# Physician assisted suicide



## AmyNation

Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?


----------



## FA_Q2

Why not?  I have always found that laws against committing suicide are asinine.  If you don&#8217;t want to be here, so be it.  I have no problem with you finishing yourself off if that is truly what you want.  Such a process needs to be well thought out, we don&#8217;t want errors in such a situation but you have dominion over your body.  Why not dominion in ending it.


----------



## Noomi

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?



Of course. As long as the doctor agrees to help, I don't see a problem with it. Its much kinder than making a terminally ill person suffer.


----------



## AmyNation

It seems like an obvious choice. If someone doesnt want to live, then don't force them. And yet, we dont allow doctors to help.


----------



## AquaAthena

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?



Yes, I do feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die, and you would be surprised at the number of physicians I know, really feel that way, too.

They hate prolonging death, even though suffering can be relieved.

In Oregon, we have the Death with Dignity Law and I love that option. If two physicians and one psychologist agree that if a patient has a terminal diagnosis and would be expected to die within six months, the patient's physician can legally write a prescription for the medicines that would end their life. The physician cannot assist or touch the patient. The patient has to be able to hold the pills and swallow them, without any assist. from a physician. Not all patients can do that.

This is a state law voted in by registered voters.


----------



## blastoff

My mother-in-law was terrified she might suffer some slow agonizing painful downward spiral to eventual death as she'd witnessed of friends and loved ones in her later years.  So she made the wife and her three brothers swear if it ever came to such circumstance for her that they'd just slip her a plastic bag she could put over her head and tie around her neck herself one night and just go to sleep, forever.

And there is no doubt in my mind one or all of them would have done it had it ever come to that, but she fortunately never suffered before just dying of old age one day.  But it's sad she, or anyone, would ever have to consider something like that in this day in age.


----------



## AmyNation

My grandmother watched her brother and sister slip away into Alzheimer's. My great aunt lived for more than 10 years after her mind was completely lost. A better part of those years she spent drugged for her own safety. It was my grandmothers greatest fear, to end up like her siblings.


----------



## Katzndogz

Let's start with the guy in prison who wants a tax funded sex change.


----------



## PaulS1950

There is a human right to choice. Choosing a kinder, gentler way of dying is a basic human right. 
Too many doctors have "god complexes" and think they should force people to exhaust every last chance (spelled dollar) for a few extra months of miserable life.
I should be able to choose if I want to live after my life, as I prefer it, ends.

Where in the constitution does it give the government the power to say I can't choose?


----------



## geauxtohell

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?



Yes, but doctors shouldn't be compelled to assist.


----------



## hortysir

So many of us are okay with the notion, yet it's still illegal


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die?



Yes


----------



## geauxtohell

AmyNation said:


> My grandmother watched her brother and sister slip away into Alzheimer's. My great aunt lived for more than 10 years after her mind was completely lost. A better part of those years she spent drugged for her own safety. It was my grandmothers greatest fear, to end up like her siblings.



Alzheimer's isn't a terminal illness.


----------



## PaulS1950

geauxtohell said:


> Yes it is. You can't recover and you will die. Your life is, at some point over, controlled by fear of those who love you and an inability recognize who, what and when you are. It is most similar to life in a vegatative state with fear and torment added in.
> Alzheimer's is most certainly a terminal illness and if you ever lived through it with a loved one you wouldn't even question it.


----------



## geauxtohell

PaulS1950 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. You can't recover and you will die. Your life is, at some point over, controlled by fear of those who love you and an inability recognize who, what and when you are. It is most similar to life in a vegatative state with fear and torment added in.
> Alzheimer's is most certainly a terminal illness and if you ever lived through it with a loved one you wouldn't even question it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be said of COPD.  Simply because a disease is progressive and irreversible doesn't make it a terminal disease that a person can evoke the death with dignity act.
Click to expand...


----------



## PaulS1950

I am not saying anything about the "death with dignity act", I am talking about a right that has been trampled by the government for whatever reason they may have. COPD is also a terminal disease. People get the same death care on COPD as they do with cancer once it progresses to a certain point. The difference with COPD is that the disease can be effectively treated with the constant use of oxygen to aid in providing high enough levels in the blood for a long time. Long enough that most people eventually quit hauling concentrators and oxygen bottles around and die quietly at home.


----------



## geauxtohell

PaulS1950 said:


> I am not saying anything about the "death with dignity act", I am talking about a right that has been trampled by the government for whatever reason they may have. COPD is also a terminal disease. People get the same death care on COPD as they do with cancer once it progresses to a certain point. The difference with COPD is that the disease can be effectively treated with the constant use of oxygen to aid in providing high enough levels in the blood for a long time. Long enough that most people eventually quit hauling concentrators and oxygen bottles around and die quietly at home.



I support PAS, but not for any condition that whatever person deems unbearable.  I would reserve it for terminal illnesses with a short prognosis that carry a large degree of physical discomfort.   

That is how the death with dignity act was written and why it is good law.


----------



## PaulS1950

You have every right to decide for yourself when it is appropriate to take your life, but not when I should be allowed to take mine.
The "death with dignity law" has no place in our lives. What gives the government the power to limit personal choice of its people? Look at the tenth amendment. Show me where the constitution gives the government the power to dictate whether a person can take their own life or not. That is a personal decision - like whether or not you want to own a gun or whether or not you will fight to defend yourself. The government or even the voters should have no say in the matter. It is my life and I can choose whether it is worth living to me. It boils down to personal choice.


----------



## Noomi

geauxtohell said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> My grandmother watched her brother and sister slip away into Alzheimer's. My great aunt lived for more than 10 years after her mind was completely lost. A better part of those years she spent drugged for her own safety. It was my grandmothers greatest fear, to end up like her siblings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alzheimer's isn't a terminal illness.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?



Ever here of the Hippocratic Oath?



> I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
> 
> To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art-if they desire to learn it-without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but to no one else.
> 
> I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
> 
> *I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.*
> 
> I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
> 
> Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
> 
> What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
> 
> If I fulfill this path and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely. may the opposite of all this be my lot.



I wouldn't trust anyone who violates an oath to take care of a hangnail, even if it is legal.


----------



## Saigon

> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die?



Yes, absolutely. 

Providing the right checks and balances are in place, it is a basic freedom.

This is one of those issues where many who pretend to want less government suddenly seem to want more government.


----------



## Noomi

Why is it that if an animal is in pain and suffering, letting it go on living is considered cruel, but forcing a person to suffer until their breath is somehow okay?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> Why is it that if an animal is in pain and suffering, letting it go on living is considered cruel, but forcing a person to suffer until their breath is somehow okay?



Why is that you think people cannot kill themselves without involving another person? Do you know how easy it is to OD on easily available drugs?


----------



## Saigon

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that if an animal is in pain and suffering, letting it go on living is considered cruel, but forcing a person to suffer until their breath is somehow okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that you think people cannot kill themselves without involving another person? Do you know how easy it is to OD on easily available drugs?
Click to expand...


Can you explain how easy it is for a quadraplegic?


----------



## Noomi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that if an animal is in pain and suffering, letting it go on living is considered cruel, but forcing a person to suffer until their breath is somehow okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that you think people cannot kill themselves without involving another person? Do you know how easy it is to OD on easily available drugs?
Click to expand...


Sure - but what if that person has become incapacitated suddenly and cannot even feed themselves, therefore not take any pills?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Saigon said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that if an animal is in pain and suffering, letting it go on living is considered cruel, but forcing a person to suffer until their breath is somehow okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that you think people cannot kill themselves without involving another person? Do you know how easy it is to OD on easily available drugs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain how easy it is for a quadraplegic?
Click to expand...


Just as easy as it is for anyone else.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that if an animal is in pain and suffering, letting it go on living is considered cruel, but forcing a person to suffer until their breath is somehow okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that you think people cannot kill themselves without involving another person? Do you know how easy it is to OD on easily available drugs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure - but what if that person has become incapacitated suddenly and cannot even feed themselves, therefore not take any pills?
Click to expand...


What if?


----------



## Noomi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that you think people cannot kill themselves without involving another person? Do you know how easy it is to OD on easily available drugs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain how easy it is for a quadraplegic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as easy as it is for anyone else.
Click to expand...


I think someone with terminal cancer but who still has full mobility would find it easier to swallow pills than a quadraplegic.


----------



## Saigon

I guess a lot of this is personal experience. 

I watched my father die of cancer, and the last months he was out of his mind, basically. He could no more of gone down the street to buy drugs than he could have run a marathon, and I somehow doubt he knew many drug dealers either. 

I just find QW's points here rather näieve.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain how easy it is for a quadraplegic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as easy as it is for anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think someone with terminal cancer but who still has full mobility would find it easier to swallow pills than a quadraplegic.
Click to expand...


What makes you think quadriplegics can't swallow?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Saigon said:


> I guess a lot of this is personal experience.
> 
> I watched my father die of cancer, and the last months he was out of his mind, basically. He could no more of gone down the street to buy drugs than he could have run a marathon, and I somehow doubt he knew many drug dealers either.
> 
> I just find QW's points here rather näieve.



I am naive because I think doctors shouldn't kill people?


----------



## Saigon

QW - 

I think you are näive because you think everyone has the physical and mental capacity to score lethal drugs while they are in chronic pain. 

You are alo näive because you think ordinary people should know where and how to buy and use a drug like heroin. I've never given myself an injection of anything, and have no idea how to do it.


----------



## FA_Q2

Saigon said:


> QW -
> 
> I think you are näieve because you think everyone has the physical and mental capacity to score lethal drugs while they are in chronic pain.
> 
> You are alo näieve because you think ordinary people should know where and how to buy and use a drug like heroin. I've never given myself an injection of anything, and have no idea how to do it.


You don&#8217;t need illegal drugs to kill yourself.  You can do so with a spoon should you so choose.    

Jump off a bridge, drive off of one with your wheelchair should you need to (or just ride into LA traffic).  I find it funny that people so want to get a doctor involved when the fact is you can finish yourself off with a vast number of creative ways should you actually want to do so.


PaulS1950 said:


> You have every right to decide for yourself when it is appropriate to take your life, but not when I should be allowed to take mine.
> The "death with dignity law" has no place in our lives. What gives the government the power to limit personal choice of its people? Look at the tenth amendment. Show me where the constitution gives the government the power to dictate whether a person can take their own life or not. That is a personal decision - like whether or not you want to own a gun or whether or not you will fight to defend yourself. The government or even the voters should have no say in the matter. It is my life and I can choose whether it is worth living to me. It boils down to personal choice.


The question is not whether or not you are allowed to kill yourself; there is absolutely no questioning that as there is no way to stop you.  It is difficult to apply legalities to a person after they are deceased.  The question was about physician assisted suicide.  The government has no right to determine if you are allowed to end your life (though some laws try anyway) but they have the right to regulate the medical field to some degree.  In that manner, I find no problem with laws like the death with dignity law that requires a physiatrist to agree and an unpleasant terminal condition to be present.  Other cases; take care of that yourself.


----------



## Big Black Dog

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?



This is an interesting topic to me.  I was a Corpsman in the Navy for 20 years and before I joined the Navy I worked as an Orderly in a fairly large hospital Emergency Room.  I have seen many people die.  Some as the result of illness and some as the result of accidents they could not hope to recover from.  There are several ways to look at the situation.  There is a basic human tendency to conserve and extend life (or survival) - fight to live, if you will.  However, if you are terminally ill, the decision should be yours to make when it comes to ending your own life.  I believe all people should have the right to die with dignity - whatever form that takes for them.  I myself, have a Living Will that states no heroics should be use to extend my life or keep me alive in the event of a terminal illness or accident.  However, asking somebody else to help you die is another can of worms.  It's a lot to ask of somebody - especially somebody trained to keep you alive.


----------



## October

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?



Yes


----------



## Politico

Yes people who have the sack to off themselves should be allowed to do it.



geauxtohell said:


> Alzheimer's isn't a terminal illness.



My great great great great grandpa, great great great grandpa, great great grandpa, great grandpa, grandpa who all died from it as I will based on the odds would disagree with you.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

geauxtohell said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying anything about the "death with dignity act", I am talking about a right that has been trampled by the government for whatever reason they may have. COPD is also a terminal disease. People get the same death care on COPD as they do with cancer once it progresses to a certain point. The difference with COPD is that the disease can be effectively treated with the constant use of oxygen to aid in providing high enough levels in the blood for a long time. Long enough that most people eventually quit hauling concentrators and oxygen bottles around and die quietly at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support PAS, but not for any condition that whatever person deems unbearable.  I would reserve it for terminal illnesses with a short prognosis that carry a large degree of physical discomfort.
> 
> That is how the death with dignity act was written and why it is good law.
Click to expand...


And that is indeed the problem: there are many who consider decades of such an existence devoid of dignity, and they should be allowed to end that existence accordingly. 

You are also correct that Alzheimers is not a terminal illness, and those suffering from the disease may not elect PAS because they lack the mental capacity to make such a decision  but the brilliant surgeon who was my father is nonetheless dead. 



Noomi said:


> Why is it that if an animal is in pain and suffering, letting it go on living is considered cruel, but forcing a person to suffer until their breath is somehow okay?



Because we fear death and pretend it wont happen to us; by allowing others to die of their own volition undermines the myth of immortality we each create for ourselves.


----------



## midcan5

Knowing several people who were terminal these past years, it should be the decision of the person. Some want to live long enough to see an important family event, some want the comfort of home, most until the end, live within a large business of supply and support that has grown up in America over dying. Morphine pumps keep the pain away but America is a land in which if money can be made of it, it is made. But sometimes it helps those in their last moments before eternal sleep. Mom not long ago called out to her gawd to take her home, bed was a place that didn't fit her personality but suicide support conflicted with her values.


----------



## Katzndogz

Life is a terminal disease.  There is no possibility of recovery.  We will all doe.

I don't like the liberal progression of the concept of assisted suicide.  The philosophy is wrong.  It gets extended.  In the Netherlands it's gone from the terminally ill, to the chronically ill, to the disabled who, if they want to live, are considered too mentally ill to make that decision themselves.  Then extended to people who aren't ill, but so old that if they got ill, their treatment would be very expensive.   Doctors have to make these decisions for them.   Family members who don't want a member killed are too emotionally involved, they can't make that decision.  It has to be taken from them.  

Age 70 seems to be the magic number to murder.   After 70, a person is considered worthless and too expensive to be allowed to live.

Dutch Assisted Suicide Policy Should Serve as a Grisly Warning

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Netherlands churches express concern over assisted suicide proposal


----------



## Saigon

Katzndogz said:


> Life is a terminal disease.  There is no possibility of recovery.  We will all doe.
> 
> I don't like the liberal progression of the concept of assisted suicide.  The philosophy is wrong.  It gets extended.  In the Netherlands it's gone from the terminally ill, to the chronically ill, to the disabled who, if they want to live, are considered too mentally ill to make that decision themselves.  Then extended to people who aren't ill, but so old that if they got ill, their treatment would be very expensive.   Doctors have to make these decisions for them.   Family members who don't want a member killed are too emotionally involved, they can't make that decision.  It has to be taken from them.
> 
> Age 70 seems to be the magic number to murder.   After 70, a person is considered worthless and too expensive to be allowed to live.
> 
> Dutch Assisted Suicide Policy Should Serve as a Grisly Warning
> 
> LifeSiteNews Mobile | Netherlands churches express concern over assisted suicide proposal




Thi is largely mth, of course. In reality the law has not changed in years.

According to research done by the Vrije Universiteit (Amsterdam), University Medical Center Utrecht and Statistics Netherlands, and published in The Lancet, this is not more than before the introduction of the "Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act" in 2002. Both in the Netherlands and in Belgium, the number of termination of life without explicit request for terminally ill patients, decreased after the introduction of the legislation about the termination of life. *In effect, the legislation about did not lead to more cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide on request*

Euthanasia in the Netherlands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BillyV

*It's people! Soylent Green is made from people!*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE]IT'S PEOPLE! - YouTube[/ame]

You know, the idea of physician assisted suicide seems like a good one until you realize that the ability to decide when to die also burdens the individual with the responsibility to justify his existence, something no one should ever have to do. In cases of "short prognosis terminal illness" as someone described it I think it's probably fine; any other use leads to a slippery slope whereby inconvenient circumstances could put pressure on someone, either from close relatives or their own sense of duty, to end their life.


----------



## uscitizen

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?



As long as there is more money to be gained from the patient or the government they should be kept alive.


----------



## Katzndogz

uscitizen said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as there is more money to be gained from the patient or the government they should be kept alive.
Click to expand...


And when those same people start costing the government money, they will die, quickly.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Saigon said:


> QW -
> 
> I think you are näive because you think everyone has the physical and mental capacity to score lethal drugs while they are in chronic pain.
> 
> You are alo näive because you think ordinary people should know where and how to buy and use a drug like heroin. I've never given myself an injection of anything, and have no idea how to do it.



Have you ever met any drug addicts? Most of them don't have the physical or mental capacity to tie their shoes, yet they have no problem scoring drugs. The problem here is you think the fact that making something illegal means it is hard to get. On top of that, drugs are hardly the only way for a person to die if they choose. Anyone with the mental capacity to choose to die is capable of killing themselves. Doctors should preserve life first and always. People have a right to refuse medical treatment.

If you really support people having choice you should tell the government to stop telling people what is legal, and illegal, for them to do to themselves. All drugs should be available without a doctor.


----------



## uscitizen

Katzndogz said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as there is more money to be gained from the patient or the government they should be kept alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when those same people start costing the government money, they will die, quickly.
Click to expand...


Au contrare.  Virtually all the money spent on Meidcare and medicaid goes into private health care industry pockets.  boosts the economy you know.
And then the nursing homes that have patients on medicare and the govt/healthcare industry gets the poor persons home.


