PDA

View Full Version : Regardless of political stance……..


redbrian
10-18-2004, 10:23 AM
this should scare the hell out of you.

Netherlands Doctors hold the right to euthanize children up to 12 without parents consent…..children 13 and over have the right to commit suicide with Doctors assistants.


http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9945816.htm?1c

Europe wrestles with child euthanasia

By MATTHEW SCHOFIELD

The Star's foreign correspondent

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — Four times in recent months, Dutch doctors have pumped lethal doses of drugs into newborns they think are terminally ill.

The actions have set off a new phase in a growing European debate over when, if ever, it is acceptable to hasten death for the critically ill.

Few details of the four newborns' deaths have been made public. Official investigations have found that the doctors made appropriate and professional decisions under an experimental policy allowing child euthanasia that is known as the Groningen University Hospital protocol.

But the children's deaths, and the possibility that the protocol will become standard practice throughout the Netherlands, have sparked heated discussion about whether the idea of assisting adults who seek to die should ever be applied to children and others who are incapable of making, or understanding, such a request.

“Applying euthanasia to children is another step down the slope in this debate,” said Henk Jochemsen, director of the Lindeboom Institute, which studies medical ethics. “Not everybody agrees, obviously, but when we broaden the application from those who actively and repeatedly seek to end their lives to those for whom someone else determines death is a better option, we are treading in dangerous territory.”

The Dutch debate is being closely watched throughout the continent. Belgium has laws similar to those in the Netherlands, and a bill permitting child euthanasia is before its Parliament. No date has been set for debate.

Great Britain is considering legalizing assisted suicide for the terminally ill, amid reports that doctors already may be helping thousands of patients to die each year.

“Assisted dying is a fact,” said Hazel Biggs, director of medical law at the University of Kent, who is about to publish a report estimating the number of assisted deaths in Britain at 18,000 annually. “We have to regulate it, to ensure that vulnerable people are being protected.”

Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.

The hospital, beyond confirming the protocol in general terms, refused to discuss its details.

“It is for very sad cases,” said a hospital spokesman, who declined to be identified. “After years of discussions, we made our own protocol to cover the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no hope for life. Our estimate is that it will not be used but 10 to 15 times a year.”

A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so it rests with doctors.

The protocol was written by hospital doctors and officials, with help from Dutch prosecutors. It is being studied by lawmakers as potential law.

Under the protocol, assisted infant deaths are investigated, but so far all of them have been determined to have been in the patients' best interests.

Euthanasia has been legal in the Netherlands since 1994. Under the law, any critically ill patient over age 12 can request an assisted death, including adults in the early stages of dementia.

The law doesn't allow involuntary euthanasia, nor does it apply to children under age 12, who aren't considered aware enough to make a life-or-death choice.

Dutch doctors have some intentional role in 3.4 percent of all deaths, according to statistics published in The Lancet medical journal. About 0.6 percent are patients who didn't ask to be euthanized, the journal said.

Dutch courts often treat those cases leniently if an investigation determines that the doctor acted out of concern for the patient's well-being.

Opponents of expanding euthanasia to the young cite a recent Dutch court ruling against punishment for a doctor who injected fatal drugs into an elderly woman after she told him she didn't want to die.

The court determined that he had made “an error of judgment,” but had acted “honorably and according to conscience.”

News reports say that since that decision, some elderly hospital patients are carrying written appeals not to be euthanized. A German company has proposed a nursing home just across the border from the Netherlands that would be promoted to aging Dutch residents as a safe haven in a country where euthanasia is illegal and likely to remain so.

What happens to vulnerable people is a particularly sharp issue in a continent where birthrates have declined and populations have aged. Euthanasia opponents fear that as costs increase for long-term intensive care, and health-care budgets become more strained, financial reasons could creep into euthanasia debates.

“The danger, of course, is ensuring a debate on the right to die does not become one on a duty to die,” said Urban Wiesing, chairman for ethics in medicine at Germany's prestigious Eberhard Karls Tuebingen University.

The issue is a particularly delicate one in Germany, where euthanasia was used by the Nazis as cover for wide-scale murders of the disabled, among others.

European advocates of expanding euthanasia laws say they are acting in the best humanitarian tradition to halt intolerable suffering. Belgian Sens. Jeannine Leduc and Paul Wille noted that motive in their proposed law: “Their suffering is as great, the situation they face is as intolerable and inhumane,” they said.

But others worry: After children, who will be next?

“I do accept that there are very difficult cases, very rare cases where a baby is in such pain that death would be the humane option,” Dutch ethicist Jochemsen said. “But hard cases make bad laws. As soon as a law is passed, it will expand the number of those who are considered extreme cases.”

There is little evidence that permitting euthanasia has had much impact on the number of assisted deaths, argued Rotterdam epidemiologist Agnes van der Heide, who has measured euthanasia in Europe for 10 years.

She said her research indicated that the number of assisted deaths in the Netherlands had increased only slightly in 10 years of legalization. She said the inclusion under the law of such groups as those in the beginning stages of dementia and terminally ill 12- to 16-year-olds accounted for only a few cases nationwide each year, similar to predictions on child euthanasia.

“And the fact remains, euthanasia typically shortens life by one month against life expectancy,” she said. “There are no trends showing an increase in that number, or in the estimation that quality of life in these cases is so poor that life should not continue. I know the debate focuses on worst-case scenarios, and abuse. There's no evidence of those things taking place.”

