince-should-leave-uk-so-he-can-die-in-netherlands-8099209.html
and continuing this prince "But the chance to find such treatment in the Netherlands are small, as “there is no institution in our land that treat this sort of patient”(!). Other media have noted that in the Netherlands medical doctors may decide to terminate the treatment of a coma patient even without consulting his family, if they find that its continuation “makes no sense”. In other words: in the Netherlands coma patients are killed, not treated." www.turtlebayandbeyond.org/2012/eu/netherlands-we-have-euthanasia-but-no-place-for-coma-patients/
"The reasons for not discussing the decision to end the person’s life and not obtaining consent were that patients were comatose (70% of cases) or had dementia (21% of cases). In 17% of cases, the physicians proceeded without consent because they felt that euthanasia was “clearly in the patient’s best interest” www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/
This stuff is READILY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET, ARE EUTHANASIA PROPONENTS AFRAID TO READ IT?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 21:58:46 GMT -5
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430479/One-thirty-deaths-Holland-euthanasia-choosing-end-lives-cancer.html Mobile death squads to kill sick and elderly in their own homes leads to surge in suicide rates in the Netherlands Around 3 per cent of all deaths in the Netherlands are now by euthanasia The country last year introduced mobile euthanasia units In 2002 it became the first country since Nazi Germany to legalise it Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430479/One-thirty-deaths-Holland-euthanasia-choosing-end-lives-cancer.html#ixzz35tmhlFbfFollow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook One in 30 deaths in Holland are now from euthanasia, it has been revealed. It comes after the Dutch government allowed mobile death squads to kill sick and elderly people in their own homes. Official figures released yesterday, showed that euthanasia deaths soared by 13 per cent in 2012 compared to the previous year. There were 4,188 deaths by euthanasia last year – accounting for three per cent of all deaths - compared to 3,695 deaths by euthanasia in 2011. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430479/One-thirty-deaths-Holland-euthanasia-choosing-end-lives-cancer.html#ixzz35tmnGStTFollow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook It marks the sixth consecutive year that deaths by euthanasia have increased in the Netherlands. The government has said that the reasons for the increase in euthanasia deaths cannot be determined with certainty.Leading theories include a growing awareness and acceptance of the practice among both Dutch doctors and patients. In March last year, however, Holland launched the world’s first mobile death squads to be dispatched in cases when family doctors refused to administer lethal drugs on ‘ethical’ grounds.
The six units, comprising of at least a doctors and a nurse, were expected to send the number of euthanasia cases in Holland rocketing, with pro-euthanasia campaigners saying they would end the lives of an additional 1,000 ‘borderline’ patients a year.Anti-euthanasia activists in Britain said yesterday the year-on-year increases in euthanasia death proved argument that euthanasia was a ‘slippery slope’. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430479/One-thirty-deaths-Holland-euthanasia-choosing-end-lives-cancer.html#ixzz35tmq7sjkFollow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Elspeth Chowdharay-Best, the honorary secretary of Alert, said: ‘It is what we expected and I do hope that people will pay more attention now to the warnings that have been made about introducing euthanasia to this country. ‘The Dutch experience shows that euthanasia becomes routine,’ she added. ‘It traps more and more people into thinking they ought to leave this world prematurely.‘In that kind of culture euthanasia becomes expected and inevitable and everything else – such as good palliative care and a functional hospice movement – is gradually portrayed as rather selfish.’ Nikki Kenward of Distant Voices, a disability rights group, said: ‘These numbers fill me with fear and horror. ‘We are failing to see the dangers,’ said Mrs Kenward who has been confined to a wheelchair since an attack of Guillian-Barre syndrome in the early 1990s. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430479/One-thirty-deaths-Holland-euthanasia-choosing-end-lives-cancer.html#ixzz35tmsnx7iFollow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook ‘Anyone who believes these figures to be necessary or acceptable should look to the future and be wary of the moment when the death doctor calls at their house uninvited – when the safeguards, score-sheets and so-called sentimentality have given way to a new world where age, infirmity and “useless” lives are seen as unnecessary and people like me are targeted once again.’