----------



## AmyNation

I don't buy into the slippery slope argument. Physician assistated suicide should come into play when a person no longer has the means to take their own life. Typically people fight illnesses like cancer, and by the time they get to the point where they are ready for death, they no longer have the ability to help themselves. 

As to a physicians oath, the words "first do no harm" come to mind. There comes a time in the process of death where you learn that the most harmful thing you can do for someone is ask them to live.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AmyNation said:


> I don't buy into the slippery slope argument. Physician assistated suicide should come into play when a person no longer has the means to take their own life. Typically people fight illnesses like cancer, and by the time they get to the point where they are ready for death, they no longer have the ability to help themselves.
> 
> As to a physicians oath, the words "first do no harm" come to mind. There comes a time in the process of death where you learn that the most harmful thing you can do for someone is ask them to live.



You want doctors to kill people after a board determines they cannot kill themselves. Wouldn't it just be easier not to treat them in the first place? Think of all the money we would save.


----------



## Jarlaxle

AmyNation said:


> My grandmother watched her brother and sister slip away into Alzheimer's. My great aunt lived for more than 10 years after her mind was completely lost. A better part of those years she spent drugged for her own safety. It was my grandmothers greatest fear, to end up like her siblings.



My grandmother told my wife and me that if she were ever "going crazy" (her words) and was goin g to end up in a "nut house" (again, her words), she wanted one of us to shoot her.


----------



## AmyNation

Quantum Windbag said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy into the slippery slope argument. Physician assistated suicide should come into play when a person no longer has the means to take their own life. Typically people fight illnesses like cancer, and by the time they get to the point where they are ready for death, they no longer have the ability to help themselves.
> 
> As to a physicians oath, the words "first do no harm" come to mind. There comes a time in the process of death where you learn that the most harmful thing you can do for someone is ask them to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want doctors to kill people after a board determines they cannot kill themselves. Wouldn't it just be easier not to treat them in the first place? Think of all the money we would save.
Click to expand...


I want doctors to be allowed to help people end their own lives. If I want to die, but am too weak or otherwise incapable of killing myself, I want my doctor to have the right to help me.


----------



## AmyNation

Jarlaxle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> My grandmother watched her brother and sister slip away into Alzheimer's. My great aunt lived for more than 10 years after her mind was completely lost. A better part of those years she spent drugged for her own safety. It was my grandmothers greatest fear, to end up like her siblings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My grandmother told my wife and me that if she were ever "going crazy" (her words) and was goin g to end up in a "nut house" (again, her words), she wanted one of us to shoot her.
Click to expand...


My grandmother was a devout catholic, she would never take her own life. On her deathbed, she told me how grateful she felt that god had spared her the fate of her siblings. 

My grandmother often volunteered at the home my aunt was placed in, but the last few years of my aunts life, my gram refused to actually go in and see her sister, it was just too painful for both of them.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Quantum Windbag said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> QW -
> 
> I think you are näive because you think everyone has the physical and mental capacity to score lethal drugs while they are in chronic pain.
> 
> You are alo näive because you think ordinary people should know where and how to buy and use a drug like heroin. I've never given myself an injection of anything, and have no idea how to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever met any drug addicts? Most of them don't have the physical or mental capacity to tie their shoes, yet they have no problem scoring drugs. The problem here is you think the fact that making something illegal means it is hard to get. On top of that, drugs are hardly the only way for a person to die if they choose. Anyone with the mental capacity to choose to die is capable of killing themselves. Doctors should preserve life first and always. People have a right to refuse medical treatment.
> 
> If you really support people having choice you should tell the government to stop telling people what is legal, and illegal, for them to do to themselves. All drugs should be available without a doctor.
Click to expand...


Like many people, I have absolutely no idea how I would go about getting lethal drugs.  I could certainly get my hands on pot, but that isn't of any use.  I could get sleeping pills and alcohol, but that could easily end up with me in WORSE condition.   (Whatever was already wrong PLUS kidney and/or liver damage.)  If I can't use my shotgun, I'll take 50,000mg of morphine, please.


----------



## Plasmaball

Quantum Windbag said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that you think people cannot kill themselves without involving another person? Do you know how easy it is to OD on easily available drugs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain how easy it is for a quadraplegic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as easy as it is for anyone else.
Click to expand...


wow.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?



If a doctor helps it is rightfully called murder. Or are you going to create the airtight law that prevents an over zealous or other minded Physician from killing someone and claiming they were asked to kill them?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AmyNation said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't buy into the slippery slope argument. Physician assistated suicide should come into play when a person no longer has the means to take their own life. Typically people fight illnesses like cancer, and by the time they get to the point where they are ready for death, they no longer have the ability to help themselves.
> 
> As to a physicians oath, the words "first do no harm" come to mind. There comes a time in the process of death where you learn that the most harmful thing you can do for someone is ask them to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want doctors to kill people after a board determines they cannot kill themselves. Wouldn't it just be easier not to treat them in the first place? Think of all the money we would save.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want doctors to be allowed to help people end their own lives. If I want to die, but am too weak or otherwise incapable of killing myself, I want my doctor to have the right to help me.
Click to expand...


You should read the Hippocratic Oath, I posted it in my first response in this thread, they actually swear never to do that. That means you want them to ignore their oath. 

Why do you want to impose your morality on others?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Absolutely. 

Our bodies are just that - our own. Only the owner should have control over one's own death. Needless to say, the same is true about reproduction.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Quantum Windbag said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever met any drug addicts? Most of them don't have the physical or mental capacity to tie their shoes, yet they have no problem scoring drugs. The problem here is you think the fact that making something illegal means it is hard to get. On top of that, drugs are hardly the only way for a person to die if they choose. Anyone with the mental capacity to choose to die is capable of killing themselves. Doctors should preserve life first and always. People have a right to refuse medical treatment.
> 
> If you really support people having choice you should tell the government to stop telling people what is legal, and illegal, for them to do to themselves. All drugs should be available without a doctor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like many people, I have absolutely no idea how I would go about getting lethal drugs.  I could certainly get my hands on pot, but that isn't of any use.  I could get sleeping pills and alcohol, but that could easily end up with me in WORSE condition.   (Whatever was already wrong PLUS kidney and/or liver damage.)  If I can't use my shotgun, I'll take 50,000mg of morphine, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really give a fuck that you are too stupid to kill yourself.
Click to expand...


Intelligence is not the issue that stops many from taking their own lives. Your own lack of same has stopped you from realizing that. 

What if you have suffered a spinal cord injury and have no use of your hands? Look up the effects of a C-3 injury. 

Hint: C-3 is where the phrenic nerve comes off the spinal cord and controls the diaphragm. Without it, you cannot breathe. If you have a C-3 injury, you are on a respirator and have no use of your own hands. Nor can you move any part of your body below the jaw. 

How would you suggest that person commit suicide?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I notice I was ignored. Again. Which of you will write the air tight law that prevents physicians from deciding on their own a patient is beyond help and then claiming they ask them to kill them?

Or the Physician that gets a monetary reward for the death of a patient?

You may not believe in the slippery slope but it is real and happens all the time.


----------



## whitehall

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?



Kind of a queasy way to ask an important question don't you think? Patients have a 1st Amendment right to ask doctors about anything. The lingering question is whether doctors have the authority to kill a patient who asks to be killed. Society says no. Do doctors have the authority to set up a situation that makes it convenient for a patient to commit suicide? That's where the issue gets muddy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

luddly.neddite said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like many people, I have absolutely no idea how I would go about getting lethal drugs.  I could certainly get my hands on pot, but that isn't of any use.  I could get sleeping pills and alcohol, but that could easily end up with me in WORSE condition.   (Whatever was already wrong PLUS kidney and/or liver damage.)  If I can't use my shotgun, I'll take 50,000mg of morphine, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I  *Edited*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligence is not the issue that stops many from taking their own lives. Your own lack of same has stopped you from realizing that.
> 
> What if you have suffered a spinal cord injury and have no use of your hands? Look up the effects of a C-3 injury.
> 
> Hint: C-3 is where the phrenic nerve comes off the spinal cord and controls the diaphragm. Without it, you cannot breathe. If you have a C-3 injury, you are on a respirator and have no use of your own hands. Nor can you move any part of your body below the jaw.
> 
> How would you suggest that person commit suicide?
Click to expand...


If I was paralyzed I wouldn't want to die. If I did, I would find a way to do it myself.


----------



## Saigon

RetiredGySgt said:


> I notice I was ignored. Again. Which of you will write the air tight law that prevents physicians from deciding on their own a patient is beyond help and then claiming they ask them to kill them?
> .



Because they require the consent of family.


----------



## Noomi

Katzndogz said:


> Life is a terminal disease.  There is no possibility of recovery.  We will all doe.
> 
> I don't like the liberal progression of the concept of assisted suicide.  The philosophy is wrong.  It gets extended.  In the Netherlands it's gone from the terminally ill, to the chronically ill, to the disabled who, if they want to live, are considered too mentally ill to make that decision themselves.  Then extended to people who aren't ill, but so old that if they got ill, their treatment would be very expensive.   Doctors have to make these decisions for them.   Family members who don't want a member killed are too emotionally involved, they can't make that decision.  It has to be taken from them.
> 
> Age 70 seems to be the magic number to murder.   After 70, a person is considered worthless and too expensive to be allowed to live.
> 
> Dutch Assisted Suicide Policy Should Serve as a Grisly Warning
> 
> LifeSiteNews Mobile | Netherlands churches express concern over assisted suicide proposal



I plan to retire in the Netherlands one day. I love how liberal they are, and I strongly agree with their euthanasia laws - although I don't always believe the decision to terminate a life should be taken from the family.

People with disabilities - it costs thousands to raise them and care for them. Do people deserve to be so far in debt they don't have a hope in hell of getting out of it? What else can they do? Who else is willing to spend all that money on someone who is so disabled that they cannot eat, speak walk, talk, or communicate in any way? Putting them in a home is one option - but does a parent want to send their child to a home? Most parents wouldn't.

People probably think that they have no other option than to euthanase their disabled children. What we need is a lot more support from the government - people with disabilities and parents raising a child with a disability need a heck of a lot more assistance. Wheelchairs and other equipment should be free (yes, taxpayer funded) and medication should be heavily discounted so it is more affordable. 

That way, parents will be able to raise their children and not worry about the black hole of debt sucking them in.

Assuming your sources are correct, of course - I have heard conflicting reports that say they may be inaccurate.


----------



## Noomi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as easy as it is for anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think someone with terminal cancer but who still has full mobility would find it easier to swallow pills than a quadraplegic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think quadriplegics can't swallow?
Click to expand...


What makes you think a quadriplegic can open a pill bottle, shake out some pills, pour themselves a drink, and swallow it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think someone with terminal cancer but who still has full mobility would find it easier to swallow pills than a quadraplegic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think quadriplegics can't swallow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think a quadriplegic can open a pill bottle, shake out some pills, pour themselves a drink, and swallow it?
Click to expand...


I was asked about swallowing, not opening a pill bottle. You do know that, if someone wants to die, experts considered it impossible to prevent it? In fact, it has actually been demonstrated that a person on suicide watch in a prison hospital can successfully commit suicide despite having no access to drugs, tools, weapons, bedding, or clothing. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that drugs are the only way to die.


----------



## Saigon

QW - 

Of course drug are not the only way to die. 

However, drug administered by a professional are the only logical, clean, dignified, painless and effective method to end the life of someone who is severely ill and/or handicapped. 

Suggesting sick people score drugs, jump off a building or hang themselves fail most of those criteria.


----------



## Noomi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think quadriplegics can't swallow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think a quadriplegic can open a pill bottle, shake out some pills, pour themselves a drink, and swallow it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was asked about swallowing, not opening a pill bottle. You do know that, if someone wants to die, experts considered it impossible to prevent it? In fact, it has actually been demonstrated that a person on suicide watch in a prison hospital can successfully commit suicide despite having no access to drugs, tools, weapons, bedding, or clothing. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that drugs are the only way to die.
Click to expand...


Can you tell me how a person who does not have the use of their arms or legs, can swallow pills without someone first holding them to their mouth so they can swallow them?


----------



## Noomi

Saigon said:


> QW -
> 
> Of course drug are not the only way to die.
> 
> However, drug administered by a professional are the only logical, clean, dignified, painless and effective method to end the life of someone who is severely ill and/or handicapped.
> 
> Suggesting sick people score drugs, jump off a building or hang themselves fail most of those criteria.



Not to mention you may not succeed, and such deaths are often grisly and messy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because this is the Clean Debate Zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crap. Thank you for telling me! Can you please edit your post to remove my comment?
> 
> If you hadn't told me, I would have gone off ranting. Thanks for reminding me!
Click to expand...


Not a problem, I forget occasionally myself.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Saigon said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice I was ignored. Again. Which of you will write the air tight law that prevents physicians from deciding on their own a patient is beyond help and then claiming they ask them to kill them?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they require the consent of family.
Click to expand...


Yup no conflict there.... wait you mean if I let Dad die I get all his money? Yup no problem with family members paying doctors to "assist" the sick to die.


----------



## Saigon

RetiredGySgt said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice I was ignored. Again. Which of you will write the air tight law that prevents physicians from deciding on their own a patient is beyond help and then claiming they ask them to kill them?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they require the consent of family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup no conflict there.... wait you mean if I let Dad die I get all his money? Yup no problem with family members paying doctors to "assist" the sick to die.
Click to expand...


No, there is no conflict there. 

Firstly, doctors aren't paid to do this - it's public healthcare.

Secondly, the Dutch laws require two family members to sign consent with no disenting members, I believe. So if someone protests, the case is looked at again.

Thirdly, two doctors must sign off on every case.


----------



## FA_Q2

RetiredGySgt said:


> I notice I was ignored. Again. Which of you will write the air tight law that prevents physicians from deciding on their own a patient is beyond help and then claiming they ask them to kill them?
> 
> Or the Physician that gets a monetary reward for the death of a patient?
> 
> You may not believe in the slippery slope but it is real and happens all the time.



You were largely ignored because such a law was already posted.  The idea is rather simple, you get more than one doctor to sign off on it, you require legal documents to be signed and notarized and you require a psychiatrist to agree to the assisted suicide.  

Unless you are advocating that all those individuals are going to get together and start a conspiracy to commit fraud to end some old and terminally ill patients then your point is moot.  Laws already exist that protect both the patents rights and the actions of the doctor.


----------



## FA_Q2

Saigon said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they require the consent of family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup no conflict there.... wait you mean if I let Dad die I get all his money? Yup no problem with family members paying doctors to "assist" the sick to die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no conflict there.
> 
> Firstly, doctors aren't paid to do this - it's public healthcare.
> 
> Secondly, the Dutch laws require two family members to sign consent with no disenting members, I believe. So if someone protests, the case is looked at again.
> 
> Thirdly, two doctors must sign off on every case.
Click to expand...


I would honestly disagree that the family should have any actual influence in the decision outside of how much the patent wants to involve them.  I am for a person having the right to end their own life but I fail to see how a family member, no matter who it is, has the right to intervene.


----------



## Saigon

FA-Q2 - 

I think the family should be involved. There may be case where a person is suffering from depression and the family feel that the person needs to be treated for that - or just wait 6 months - before making a decision. 

Likewise, I think the family are the best guardians against abuse from either one very aggresive family member looking to make financial gain, or against abuse by a careless physician.

It's a checks and balances thing, although sometimes I agree it may cause problems for the patient who wishes to die, but does so against the wishes of family.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think quadriplegics can't swallow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck makes you think a quadriplegic can open a pill bottle, shake out some pills, pour themselves a drink, and swallow it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was asked about swallowing, not opening a pill bottle. You do know that, if someone wants to die, experts considered it impossible to prevent it? In fact, it has actually been demonstrated that a person on suicide watch in a prison hospital can successfully commit suicide despite having no access to drugs, tools, weapons, bedding, or clothing. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that drugs are the only way to die.
Click to expand...


Please explain, in detail, EXACTLY how a quadriplegic incapable ov movement below the neck can end his own life.  Be specific.

While you're at it, please explain, in detail, how someone with advanced ALS can do so.  Be specific.


----------



## FA_Q2

Saigon said:


> FA-Q2 -
> 
> I think the family should be involved. There may be case where a person is suffering from depression and the family feel that the person needs to be treated for that - or just wait 6 months - before making a decision.
> 
> Likewise, I think the family are the best guardians against abuse from either one very aggresive family member looking to make financial gain, or against abuse by a careless physician.
> 
> It's a checks and balances thing, although sometimes I agree it may cause problems for the patient who wishes to die, but does so against the wishes of family.



Hence why I believe that more than one physician should be involved AND a psychiatrist.  Those three professional individuals should provide more than enough to determine if this is a case where a physician should be allowed to assist in the patents suicide.  

Family members bring a whole other element into play; wild emotions.  That does not belong between you and your rights.


----------



## xsited1

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?



If physicians are given the choice and enough protections are put in place, I see no reason why a person shouldn't be allowed to take their own life if they are unable to do it themselves.


----------



## freedombecki

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?


Is a doctor to be forced to have an undignified life after refusing such a request?

The hubris comes when you make it the law, then another law, then another law, then another.

Suddenly, murder becomes publicly accepted because nobody stood up to first blood, and someone decides the world would be a better place with only 1,000 human beings on the planet. It's all rationed out to people who disagree should be designated as "right to die" quarry and then forcing them into the showers. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Just another open mind, spilling its sickening contents all over on the www with no thought of tomorrow's repercussions.