Duck Dog
10-18-2004, 10:26 AM
God complex on steroids.

That would really give the parents another way to force their kids to mind.

"If you don't stop it, I will take you to the doctors office."

Enough to scare any kid into shape.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 10:28 AM
WTF?

insanity

redbrian
10-18-2004, 10:29 AM
God complex on steroids.

That would really give the parents another way to force their kids to mind.

"If you don't stop it, I will take you to the doctors office."

Enough to scare any kid into shape.

Make you think twice before you let a Doctor give you a shot or a pill to take.

Amnorix
10-18-2004, 11:10 AM
I support euthenasia under certain very controlled and limited circumstances.

As the population of America ages and millions of Americans are stricken with alzheimers and other long-term illnesses/diseases that neither families nor the government can underwrite, I suspect the feeling of most Americans will come around to my point of view on this topic as well.

redbrian
10-18-2004, 11:21 AM
I support euthenasia under certain very controlled and limited circumstances.

As the population of America ages and millions of Americans are stricken with alzheimers and other long-term illnesses/diseases that neither families nor the government can underwrite, I suspect the feeling of most Americans will come around to my point of view on this topic as well.

euthenasia for alzheimers?, damn - I think that is extreme, and all because of cost?

Sorry but I could never go that far, cancer maybe, and if you note the majority of cases reported in the articale only saved the State one month of costs.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 12:06 PM
Ahhh, post birth abortions.


It was just a matter of time.

Hel'n
10-18-2004, 12:08 PM
This is scary...

Cochise
10-18-2004, 12:08 PM
Ahhh, post birth abortions.


It was just a matter of time.

Exactly.

redbrian
10-18-2004, 12:09 PM
Ahhh, post birth abortions.


It was just a matter of time.

The part that gets me is the parents have no say in the matter, it's all up to the State run Doctors, in the name of saving a buck.

Isn't Gov. run health care system grand.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 07:24 AM
euthenasia for alzheimers?, damn - I think that is extreme, and all because of cost?

Sorry but I could never go that far, cancer maybe, and if you note the majority of cases reported in the articale only saved the State one month of costs.

My father and his two brothers all had alzheimers. Believe me, if I were starting to get it, and it were legal, I would quickly arrange to be euthenized at a certain point in time. Quality of life is absolutely GONE. The person is technically living, but everything that made him/her who he/she was isn't there anymore. It's horrendous for everyone involved.

It is NOT just a cost issue. But it WILL be a massive cost issue going forward. Alot of families can't support both day care for their kids and nursing home care for their parents. To take care of their parents and kids would be a tremendous burden, and would mean someone needs to leave the workforce. Currently, there are at least some state/federal programs that help if the sick individual's resources/assets are small enough to qualify, but this problem is going to MUSHROOM in an incredibly way over the next 30 or so years.

And it's not just alzheimers. As medical technology advances, we are mroe and more able to keep people alive for a tremendously long period of time, but with aging, many issues crop up.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 07:32 AM
Ahhh, post birth abortions.


It was just a matter of time.

Call it what you will, I think it will be a moral and economic necessity before my time comes, if I live to be the ripe old age I was.

My father spent the last 2 years of his life staring at a wall, drooling, not recognizing anyone, unable to speak, and not interacting with anyone in any kind of meaningful way.

If I had had to foot the cost for this, it would have cost me approximately $9,000 per month, or $108,000 per year, to maintain this "life" that I think it's fair to say no one would want.

I think the primary difference between euthenasia and abortion that you may be able to wrap your brains around is that euthenasia would in all, or nearly all, instances be a decision made by the person who is committing suicide.

I would, of course, expect very strict standards to be employed in connection with any such law (including a sign-off from a doctor that the patient has a terminal and/or completely debiliating illness, and that there is no current cure for such illlness).

Let me say this, VERY CLEARLY. I would much rather arrange for my own death than to spend the last few years as my father did, and in the meantime cause my family tremendous anguish and a tremendous depletion of family assets.

I could, of course, put a gun to my head or OD on pills or somesuch, but I note that this is (1) much more traumatic for the family, and (2) would probably (definitely?) result in voiding any/all life insurance policies on the insured.

It's 2004, and time to recognize that life is precious, but it makes no sense to impose a set of rules that force people to live life until the very last second allowed by nature, regardless of all other circumstances.

Nobody pretends that these issues are pleasant or easily dealt with. But we WILL need to stop closing our eyes about the whole thing very soon now.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 07:33 AM
The part that gets me is the parents have no say in the matter, it's all up to the State run Doctors, in the name of saving a buck.

Isn't Gov. run health care system grand.

For the record, I am not in agreement with the procedures set forth in the article you posted. That's not the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say I support euthenasia in limited circumstances.

redbrian
10-19-2004, 08:38 AM
For the record, I am not in agreement with the procedures set forth in the article you posted. That's not the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say I support euthenasia in limited circumstances.

I have no problem with an individual well over the age of 21 setting down with their lawyer and writing up a very specific document on how, when and why they would like to be put down.

But the State or others (regardless of cost or hardship), have the right to make that decision.

The precedent being set by the Netherlands is going way beyond anything remotely moral.

As a side note my wife’s grandfather had dementia in his last years, and I don’t think any member of the family would have wanted to put him down, even after he got violent.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 08:47 AM
I have no problem with an individual well over the age of 21 setting down with their lawyer and writing up a very specific document on how, when and why they would like to be put down.