Holland became the first country in the world since Nazi Germany to legalise euthanasia when in 2002 it approved doctor-administered lethal drugs for terminally ill people facing unbearable suffering. For several years, the reported number of cases declined, but since 2006 – when there were 1,923 deaths by euthanasia - they have risen steadily. Most cases involve cancer patients but increasingly that have included dementia sufferers and even psychiatric patients.In 2005 the Groningen Protocol protected doctors from being prosecuted for the euthanasia of infants as long as they followed approved guidelines. Euthanasia is carried out by administering a strong sedative to put the patient in a coma, followed by a drug to stop breathing and cause death. The Dutch government has insisted that ‘the greatest care’ is taken to offer euthanasia only to patients ‘who are suffering unbearably with no prospect of improvement’. Holland is following a pattern of incremental euthanasia deaths wherever the practice has been legalised. Last year, Belgium, where euthanasia came into force in 2003, saw a 25 per cent increase in the number of euthanasia deaths, leaping from 1,133 in 2011 to 1,432, a figure representing about two per cent of all deaths in the country. A similar pattern is emerging in those countries where physician-assisted suicide has been legalised. In Washington State in the U.S., physician-assisted suicide deaths increased by 17 per cent in 2012 to 83 cases, up from 70 in 2011. Again there were incremental rises of 51 in 2010 and 36 in 2009, when the state’ s Death With Dignity Act took effect. In the neighbouring State of Oregon, the first U.S.-state to legalise assisted suicide, deaths at the hands of doctors are also at an all-time high. There were 59 assisted suicide deaths in Oregon in 2009, 65 in 2010, 71 in 2011 and 77 in 2012 - a 30 per cent increase overall in just four years. Overall, assisted suicides have shot up by 381 per cent from 16 in 1998, when the practice was legalised. Switzerland, which first relaxed prohibitions on assisted suicide in 1942, has seen a 700 per cent increase deaths in the same period. Authorities recorded a steady rise of assisted suicides of Swiss nationals from 43 in 1998 to 297 in 2009. The figures do not include people from abroad who travel to Dignitas to commit suicide there. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430479/One-thirty-deaths-Holland-euthanasia-choosing-end-lives-cancer.html#ixzz35tmxCUViFollow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 27, 2014 22:12:48 GMT -5
So you see what kind of nonsense the sane people of this world have to put up with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 23:49:55 GMT -5
Bert, No sensible person in the UK takes what is written the Daily Mail seriously. Is there any reason why you do? Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2014 0:01:07 GMT -5
Easy fixed. I will do some further checking on the "mobile euthanasia" teams. Seems logical, I mean, not every local doctor wants to kill you because you are blind, lonely or sick. I don't care WHO actually makes a claim - it's the verity of the claim which is important.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2014 0:14:23 GMT -5
Easy fixed. I will do some further checking on the "mobile euthanasia" teams. Seems logical, I mean, not every local doctor wants to kill you because you are blind, lonely or sick. I don't care WHO actually makes a claim - it's the verity of the claim which is important. Bert I'm just surprised that one who states that it is the 'verity of claims which is important' should use the Daily Mail as their preferred source. But there you are. Hopefully you'll find an article in a serious journal to link to which supports your point of view. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 28, 2014 0:22:32 GMT -5
Easy fixed. I will do some further checking on the "mobile euthanasia" teams. Seems logical, I mean, not every local doctor wants to kill you because you are blind, lonely or sick. I don't care WHO actually makes a claim - it's the verity of the claim which is important. The "Who" should be the first thing you check. And what you pick up at the supermarket checkout is the last thing you should check, no matter who it reports having said it.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 28, 2014 4:12:24 GMT -5
I made the decision to euthanize my terminally ill and suffering dog. I would do it again. It was an act of love. I wonder if Bert would have mercy on his terminally ill and suffering dog? The average suicide rate on wiki for OECD countries is 11.14 and the Netherlands is 7.8 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_suicide_rate
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2014 18:40:05 GMT -5
i know it sounds cruel but euthanasia is a bad idea, terminating a soul that hasn't committed some heinous crime is always bad... Why? Why can't I choose to do whatever I wish with my 'soul' if I even have one? And if we do have souls, why is it ok to terminate souls that have committed a terrible crime and it's not okay to terminate those who are suffering terribly? Wouldn't it make more sense that no one should be terminated, or both? here is why we kill murders: Gen_9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. as to why...i'll have to think about it but it probably revolves around common sense, self murder and giving up...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2014 19:19:49 GMT -5
Is not the practice of medicine for the express purpose to improve the quality of life. Is not death part of life? That being the case, are we not more humane to animals other than humans than we are to our fellow man?
My very continued existence is a result of some very good medical care, combined with human skill, knowledge and effort to make my life "better." Who disagrees with such a statement? I literally live on a form of artificial life, and thus find myself holding two different and conflicting opinions in my same mind, which for some simply is one definition of insanity. Having been told outright by a parent they would rather have me lay dying than another sibling (who was dying) because I was "dead to them already" I concluded in that moment 2&2ism would rather such a one as myself were dead rather than one of their own. Something did indeed die within me at that moment so very long ago.