----------



## Katzndogz

Jarlaxle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> My grandmother watched her brother and sister slip away into Alzheimer's. My great aunt lived for more than 10 years after her mind was completely lost. A better part of those years she spent drugged for her own safety. It was my grandmothers greatest fear, to end up like her siblings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My grandmother told my wife and me that if she were ever "going crazy" (her words) and was goin g to end up in a "nut house" (again, her words), she wanted one of us to shoot her.
Click to expand...


My dearest friend said that too.   We were roommates and she wanted me to know that if she ever got to the point where she could no longer take care of herself she wanted a quick end.

Years later she got a brain tumor.   All hope was gone.  She was unable to stand, sit, eat on her own.  While she didn't have a feeding tube she had to be hand fed.  She couldn't speak.  Her communication was reduced to blinking.  One for no, two for yes.   Her doctors recommended moving her to a hospice where she would be denied food and water until she died.    As the person closest to her and who knew her wishes they asked me.   I went to see her.  I spoke to her nurse.   My friend liked to watch television, butterscotch pudding was her favorite.   I asked my friend if she still felt that she wanted to die rather than live like this.    She very slowly blinked one time.   No matter how bad, life was still precious to her.   There was still some enjoyment to be had, a television show and butterscotch pudding.   I refused to agree to hospice care.   Especially such a cruel, painful and drawn out process as they intended.

My friend died a few days later, peacefully in her sleep.    I made the right decision.


----------



## Katzndogz

freedombecki said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> Is a doctor to be forced to have an undignified life after refusing such a request?
> 
> The hubris comes when you make it the law, then another law, then another law, then another.
> 
> Suddenly, murder becomes publicly accepted because nobody stood up to first blood, and someone decides the world would be a better place with only 1,000 human beings on the planet. It's all rationed out to people who disagree should be designated as "right to die" quarry and then forcing them into the showers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another open mind, spilling its sickening contents all over on the www with no thought of tomorrow's repercussions.
Click to expand...


It happens when terminally ill people are judged incompetent to make that decision themselves.    Then it is taken out of their hands.


----------



## koshergrl

Lefties embrace murder for a variety of reasons.

This is just another one.


----------



## freedombecki

FA_Q2 said:


> Why not?  I have always found that laws against committing suicide are asinine.  If you dont want to be here, so be it.  I have no problem with you finishing yourself off if that is truly what you want.  Such a process needs to be well thought out, we dont want errors in such a situation but you have dominion over your body.  Why not dominion in ending it.


A guy gets married and has 6 kids with his wife. When the youngest is ten, the wife gets dirt under her nails cleaning up after all of them.

He decides she is not attractive, but his office assistant, who has immaculate fingernails is hot. He knows he could die for her.

He gets a no-contest divorce from his wife of 20 years to marry his office assistant. Miss No-dirt-under-her-nails is caught by him in bed with his best friend at the wedding reception. He is shocked and commits suicide because he cannot tell what few friends he has left after leaving 7 people of his family out in the cold.

His new wife, who prearranged to have her name written on all his property sues for his estate and wins, no one the wiser of her wedding dalliances.

The 6 children and newly ex-wife cannot afford their mortgaged home and are forced into lives of poverty, while Miss Priss gets lifetime manicures.

I'll take the asinine "it's against the law to commit suicide" law, thank you very much. At least the wife who helped inspire her husband through thin times could keep her house if he broke the law with his less-than-lawful act of self-destruction.


----------



## Saigon

koshergrl said:


> Lefties embrace murder for a variety of reasons.
> 
> This is just another one.



Since when is ending your own life murder?


----------



## Katzndogz

Saigon said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties embrace murder for a variety of reasons.
> 
> This is just another one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is ending your own life murder?
Click to expand...


When it's assisted.


----------



## Saigon

Katzndogz said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties embrace murder for a variety of reasons.
> 
> This is just another one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is ending your own life murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it's assisted.
Click to expand...


Then I suggest you don't opt for it yourself. 

It's the same with abortion - if you don't feel it is right for you, then don't consider it as an option. 

Unless of course you love big government imposing their will and limiting freedoms.


----------



## Katzndogz

Saigon said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is ending your own life murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it's assisted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I suggest you don't opt for it yourself.
> 
> It's the same with abortion - if you don't feel it is right for you, then don't consider it as an option.
> 
> Unless of course you love big government imposing their will and limiting freedoms.
Click to expand...


I don't care who gets an abortion.   I just don't want to pay for it.  They can pay for their own, and their own birth control too.   The man in prison who wants to commit suicide if he doesn't get a paid sex change operation should be given a gun and locked in a room alone until there's only a body to drag out.   That's as valid a reason for suicide as any other.


----------



## Saigon

Katz - 

I have no problem with your position on that one - I think it is fair to ask people to pay for contraception and abortion - although they are state funded here, and I think that is fine also. 

Sex change operations I think should be user-pays. To me they are like cosmetic surgery in that they are entirely optional, though I suspect some transexuals may not agree with me on that. 

Nice to see we agree on something!


----------



## AmyNation

RetiredGySgt said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a doctor helps it is rightfully called murder. Or are you going to create the airtight law that prevents an over zealous or other minded Physician from killing someone and claiming they were asked to kill them?
Click to expand...


I don't think doctors should be able to just claim the patient asked. However I also don't see a big hurdle in creating a law that has steps a patient can take that will then allow their doctor to help.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Jarlaxle said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck makes you think a quadriplegic can open a pill bottle, shake out some pills, pour themselves a drink, and swallow it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was asked about swallowing, not opening a pill bottle. You do know that, if someone wants to die, experts considered it impossible to prevent it? In fact, it has actually been demonstrated that a person on suicide watch in a prison hospital can successfully commit suicide despite having no access to drugs, tools, weapons, bedding, or clothing. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that drugs are the only way to die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain, in detail, EXACTLY how a quadriplegic incapable ov movement below the neck can end his own life.  Be specific.
> 
> While you're at it, please explain, in detail, how someone with advanced ALS can do so.  Be specific.
Click to expand...


Use your imagination. People kill themselves all the time in circumstances deliberately designed by some very smart people to make suicide impossible.


----------



## AmyNation

fa_q2 said:


> retiredgysgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i notice i was ignored. Again. Which of you will write the air tight law that prevents physicians from deciding on their own a patient is beyond help and then claiming they ask them to kill them?
> 
> Or the physician that gets a monetary reward for the death of a patient?
> 
> You may not believe in the slippery slope but it is real and happens all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you were largely ignored because such a law was already posted.  The idea is rather simple, you get more than one doctor to sign off on it, you require legal documents to be signed and notarized and you require a psychiatrist to agree to the assisted suicide.
> 
> Unless you are advocating that all those individuals are going to get together and start a conspiracy to commit fraud to end some old and terminally ill patients then your point is moot.  Laws already exist that protect both the patents rights and the actions of the doctor.
Click to expand...


+1


----------



## AmyNation

freedombecki said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  I have always found that laws against committing suicide are asinine.  If you dont want to be here, so be it.  I have no problem with you finishing yourself off if that is truly what you want.  Such a process needs to be well thought out, we dont want errors in such a situation but you have dominion over your body.  Why not dominion in ending it.
> 
> 
> 
> A guy gets married and has 6 kids with his wife. When the youngest is ten, the wife gets dirt under her nails cleaning up after all of them.
> 
> He decides she is not attractive, but his office assistant, who has immaculate fingernails is hot. He knows he could die for her.
> 
> He gets a no-contest divorce from his wife of 20 years to marry his office assistant. Miss No-dirt-under-her-nails is caught by him in bed with his best friend at the wedding reception. He is shocked and commits suicide because he cannot tell what few friends he has left after leaving 7 people of his family out in the cold.
> 
> His new wife, who prearranged to have her name written on all his property sues for his estate and wins, no one the wiser of her wedding dalliances.
> 
> The 6 children and newly ex-wife cannot afford their mortgaged home and are forced into lives of poverty, while Miss Priss gets lifetime manicures.
> 
> I'll take the asinine "it's against the law to commit suicide" law, thank you very much. At least the wife who helped inspire her husband through thin times could keep her house if he broke the law with his less-than-lawful act of self-destruction.
Click to expand...


*blink blink*

Wow.


----------



## AmyNation

koshergrl said:


> Lefties embrace murder for a variety of reasons.
> 
> This is just another one.



So you feel people who live in constant pain should be forced to suffer instead of being allowed to ask a physican to help them die?

Ok.


----------



## Katzndogz

AmyNation said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties embrace murder for a variety of reasons.
> 
> This is just another one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel people who live in constant pain should be forced to suffer instead of being allowed to ask a physican to help them die?
> 
> Ok.
Click to expand...


I don't think it will stay there.  It will be expanded, step by step, bit by bit.  The same way abortion started out as killing the fetus before it's born, to while it was being born and now after it's born.


----------



## Saigon

Katzndogz said:


> I don't think it will stay there.  It will be expanded, step by step, bit by bit.  The same way abortion started out as killing the fetus before it's born, to while it was being born and now after it's born.



It realy isn't you know. It's just mythology. 

In not one country on this earth can you ask your doctor to top your new born baby. Not a one.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Quantum Windbag said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was asked about swallowing, not opening a pill bottle. You do know that, if someone wants to die, experts considered it impossible to prevent it? In fact, it has actually been demonstrated that a person on suicide watch in a prison hospital can successfully commit suicide despite having no access to drugs, tools, weapons, bedding, or clothing. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that drugs are the only way to die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain, in detail, EXACTLY how a quadriplegic incapable ov movement below the neck can end his own life.  Be specific.
> 
> While you're at it, please explain, in detail, how someone with advanced ALS can do so.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Use your imagination. People kill themselves all the time in circumstances deliberately designed by some very smart people to make suicide impossible.
Click to expand...


Stop tap-dancing.  

*Please explain, in detail, EXACTLY how a quadriplegic incapable ov movement below the neck can end his own life.  Be specific.

While you're at it, please explain, in detail, how someone with advanced ALS can do so.  Be specific.*

Stop dodging and ANSWER THE QUESTION.


----------



## xsited1

freedombecki said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> Is a doctor to be forced to have an undignified life after refusing such a request?
> 
> The hubris comes when you make it the law, then another law, then another law, then another.
> 
> Suddenly, murder becomes publicly accepted because nobody stood up to first blood, and someone decides the world would be a better place with only 1,000 human beings on the planet. It's all rationed out to people who disagree should be designated as "right to die" quarry and then forcing them into the showers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another open mind, spilling its sickening contents all over on the www with no thought of tomorrow's repercussions.
Click to expand...


You are correct in that it is a very slippery slope.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Jarlaxle said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain, in detail, EXACTLY how a quadriplegic incapable ov movement below the neck can end his own life.  Be specific.
> 
> While you're at it, please explain, in detail, how someone with advanced ALS can do so.  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use your imagination. People kill themselves all the time in circumstances deliberately designed by some very smart people to make suicide impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop tap-dancing.
> 
> *Please explain, in detail, EXACTLY how a quadriplegic incapable ov movement below the neck can end his own life.  Be specific.
> 
> While you're at it, please explain, in detail, how someone with advanced ALS can do so.  Be specific.*
> 
> Stop dodging and ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Click to expand...


I oppose physician assisted suicide because I do not think doctors should do anything other than heal. Until you can explain to me why only doctors are qualified to help people take pills I don't have to explain anything.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Tap-dancing noted.  Evasion noted.  I accept your concession.


----------



## AmyNation

Katzndogz said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties embrace murder for a variety of reasons.
> 
> This is just another one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel people who live in constant pain should be forced to suffer instead of being allowed to ask a physican to help them die?
> 
> Ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it will stay there.  It will be expanded, step by step, bit by bit.  The same way abortion started out as killing the fetus before it's born, to while it was being born and now after it's born.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more, however I can understand that fear.


----------



## geauxtohell

Quantum Windbag said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever here of the Hippocratic Oath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
> 
> To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art-if they desire to learn it-without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but to no one else.
> 
> I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
> 
> *I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.*
> 
> I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
> 
> Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
> 
> What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
> 
> If I fulfill this path and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely. may the opposite of all this be my lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't trust anyone who violates an oath to take care of a hangnail, even if it is legal.
Click to expand...


So...

Do I have to be into Greek Polytheism too?  

Or do we get to pick and choose what we want to follow.  Like the bible?


----------



## geauxtohell

RetiredGySgt said:


> I notice I was ignored. Again. Which of you will write the air tight law that prevents physicians from deciding on their own a patient is beyond help and then claiming they ask them to kill them?
> 
> Or the Physician that gets a monetary reward for the death of a patient?
> 
> You may not believe in the slippery slope but it is real and happens all the time.



You are talking about Euthanasia.  That is not the same as assisted suicide.  

The crucial tenant of assisted suicide is that the lethal act is still done by the patient's hand.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever here of the Hippocratic Oath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
> 
> To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art-if they desire to learn it-without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but to no one else.
> 
> I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
> 
> *I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.*
> 
> I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
> 
> Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
> 
> What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
> 
> If I fulfill this path and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely. may the opposite of all this be my lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't trust anyone who violates an oath to take care of a hangnail, even if it is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...
> 
> Do I have to be into Greek Polytheism too?
> 
> Or do we get to pick and choose what we want to follow.  Like the bible?
Click to expand...


The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.

Explain how killing people fits into that, and then explain why I should trust a person that swears an oath and then decides that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.


----------



## FA_Q2

freedombecki said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  I have always found that laws against committing suicide are asinine.  If you dont want to be here, so be it.  I have no problem with you finishing yourself off if that is truly what you want.  Such a process needs to be well thought out, we dont want errors in such a situation but you have dominion over your body.  Why not dominion in ending it.
> 
> 
> 
> A guy gets married and has 6 kids with his wife. When the youngest is ten, the wife gets dirt under her nails cleaning up after all of them.
> 
> He decides she is not attractive, but his office assistant, who has immaculate fingernails is hot. He knows he could die for her.
> 
> He gets a no-contest divorce from his wife of 20 years to marry his office assistant. Miss No-dirt-under-her-nails is caught by him in bed with his best friend at the wedding reception. He is shocked and commits suicide because he cannot tell what few friends he has left after leaving 7 people of his family out in the cold.
> 
> His new wife, who prearranged to have her name written on all his property sues for his estate and wins, no one the wiser of her wedding dalliances.
> 
> The 6 children and newly ex-wife cannot afford their mortgaged home and are forced into lives of poverty, while Miss Priss gets lifetime manicures.
> 
> I'll take the asinine "it's against the law to commit suicide" law, thank you very much. At least the wife who helped inspire her husband through thin times could keep her house if he broke the law with his less-than-lawful act of self-destruction.
Click to expand...


All right, this is so far off and completely off the subject it really does not apply to what we are talking about but here is a simple question.  In your example:

WHAT EXACTLY did the illegal part of the suicide change anything in the given example?

If this was about what we are talking about, depression would be ruled out first AND it would require that he be terminal in the first place.  If he was terminal, what, EXACTLY, would be different if the man in this situation dies 3 months later instead of committing suicide?

The story is emotional.  It is wrong what happened.  It has NOTHING to do with the discussion.  If you have to resort to emotional stories then you have no real ground to debate on.


----------



## FA_Q2

Quantum Windbag said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever here of the Hippocratic Oath?
> 
> I wouldn't trust anyone who violates an oath to take care of a hangnail, even if it is legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...
> 
> Do I have to be into Greek Polytheism too?
> 
> Or do we get to pick and choose what we want to follow.  Like the bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.
> 
> Explain how killing people fits into that, and then explain why I should trust a person that swears an oath and then decides that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.
Click to expand...

It does not but then again, what you are stating is false.  The doctor is not that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.  That is not what is happening at all.

What is happening is that the INDIVIDUAL is making the conscious decision to end their life before whatever affliction they are facing does naturally.  In such a case, the doctor can watch the person die a horrible and ugly death in a few months or they can assist in the persons *individual choice* to end their life early.  

If you really believe ion individual liberty and free choice, why are you against the doctor making a decision to assist in what someone else wants.  It is between the person and their doctor without involving any other people (except perhaps some basic safeguards like a psychiatrist and a second opinion).  What right do you have to question the decision or how it impacts the oath they take.  Who are you to say that it even violates their oath?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

FA_Q2 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...
> 
> Do I have to be into Greek Polytheism too?
> 
> Or do we get to pick and choose what we want to follow.  Like the bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.
> 
> Explain how killing people fits into that, and then explain why I should trust a person that swears an oath and then decides that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not but then again, what you are stating is false.  The doctor is not that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.  That is not what is happening at all.
> 
> What is happening is that the INDIVIDUAL is making the conscious decision to end their life before whatever affliction they are facing does naturally.  In such a case, the doctor can watch the person die a horrible and ugly death in a few months or they can assist in the persons *individual choice* to end their life early.
> 
> If you really believe ion individual liberty and free choice, why are you against the doctor making a decision to assist in what someone else wants.  It is between the person and their doctor without involving any other people (except perhaps some basic safeguards like a psychiatrist and a second opinion).  What right do you have to question the decision or how it impacts the oath they take.  Who are you to say that it even violates their oath?
Click to expand...


Any doctor who decides that the oath he swore does not apply to him for whatever reason is wrong.

Period.


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.
> 
> Explain how killing people fits into that, and then explain why I should trust a person that swears an oath and then decides that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.
> 
> 
> 
> It does not but then again, what you are stating is false.  The doctor is not that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.  That is not what is happening at all.
> 
> What is happening is that the INDIVIDUAL is making the conscious decision to end their life before whatever affliction they are facing does naturally.  In such a case, the doctor can watch the person die a horrible and ugly death in a few months or they can assist in the persons *individual choice* to end their life early.
> 
> If you really believe ion individual liberty and free choice, why are you against the doctor making a decision to assist in what someone else wants.  It is between the person and their doctor without involving any other people (except perhaps some basic safeguards like a psychiatrist and a second opinion).  What right do you have to question the decision or how it impacts the oath they take.  Who are you to say that it even violates their oath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any doctor who decides that the oath he swore does not apply to him for whatever reason is wrong.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...