But the State or others (regardless of cost or hardship), have the right to make that decision.

The precedent being set by the Netherlands is going way beyond anything remotely moral.

As a side note my wife’s grandfather had dementia in his last years, and I don’t think any member of the family would have wanted to put him down, even after he got violent.

I agree with all of the above, including disagreeing with the Netherland's policy, which seems completely insane to me.

I'm sorry about your wife's grandfather. I don't know what kind of dementia he had. Alot of the time there are periods of lucidity or the dementia isn't all-encompassing.

My father, unfortunately, was completely uncommunicative for the last 2-3 years of his life. There was also no "light" of recognition or intelligence behind his eyes. He was in all ways, except body, already gone.

In any event, I'm not saying that this would be the right choice for everybody. I'm also not saying that it shoudl be forced on anyone. I'm merely saying that the OPTION needs to exist, under certain limited circumstances. Right now, your only options are (1) let it take its course, (2) find a way to commit illegal suicide.

Dr. Kevorkian had it right in some respects, IMHO...

BroWhippendiddle
10-19-2004, 09:13 AM
Murder is murder, regardless of how you spell it and how convienient it is for the "society" that has determined that it is OK.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 09:18 AM
Murder is murder, regardless of how you spell it and how convienient it is for the "society" that has determined that it is OK.

Are you talking about euthenasia or abortion or what?

BroWhippendiddle
10-19-2004, 09:24 AM
Are you talking about euthenasia or abortion or what?
Both, I'm having a hard time understanding what you misunderstood about the statement. Even people on the east coast speak English.

Cochise
10-19-2004, 09:39 AM
Both, I'm having a hard time understanding what you misunderstood about the statement. Even people on the east coast speak English.

I dunno, have you ever been to Baaaaahstan? :p

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 09:43 AM
Both, I'm having a hard time understanding what you misunderstood about the statement. Even people on the east coast speak English.

Just seeking a little clarification.

So you're against the death penalty as well, I trust?

Or are you saying that the state can take my life if I murder someone else, but I can't take my own life under any circumstances whatsoever because that's murder? Murder of myself, so to speak.

Which, in effect, means that the only legal way for me to die before my natural time comes would be for me to murder someone and get the death penalty.

:spock:

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 09:46 AM
I dunno, have you ever been to Baaaaahstan? :p

This from y'all mid-westerners?! I'm just glad these exchanges are by BB because I don't have to wait ten minutes to hear each sentence that you want to utter...

:):p

2bikemike
10-19-2004, 09:53 AM
I could, of course, put a gun to my head or OD on pills or somesuch, but I note that this is (1) much more traumatic for the family, and (2) would probably (definitely?) result in voiding any/all life insurance policies on the insured.



Do you really need a bunch of life insurance at that point in your life anyway? Its not like you have this tremendous earning power.

BTW how do you feel about the Death Penalty? Just curious since your so willing to end the life of an Alzhiemers patient.

Cochise
10-19-2004, 09:54 AM
This from y'all mid-westerners?! I'm just glad these exchanges are by BB because I don't have to wait ten minutes to hear each sentence that you want to utter...

:):p

Man, I'd take a kick in the nuts before I said "ya'll". You have to go a little further south to get that.

And we only talk slowly so that you noreasters can keep up. :thumb:

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 09:57 AM
Do you really need a bunch of life insurance at that point in your life anyway? Its not like you have this tremendous earning power.

BTW how do you feel about the Death Penalty? Just curious since your so willing to end the life of an Alzhiemers patient.

Alzheimer is but one of many possible examples.

Life insurance comes in many forms and varieties, but it's designed to benefit your heirs, not you. If you had a policy for 20 years and then got alzheimers and decided that you didn't want to suffer indefinitely, I don't see why the insurance company should get off the hook scott free, although a pro-rated reduction might be in order to reduce for amounts of additional premiums you would likely have had to pay but for ending your life early, or something. (all this is waaay beside the point and not significant to the discussion).

I have no problem with the death penalty if fairly administered. That's historically been something of a problem, but it's ultimately correctable.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 09:58 AM
Man, I'd take a kick in the nuts before I said "ya'll". You have to go a little further south to get that.

And we only talk slowly so that you noreasters can keep up. :thumb:

More like so your brains can keep up with your mouths (for a change).

:p:p:p:p

Cochise
10-19-2004, 09:59 AM
More like so your brains can keep up with your mouths (for a change).

:p:p:p:p

What are you talking about anyway, we don't speak slowly, you guys just talk like that guy from the Micro Machine commercials

BroWhippendiddle
10-19-2004, 10:03 AM
Just seeking a little clarification.

So you're against the death penalty as well, I trust?

Or are you saying that the state can take my life if I murder someone else, but I can't take my own life under any circumstances whatsoever because that's murder? Murder of myself, so to speak.

Which, in effect, means that the only legal way for me to die before my natural time comes would be for me to murder someone and get the death penalty.



I didn't say that I was against the death penalty, as a matter of fact I think the death penalty should be applied to those that take innocent life.