It was the knowledge that my life had any value to the very ones I once held so dear. Phony now to me for anyone of that group to even try to pretend otherwise. My God has given me the right of when to give up on life. I will struggle to live as long as I feel my life has any value to me and those I love. When that is no longer part of my mental ability to comprehend, it is time for me "to go walk about."
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 28, 2014 20:02:52 GMT -5
Why? Why can't I choose to do whatever I wish with my 'soul' if I even have one? And if we do have souls, why is it ok to terminate souls that have committed a terrible crime and it's not okay to terminate those who are suffering terribly? Wouldn't it make more sense that no one should be terminated, or both? here is why we kill murders: Gen_9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. as to why...i'll have to think about it but it probably revolves around common sense, self murder and giving up... I guess this is where the need to suffer is far superior to being humane and allowing someone to die when their life is too painful to continue. The bible teaches us the righteousness of suffering. I would imagine that is why you hold this belief Wally? What the bible teaches? One more reason why I find the bible incompatible with real life.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 28, 2014 20:04:19 GMT -5
Is not the practice of medicine for the express purpose to improve the quality of life. Is not death part of life? That being the case, are we not more humane to animals other than humans than we are to our fellow man?
My very continued existence is a result of some very good medical care, combined with human skill, knowledge and effort to make my life "better." Who disagrees with such a statement? I literally live on a form of artificial life, and thus find myself holding two different and conflicting opinions in my same mind, which for some simply is one definition of insanity. Having been told outright by a parent they would rather have me lay dying than another sibling (who was dying) because I was "dead to them already" I concluded in that moment 2&2ism would rather such a one as myself were dead rather than one of their own. Something did indeed die within me at that moment so very long ago.
It was the knowledge that my life had any value to the very ones I once held so dear. Phony now to me for anyone of that group to even try to pretend otherwise. My God has given me the right of when to give up on life. I will struggle to live as long as I feel my life has any value to me and those I love. When that is no longer part of my mental ability to comprehend, it is time for me "to go walk about." Dennis I like your phrase 'to go walk about'. And I agree with you. As long as my life is a value to me or others, then I will continue to carry on living. When that is no longer possible I would rather go on a walk about!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 28, 2014 20:06:04 GMT -5
Why? Why can't I choose to do whatever I wish with my 'soul' if I even have one? And if we do have souls, why is it ok to terminate souls that have committed a terrible crime and it's not okay to terminate those who are suffering terribly? Wouldn't it make more sense that no one should be terminated, or both? here is why we kill murders: Gen_9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. as to why...i'll have to think about it but it probably revolves around common sense, self murder and giving up... Most civilized people don't kill murderers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2014 0:39:17 GMT -5
Why? Why can't I choose to do whatever I wish with my 'soul' if I even have one? And if we do have souls, why is it ok to terminate souls that have committed a terrible crime and it's not okay to terminate those who are suffering terribly? Wouldn't it make more sense that no one should be terminated, or both? here is why we kill murders: Gen_9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. as to why...i'll have to think about it .... Wally, thinking about it is probably a good idea. Many bible believers don’t seem to think much at all but rather just reel out quotes from the bible to justify their beliefs no matter how ridiculous. Of course, as Bob points out, most of us in the civilised world have given up killing murderers irrespective of what it says in the bible. In fact most of us in the civilised world have given up a lot of things which the bible says. This is probably for the better as the bible contains a lot of foolishness. I think lifting the ban on eating shellfish is a good idea particularly if, like me, you live in a coastal community where there are a lot of oyster beds. No longer putting to death people who work on the Sabbath is another good idea, particularly members of the emergency services. If you think about it enough, you’ll soon come to the conclusion that a lot of what is says in the bible is nonsense really. And then you’ll either end up pretty much rejecting the bible altogether or becoming an a la carte Christian. A la carte Christians tend to be the best type of Christians. Having the wit to choose what to believe and what not to believe is always a good thing. Having the wit to know what to interpret literally and what to interpret metaphorically is the beginning of wisdom. You really don’t want to be a bible literalist and spend all your spare time killing people. You don’t want to be spending your holidays rounding up homosexuals to put to death just because of what God said to those chaps in the book of Exodus a few thousand years ago. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jun 29, 2014 8:54:07 GMT -5
Man! Ya'll are just plain mean! What do you have against the youth in Asia?!?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jun 29, 2014 9:49:27 GMT -5
Man! Ya'll are just plain mean! What do you have against the youth in Asia?!? <groan!>
|
|