I think the point geaux was making is that doctors do not swear the original oath.  It has been revised and may no longer contain that 'will not give a deadly drug' section at all.  If that's the case, they may not be breaking the oath by providing lethal drugs.

For that matter, considering how many of the drugs doctors give out can be lethal (I'd imagine nearly all of them!) that section could be argued to put almost all doctors in violation for the simplest of prescriptions.


----------



## Saigon

AmyNation said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel people who live in constant pain should be forced to suffer instead of being allowed to ask a physican to help them die?
> 
> Ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it will stay there.  It will be expanded, step by step, bit by bit.  The same way abortion started out as killing the fetus before it's born, to while it was being born and now after it's born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't disagree more, however I can understand that fear.
Click to expand...


I can understand the fear - but I think it is wildly irrational. 

Any sensible laws and sensible system will put checks and balances in place and ensure they stay there, because that is what people want. 

No one wants people to be able to kill off an inconveniant cousin, any more than those of us who support abortion want people to be able to kill off an inconveniant toddler.


----------



## caela

*Hippocratic Oath: Modern Version*

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.

I got this here: NOVA | The Hippocratic Oath Today




The modern version doesn't say that a physician may not give a lethal drug or abortificant. 

As for the original question, Yes. A physician should be allowed, though not _required_ to aid a patient in PAS if that patient is diagnosed with a terminal, or mentally crippling illness and a psychiatrist determines the patient is competent to make that decision.

Yes this means I would allow patients diagnosed with something like Alzheimer's or ALS, to request this from their physicians in the early stages when they are still competent to make their own decisions. 

I would also write into the law, however, that no family member, especially a family member in line to inherit _anything_ would be able to seek this on behalf of a patient. It would have to be strictly patient initiated.


----------



## Noomi

Quantum Windbag said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use your imagination. People kill themselves all the time in circumstances deliberately designed by some very smart people to make suicide impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop tap-dancing.
> 
> *Please explain, in detail, EXACTLY how a quadriplegic incapable ov movement below the neck can end his own life.  Be specific.
> 
> While you're at it, please explain, in detail, how someone with advanced ALS can do so.  Be specific.*
> 
> Stop dodging and ANSWER THE QUESTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I oppose physician assisted suicide because I do not think doctors should do anything other than heal. Until you can explain to me why only doctors are qualified to help people take pills I don't have to explain anything.
Click to expand...


Would you prefer someone to live out their final days in pain?


----------



## Aristotle

The issue of euthanasia is a slippery slope because it blurs the line of morality between compassion and murder. Patients suffering from advance forms of Pick's Disease (Alzheimer's/Frontotemporal dementia) also suffer from cases of depression, suicidal ideation, and other horrible symptoms of neurodegeneration. This is why bioethics who do not support due to the "pain of emppending death" opt for palliative care (pain managment to make the patient comfortable upon death) compared to immediately ending the life.

If we are to end the life I think the following questions should be raised:

1) If there is no hope for the patient for recovery should euthanasia be acceptable on this reason alone?

2) If the patient requests to die yet is not in pain, how do we determine that the request of death is not symptomatic of their condition (e.g delirium or depression).

3) If we do allow euthanasia would this lead to a gateway of other bioethical issues such as people suffering from severe mental disorders?

4) If Euthanasia is allowed are loved ones able to see the doctor to perform? If they are allowed then what about the psychological trauma that may occur by watching the doctor perform the life ending procedure? After all, the last image would be the doctor ending their loved one's life versus the natural cause.

In my humble opinion on the issue I believe proponents of euthanasia are more worried about the psychological effect of both the patient, and loved ones and the image of that loved one suffering to annihilation. I would be inclined to agree that it would be better to "put him/her out of their misery" but case by case, it is hard for some families to let their loved one go.


----------



## Aristotle

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop tap-dancing.
> 
> *Please explain, in detail, EXACTLY how a quadriplegic incapable ov movement below the neck can end his own life.  Be specific.
> 
> While you're at it, please explain, in detail, how someone with advanced ALS can do so.  Be specific.*
> 
> Stop dodging and ANSWER THE QUESTION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose physician assisted suicide because I do not think doctors should do anything other than heal. Until you can explain to me why only doctors are qualified to help people take pills I don't have to explain anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Would you prefer someone to live out their final days in pain?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> (This is in response to the bold)
> 
> This is why they have hospice and palliative care.
Click to expand...


----------



## Noomi

Aristotle said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose physician assisted suicide because I do not think doctors should do anything other than heal. Until you can explain to me why only doctors are qualified to help people take pills I don't have to explain anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Would you prefer someone to live out their final days in pain?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> (This is in response to the bold)
> 
> This is why they have hospice and palliative care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes that doesn't relieve the pain. My grandpa died of lung cancer and not even morphine could take his pain away.
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

Saigon said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it will stay there.  It will be expanded, step by step, bit by bit.  The same way abortion started out as killing the fetus before it's born, to while it was being born and now after it's born.
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't disagree more, however I can understand that fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can understand the fear - but I think it is wildly irrational.
> 
> Any sensible laws and sensible system will put checks and balances in place and ensure they stay there, because that is what people want.
> 
> No one wants people to be able to kill off an inconveniant cousin, any more than those of us who support abortion want people to be able to kill off an inconveniant toddler.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does not but then again, what you are stating is false.  The doctor is not &#8216;that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.&#8217;  That is not what is happening at all.
> 
> What is happening is that the INDIVIDUAL is making the conscious decision to end their life before whatever affliction they are facing does naturally.  In such a case, the doctor can watch the person die a horrible and ugly death in a few months or they can assist in the persons *individual choice* to end their life early.
> 
> If you really believe ion individual liberty and free choice, why are you against the doctor making a decision to assist in what someone else wants.  It is between the person and their doctor without involving any other people (except perhaps some basic safeguards like a psychiatrist and a second opinion).  What right do you have to question the decision or how it impacts the oath they take.  Who are you to say that it even violates their oath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any doctor who decides that the oath he swore does not apply to him for whatever reason is wrong.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point geaux was making is that doctors do not swear the original oath.  It has been revised and may no longer contain that 'will not give a deadly drug' section at all.  If that's the case, they may not be breaking the oath by providing lethal drugs.
> 
> For that matter, considering how many of the drugs doctors give out can be lethal (I'd imagine nearly all of them!) that section could be argued to put almost all doctors in violation for the simplest of prescriptions.
Click to expand...


I quoted from the revised Geneva version of the oath, which is the most common version. It clearly states that a doctor puts his patients life and health first, even above his own thoughts that people should not have to live paralyzed. There are plenty of options for committing suicide that do not involve a doctor.

Doctors should not kill.

Period.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Saigon said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it will stay there.  It will be expanded, step by step, bit by bit.  The same way abortion started out as killing the fetus before it's born, to while it was being born and now after it's born.
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't disagree more, however I can understand that fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can understand the fear - but I think it is wildly irrational.
> 
> Any sensible laws and sensible system will put checks and balances in place and ensure they stay there, because that is what people want.
> 
> No one wants people to be able to kill off an inconveniant cousin, any more than those of us who support abortion want people to be able to kill off an inconveniant toddler.
Click to expand...


Yep, slippery slope arguments are always false, unless we live in a world where people always want to push the boundaries and continually try to make things that are illegal legal. Good thing we live in a world where that is impossible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop tap-dancing.
> 
> *Please explain, in detail, EXACTLY how a quadriplegic incapable ov movement below the neck can end his own life.  Be specific.
> 
> While you're at it, please explain, in detail, how someone with advanced ALS can do so.  Be specific.*
> 
> Stop dodging and ANSWER THE QUESTION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose physician assisted suicide because I do not think doctors should do anything other than heal. Until you can explain to me why only doctors are qualified to help people take pills I don't have to explain anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you prefer someone to live out their final days in pain?
Click to expand...


I would prefer that doctors not kill people. What about that is so hard to understand? Doctors are healers, not killers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Noomi said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Would you prefer someone to live out their final days in pain?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (This is in response to the bold)
> 
> This is why they have hospice and palliative care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes that doesn't relieve the pain. My grandpa died of lung cancer and not even morphine could take his pain away.
Click to expand...


My solution to your problem, get the government out of telling doctors what they can prescribe to treat patients. I remember arguing along side you in another thread that the governments attempt to regulate pain prescriptions makes it worse for those who actually need them, did you forget that I was there with you?


----------



## AmyNation

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I oppose physician assisted suicide because I do not think doctors should do anything other than heal. Until you can explain to me why only doctors are qualified to help people take pills I don't have to explain anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you prefer someone to live out their final days in pain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would prefer that doctors not kill people. What about that is so hard to understand? Doctors are healers, not killers.
Click to expand...


It's not hard to understand, I simply disagree.


----------



## Katzndogz

The problem is sensible laws and sensible systems become corrupted when people just change their minds as to what is sensible.

A doctor who is treating a patient in constant pain with an untreatable terminal illness who nevertheless does not want to die is not sensible.  Any sensible person would choose to die.  So it is up to someone else to attribute sensibility to this ignoramus who won't take his pill, and do the right thing as they see it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AmyNation said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you prefer someone to live out their final days in pain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would prefer that doctors not kill people. What about that is so hard to understand? Doctors are healers, not killers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not hard to understand, I simply disagree.
Click to expand...


Simple answer.

I can live with that. At least we don't have to argue about it anymore.


----------



## Montrovant

Quantum Windbag said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any doctor who decides that the oath he swore does not apply to him for whatever reason is wrong.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point geaux was making is that doctors do not swear the original oath.  It has been revised and may no longer contain that 'will not give a deadly drug' section at all.  If that's the case, they may not be breaking the oath by providing lethal drugs.
> 
> For that matter, considering how many of the drugs doctors give out can be lethal (I'd imagine nearly all of them!) that section could be argued to put almost all doctors in violation for the simplest of prescriptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted from the revised Geneva version of the oath, which is the most common version. It clearly states that a doctor puts his patients life and health first, even above his own thoughts that people should not have to live paralyzed. There are plenty of options for committing suicide that do not involve a doctor.
> 
> Doctors should not kill.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...


You quoted, so far as I have been able to determine, the original Hippocratic Oath in your early post in this thread.  Certainly, any oath swearing by Apollo is unlikely to be even vaguely modern!  

The Declaration of Geneva Physician's Oath goes like this :
Physician's Oath

At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:

    I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
    I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
    I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity; the health of my patient will be my first consideration;
    I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of the medical profession; my colleagues will be my brothers;
    I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
    I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;
    I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor.

Which you can see here : Declaration of Geneva: Physician's Oath

So, I'm not sure why you think you've used modern oaths to bolster your point.  Of course, oaths are unnecessary for that, you're obviously free to believe whatever you wish, but talking about doctors not violating oaths in providing lethal doses of prescription meds to terminal patients would seem to be a false argument.  The Geneva oath and the modern Hippocratic oath both seem to leave the option open.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Montrovant said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point geaux was making is that doctors do not swear the original oath.  It has been revised and may no longer contain that 'will not give a deadly drug' section at all.  If that's the case, they may not be breaking the oath by providing lethal drugs.
> 
> For that matter, considering how many of the drugs doctors give out can be lethal (I'd imagine nearly all of them!) that section could be argued to put almost all doctors in violation for the simplest of prescriptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted from the revised Geneva version of the oath, which is the most common version. It clearly states that a doctor puts his patients life and health first, even above his own thoughts that people should not have to live paralyzed. There are plenty of options for committing suicide that do not involve a doctor.
> 
> Doctors should not kill.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You quoted, so far as I have been able to determine, the original Hippocratic Oath in your early post in this thread.  Certainly, any oath swearing by Apollo is unlikely to be even vaguely modern!
> 
> The Declaration of Geneva Physician's Oath goes like this :
> Physician's Oath
> 
> At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:
> 
> I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
> I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
> I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity; the health of my patient will be my first consideration;
> I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of the medical profession; my colleagues will be my brothers;
> I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
> I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;
> I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor.
> 
> Which you can see here : Declaration of Geneva: Physician's Oath
> 
> So, I'm not sure why you think you've used modern oaths to bolster your point.  Of course, oaths are unnecessary for that, you're obviously free to believe whatever you wish, but talking about doctors not violating oaths in providing lethal doses of prescription meds to terminal patients would seem to be a false argument.  The Geneva oath and the modern Hippocratic oath both seem to leave the option open.
Click to expand...


I said I also quoted from it, specifically a slightly different version of the third  line of what you just quoted which says that the health and life of the patient is the first concern. Even if we stick to the version you used they swear to maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception. Anyone who swears this and then kills people is wrong.


----------



## Aristotle

It sounds like pain is the only justification for euthanasia


----------



## Mr. Peepers

If you've ever seen someone bright and very active succumb to ALS coupled with late-onset dementia, you would say YES.  Not to mention, the ALS began in her neck muscles, rendering her unable to swallow and then moved to her other limbs.  It was horrible to have to watch the slow, PAINFUL progression.  I'm sure she wished every day for that pain to stop.  Horrible, horrible disease.


----------



## earlycuyler

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?



I say yes to physician assisted suicide.


----------



## geauxtohell

Quantum Windbag said:


> The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.



More than your eternal soul?  That doesn't jive with your usual MO.  So, if I violate the Hippocratic Oath, will Apollo strike me down?  

What about the part the forbids practitioners from doing cholecystectomies (cut for stone)?

At least we can agree on the whole "no sex with the slaves" thing. 



> Explain how killing people fits into that, and then explain why I should trust a person that swears an oath and then decides that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.



A.)  To get to the point I am making:  The Hippocratic Oath is meaningless window dressings for White Coat Ceremonies.  Many physicians never swear to it for a variety of reasons and many schools no longer use it.  The rest use a modified version that doesn't require Medical Students to swear to Apollo, which we can agree could be a little problematic.  

B.)  I have no frigging clue what "he got bitter" has to do with anything.  Many physicians involved in end of life issues are passionate about bringing comfort to terminal patients.  

Even if we bypass your silly hyperbole....   Where does your interpretation of the sanctity of life and every patient that is not you autonomy begin?  I am on ICU this month.  We take code status very seriously.  If a patient doesn't want to be intubated or resuscitated, we will simply let them die because that is what they want.  Does that make us bad doctors?  

The real answer is no.  It makes us physicians who aren't going to legally assault a patient by forcing a tube down their airway when they don't want it to avoid the concern of people who think that the issue is always as black and white as "life or death" and ever siding with death means you are bitter or a bad doctor or uncaring.


----------



## geauxtohell

Quantum Windbag said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.
> 
> Explain how killing people fits into that, and then explain why I should trust a person that swears an oath and then decides that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.
> 
> 
> 
> It does not but then again, what you are stating is false.  The doctor is not that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.  That is not what is happening at all.
> 
> What is happening is that the INDIVIDUAL is making the conscious decision to end their life before whatever affliction they are facing does naturally.  In such a case, the doctor can watch the person die a horrible and ugly death in a few months or they can assist in the persons *individual choice* to end their life early.
> 
> If you really believe ion individual liberty and free choice, why are you against the doctor making a decision to assist in what someone else wants.  It is between the person and their doctor without involving any other people (except perhaps some basic safeguards like a psychiatrist and a second opinion).  What right do you have to question the decision or how it impacts the oath they take.  Who are you to say that it even violates their oath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any doctor who decides that the oath he swore does not apply to him for whatever reason is wrong.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...


I have never sworn to Apollo.  I have also never sworn to not administer a deadly drug or not perform cholecystectomies.  

Drop the lame H.O. strawman.  It's silly.


----------



## geauxtohell

Noomi said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Would you prefer someone to live out their final days in pain?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> (This is in response to the bold)
> 
> This is why they have hospice and palliative care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes that doesn't relieve the pain. My grandpa died of lung cancer and not even morphine could take his pain away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes nothing can take the pain away.
> 
> I'll complicate it further.  Administering narcotics in a hospice setting almost certainly hastens a patient's death.
> 
> Does that mean we shouldn't give them and let a patient suffer in agony because we can never do anything that might shorten a patient's life?
> 
> Of course not.  Just don't ask the non-medical people their opinion.  They have no clue.
Click to expand...


----------



## geauxtohell

Quantum Windbag said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any doctor who decides that the oath he swore does not apply to him for whatever reason is wrong.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point geaux was making is that doctors do not swear the original oath.  It has been revised and may no longer contain that 'will not give a deadly drug' section at all.  If that's the case, they may not be breaking the oath by providing lethal drugs.
> 
> For that matter, considering how many of the drugs doctors give out can be lethal (I'd imagine nearly all of them!) that section could be argued to put almost all doctors in violation for the simplest of prescriptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted from the revised Geneva version of the oath, which is the most common version. It clearly states that a doctor puts his patients life and health first, even above his own thoughts that people should not have to live paralyzed. There are plenty of options for committing suicide that do not involve a doctor.
> 
> Doctors should not kill.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...


Should Doctors attend torture sessions and executions?


----------



## earlycuyler

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point geaux was making is that doctors do not swear the original oath.  It has been revised and may no longer contain that 'will not give a deadly drug' section at all.  If that's the case, they may not be breaking the oath by providing lethal drugs.
> 
> For that matter, considering how many of the drugs doctors give out can be lethal (I'd imagine nearly all of them!) that section could be argued to put almost all doctors in violation for the simplest of prescriptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted from the revised Geneva version of the oath, which is the most common version. It clearly states that a doctor puts his patients life and health first, even above his own thoughts that people should not have to live paralyzed. There are plenty of options for committing suicide that do not involve a doctor.
> 
> Doctors should not kill.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should Doctors attend torture sessions and executions?
Click to expand...