The part you are missing is that taking a life for convienience is not right. Regardless of the circumstances. Sometimes you have to live through situations to clarify what it means to you specifically, many of us have as noted in some of the responses. I would never have told the doctors to inject my father when he was old and the grip of alzheimers. For three years he didn't know who we were, but would I have him "put down" like an animal? Never. Would I approve of you putting your father down in similar circumstances? Probably not. Would I approve of issuing a DNR for someone in that condition. Yes. Would I approve of an abortion for any reason? Probably not, and I do understand of the situations that arise with pregnancies. The problem with abortions is that 99% or more of them are preformed as an after the fact birth control method. I believe in freedom of choice, when you choose to have sex you have chosen to have the child if you become pregnant. The cases that fall outside of this are the other 1% or so, such as rape, incest, tubal pregnancies, medical emergencies that would endanger the mother, etc.

The choices above are my choices based on my beliefs. As for capital punishment, I feel that is justified when the proof is given. Could I sit on a jury and sentence a man/woman to die? I don't know and hope I never have to make a choice like that, but if the time comes, I will make a choice because that would be a duty to preform.

Believe what you want, that is the basis of our freedoms, just don't tell me that it is OK to kill for the sake of convienience.

2bikemike
10-19-2004, 10:05 AM
Alzheimer is but one of many possible examples.

Life insurance comes in many forms and varieties, but it's designed to benefit your heirs, not you. If you had a policy for 20 years and then got alzheimers and decided that you didn't want to suffer indefinitely, I don't see why the insurance company should get off the hook scott free, although a pro-rated reduction might be in order to reduce for amounts of additional premiums you would likely have had to pay but for ending your life early, or something. (all this is waaay beside the point and not significant to the discussion).

I have no problem with the death penalty if fairly administered. That's historically been something of a problem, but it's ultimately correctable.

My point about the insurance is that at that point in your life your mortgage should be about paid your kids are grown supporting themselves you should have a retirement in place. Just trying to eliminate one of your reasons for not taking yourself out.

So do you think Euthanasia can be administred fairly and without nefarious ulterior motives?

BTW I watched and nursed my mother through Cancer and was with her constantly in her final stages of life. And I would definately have shot her full of morphine enough to end her suffering in those final few days.
But truth be known I don't know how much she was really feeling anyway the ones that were suffering were my brothers and sister and all her grandchildren.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 10:24 AM
So do you think Euthanasia can be administred fairly and without nefarious ulterior motives?

I'm happy to discuss procedures/protections any time to make it a system we feel is 99.99999% reliable and trustworthy. Society would demand it anyway.

It's the change of thinking that I'm after. Dr. Kevorkian was nicknamed Dr. Death, and not without reason. But it's the anti-euthenasia mindset that I'm interested in changing.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 10:29 AM
I didn't say that I was against the death penalty, as a matter of fact I think the death penalty should be applied to those that take innocent life.

The part you are missing is that taking a life for convienience is not right. Regardless of the circumstances. Sometimes you have to live through situations to clarify what it means to you specifically, many of us have as noted in some of the responses. I would never have told the doctors to inject my father when he was old and the grip of alzheimers. For three years he didn't know who we were, but would I have him "put down" like an animal? Never. Would I approve of you putting your father down in similar circumstances? Probably not. Would I approve of issuing a DNR for someone in that condition. Yes. Would I approve of an abortion for any reason? Probably not, and I do understand of the situations that arise with pregnancies. The problem with abortions is that 99% or more of them are preformed as an after the fact birth control method. I believe in freedom of choice, when you choose to have sex you have chosen to have the child if you become pregnant. The cases that fall outside of this are the other 1% or so, such as rape, incest, tubal pregnancies, medical emergencies that would endanger the mother, etc.

The choices above are my choices based on my beliefs. As for capital punishment, I feel that is justified when the proof is given. Could I sit on a jury and sentence a man/woman to die? I don't know and hope I never have to make a choice like that, but if the time comes, I will make a choice because that would be a duty to preform.

Believe what you want, that is the basis of our freedoms, just don't tell me that it is OK to kill for the sake of convienience.

Funny how you think that my desire to end my own life under terrible circumstances is somehow me telling you what is okay.

If you want to live your life until the final breath, regardless of what the circumstances are, I would never take that away from you. That is your right.

And yet the laws of this country, as currently written, force me to breath until the last breath regardless of what I want.

It's ludicrous.

And yet you say you also support the death penalty. So it's okay, under some circumstances, for the government to tell you when you must die, but it's NEVER okay for you to pick when and how you might wish to die. How does that make any sense whatsoever?

Forget abortion in this context -- it's a dramatically different debate.

Let's just say your theories and beliefs on life aren't held together with any type of logic. They are just your morals and beliefs. Kindly don't inflict them on the rest of us in the form of written laws.

Lightning Rod
10-19-2004, 10:32 AM
I think being able to choose how and when you die is not an area where the government should have any say. Where it gets difficult is when the desires of the individual are not known or are unclear. If I am in a vegetative state with no realistic chance at recovery PLEASE PLULL THE PLUG. Many of us have had to “put down” a beloved pet to end its suffering. While I do understand the difference between a doggie and grandpa, it could be argued that dog is being allowed more dignity than our loved ones.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 10:34 AM
I think being able to choose how and when you die is not an area where the government should have any say. Where it gets difficult is when the desires of the individual are not known or are unclear. If I am in a vegetative state with no realistic chance at recovery PLEASE PLULL THE PLUG. Many of us have had to “put down” a beloved pet to end its suffering. While I do understand the difference between a doggie and grandpa, it could be argued that dog is being allowed more dignity than our loved ones.