In this country, they do. Dont know what the big deal is here. Dr.'s perform abortions. No big deal their. If they dont want to do that they dont have to. This issue is best left to the Dr.'s and who ever is stuck dieing. For my part, if my mind was going, or I was unable to be up and around, I would hope for the sake of my family he she would help me because I would kill my self first chance I got, and most likely make a mess of it.


----------



## Jarlaxle

AmyNation said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you prefer someone to live out their final days in pain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would prefer that doctors not kill people. What about that is so hard to understand? Doctors are healers, not killers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not hard to understand, I simply disagree.
Click to expand...


Quite often, the kindest thing you can do for a terminal patient is to simply shoot them.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Aristotle said:


> It sounds like pain is the only justification for euthanasia



No, not at all.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Mr. Peepers said:


> If you've ever seen someone bright and very active succumb to ALS coupled with late-onset dementia, you would say YES.  Not to mention, the ALS began in her neck muscles, rendering her unable to swallow and then moved to her other limbs.  It was horrible to have to watch the slow, PAINFUL progression.  I'm sure she wished every day for that pain to stop.  Horrible, horrible disease.



Which is why, if I am ever diagnosed with ALS, I will suck-start my shotgun _that day_.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than your eternal soul?  That doesn't jive with your usual MO.  So, if I violate the Hippocratic Oath, will Apollo strike me down?
> 
> What about the part the forbids practitioners from doing cholecystectomies (cut for stone)?
> 
> At least we can agree on the whole "no sex with the slaves" thing.
Click to expand...


Funny, I don't remember claiming to be a doctor. I also don't remember saying anything about an eternal soul. Maybe you should start reading my posts instead of making things up.



geauxtohell said:


> Explain how killing people fits into that, and then explain why I should trust a person that swears an oath and then decides that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.
> 
> 
> 
> A.)  To get to the point I am making:  The Hippocratic Oath is meaningless window dressings for White Coat Ceremonies.  Many physicians never swear to it for a variety of reasons and many schools no longer use it.  The rest use a modified version that doesn't require Medical Students to swear to Apollo, which we can agree could be a little problematic.
Click to expand...


The part you quoted above is not from the original oath, but don't let facts slow you down.



geauxtohell said:


> B.)  I have no frigging clue what "he got bitter" has to do with anything.  Many physicians involved in end of life issues are passionate about bringing comfort to terminal patients.
> 
> Even if we bypass your silly hyperbole....   Where does your interpretation of the sanctity of life and every patient that is not you autonomy begin?  I am on ICU this month.  We take code status very seriously.  If a patient doesn't want to be intubated or resuscitated, we will simply let them die because that is what they want.  Does that make us bad doctors?
> 
> The real answer is no.  It makes us physicians who aren't going to legally assault a patient by forcing a tube down their airway when they don't want it to avoid the concern of people who think that the issue is always as black and white as "life or death" and ever siding with death means you are bitter or a bad doctor or uncaring.



My interpretation of the sanctity of life is irrelevant, what is relevant is that doctors are supposed to heal. Killing is only healing if you think that killing makes life better for the people who are alive.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does not but then again, what you are stating is false.  The doctor is not that it doesn't apply because he got bitter.  That is not what is happening at all.
> 
> What is happening is that the INDIVIDUAL is making the conscious decision to end their life before whatever affliction they are facing does naturally.  In such a case, the doctor can watch the person die a horrible and ugly death in a few months or they can assist in the persons *individual choice* to end their life early.
> 
> If you really believe ion individual liberty and free choice, why are you against the doctor making a decision to assist in what someone else wants.  It is between the person and their doctor without involving any other people (except perhaps some basic safeguards like a psychiatrist and a second opinion).  What right do you have to question the decision or how it impacts the oath they take.  Who are you to say that it even violates their oath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any doctor who decides that the oath he swore does not apply to him for whatever reason is wrong.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never sworn to Apollo.  I have also never sworn to not administer a deadly drug or not perform cholecystectomies.
> 
> Drop the lame H.O. strawman.  It's silly.
Click to expand...


Did you swear an oath to put the health of your patient first?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point geaux was making is that doctors do not swear the original oath.  It has been revised and may no longer contain that 'will not give a deadly drug' section at all.  If that's the case, they may not be breaking the oath by providing lethal drugs.
> 
> For that matter, considering how many of the drugs doctors give out can be lethal (I'd imagine nearly all of them!) that section could be argued to put almost all doctors in violation for the simplest of prescriptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted from the revised Geneva version of the oath, which is the most common version. It clearly states that a doctor puts his patients life and health first, even above his own thoughts that people should not have to live paralyzed. There are plenty of options for committing suicide that do not involve a doctor.
> 
> Doctors should not kill.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should Doctors attend torture sessions and executions?
Click to expand...


Only in a word where people are incredibly stupid.


----------



## Polk

I'm late to the thread, but, yes, it should absolutely be legal. I would ask those opposed if they feel patients should not have the right to refuse treatment.


----------



## geauxtohell

Quantum Windbag said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than your eternal soul?  That doesn't jive with your usual MO.  So, if I violate the Hippocratic Oath, will Apollo strike me down?
> 
> What about the part the forbids practitioners from doing cholecystectomies (cut for stone)?
> 
> At least we can agree on the whole "no sex with the slaves" thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I don't remember claiming to be a doctor. I also don't remember saying anything about an eternal soul. Maybe you should start reading my posts instead of making things up.
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A.)  To get to the point I am making:  The Hippocratic Oath is meaningless window dressings for White Coat Ceremonies.  Many physicians never swear to it for a variety of reasons and many schools no longer use it.  The rest use a modified version that doesn't require Medical Students to swear to Apollo, which we can agree could be a little problematic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part you quoted above is not from the original oath, but don't let facts slow you down.
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> B.)  I have no frigging clue what "he got bitter" has to do with anything.  Many physicians involved in end of life issues are passionate about bringing comfort to terminal patients.
> 
> Even if we bypass your silly hyperbole....   Where does your interpretation of the sanctity of life and every patient that is not you autonomy begin?  I am on ICU this month.  We take code status very seriously.  If a patient doesn't want to be intubated or resuscitated, we will simply let them die because that is what they want.  Does that make us bad doctors?
> 
> The real answer is no.  It makes us physicians who aren't going to legally assault a patient by forcing a tube down their airway when they don't want it to avoid the concern of people who think that the issue is always as black and white as "life or death" and ever siding with death means you are bitter or a bad doctor or uncaring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My interpretation of the sanctity of life is irrelevant, what is relevant is that doctors are supposed to heal. Killing is only healing if you think that killing makes life better for the people who are alive.
Click to expand...


No, but you want to wax on about the parts of the Hippocratic Oath that support your personal beliefs while ignoring those that don't.  

So, as a physician, I have to swear to Apollo and can't do cholecystectomies?


----------



## geauxtohell

Quantum Windbag said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any doctor who decides that the oath he swore does not apply to him for whatever reason is wrong.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never sworn to Apollo.  I have also never sworn to not administer a deadly drug or not perform cholecystectomies.
> 
> Drop the lame H.O. strawman.  It's silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you swear an oath to put the health of your patient first?
Click to expand...


I am sure I did.  It was some sort of blaise blah-blah-blah that made everyone's parent's happy but meant little in the grand scheme of things.

Most people don't need ceremonial bullshit to do their best to care for people.  Properly caring for people isn't always "doing everything" to prolong life.  This is hardly a radical concept.  

Should I do compressions on a 90 year old woman to keep her heart breathing while also breaking her ribcage and puncturing her lungs?  

In the absence of orders not too, I will do these things, but I am not going to argue that it's in the patient's best interest.  

BTW, another tenant of the original H.O. was to not share medical knowledge with others.  Back when physicians were tied to guilds, it all made sense.  Not so much now.


----------



## Aristotle

geauxtohell said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes that doesn't relieve the pain. My grandpa died of lung cancer and not even morphine could take his pain away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes nothing can take the pain away.
> 
> I'll complicate it further.  Administering narcotics in a hospice setting almost certainly hastens a patient's death.
> 
> Does that mean we shouldn't give them and let a patient suffer in agony because we can never do anything that might shorten a patient's life?
> 
> Of course not.  Just don't ask the non-medical people their opinion.  They have no clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly my point, but I think people have their personal feelings caught up in producing a logical response.
Click to expand...


----------



## Aristotle

Jarlaxle said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like pain is the only justification for euthanasia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all.
Click to expand...




Jarlaxle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would prefer that doctors not kill people. What about that is so hard to understand? Doctors are healers, not killers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to understand, I simply disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite often, the kindest thing you can do for a terminal patient is to simply shoot them.
Click to expand...


First off, the keywords used here in this discussion are: suffering, pain, and agony. These are all forms of pain sensation. You mentioned previously that the kindest thing you can do to a patient is "shoot them." Really? So for every patient suffering from those suffering from suicidal ideation or severe depression or someone who is suffering from terminal cancer your resolution is to simply shoot them?


----------



## geauxtohell

Aristotle said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like pain is the only justification for euthanasia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to understand, I simply disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite often, the kindest thing you can do for a terminal patient is to simply shoot them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, the keywords used here in this discussion are: suffering, pain, and agony. These are all forms of pain sensation. You mentioned previously that the kindest thing you can do to a patient is "shoot them." Really? So for every patient suffering from those suffering from suicidal ideation or severe depression or someone who is suffering from terminal cancer your resolution is to simply shoot them?
Click to expand...


I'd rather just get 20 mg of IV Morphine.  It's a much more pleasant way to die.


----------



## Jarlaxle

But a 12-bore slug is faster, surer, and a whole lot cheaper.


----------



## geauxtohell

Jarlaxle said:


> But a 12-bore slug is faster, surer, and a whole lot cheaper.



Arguably faster and much less surer.

If you doubt that, see if you can volunteer at your local level 1 trauma center when a failed suicide by GSW comes in.  

You'll change your mind.  

Believe me.


----------



## Jackson

Perhaps this is off the wall, but for ther person who considers suicide to end their suffering, does belief, "Thou shall not kill", enter into their mind?  If you are about to enter the Hereafter, is it wise to commint a sin intentionally?  Will it be forgiven?

Just wondering...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Polk said:


> I'm late to the thread, but, yes, it should absolutely be legal. I would ask those opposed if they feel patients should not have the right to refuse treatment.



Why should we go to doctors, who are there to heal, in order to die? Why shouldn't dying be legal without doctors?


----------



## Intense

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never sworn to Apollo.  I have also never sworn to not administer a deadly drug or not perform cholecystectomies.
> 
> Drop the lame H.O. strawman.  It's silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you swear an oath to put the health of your patient first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure I did.  It was some sort of blaise blah-blah-blah that made everyone's parent's happy but meant little in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> Most people don't need ceremonial bullshit to do their best to care for people.  Properly caring for people isn't always "doing everything" to prolong life.  This is hardly a radical concept.
> 
> Should I do compressions on a 90 year old woman to keep her heart breathing while also breaking her ribcage and puncturing her lungs?
> 
> In the absence of orders not too, I will do these things, but I am not going to argue that it's in the patient's best interest.
> 
> BTW, another tenant of the original H.O. was to not share medical knowledge with others.  Back when physicians were tied to guilds, it all made sense.  Not so much now.
Click to expand...

A Do Not Resuscitate Order does balance that one out.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than your eternal soul?  That doesn't jive with your usual MO.  So, if I violate the Hippocratic Oath, will Apollo strike me down?
> 
> What about the part the forbids practitioners from doing cholecystectomies (cut for stone)?
> 
> At least we can agree on the whole "no sex with the slaves" thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I don't remember claiming to be a doctor. I also don't remember saying anything about an eternal soul. Maybe you should start reading my posts instead of making things up.
> 
> 
> 
> The part you quoted above is not from the original oath, but don't let facts slow you down.
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> B.)  I have no frigging clue what "he got bitter" has to do with anything.  Many physicians involved in end of life issues are passionate about bringing comfort to terminal patients.
> 
> Even if we bypass your silly hyperbole....   Where does your interpretation of the sanctity of life and every patient that is not you autonomy begin?  I am on ICU this month.  We take code status very seriously.  If a patient doesn't want to be intubated or resuscitated, we will simply let them die because that is what they want.  Does that make us bad doctors?
> 
> The real answer is no.  It makes us physicians who aren't going to legally assault a patient by forcing a tube down their airway when they don't want it to avoid the concern of people who think that the issue is always as black and white as "life or death" and ever siding with death means you are bitter or a bad doctor or uncaring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My interpretation of the sanctity of life is irrelevant, what is relevant is that doctors are supposed to heal. Killing is only healing if you think that killing makes life better for the people who are alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you want to wax on about the parts of the Hippocratic Oath that support your personal beliefs while ignoring those that don't.
> 
> So, as a physician, I have to swear to Apollo and can't do cholecystectomies?
Click to expand...


I am not ignoring anything, no one has pointed to any part of the oath, which boils down to "First, do not harm" to show me how killing is acceptable under the Hippocratic Oath. The best you could do was argue that you did not swear not to kill people, while ignoring the fact that you have not contradicted me about the part that says the health of the patient comes first. 

Feel free to point out where I said you had to sear the oath at all, then you can complain about where I said you had to swear to a particular deity. As usual, you are arguing with your imagination instead of addressing what I am saying. 

If you swore to put a your patients health first, how do you think killing people fits into that?


----------



## Intense

Polk said:


> I'm late to the thread, but, yes, it should absolutely be legal. I would ask those opposed if they feel patients should not have the right to refuse treatment.



I think Personal Choice should be respected too, as far as Treatments.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never sworn to Apollo.  I have also never sworn to not administer a deadly drug or not perform cholecystectomies.
> 
> Drop the lame H.O. strawman.  It's silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you swear an oath to put the health of your patient first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure I did.  It was some sort of blaise blah-blah-blah that made everyone's parent's happy but meant little in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> Most people don't need ceremonial bullshit to do their best to care for people.  Properly caring for people isn't always "doing everything" to prolong life.  This is hardly a radical concept.
> 
> Should I do compressions on a 90 year old woman to keep her heart breathing while also breaking her ribcage and puncturing her lungs?
> 
> In the absence of orders not too, I will do these things, but I am not going to argue that it's in the patient's best interest.
> 
> BTW, another tenant of the original H.O. was to not share medical knowledge with others.  Back when physicians were tied to guilds, it all made sense.  Not so much now.
Click to expand...


You swore an oath you didn't pay attention to, and you are upset with me for pointing out your lack of morals?


----------



## syrenn

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?



I strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal.  

I am also a firm believer of pulling the plugs on terminal patients and not keeping people alive just to keep them alive. 

As for spending to much money on keeping people alive... If the family has the funds to pay for services to keep all the machines going, pay for all the care... fine, its their money to spend. If doing all of this care is on the public dime.... then no. Support should be withdrawn...and people allowed to die the natural death they were meant to have.....


----------



## syrenn

Quantum Windbag said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I don't remember claiming to be a doctor. I also don't remember saying anything about an eternal soul. Maybe you should start reading my posts instead of making things up.
> 
> 
> 
> The part you quoted above is not from the original oath, but don't let facts slow you down.
> 
> 
> 
> My interpretation of the sanctity of life is irrelevant, what is relevant is that doctors are supposed to heal. Killing is only healing if you think that killing makes life better for the people who are alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you want to wax on about the parts of the Hippocratic Oath that support your personal beliefs while ignoring those that don't.
> 
> So, as a physician, I have to swear to Apollo and can't do cholecystectomies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not ignoring anything, no one has pointed to any part of the oath, which boils down to "First, do not harm" to show me how killing is acceptable under the Hippocratic Oath. The best you could do was argue that you did not swear not to kill people, while ignoring the fact that you have not contradicted me about the part that says the health of the patient comes first.
> 
> Feel free to point out where I said you had to sear the oath at all, then you can complain about where I said you had to swear to a particular deity. As usual, you are arguing with your imagination instead of addressing what I am saying.
> 
> If you swore to put a your patients health first, how do you think killing people fits into that?
Click to expand...



Living in pain... is allowing harm. Not assisting someone from that pain when they ask you....is doing harm to that person.


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink

There needs to be a very good reason to justify a person wanting to go through assisted suicide. I strongly believe a person who is terminally ill and experiencing pain has a right to such a request. I think there needs to be a time period that the person must wait before they can go through with the procedure, give them time to think and reflect about their decision.

Perhaps a psychiatrist should be on-hand, so that when the time comes and if person shows even the slightest bit of doubt then they reach the end of the initial waiting period, they should have to wait a bit longer. ( Not sure how that would work for mentally ill patients, but the decision to ends one's life should obviously not be taken lightly.) 

And like Geauxtohell said, the doctor shouldn't be compelled to perform assisted suicide. It should be based purely on the patients state of well-being in combination with the patients desire.


----------



## Aristotle

geauxtohell said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> But a 12-bore slug is faster, surer, and a whole lot cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arguably faster and much less surer.
> 
> If you doubt that, see if you can volunteer at your local level 1 trauma center when a failed suicide by GSW comes in.
> 
> You'll change your mind.
> 
> Believe me.
Click to expand...


^This


----------



## auditor0007

FA_Q2 said:


> Why not?  I have always found that laws against committing suicide are asinine.  If you dont want to be here, so be it.  I have no problem with you finishing yourself off if that is truly what you want.  Such a process needs to be well thought out, we dont want errors in such a situation but you have dominion over your body.  Why not dominion in ending it.



I have a very big problem with someone wanting to off themself because they have a mental issue such as depression.  People who want to die because they have a terminal illness and are also in severe pain are another story.  They should have the right to end their life on their terms in order to avoid prolonged suffering.  Good God, we treat our pets better when it comes to this than people.  But saying anyone should be able to commit suicide, I disagree with completely.


----------



## Noomi

syrenn said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal.
> 
> I am also a firm believer of pulling the plugs on terminal patients and not keeping people alive just to keep them alive.
> 
> As for spending to much money on keeping people alive... If the family has the funds to pay for services to keep all the machines going, pay for all the care... fine, its their money to spend. If doing all of this care is on the public dime.... then no. Support should be withdrawn...and people allowed to die the natural death they were meant to have.....
Click to expand...


Agreed 100%.


----------



## Aristotle

syrenn said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal.
> 
> I am also a firm believer of pulling the plugs on terminal patients and not keeping people alive just to keep them alive.
> 
> As for spending to much money on keeping people alive... If the family has the funds to pay for services to keep all the machines going, pay for all the care... fine, its their money to spend. If doing all of this care is on the public dime.... then no. Support should be withdrawn...and people allowed to die the natural death they were meant to have.....
Click to expand...


So as long if its not on a taxpayer's dime its ok. I'm not following this logic


----------



## Noomi

Aristotle said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal.
> 
> I am also a firm believer of pulling the plugs on terminal patients and not keeping people alive just to keep them alive.
> 
> As for spending to much money on keeping people alive... If the family has the funds to pay for services to keep all the machines going, pay for all the care... fine, its their money to spend. If doing all of this care is on the public dime.... then no. Support should be withdrawn...and people allowed to die the natural death they were meant to have.....
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So as long if its not on a taxpayer's dime its ok. I'm not following this logic
Click to expand...


She is asking why it should be okay for the taxpayer to keep someone alive on a machine when there is no hope of a recovery. I agree with her.


----------



## RDK

Having witnessed the prolonged death and suffering of some close family members I definitely support the idea of assisted death with dignity. If you made a dog or cat suffer the way that we make some people suffer the you could be charged for cruelty to animals.

This should also apply to people who cannot take the pills themselves. They would be assisted in taking a medication that would prolong life but not one that would relieve the pain.

You would need some safeguards to ensure that it was the patients informed choice in the matter but these could be accomplished. Living wills would also apply in the case the patient could not communicate his or her choice.

Speaking of pain, why is it that the US and Canada do not allow the use of the most powerful analgesic medicine known, heroin, for the relief of chronic pain in the terminally ill?


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink

Aristotle said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> But a 12-bore slug is faster, surer, and a whole lot cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arguably faster and much less surer.
> 
> If you doubt that, see if you can volunteer at your local level 1 trauma center when a failed suicide by GSW comes in.
> 
> You'll change your mind.
> 
> Believe me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^This
Click to expand...


A 10-gauge pointed up in the mouth works well, took daddy-o out instantly (don't mix pills n' alcohol).  But I hear what you're saying, I knew someone who used a .38 special, hollow point too. That one didn't work, and it was pretty bad for her father, as he had to make the decision to take her off life-support. (a parent should N E V E R be put in that situation, which is partly why I support Oregon's law)


----------



## syrenn

Aristotle said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal.
> 
> I am also a firm believer of pulling the plugs on terminal patients and not keeping people alive just to keep them alive.
> 
> As for spending to much money on keeping people alive... If the family has the funds to pay for services to keep all the machines going, pay for all the care... fine, its their money to spend. If doing all of this care is on the public dime.... then no. Support should be withdrawn...and people allowed to die the natural death they were meant to have.....
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So as long if its not on a taxpayer's dime its ok. I'm not following this logic
Click to expand...



the op asked about costs of keeping the... should be dead...alive. The cost of life support is quite something.....  

If a person has private funds and a family willing to bear the burden of the cost... fine..  If not, the public should not be paying to do that. 

It is rather simple....allow people to die the natural death that was coming to them.


----------



## Aristotle

With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.

As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain. 

The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.


----------



## Aristotle

Noomi said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal.
> 
> I am also a firm believer of pulling the plugs on terminal patients and not keeping people alive just to keep them alive.
> 
> As for spending to much money on keeping people alive... If the family has the funds to pay for services to keep all the machines going, pay for all the care... fine, its their money to spend. If doing all of this care is on the public dime.... then no. Support should be withdrawn...and people allowed to die the natural death they were meant to have.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long if its not on a taxpayer's dime its ok. I'm not following this logic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is asking why it should be okay for the taxpayer to keep someone alive on a machine when there is no hope of a recovery. I agree with her.
Click to expand...



You can make the same argument with deathrow inmates. There are people who will be on deathrow for years even decades before they're actually put to death....Your point?


----------



## Noomi

Aristotle said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as long if its not on a taxpayer's dime its ok. I'm not following this logic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is asking why it should be okay for the taxpayer to keep someone alive on a machine when there is no hope of a recovery. I agree with her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the same argument with deathrow inmates. There are people who will be on deathrow for years even decades before they're actually put to death....Your point?
Click to expand...


Death row inmates are not living via a machine.


----------



## Aristotle

syrenn said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal.
> 
> I am also a firm believer of pulling the plugs on terminal patients and not keeping people alive just to keep them alive.
> 
> As for spending to much money on keeping people alive... If the family has the funds to pay for services to keep all the machines going, pay for all the care... fine, its their money to spend. If doing all of this care is on the public dime.... then no. Support should be withdrawn...and people allowed to die the natural death they were meant to have.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as long if its not on a taxpayer's dime its ok. I'm not following this logic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the op asked about costs of keeping the... should be dead...alive. The cost of life support is quite something.....
> 
> If a person has private funds and a family willing to bear the burden of the cost... fine..  If not, the public should not be paying to do that.
> 
> It is rather simple....allow people to die the natural death that was coming to them.
Click to expand...


Some facts to consider:

-18-20 Americans spend their last days in the Intensive care unit.
-In a typical Intensive Care Unit it cost roughly $10,000 per day.
-In 2009 Medicare paid $50 billion in doctor and hospital cost.

Mind you, the figures for medicare round the numbers which include specialized medicine, doctors fees etc.

What about the cost to kill an inmate?.......

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... (*$232.7 million per year*) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million)."

--California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, July 1, 2008

Reference: Death Penalty Cost | Amnesty International USA


----------



## Aristotle

Noomi said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is asking why it should be okay for the taxpayer to keep someone alive on a machine when there is no hope of a recovery. I agree with her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the same argument with deathrow inmates. There are people who will be on deathrow for years even decades before they're actually put to death....Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death row inmates are not living via a machine.
Click to expand...



We are talking about taxpayer dime right? It doesn't matter if they're living on a machine.....It cost more to kill deathrow inmates per year than it would for euthanasia. High cost in keeping patients alive have to do with patients being in the hospital and in specialized units such as the intensive care unit where expensive equipment, not to mention controlling the underlined illnesses have costly financial effects. Which is why medicare has a cap on what they will pay and after that, the patient is sent home or either to a hospice for palliative care. So I don't get it. Patient's that want to die might be less costly to the taxpayer but for someone guilty and is destined to die, out of my dime I am paying more for someone on deathrow than someone in a hospital?


----------



## syrenn

Aristotle said:


> With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.
> 
> As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.
> 
> The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.




Actually... yes i do have enough medical knowledge......

Not all doctors are mentally up for assisted suicide..... some are. 

Yes, there is such a thing as compassionate death....death at times is mercy. 

Alright.... why do you assume that it will be the doctor doing the pushing of the button shall we say.... Cant the doctor set it all up and give the power of pushing the button or not to the patient? Or... here is the pill... take it or don't take it. Who is doing the deed then.... the doctor or the patient?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Aristotle said:


> With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.
> 
> As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.
> 
> The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.



Why do you make an assumption that is patently offensive and then claim you mean no offense? Why not be honest about your intent to offend people? 

The only people that need ethics are the ones that do not have morals. Morally, you are 100% correct, which is why I agree that doctors should not kill people. Ethically, it would depend on who you are talking to.

The thing is, in order to assume a need to involve a doctor, I have to assume that the person in question is a complete idiot that does not have access to the internet. There are a multitude of sites that describe the various drugs, their side effects, and how to administer them. There is no need to involve a doctor in the decision at all. 

I grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the belief that where there is life, there is hope, resonates in me to my core. That does not mean I would never commit suicide, it does mean that the situation is unimaginable. Unlike most of the people here, I have volunteered in a hospice. I saw what people were like when they knew they were going to die. All of them were waiting to die, some of them had refused care that would have extended their lives, most of them suffered every day. None of them wanted to loose one moment of their life.

If I had a friend that wanted to die, and needed my help, I wouldn't ask a doctor, and I wouldn't need the permission of a bunch of dogooders in the government. I would argue with him, try to convince him to keep living, and do whatever I needed to do to help them with their decision.

That is death with dignity. Involving the government takes away dignity, and gives the government more power to kill.

Only fools want to make it easier for the government to kill.


----------



## syrenn

Aristotle said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as long if its not on a taxpayer's dime its ok. I'm not following this logic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is asking why it should be okay for the taxpayer to keep someone alive on a machine when there is no hope of a recovery. I agree with her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the same argument with deathrow inmates. There are people who will be on deathrow for years even decades before they're actually put to death....Your point?
Click to expand...



lol...if it was up to me.... no they would not be on death row for long. 

death row inmates are alive an well.... we are not keeping them alive.


----------



## Aristotle

syrenn said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is asking why it should be okay for the taxpayer to keep someone alive on a machine when there is no hope of a recovery. I agree with her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the same argument with deathrow inmates. There are people who will be on deathrow for years even decades before they're actually put to death....Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol...if it was up to me.... no they would not be on death row for long.
> 
> death row inmates are alive an well.... we are not keeping them alive.
Click to expand...


Technically we are. With appeal proceedings that are long and drawn out we continually pay for the inmates to stay alive. These inmates get three meals a day, are allowed shower, and recreation time. So when talking about tax dollars and costly figures, what is more costly annually, keeping a patient alive or an inmate?


----------



## Aristotle

Quantum Windbag said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.
> 
> As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.
> 
> The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you make an assumption that is patently offensive and then claim you mean no offense? Why not be honest about your intent to offend people?
> 
> The only people that need ethics are the ones that do not have morals. Morally, you are 100% correct, which is why I agree that doctors should not kill people. Ethically, it would depend on who you are talking to.
> 
> The thing is, in order to assume a need to involve a doctor, I have to assume that the person in question is a complete idiot that does not have access to the internet. There are a multitude of sites that describe the various drugs, their side effects, and how to administer them. There is no need to involve a doctor in the decision at all.
> 
> I grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the belief that where there is life, there is hope, resonates in me to my core. That does not mean I would never commit suicide, it does mean that the situation is unimaginable. Unlike most of the people here, I have volunteered in a hospice. I saw what people were like when they knew they were going to die. All of them were waiting to die, some of them had refused care that would have extended their lives, most of them suffered every day. None of them wanted to loose one moment of their life.
> 
> If I had a friend that wanted to die, and needed my help, I wouldn't ask a doctor, and I wouldn't need the permission of a bunch of dogooders in the government. I would argue with him, try to convince him to keep living, and do whatever I needed to do to help them with their decision.
> 
> That is death with dignity. *Involving the government takes away dignity*, and gives the government more power to kill.
> 
> Only fools want to make it easier for the government to kill.
Click to expand...


The reason why most people say "I mean no offense" is because what will be said is not to offend, but to indirectly inform the person being addressed that what will be said is not a personal attack nor to be insulting.

Regarding the bold. What is so dignifying about being put to death by a physician?


----------



## Aristotle

syrenn said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.
> 
> As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.
> 
> The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually... yes i do have enough medical knowledge......
> 
> Not all doctors are mentally up for assisted suicide..... some are.
> 
> Yes, there is such a thing as compassionate death....death at times is mercy.
> 
> Alright.... why do you assume that it will be the doctor doing the pushing of the button shall we say.... Cant the doctor set it all up and give the power of pushing the button or not to the patient? Or... here is the pill... take it or don't take it. Who is doing the deed then.... the doctor or the patient?
Click to expand...


For a person with medical knowledge I am surprised you even mentioned the word "pill."

Anyone with some knowledge of some medical teminology or pharmacology you'd know that first and foremost the fastest way to circulate medication through the bloodstream would be intravenously. So there is no pushing a button, and even if there was, the patient may be too weak and sick to even push anything. Second, taking a pill takes longer than taking something intravenously- due to the fact of digestion and at this stage (assuming the patient has stage 4 cancer for example) the metabolism may be too slow, so even if the patient is taking the pill there is still a "wait towards death."

In other words even if euthanasia was to be legal, most patients would die similarly like the inmates on deathrow, lethal injection.


----------



## syrenn

Aristotle said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can make the same argument with deathrow inmates. There are people who will be on deathrow for years even decades before they're actually put to death....Your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol...if it was up to me.... no they would not be on death row for long.
> 
> death row inmates are alive an well.... we are not keeping them alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically we are. With appeal proceedings that are long and drawn out we continually pay for the inmates to stay alive. These inmates get three meals a day, are allowed shower, and recreation time. So when talking about tax dollars and costly figures, what is more costly annually, keeping a patient alive or an inmate?
Click to expand...


this thread is not about death row ass holes or the enormous costs they run. As i said before...if it was up to me they would not be on death row for long......


----------



## syrenn

Aristotle said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.
> 
> As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.
> 
> The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you make an assumption that is patently offensive and then claim you mean no offense? Why not be honest about your intent to offend people?
> 
> The only people that need ethics are the ones that do not have morals. Morally, you are 100% correct, which is why I agree that doctors should not kill people. Ethically, it would depend on who you are talking to.
> 
> The thing is, in order to assume a need to involve a doctor, I have to assume that the person in question is a complete idiot that does not have access to the internet. There are a multitude of sites that describe the various drugs, their side effects, and how to administer them. There is no need to involve a doctor in the decision at all.
> 
> I grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the belief that where there is life, there is hope, resonates in me to my core. That does not mean I would never commit suicide, it does mean that the situation is unimaginable. Unlike most of the people here, I have volunteered in a hospice. I saw what people were like when they knew they were going to die. All of them were waiting to die, some of them had refused care that would have extended their lives, most of them suffered every day. None of them wanted to loose one moment of their life.
> 
> If I had a friend that wanted to die, and needed my help, I wouldn't ask a doctor, and I wouldn't need the permission of a bunch of dogooders in the government. I would argue with him, try to convince him to keep living, and do whatever I needed to do to help them with their decision.
> 
> That is death with dignity. *Involving the government takes away dignity*, and gives the government more power to kill.
> 
> Only fools want to make it easier for the government to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason why most people say "I mean no offense" is because what will be said is not to offend, but to indirectly inform the person being addressed that what will be said is not a personal attack nor to be insulting.
> 
> Regarding the bold. What is so dignifying about being put to death by a physician?
Click to expand...


And what if the person is begging for assistance? What is so dignified about begging for help and not receiving it?


----------



## syrenn

Aristotle said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.
> 
> As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.
> 
> The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually... yes i do have enough medical knowledge......
> 
> Not all doctors are mentally up for assisted suicide..... some are.
> 
> Yes, there is such a thing as compassionate death....death at times is mercy.
> 
> Alright.... why do you assume that it will be the doctor doing the pushing of the button shall we say.... Cant the doctor set it all up and give the power of pushing the button or not to the patient? Or... here is the pill... take it or don't take it. Who is doing the deed then.... the doctor or the patient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For a person with medical knowledge I am surprised you even mentioned the word "pill."
> 
> Anyone with some knowledge of some medical teminology or pharmacology you'd know that first and foremost the fastest way to circulate medication through the bloodstream would be intravenously. So there is no pushing a button, and even if there was, the patient may be too weak and sick to even push anything. Second, taking a pill takes longer than taking something intravenously- due to the fact of digestion and at this stage (assuming the patient has stage 4 cancer for example) the metabolism may be too slow, so even if the patient is taking the pill there is still a "wait towards death."
> 
> In other words even if euthanasia was to be legal, most patients would die similarly like the inmates on deathrow, lethal injection.
Click to expand...





i know IV injection is the fastest way...... i also know its not pushing a button...  Get a grip and try an understand what i was saying.....


----------



## Aristotle

syrenn said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you make an assumption that is patently offensive and then claim you mean no offense? Why not be honest about your intent to offend people?
> 
> The only people that need ethics are the ones that do not have morals. Morally, you are 100% correct, which is why I agree that doctors should not kill people. Ethically, it would depend on who you are talking to.
> 
> The thing is, in order to assume a need to involve a doctor, I have to assume that the person in question is a complete idiot that does not have access to the internet. There are a multitude of sites that describe the various drugs, their side effects, and how to administer them. There is no need to involve a doctor in the decision at all.
> 
> I grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the belief that where there is life, there is hope, resonates in me to my core. That does not mean I would never commit suicide, it does mean that the situation is unimaginable. Unlike most of the people here, I have volunteered in a hospice. I saw what people were like when they knew they were going to die. All of them were waiting to die, some of them had refused care that would have extended their lives, most of them suffered every day. None of them wanted to loose one moment of their life.
> 
> If I had a friend that wanted to die, and needed my help, I wouldn't ask a doctor, and I wouldn't need the permission of a bunch of dogooders in the government. I would argue with him, try to convince him to keep living, and do whatever I needed to do to help them with their decision.
> 
> That is death with dignity. *Involving the government takes away dignity*, and gives the government more power to kill.
> 
> Only fools want to make it easier for the government to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why most people say "I mean no offense" is because what will be said is not to offend, but to indirectly inform the person being addressed that what will be said is not a personal attack nor to be insulting.
> 
> Regarding the bold. What is so dignifying about being put to death by a physician?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what if the person is begging for assistance? What is so dignified about begging for help and not receiving it?
Click to expand...