Especially if/when the loved ones expressly make their wishes known regarding this ahead of time. :shake:

Lightning Rod
10-19-2004, 10:43 AM
Especially if/when the loved ones expressly make their wishes known regarding this ahead of time. :shake:


In this country Dr.s do make the patient comfortable (see speed up the process) all the time. My father died of congestive heart failure and since the doc had a bit of a chip on his shoulder nicotineism was also listed as a cause of death. However if the amount of drugs in his system (to make him comfortable) would have been tested I have no doubt a case could have been made that he was medicated to death. I have no ill will about this, he surely would have died in another hour or 2 or maybe even a day but it would have been a slow painful death that I’m thankful he was spared.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 12:14 PM
Call it what you will, I think it will be a moral and economic necessity before my time comes, if I live to be the ripe old age I was.

My father spent the last 2 years of his life staring at a wall, drooling, not recognizing anyone, unable to speak, and not interacting with anyone in any kind of meaningful way.

If I had had to foot the cost for this, it would have cost me approximately $9,000 per month, or $108,000 per year, to maintain this "life" that I think it's fair to say no one would want.

I think the primary difference between euthenasia and abortion that you may be able to wrap your brains around is that euthenasia would in all, or nearly all, instances be a decision made by the person who is committing suicide.

I would, of course, expect very strict standards to be employed in connection with any such law (including a sign-off from a doctor that the patient has a terminal and/or completely debiliating illness, and that there is no current cure for such illlness).

Let me say this, VERY CLEARLY. I would much rather arrange for my own death than to spend the last few years as my father did, and in the meantime cause my family tremendous anguish and a tremendous depletion of family assets.

I could, of course, put a gun to my head or OD on pills or somesuch, but I note that this is (1) much more traumatic for the family, and (2) would probably (definitely?) result in voiding any/all life insurance policies on the insured.

It's 2004, and time to recognize that life is precious, but it makes no sense to impose a set of rules that force people to live life until the very last second allowed by nature, regardless of all other circumstances.

Nobody pretends that these issues are pleasant or easily dealt with. But we WILL need to stop closing our eyes about the whole thing very soon now.
Why do you need a law to kill yourself?

What you actually want is for someone else to shoulder the responsibility of your death for the possibility of years to come instead of doing so on your own for a few moments. If you are intent on dying, why do I care if you have some huge guilt assuaged upon yourself? You are going to be dead soon anyway and the guilt will be gone.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 12:17 PM
Just seeking a little clarification.

So you're against the death penalty as well, I trust?

Or are you saying that the state can take my life if I murder someone else, but I can't take my own life under any circumstances whatsoever because that's murder? Murder of myself, so to speak.

Which, in effect, means that the only legal way for me to die before my natural time comes would be for me to murder someone and get the death penalty.


#1. Why does someone have to be "against" the death penalty if they don't support the legalized killing of someone who has not committed a crime? They are two separate issues. I don't see the death penalty as a deterrent, I see it as a protection. The person on death row is a menace to society (as proven with the cop killed in Texas by escaped death row inmates), therefore they need to be eliminated from society - not held up for years tortured and humiliated.

#2. Just simply kill yourself if you support "euthanasia". What is the big deal about being responsible for the last action in your life?

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 12:18 PM
Especially if/when the loved ones expressly make their wishes known regarding this ahead of time. :shake:
DNRs are common and used constantly. The government does not force you to survive against your wishes if you are incapacitated.

Bwana
10-19-2004, 12:31 PM
After visiting Amsterdam, this comes as no great shock. They beat to a different drum over there.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 01:14 PM
DNRs are common and used constantly. The government does not force you to survive against your wishes if you are incapacitated.

DNR doesn't do a thing if you aren't in cardiac arrest. My father was perfectly healthy in body but nobody was home mentally.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 01:18 PM
Why do you need a law to kill yourself?

What you actually want is for someone else to shoulder the responsibility of your death for the possibility of years to come instead of doing so on your own for a few moments. If you are intent on dying, why do I care if you have some huge guilt assuaged upon yourself? You are going to be dead soon anyway and the guilt will be gone.

1. it may be a persons wishes to have the euthenasia performed at a certain point in time AFTER they lose control of their faculties or situation, in which case they can't do it themselves.

2. life insurance issues.

3. social stigma of committing suicide

4. technical violation of the law.

5. you're avoiding dealing with the topic by shifting the debate.

BroWhippendiddle
10-19-2004, 02:06 PM
1. it may be a persons wishes to have the euthenasia performed at a certain point in time AFTER they lose control of their faculties or situation, in which case they can't do it themselves.

2. life insurance issues.

3. social stigma of committing suicide

4. technical violation of the law.

5. you're avoiding dealing with the topic by shifting the debate.

Why put off the inevitable? Go out and hire Guido the killer pimp now, save us all the hassle when you are deep in Alzheimers. For me, I think I might want to stick around just in case there is a cure that becomes available.

If you are the one committing suicide, what social stigma would there be that would bother you?

Although it is technically a violation of the law, you won't be here to pay the penalty (unless, of course you are inept as we all suspect), and your family cannot be held responsible. You could even have your family burn the house after you do the deed and then there wouldn't be a problem with a mortician, self cremation!!