Well it depends. Has pain managment failed? Have we exercise all options to make the patioent comfortable? Is the "beggging" symptomatic of the illness? Your acting like everyone with terminal illness has severe pain. Some terminal people die quick. Some die slow. Some die painfully slow. Some die painfully quick.


----------



## Aristotle

syrenn said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually... yes i do have enough medical knowledge......
> 
> Not all doctors are mentally up for assisted suicide..... some are.
> 
> Yes, there is such a thing as compassionate death....death at times is mercy.
> 
> Alright.... why do you assume that it will be the doctor doing the pushing of the button shall we say.... Cant the doctor set it all up and give the power of pushing the button or not to the patient? Or... here is the pill... take it or don't take it. Who is doing the deed then.... the doctor or the patient?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a person with medical knowledge I am surprised you even mentioned the word "pill."
> 
> Anyone with some knowledge of some medical teminology or pharmacology you'd know that first and foremost the fastest way to circulate medication through the bloodstream would be intravenously. So there is no pushing a button, and even if there was, the patient may be too weak and sick to even push anything. Second, taking a pill takes longer than taking something intravenously- due to the fact of digestion and at this stage (assuming the patient has stage 4 cancer for example) the metabolism may be too slow, so even if the patient is taking the pill there is still a "wait towards death."
> 
> In other words even if euthanasia was to be legal, most patients would die similarly like the inmates on deathrow, lethal injection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i know IV injection is the fastest way...... i also know its not pushing a button...  Get a grip and try an understand what i was saying.....
Click to expand...


If a lethal injection is to be administered it has to be done by a physician


----------



## Aristotle

syrenn said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol...if it was up to me.... no they would not be on death row for long.
> 
> death row inmates are alive an well.... we are not keeping them alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically we are. With appeal proceedings that are long and drawn out we continually pay for the inmates to stay alive. These inmates get three meals a day, are allowed shower, and recreation time. So when talking about tax dollars and costly figures, what is more costly annually, keeping a patient alive or an inmate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this thread is not about death row ass holes or the enormous costs they run. As i said before...if it was up to me they would not be on death row for long......
Click to expand...


Well there was a mentioning of taxpayer dime so I threw in the inmate statistics. Because when it comes to people nothing costs more than prisons.


----------



## syrenn

Aristotle said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> For a person with medical knowledge I am surprised you even mentioned the word "pill."
> 
> Anyone with some knowledge of some medical teminology or pharmacology you'd know that first and foremost the fastest way to circulate medication through the bloodstream would be intravenously. So there is no pushing a button, and even if there was, the patient may be too weak and sick to even push anything. Second, taking a pill takes longer than taking something intravenously- due to the fact of digestion and at this stage (assuming the patient has stage 4 cancer for example) the metabolism may be too slow, so even if the patient is taking the pill there is still a "wait towards death."
> 
> In other words even if euthanasia was to be legal, most patients would die similarly like the inmates on deathrow, lethal injection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i know IV injection is the fastest way...... i also know its not pushing a button...  Get a grip and try an understand what i was saying.....
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a lethal injection is to be administered it has to be done by a physician
Click to expand...


oh please.... use your imagination on how it can be set up.... you claim to have some knowledge.... use it.


----------



## syrenn

Aristotle said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically we are. With appeal proceedings that are long and drawn out we continually pay for the inmates to stay alive. These inmates get three meals a day, are allowed shower, and recreation time. So when talking about tax dollars and costly figures, what is more costly annually, keeping a patient alive or an inmate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this thread is not about death row ass holes or the enormous costs they run. As i said before...if it was up to me they would not be on death row for long......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well there was a mentioning of taxpayer dime so I threw in the inmate statistics. Because when it comes to people nothing costs more than prisons.
Click to expand...


fine... it works for me too...

if inmates want to eat... they can damn well have their families pay up for their room and board......


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Aristotle said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.
> 
> As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.
> 
> The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you make an assumption that is patently offensive and then claim you mean no offense? Why not be honest about your intent to offend people?
> 
> The only people that need ethics are the ones that do not have morals. Morally, you are 100% correct, which is why I agree that doctors should not kill people. Ethically, it would depend on who you are talking to.
> 
> The thing is, in order to assume a need to involve a doctor, I have to assume that the person in question is a complete idiot that does not have access to the internet. There are a multitude of sites that describe the various drugs, their side effects, and how to administer them. There is no need to involve a doctor in the decision at all.
> 
> I grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the belief that where there is life, there is hope, resonates in me to my core. That does not mean I would never commit suicide, it does mean that the situation is unimaginable. Unlike most of the people here, I have volunteered in a hospice. I saw what people were like when they knew they were going to die. All of them were waiting to die, some of them had refused care that would have extended their lives, most of them suffered every day. None of them wanted to loose one moment of their life.
> 
> If I had a friend that wanted to die, and needed my help, I wouldn't ask a doctor, and I wouldn't need the permission of a bunch of dogooders in the government. I would argue with him, try to convince him to keep living, and do whatever I needed to do to help them with their decision.
> 
> That is death with dignity. *Involving the government takes away dignity*, and gives the government more power to kill.
> 
> Only fools want to make it easier for the government to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason why most people say "I mean no offense" is because what will be said is not to offend, but to indirectly inform the person being addressed that what will be said is not a personal attack nor to be insulting.
> 
> Regarding the bold. What is so dignifying about being put to death by a physician?
Click to expand...


If you have to say it, saying it isn't going to make a difference.

Did you read my post at all? I spent all that time talking about how using a doctor is the wrong choice, and you ask me how using a doctor is dignified.


----------



## Borillar

AmyNation said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties embrace murder for a variety of reasons.
> 
> This is just another one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel people who live in constant pain should be forced to suffer instead of being allowed to ask a physican to help them die?
> 
> Ok.
Click to expand...


Righties embrace torture for a variety of reasons. This is just another one.


----------



## Wookietim

You know... The concept of physician assisted suicide just bothers me. I get it - some people want to end their suffering and some of them have valid reasons to make that decision. But at the same time a doctor swears an oath not to do that type of thing... so it seems to me that they should never do this unless they are willing to stop being doctors.


----------



## Katzndogz

Why limit it to doctors?   Maybe the guy who shoots his wife can claim she told him she wanted to die.   The father who can say he ran over his daughter was innocent of murder because she was too shamed by dishonor to live.

If we allow only doctors to make life or death decisions that's flat discrimination.


----------



## Aristotle

Quantum Windbag said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you make an assumption that is patently offensive and then claim you mean no offense? Why not be honest about your intent to offend people?
> 
> The only people that need ethics are the ones that do not have morals. Morally, you are 100% correct, which is why I agree that doctors should not kill people. Ethically, it would depend on who you are talking to.
> 
> The thing is, in order to assume a need to involve a doctor, I have to assume that the person in question is a complete idiot that does not have access to the internet. There are a multitude of sites that describe the various drugs, their side effects, and how to administer them. There is no need to involve a doctor in the decision at all.
> 
> I grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the belief that where there is life, there is hope, resonates in me to my core. That does not mean I would never commit suicide, it does mean that the situation is unimaginable. Unlike most of the people here, I have volunteered in a hospice. I saw what people were like when they knew they were going to die. All of them were waiting to die, some of them had refused care that would have extended their lives, most of them suffered every day. None of them wanted to loose one moment of their life.
> 
> If I had a friend that wanted to die, and needed my help, I wouldn't ask a doctor, and I wouldn't need the permission of a bunch of dogooders in the government. I would argue with him, try to convince him to keep living, and do whatever I needed to do to help them with their decision.
> 
> That is death with dignity. *Involving the government takes away dignity*, and gives the government more power to kill.
> 
> Only fools want to make it easier for the government to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why most people say "I mean no offense" is because what will be said is not to offend, but to indirectly inform the person being addressed that what will be said is not a personal attack nor to be insulting.
> 
> Regarding the bold. What is so dignifying about being put to death by a physician?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have to say it, saying it isn't going to make a difference.
> 
> Did you read my post at all? I spent all that time talking about how using a doctor is the wrong choice, and you ask me how using a doctor is dignified.
Click to expand...



No, I was questioning the claim of how euthanasia is a "dignified way to die."


----------



## Aristotle

It appears that the idea of dignified death by physician in context, seems synonymous with Seppuku.


----------



## Aristotle

Katzndogz said:


> Why limit it to doctors?   Maybe the guy who shoots his wife can claim she told him she wanted to die.   The father who can say he ran over his daughter was innocent of murder because she was too shamed by dishonor to live.
> 
> If we allow only doctors to make life or death decisions that's flat discrimination.



It's not just discrimination, it makes it an ethical problem. What about physicians who commit euthanasia in a non-hospital setting (assuming euthanasia becomes legal)? Discharging a firearm would still be legal and the physician would be charged with homicide but what if euthanasia was performed at home to a patient all because as you said, the patient begged to die?


----------



## geauxtohell

Intense said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you swear an oath to put the health of your patient first?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure I did.  It was some sort of blaise blah-blah-blah that made everyone's parent's happy but meant little in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> Most people don't need ceremonial bullshit to do their best to care for people.  Properly caring for people isn't always "doing everything" to prolong life.  This is hardly a radical concept.
> 
> Should I do compressions on a 90 year old woman to keep her heart breathing while also breaking her ribcage and puncturing her lungs?
> 
> In the absence of orders not too, I will do these things, but I am not going to argue that it's in the patient's best interest.
> 
> BTW, another tenant of the original H.O. was to not share medical knowledge with others.  Back when physicians were tied to guilds, it all made sense.  Not so much now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Do Not Resuscitate Order does balance that one out.
Click to expand...


And you'd be surprised at how few people actually have DNR orders.


----------



## Noomi

Katzndogz said:


> Why limit it to doctors?   Maybe the guy who shoots his wife can claim she told him she wanted to die.   The father who can say he ran over his daughter was innocent of murder because she was too shamed by dishonor to live.
> 
> If we allow only doctors to make life or death decisions that's flat discrimination.



You are claiming that assisted suicide will lead to murder, which it won't.


----------



## koshergrl

Wow Noomster, promoting killing off the disabled here...and arguing for the legalizing of incest...this has to be a red letter day for you. If you're somewhere promoting  babykilling, it would be a perfect trifecta!


----------



## Noomi

koshergrl said:


> Wow Noomster, promoting killing off the disabled here...and arguing for the legalizing of incest...this has to be a red letter day for you. If you're somewhere promoting  babykilling, it would be a perfect trifecta!



I see things differently than you, that is all, KG. 

And there is no need to promote baby killing, because I don't do that anyway!


----------



## Aristotle

I see proponents of euthanasia wont address my statements. Funny, didn't realize I had that effect on people.


----------



## FA_Q2

Aristotle said:


> I see proponents of euthanasia wont address my statements. Funny, didn't realize I had that effect on people.



No one is addressing your statement because it has already been addressed many times.  It has been repeated and the process explored on this thread by me alone on 2 occasions.  If you cannot be bothered to read what you are responding to, then I cannot be bothered to reeducate you on my stance on the subject.  If you have real questions, please go back through the thread and quote what you have an issue with.  If you have a new question that has not been addressed then ask away.  So far, you have not brought up any actual points directly refuting euthanasia that have not been covered or offered anything else to take away on this subject.


----------



## Jarlaxle

geauxtohell said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> But a 12-bore slug is faster, surer, and a whole lot cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arguably faster and much less surer.
> 
> If you doubt that, see if you can volunteer at your local level 1 trauma center when a failed suicide by GSW comes in.
> 
> You'll change your mind.
> 
> Believe me.
Click to expand...


Muzzle in the mouth and pointed up to remove the brain stem, chamber loaded with a deer slug...messy, but certain.


----------



## Jarlaxle

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arguably faster and much less surer.
> 
> If you doubt that, see if you can volunteer at your local level 1 trauma center when a failed suicide by GSW comes in.
> 
> You'll change your mind.
> 
> Believe me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^This
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A 10-gauge pointed up in the mouth works well, took daddy-o out instantly (don't mix pills n' alcohol).  But I hear what you're saying, I knew someone who used a .38 special, hollow point too. That one didn't work, and it was pretty bad for her father, as he had to make the decision to take her off life-support. (a parent should N E V E R be put in that situation, which is partly why I support Oregon's law)
Click to expand...


Which is why I will use a 12-bore slug or a large-caliber pistol (like a .44 Magnum) and not a mouse gun.


----------



## Aristotle

FA_Q2 said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see proponents of euthanasia wont address my statements. Funny, didn't realize I had that effect on people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is addressing your statement because it has already been addressed many times.  It has been repeated and the process explored on this thread by me alone on 2 occasions.  If you cannot be bothered to read what you are responding to, then I cannot be bothered to reeducate you on my stance on the subject.  If you have real questions, please go back through the thread and quote what you have an issue with.  If you have a new question that has not been addressed then ask away.  So far, you have not brought up any actual points directly refuting euthanasia that have not been covered or offered anything else to take away on this subject.
Click to expand...


No actually if you go back to the first few pages of this thread I asked four questions that were not answered. Shall I re-educate you on what they were?


----------



## Aristotle

FA_Q2 said:


> Why not?  I have always found that laws against committing suicide are asinine.  If you dont want to be here, so be it.  I have no problem with you finishing yourself off if that is truly what you want.  Such a process needs to be well thought out, we dont want errors in such a situation but you have dominion over your body.  Why not dominion in ending it.





Aristotle said:


> The issue of euthanasia is a slippery slope because it blurs the line of morality between compassion and murder. Patients suffering from advance forms of Pick's Disease (Alzheimer's/Frontotemporal dementia) also suffer from cases of depression, suicidal ideation, and other horrible symptoms of neurodegeneration. This is why bioethics who do not support due to the "pain of emppending death" opt for palliative care (pain managment to make the patient comfortable upon death) compared to immediately ending the life.
> 
> If we are to end the life I think the following questions should be raised:
> 
> 1) If there is no hope for the patient for recovery should euthanasia be acceptable on this reason alone?
> 
> 2) If the patient requests to die yet is not in pain, how do we determine that the request of death is not symptomatic of their condition (e.g delirium or depression).
> 
> 3) If we do allow euthanasia would this lead to a gateway of other bioethical issues such as people suffering from severe mental disorders?
> 
> 4) If Euthanasia is allowed are loved ones able to see the doctor to perform? If they are allowed then what about the psychological trauma that may occur by watching the doctor perform the life ending procedure? After all, the last image would be the doctor ending their loved one's life versus the natural cause.
> 
> In my humble opinion on the issue I believe proponents of euthanasia are more worried about the psychological effect of both the patient, and loved ones and the image of that loved one suffering to annihilation. I would be inclined to agree that it would be better to "put him/her out of their misery" but case by case, it is hard for some families to let their loved one go.





FA_Q2 said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see proponents of euthanasia wont address my statements. Funny, didn't realize I had that effect on people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is addressing your statement because it has already been addressed many times.  It has been repeated and the process explored on this thread by me alone on 2 occasions.  If you cannot be bothered to read what you are responding to, then I cannot be bothered to reeducate you on my stance on the subject.  If you have real questions, please go back through the thread and quote what you have an issue with.  If you have a new question that has not been addressed then ask away.  So far, you have not brought up any actual points directly refuting euthanasia that have not been covered or offered anything else to take away on this subject.
Click to expand...



How about addressing them now


By the way the first quote by you was poor. Laws against suicide is made to protect people from themselves. You don't know if someone suffering from suicidal ideation is not suffering from a mental disorder or drug related


----------



## caela

Aristotle said:


> If we are to end the life I think the following questions should be raised:
> 
> 1) If there is no hope for the patient for recovery should euthanasia be acceptable on this reason alone?
> 
> 2) If the patient requests to die yet is not in pain, how do we determine that the request of death is not symptomatic of their condition (e.g delirium or depression).
> 
> 3) If we do allow euthanasia would this lead to a gateway of other bioethical issues such as people suffering from severe mental disorders?
> 
> 4) If Euthanasia is allowed are loved ones able to see the doctor to perform? If they are allowed then what about the psychological trauma that may occur by watching the doctor perform the life ending procedure? After all, the last image would be the doctor ending their loved one's life versus the natural cause.



1) No. I wouldn't agree with Euthanasia in any circumstance. This thread isn't about someone _else_ making the decision for a patient to die, but whether the patient _themselves_ have the right to seek that help.

Now if the patient has a terminal, incurable, disease (particularly if it is degenerative in some fashion) and wants to seek a lethal dose of medication that _they_ will administer themselves (thus the ASSISTED part of the equation) then yes. 

2) If a patient doesn't have a disease that inflicts pain, is terminal, and/or degenerative, than no, a physician shouldn't assist them in their suicide attempt. If they don't wish to live for solely personal reasons then that is their business but they shouldn't involve other people in it.

3) Again no. As I said, I disagree with Euthanasia. Family, doctors, social workers etc. shouldn't be making that call. If we leave it in the hands of the patients to decide (within boundaries) then I don't think the "slippery slope" will be a problem.

4) As for having family present, this, like the choice to take the lethal dose of medication, should be left up to the patient. They could choose to have them there when they give themselves the dosage, or to do it prior and then let family come in to say their final goodbyes. There would be no end to the ways this could be handled and wouldn't, really, be any different then families already standing vigil over someone dear on their final death watch.

These answers, of course, are simply my own 0.02$ worth and YMMV.


----------



## PaulS1950

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as easy as it is for anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think someone with terminal cancer but who still has full mobility would find it easier to swallow pills than a quadraplegic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think quadriplegics can't swallow?
Click to expand...


And how do they get and take the pills? No use of arms or legs makes hard to get something to swallow.


----------



## Noomi

PaulS1950 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think someone with terminal cancer but who still has full mobility would find it easier to swallow pills than a quadraplegic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think quadriplegics can't swallow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how do they get and take the pills? No use of arms or legs makes hard to get something to swallow.
Click to expand...