Basically what I said before is still correct. Murder is murder, regardless of how you want to explain away the "necessity" or "practicallity" of ridding society of those that would be a burden.

tiptap
10-19-2004, 02:35 PM
Euthanasia, for infants with gross defects and no prospect of living until their 2nd birthday, should not be an option (trisomy 17 for example)? Even now doctors have to walk a fine line about removing support for premature and genetic defective infants under the prospect of those of religious bias wanting to enforce otherwise. It should be an informed decision but to remove that option is to play god as well. After all it was the parents act that produced the promise of life to begin with. And in any other era these infants would not have lived. It is only with massive intervention that they survive. That is no less playing god.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 02:46 PM
Why put off the inevitable? Go out and hire Guido the killer pimp now, save us all the hassle when you are deep in Alzheimers. For me, I think I might want to stick around just in case there is a cure that becomes available.

Are you intentionally being a retard, or is it just unavoidable for you?

If you are the one committing suicide, what social stigma would there be that would bother you?

The family left behind has some (admittedly small) degree of social stigma to deal with.

Although it is technically a violation of the law, you won't be here to pay the penalty (unless, of course you are inept as we all suspect), and your family cannot be held responsible. You could even have your family burn the house after you do the deed and then there wouldn't be a problem with a mortician, self cremation!!

And yet, things that are against the law have society's imprimatur of unacceptableness on them. Hence the social stigma that attaches.

And again, why? Why can't we just make it legal? Why is it so unspeakably horrible that people might not want to live forever under adverse conditions?

Basically what I said before is still correct. Murder is murder, regardless of how you want to explain away the "necessity" or "practicallity" of ridding society of those that would be a burden.

And what I said before is correct -- please don't inflict your misguided morality on me. You live and die the way you fugging want, and let me do the same, if you don't fugging mind. If it's not too much fugging trouble...

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 02:48 PM
Euthanasia, for infants with gross defects and no prospect of living until their 2nd birthday, should not be an option (trisomy 17 for example)? Even now doctors have to walk a fine line about removing support for premature and genetic defective infants under the prospect of those of religious bias wanting to enforce otherwise. It should be an informed decision but to remove that option is to play god as well. After all it was the parents act that produced the promise of life to begin with. And in any other era these infants would not have lived. It is only with massive intervention that they survive. That is no less playing god.

err....was the inclusion of the word "not" in that location an oversight. From the tenor of the rest of your post, I gather that is the case.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 03:38 PM
DNR doesn't do a thing if you aren't in cardiac arrest. My father was perfectly healthy in body but nobody was home mentally.
Then he wouldn't have been a candidate for assisted suicide either as you have to be mentally capable to sign the release. So your point is moot.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 03:40 PM
1. it may be a persons wishes to have the euthenasia performed at a certain point in time AFTER they lose control of their faculties or situation, in which case they can't do it themselves.

2. life insurance issues.

3. social stigma of committing suicide

4. technical violation of the law.

5. you're avoiding dealing with the topic by shifting the debate.
1. They don't have the guts to do it themselves and want to shift the guilt on someone else.

2. There is no life insurance that will pay if you deliberately end your own life - even with assistance

3. What are you worried about, not getting invited to the next tea party? You are dead, who gives a crap about any stigma?

4. So is assisted suicide. At least if you kill yourself you can't get arrested or get anyone else in trouble.

5. No, it is just the argument of assisted suicide is nothing but a coward's way of attempting to legally deal with an issue.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 03:42 PM
Then he wouldn't have been a candidate for assisted suicide either as you have to be mentally capable to sign the release. So your point is moot.

You can sign a DNR ahead of time to specify the conditions when it kicks in.

Same thing here.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 03:43 PM
You can sign a DNR ahead of time to specify the conditions when it kicks in.

Same thing here.
you can also shoot yourself when you start to lose your faculties instead of forcing the issue on another human being.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 03:49 PM
1. They don't have the guts to do it themselves and want to shift the guilt on someone else.

What guilt? The person can sign all the forms and everything ahead of time. Why would a doctor feel guilty? Why would anyone? The onus isn't on anyone else.

2. There is no life insurance that will pay if you deliberately end your own life - even with assistance

Which is a problem. Let's say I have whole life insurance. Sooner or later I'll kick it and my beneficiaries get the $$. But if I'm diagnosed with something terminal and terrible, and decide I don't want to stick around fighting it until the last bitter breath, why should the insurance company get off scot free, depriving my family of the benefits of the policy? I'd be fine with a reduction of benefits based on premiums not paid, and/or involving anticipated life expectancy.

As it stands, if I commit suicide, I screw my family out of the life insurance proceeds. If I don't commit suicide, my family might be screwed because I could eat up all the family assets while I dodder around in a nursing home indefinitely.

3. What are you worried about, not getting invited to the next tea party? You are dead, who gives a crap about any stigma?

There's a stigma when anyone does anything illegal. That's why the fug they make it illegal. And teh stigma attaches to the family.

4. So is assisted suicide. At least if you kill yourself you can't get arrested or get anyone else in trouble.

Are you being intentionally dense? I'm talking about CHANGING the law to allow assisted suicide.

5. No, it is just the argument of assisted suicide is nothing but a coward's way of attempting to legally deal with an issue.

This is seriously the most retarded argument I have ever seen. We should keep something illegal because only cowards don't have the guts to do the illegal act they should do if they want? It is honestly completely nonsensical.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 03:53 PM
you can also shoot yourself when you start to lose your faculties instead of forcing the issue on another human being.

As Alan Alda said in an episode of ER (he played a guest doctor who had been diagnosed with early stage alzheimers):

"If I do it too early I'll deprive myself of what little time I have left. If I do it too late, I'll forget to do it."

I note I don't own a gun, nor do millions of Americans.

I note that it's HARDLY FUGGING DESIREABLE TO HAVE A PUBLIC POLICY THAT ENCOURAGES/FORCES PEOPLE TO SHOOT THEMSELVES.

I note that I really don't want to imagine inflicting cleaning up the mess my brains make on my family.

I note that going off into a field somewhere to shoot myself seems a might bit undignified.

I note that I'll be pretty FUGGING UGLY LOOKING at the wake with a hole in my head.

:shake:

You simply can't get around your religious or moralistic or whatever hang-ups to realize that this is good public policy, logical and makes sense. Instead, you say that anyone who wants to ought to just go shoot themselves. This has got to be the stupidest argument on any issue I've ever seen you put forth. :shake:

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 03:54 PM
you can also shoot yourself when you start to lose your faculties instead of forcing the issue on another human being.

Finally, let me get this straight -- you oppose this because you're worried about the poor DOCTORS that would administer the medications that would put the person peacefully to rest.

THAT'S your argument? Wow...

BroWhippendiddle
10-19-2004, 03:55 PM
Are you intentionally being a retard, or is it just unavoidable for you?

If you were any more of a jerk it would be illegal. You seem to be the one that is drumming up business for the mortician prior to your appointed time.

The family left behind has some (admittedly small) degree of social stigma to deal with.

Nine times out of ten the family uses the "died in his sleep" story for such things. Go ahead and be indignant, but there is plenty of data to support that comment, check your local police department; especially if you live in a small community.

And yet, things that are against the law have society's imprimatur of unacceptableness on them. Hence the social stigma that attaches.

And again, why? Why can't we just make it legal? Why is it so unspeakably horrible that people might not want to live forever under adverse conditions?

You are asking someone else to "kill" you because you have reached a point in life where you now think there is no value in your life. The value in your life may not be in what you can do, being in a vegative state may not be your idea of useful, but there are people that may have more of a stigma of killing you than letting you go by natural means.

And what I said before is correct -- please don't inflict your misguided morality on me. You live and die the way you fugging want, and let me do the same, if you don't fugging mind. If it's not too much fugging trouble...

What you said before still does not fall within the current laws of the land, ask Dr. Death. The only legal murderers we have in the United States are the abortionists. You said that was a totally different arena, or words to that effect. In that you are absolutely wrong. Abortion takes a life that has not yet had the opportunity to fight for life or had the opportunity to experience love of any kind and is considered legal and proper. As of now Dr. Death and his killing viles are still illegal. They take the life of someone that has become of no value, at least that is your stance. Don't tell me that your morality is better than mine because you believe in mercy killing.

You speakl of my morality? I think you are in error again, it isn't me that lays out the morality for you. You are totally responsible for what you do, I am responsible for what I do. If you are not willing to hear other points of view, stop asking such stupid questions, you know that you ask them to illicit responses fto argue your point with. What it seems to be indicating is that you don't feel comfortable with it an have the need to force feed others with your ideals and fears both at the same time.

Amnorix
10-19-2004, 04:05 PM
If you were any more of a jerk it would be illegal. You seem to be the one that is drumming up business for the mortician prior to your appointed time.

I can arrange for the mortician of my choice ahead of time, and can give the business to whomever I please. WTF difference does that make. My "appointed time" is MY appointed time. I'd like to make it, if necessary, rather than letting society impose it upon me.


Nine times out of ten the family uses the "died in his sleep" story for such things. Go ahead and be indignant, but there is plenty of data to support that comment, check your local police department; especially if you live in a small community.

So you and KCWolfman are back to encouraging people to take guns to their brains as a good public policy measure if people want to go that route.

Of course, if an insurnace claim was filed, that'd be insurance fraud, but that's a separate matter.

You are asking someone else to "kill" you because you have reached a point in life where you now think there is no value in your life. The value in your life may not be in what you can do, being in a vegative state may not be your idea of useful, but there are people that may have more of a stigma of killing you than letting you go by natural means.

I find your concern over doctors suffering from overwhelming guilt touching, but find it relatively hard to believe that there are plentiful enough doctors to perform abortions but none that woulnd't suffer tremendously from injecting some medications at the patients own request (whether at the time or established beforehand upon certain conditions). That's nonsensical to me in the extreme.

[/quote]What you said before still does not fall within the current laws of the land, ask Dr. Death. The only legal murderers we have in the United States are the abortionists. You said that was a totally different arena, or words to that effect. In that you are absolutely wrong. Abortion takes a life that has not yet had the opportunity to fight for life or had the opportunity to experience love of any kind and is considered legal and proper. As of now Dr. Death and his killing viles are still illegal. They take the life of someone that has become of no value, at least that is your stance. Don't tell me that your morality is better than mine because you believe in mercy killing.[/quote]

Actually, Kevorkian repeatedly got off when it was just "assisted suicide" where he didn't flip the switch. He went too far in the end, however, and did what I am recommending here as good public policy. That was illegal and therefore he went to jail. Dumb him even had to film it or whatever, which sealed his fate.

Abortion is different.

Mercy killing makes for a nice soundbite, but I'm not talking about out of control nurses or doctors taking decisions into their own hands about these things.


You speakl of my morality? I think you are in error again, it isn't me that lays out the morality for you. You are totally responsible for what you do, I am responsible for what I do. If you are not willing to hear other points of view, stop asking such stupid questions, you know that you ask them to illicit responses fto argue your point with. What it seems to be indicating is that you don't feel comfortable with it an have the need to force feed others with your ideals and fears both at the same time.

Your morality is the same one as that which underlies the laws I'm complaining about, which ought to be changed.

Velvet_Jones
10-19-2004, 04:45 PM
Note to self: Leave kids at home when traveling to Amsterdam.

Velvet

BroWhippendiddle
10-19-2004, 04:46 PM
[/b][/i]


So you and KCWolfman are back to encouraging people to take guns to their brains as a good public policy measure if people want to go that route.


Abortion is different.

Mercy killing makes for a nice soundbite, but I'm not talking about out of control nurses or doctors taking decisions into their own hands about these things.

Your morality is the same one as that which underlies the laws I'm complaining about, which ought to be changed.

I think you complain too much. The issue you are speaking of basically is one that will not be changed in the forseeable future so get ready to be a veg for quite some time if you fall into that category.

BTW, I have never advocated you blowing your brains out. Besides, if you blew your brains out you would not be able to sit as your ass would be totally gone!!

Taco John
10-19-2004, 05:20 PM
The issue you are speaking of basically is one that will not be changed in the forseeable future so get ready to be a veg for quite some time if you fall into that category.



Wow. What a terrible take.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 06:21 PM
I note that it's HARDLY FUGGING DESIREABLE TO HAVE A PUBLIC POLICY THAT ENCOURAGES/FORCES PEOPLE TO SHOOT THEMSELVES.

I note that I really don't want to imagine inflicting cleaning up the mess my brains make on my family.

I note that going off into a field somewhere to shoot myself seems a might bit undignified.

I note that I'll be pretty FUGGING UGLY LOOKING at the wake with a hole in my head.

:shake:

You simply can't get around your religious or moralistic or whatever hang-ups to realize that this is good public policy, logical and makes sense. Instead, you say that anyone who wants to ought to just go shoot themselves. This has got to be the stupidest argument on any issue I've ever seen you put forth. :shake:

What is this about religion? Who mentioned anything about religion but you and your bigoted viewpoints on the subject?


But it is desireable to have a policy to have your neighbor or buddy kill you instead?

You know, you have a great deal of hangups about "dignity" and "social stigma" while berating me for supposedly mentioning my religious mores. Does that make sense to you, because it certainly doesn't to me.

KCWolfman
10-19-2004, 06:22 PM
Finally, let me get this straight -- you oppose this because you're worried about the poor DOCTORS that would administer the medications that would put the person peacefully to rest.

THAT'S your argument? Wow...
Rat poison is cheaper and doesn't involve anyone else.

Donger
10-19-2004, 06:30 PM
Finally, let me get this straight -- you oppose this because you're worried about the poor DOCTORS that would administer the medications that would put the person peacefully to rest.

THAT'S your argument? Wow...

I have no problem at all with people offing themselves if they so wish.

But, I do not believe that doctors should be able to administer the "treatment." It's a direct violation of the Hippocratic oath.

WilliamTheIrish
10-19-2004, 06:39 PM
Wow. What a terrible take.

That's too nice. That 'take' had to be scraped directly from his colon. Or snotspray. I haven't figured which.

BroWhippendiddle
10-20-2004, 07:14 AM
That's too nice. That 'take' had to be scraped directly from his colon. Or snotspray. I haven't figured which.

Don't be shy, go ahead and tell it like you feel it!! That's what this board is all about. TJ has his agenda, amornix has his agenda, I have my agenda. This topic has become a bash whoever doesn't believe your way topic.

I believe that murder is murder regardless what definition or name you give it. Suicide is different, still illegal, but different. I do not believe in "mercy killing" to end what someone might consider a useless existence. There are always options, there are always miracles just around the corner.

How would you feel if you "put your father down", whether it was his choice or yours, and find within a week that a cure had been found? Life is short, why shorten it unnaturally?

Lightning Rod
10-20-2004, 09:14 AM
"Suicide Clause: A policy provision usually stating that if the insured dies by suicide within two years of the date of issue, the amount payable would be limited to the total premiums paid, less any policy debt. The full benefit would only be paid if the suicide occurs after the first two policy years."


This changes from State to state but is usually the case. Insurance companies just don't want people to know it.

Amnorix
10-20-2004, 09:17 AM
"Suicide Clause: A policy provision usually stating that if the insured dies by suicide within two years of the date of issue, the amount payable would be limited to the total premiums paid, less any policy debt. The full benefit would only be paid if the suicide occurs after the first two policy years."


This changes from State to state but is usually the case. Insurance companies just don't want people to know it.

Really? I don't know a helluva lot about life insurance, but if I bought an obscene amount of life insurance and offed myself in 2.5 years, my family gets the full payout? That's amazing.

I guess the thinking is (most likely correct) that people don't plan that well to commit suicide that far down the line.

Lightning Rod
10-20-2004, 09:19 AM
Really? I don't know a helluva lot about life insurance, but if I bought an obscene amount of life insurance and offed myself in 2.5 years, my family gets the full payout? That's amazing.

I guess the thinking is (most likely correct) that people don't plan that well to commit suicide that far down the line.



In most states yes, I have not been in the business for a long long time so check before you kill yourself ROFL

Amnorix
10-20-2004, 09:44 AM
In most states yes, I have not been in the business for a long long time so check before you kill yourself ROFL

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. ;)