We have gone around in circles with that question, you won't get a proper answer.


----------



## koshergrl

Because you're advocating killing people who you think are no longer productive.

Wow, this does sound familiar....

"Their treatise entitled Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life prefigured the Nazi effort to rid society of the nonproductive.(3) Binding and Hoche presented not only an ethical rationale for medical killing, but also developed procedures for the selection of candidates for death.  In the opening segment of this book, the jurist Karl Binding argued for the practice of mercy killing, and finally for a "more general permission" for legalized destruction of human life.(4) Binding argued that mercy killing of the terminally ill "merely replaces the present cause of death with a different one which has the advantage of painlessness. This is not an act of killing in the legal sense but is rather the modification of an irrevocably present cause of death which can no longer be evaded. In truth it is a purely healing act."(5) The experience of the World War I was clearly a factor in Binding's thinking as he argued for a "more general permission" for killing:
_Reflect...on a battlefield strewn with thousands of dead youths.... Compare this with our mental hospitals, with their caring for their living inmates. One will be deeply shaken by the strident clash between the sacrifice of the finest flower of humanity in its full measure on the one side, and by the meticulous care shown to existences which are not just absolutely worthless but even of negative value, on the other. It is impossible to doubt that there are living people to whom death would be a release, and whose death would simultaneously free society and the state from carrying a burden which serves no conceivable purpose...._(6)"


The Cost-Effectiveness of Killing: An Overview of Nazi "Euthanasia"


----------



## koshergrl

"*More aggressive means of ridding German society of the non-productive were not long in coming*. According to post-war testimony by Dr. Karl Brandt, at the 1935 Nuremberg Party Congress, Hitler informed the Reich Doctors' Leader, Gerhard Wagner, that in the event of another world war he would take up the question of euthanasia and "solve the problem of the asylums in a radical way."(17) Hitler expected that in the upheaval of war the opposition of the churches would be muted. At this same Party Congress, Dr. Wagner assailed the doctrine of equality, which valued the lives of the sick, and the "unfit" on a par with the healthy. While not specifically mentioning euthanasia, Wagner went on to emphasize the high cost of caring for the "genetically disabled," and to point out how such care was diverting resources from the "healthy members of the population." Dr. Wagner assured his listeners that measures were being taken to reverse this trend.(18)"

The Cost-Effectiveness of Killing: An Overview of Nazi "Euthanasia"


----------



## koshergrl

Right up Noomi's alley.


----------



## koshergrl

"A review of the Nazi experience with "euthanasia" demonstrates that our medical profession can fall victim to pervasive moral corruption when doctors place the needs of the state above the needs of individual patients. It is easy to read this history with a sense of moral superiority, but one wonders how our government and medical profession would respond to the burden of caring for the non-productive in a time of economic calamity and struggle for our national survival."

The Cost-Effectiveness of Killing: An Overview of Nazi "Euthanasia"


----------



## koshergrl

""Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to  all who investigated them, that they started from small beginnings. The  beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic  attitudes of physicians.

"It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic to the euthanasia  movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived.  This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the  severely and chronically sick.

"Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was  enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically  unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans."

Euthanasia in Nazi Germany - The T4 Programme | The Life Resources Charitable Trust


----------



## koshergrl

"Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, marshalled the resources of the  state-controlled media to persuade Germans that euthanasia was a humane  social policy, the foundation for building the Master Race. Graphic  pictures portrayed mentally ill and disabled "subhumans" in a series of  powerful and popular films, to reinforce the message. 

In the popular film "I Accuse", an attractive woman suffering from multiple sclerosis was gently killed by her loving husband. 

 German school children studied maths problems and calculated how many  services, how much bread, jam, and other necessities of life could be  saved by killing people - the chronically sick and crippled - who were a  "drain on society."

Euthanasia in Nazi Germany - The T4 Programme | The Life Resources Charitable Trust


----------



## Aristotle

LOL Koshergrl was spamming but hit it on the mark.


----------



## Katzndogz

Convincing people to accept suicide is one of the provisions in obamacare.   If people do not ask for doctor's help in ending their lives, they must be counseled into doing so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## Noomi

koshergrl said:


> Right up Noomi's alley.



Why must you always think the worst of someone? And please don't invoke Godwins Law. It means you have lost the argument.


----------



## Aristotle

caela said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we are to end the life I think the following questions should be raised:
> 
> 1) If there is no hope for the patient for recovery should euthanasia be acceptable on this reason alone?
> 
> 2) If the patient requests to die yet is not in pain, how do we determine that the request of death is not symptomatic of their condition (e.g delirium or depression).
> 
> 3) If we do allow euthanasia would this lead to a gateway of other bioethical issues such as people suffering from severe mental disorders?
> 
> 4) If Euthanasia is allowed are loved ones able to see the doctor to perform? If they are allowed then what about the psychological trauma that may occur by watching the doctor perform the life ending procedure? After all, the last image would be the doctor ending their loved one's life versus the natural cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) No. I wouldn't agree with Euthanasia in any circumstance. This thread isn't about someone _else_ making the decision for a patient to die, but whether the patient _themselves_ have the right to seek that help.
> 
> Now if the patient has a terminal, incurable, disease (particularly if it is degenerative in some fashion) and wants to seek a lethal dose of medication that _they_ will administer themselves (thus the ASSISTED part of the equation) then yes.
> 
> 2) If a patient doesn't have a disease that inflicts pain, is terminal, and/or degenerative, than no, a physician shouldn't assist them in their suicide attempt. If they don't wish to live for solely personal reasons then that is their business but they shouldn't involve other people in it.
> 
> 3) Again no. As I said, I disagree with Euthanasia. Family, doctors, social workers etc. shouldn't be making that call. If we leave it in the hands of the patients to decide (within boundaries) then I don't think the "slippery slope" will be a problem.
> 
> 4) As for having family present, this, like the choice to take the lethal dose of medication, should be left up to the patient. They could choose to have them there when they give themselves the dosage, or to do it prior and then let family come in to say their final goodbyes. There would be no end to the ways this could be handled and wouldn't, really, be any different then families already standing vigil over someone dear on their final death watch.
> 
> These answers, of course, are simply my own 0.02$ worth and YMMV.
Click to expand...


So you are in favor of physician assisted suicide then?


----------



## koshergrl

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right up Noomi's alley.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why must you always think the worst of someone? And please don't invoke Godwins Law. It means you have lost the argument.
Click to expand...


I don't always think the worst of everyone. I think very badly of people who promote the killing of innocent people; I don't care what the excuse is, it's a vile and perverted practice and has never brought any good to anyone.

But those who are committed to it don't care.


----------



## rightwinger

AmyNation said:


> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?



Absolutely

You are now "allowed" to die by removing feeding tubes or a respirator and you can suffer for your last hours or days till you finally die. Barbaric

It shouldn't be done on a whim and there needs to be a formal process to end someones life but the patient should have the choice to say ...enough


----------



## koshergrl

Why don't you share the numbers of people being force fed?

The myth that there's this whole food-sucking population of brain dead money drains is a myth perpetuated by people who want the right to kill off undesirables.


----------



## Katzndogz

Why stop at the numbers being fed.   Include the numbers of people who need swallowing therapy.   Effective counseling can raise the numbers of people who have decided to accept suicide and save the state a fortune.

Why don't we start with the prisons?   Counsel lifers and those serving 10 year plus sentences that death is preferable to a life locked up.


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> Why don't you share the numbers of people being force fed?
> 
> The myth that there's this whole food-sucking population of brain dead money drains is a myth perpetuated by people who want the right to kill off undesirables.



These cases need to be handled on a case by case basis

My father was deprived of oxygen and ended up brain dead and in a coma. His wishes had always been to not let him linger like that. He was very specific

We were required to let him stay in that state for 48 hours and finally remove his respirator. Even then it took two hours of him gasping before he finally passed.

The humane thing would be a lethal injection to allow him to quickly pass rather than force him to linger for days


----------



## AmyNation

rightwinger said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you share the numbers of people being force fed?
> 
> The myth that there's this whole food-sucking population of brain dead money drains is a myth perpetuated by people who want the right to kill off undesirables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These cases need to be handled on a case by case basis
> 
> My father was deprived of oxygen and ended up brain dead and in a coma. His wishes had always been to not let him linger like that. He was very specific
> 
> We were required to let him stay in that state for 48 hours and finally remove his respirator. Even then it took two hours of him gasping before he finally passed.
> 
> The humane thing would be a lethal injection to allow him to quickly pass rather than force him to linger for days
Click to expand...


It took my grandmother more than a week to die. She had several mini strokes and eventually fell into a comatose state. She was given a host of pain meds as her body slowly starved and died.


----------



## Aristotle

rightwinger said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> You are now "allowed" to die by removing feeding tubes or a respirator and you can suffer for your last hours or days till you finally die. Barbaric
> 
> It shouldn't be done on a whim and there needs to be a formal process to end someones life but the patient should have the choice to say ...enough
Click to expand...


But what if the terminally person ask to die because they're terminally ill?


I assume you've never worked in a hospital before. There are many dying patients. Some want to die because they know they're dying anyway. Others want to die because of excessive and severe pain.

But nobody here wants to discuss the criteria of death.


----------



## Aristotle

I dont want to sound rude but just because you guys share your own personal experiences with your loved ones who suffered, does mean you come up with a logical reason for euthanasia. Pain should not be the sole criteria for euthanasia nor should the patient asking for it. Euthanasia is a slippery slope. You allow euthanasia might as well allow it for people with clinical depression.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Physician Assissted Suicide? I like to call it "Western Medicine".


----------



## AmyNation

Aristotle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> You are now "allowed" to die by removing feeding tubes or a respirator and you can suffer for your last hours or days till you finally die. Barbaric
> 
> It shouldn't be done on a whim and there needs to be a formal process to end someones life but the patient should have the choice to say ...enough
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if the terminally person ask to die because they're terminally ill?
> 
> 
> I assume you've never worked in a hospital before. There are many dying patients. Some want to die because they know they're dying anyway. Others want to die because of excessive and severe pain.
> 
> But nobody here wants to discuss the criteria of death.
Click to expand...


Hmmm...

Terminal illness
Chronic pain
Debilitating illness

The patient should be able to petition the hospital for physican assistance and then a panel of doctors should review the case to insure that the patient is of sound mind, understands what they are asking for and is under no coercion.


----------



## Katzndogz

AmyNation said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> You are now "allowed" to die by removing feeding tubes or a respirator and you can suffer for your last hours or days till you finally die. Barbaric
> 
> It shouldn't be done on a whim and there needs to be a formal process to end someones life but the patient should have the choice to say ...enough
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what if the terminally person ask to die because they're terminally ill?
> 
> 
> I assume you've never worked in a hospital before. There are many dying patients. Some want to die because they know they're dying anyway. Others want to die because of excessive and severe pain.
> 
> But nobody here wants to discuss the criteria of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> Terminal illness
> Chronic pain
> Debilitating illness
> 
> The patient should be able to petition the hospital for physican assistance and then a panel of doctors should review the case to insure that the patient is of sound mind, understands what they are asking for and is under no coercion.
Click to expand...


We all have a terminal illness.   It's called living.


----------



## AmyNation

Aristotle said:


> I dont want to sound rude but just because you guys share your own personal experiences with your loved ones who suffered, does mean you come up with a logical reason for euthanasia. Pain should not be the sole criteria for euthanasia nor should the patient asking for it. Euthanasia is a slippery slope. You allow euthanasia might as well allow it for people with clinical depression.



Euthanasia is not the same as physican assisted suicide. I would say, it would have to be written in a will by the person, death would have to be certain and verified by a panel of independent doctors and signed off on by at least 2 members of the family, the patients physican and the independent panel. And if any objection is raised by any family member, then it's an automatic no.


----------



## AmyNation

Katzndogz said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if the terminally person ask to die because they're terminally ill?
> 
> 
> I assume you've never worked in a hospital before. There are many dying patients. Some want to die because they know they're dying anyway. Others want to die because of excessive and severe pain.
> 
> But nobody here wants to discuss the criteria of death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> Terminal illness
> Chronic pain
> Debilitating illness
> 
> The patient should be able to petition the hospital for physican assistance and then a panel of doctors should review the case to insure that the patient is of sound mind, understands what they are asking for and is under no coercion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all have a terminal illness.   It's called living.
Click to expand...


And you have the right to kill yourself any time you want.


----------



## Aristotle

AmyNation said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont want to sound rude but just because you guys share your own personal experiences with your loved ones who suffered, does mean you come up with a logical reason for euthanasia. Pain should not be the sole criteria for euthanasia nor should the patient asking for it. Euthanasia is a slippery slope. You allow euthanasia might as well allow it for people with clinical depression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Euthanasia is not the same as physican assisted suicide. I would say, it would have to be written in a will by the person, death would have to be certain and verified by a panel of independent doctors and signed off on by at least 2 members of the family, the patients physican and the independent panel. And if any objection is raised by any family member, then it's an automatic no.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about that is what it is!


----------



## AmyNation

Aristotle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont want to sound rude but just because you guys share your own personal experiences with your loved ones who suffered, does mean you come up with a logical reason for euthanasia. Pain should not be the sole criteria for euthanasia nor should the patient asking for it. Euthanasia is a slippery slope. You allow euthanasia might as well allow it for people with clinical depression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Euthanasia is not the same as physican assisted suicide. I would say, it would have to be written in a will by the person, death would have to be certain and verified by a panel of independent doctors and signed off on by at least 2 members of the family, the patients physican and the independent panel. And if any objection is raised by any family member, then it's an automatic no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about that is what it is!
Click to expand...


----------



## Katzndogz

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> These cases need to be handled on a case by case basis
> 
> My father was deprived of oxygen and ended up brain dead and in a coma. His wishes had always been to not let him linger like that. He was very specific
> 
> We were required to let him stay in that state for 48 hours and finally remove his respirator. Even then it took two hours of him gasping before he finally passed.
> 
> The humane thing would be a lethal injection to allow him to quickly pass rather than force him to linger for days
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was brain dead, he really didn't know he was gasping, did he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point?
Click to expand...


Giving him a lethal injection is a waste of money.  He wasn't suffering and it was dishonest of you to portray this as ending suffering.


----------



## rightwinger

Katzndogz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he was brain dead, he really didn't know he was gasping, did he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Giving him a lethal injection is a waste of money.  He wasn't suffering and it was dishonest of you to portray this as ending suffering.
Click to expand...


It goes beyond money and towards quality of life and one simple question.....

What is life?


----------



## koshergrl

Aristotle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> You are now "allowed" to die by removing feeding tubes or a respirator and you can suffer for your last hours or days till you finally die. Barbaric
> 
> It shouldn't be done on a whim and there needs to be a formal process to end someones life but the patient should have the choice to say ...enough
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what if the terminally person ask to die because they're terminally ill?
> 
> 
> I assume you've never worked in a hospital before. There are many dying patients. Some want to die because they know they're dying anyway. Others want to die because of excessive and severe pain.
> 
> But nobody here wants to discuss the criteria of death.
Click to expand...

 
If they have a terminal illness, they will die.


----------



## Aristotle

AmyNation said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Euthanasia is not the same as physican assisted suicide. I would say, it would have to be written in a will by the person, death would have to be certain and verified by a panel of independent doctors and signed off on by at least 2 members of the family, the patients physican and the independent panel. And if any objection is raised by any family member, then it's an automatic no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about that is what it is!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I was talking about euthanasia. It is physician assisted suicide.


----------



## Katzndogz

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Giving him a lethal injection is a waste of money.  He wasn't suffering and it was dishonest of you to portray this as ending suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It goes beyond money and towards quality of life and one simple question.....
> 
> What is life?
Click to expand...


The minute we start making that judgment we have lost our humanity.

I would say that Stephen Hawking has a terrible quality of life.   No one should be forced to live like that.   What does Stephen Hawking say about it?  Christopher Reeve had an abysmal quality of life too.   How many celebrities have a quality of life anyone would want and commit suicide?    Making judgements is something we should studiously avoid.


----------



## rightwinger

Katzndogz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giving him a lethal injection is a waste of money.  He wasn't suffering and it was dishonest of you to portray this as ending suffering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It goes beyond money and towards quality of life and one simple question.....
> 
> What is life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The minute we start making that judgment we have lost our humanity.
> 
> I would say that Stephen Hawking has a terrible quality of life.   No one should be forced to live like that.   What does Stephen Hawking say about it?  Christopher Reeve had an abysmal quality of life too.   How many celebrities have a quality of life anyone would want and commit suicide?    Making judgements is something we should studiously avoid.
Click to expand...


What DID they say about it?

As it is, we ignore the wishes of the patient in order to placate those who are unwilling to acknowledge the needs and wishes of those afflicted


----------



## AmyNation

Aristotle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about that is what it is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about euthanasia. It is physician assisted suicide.
Click to expand...


No, not the same.

Physical assisted sucide is where someone has actively asked for help. The physican supplies the means for the patient to die, giving the person the drugs but allowing them to push the button or take the pills etc. The doctor is the supplier but is not an active participant in the death.

In euthanasia the person is unable to ask for help and the decision is on the doctors and family, and the person who administers the drugs is the doctor not the person who is dying/ill.


----------



## koshergrl

Yeah, that's what all the death advocates say.

There are "degrees" of murder....er, killing. There are important tiny differences in the "why" and "wherefores" which is the only way they can distinguish it from murder.


----------



## AmyNation

koshergrl said:


> Yeah, that's what all the death advocates say.
> 
> There are "degrees" of murder....er, killing. There are important tiny differences in the "why" and "wherefores" which is the only way they can distinguish it from murder.



Murder- the unlawful killing of one human by another

Suicide - the action of killing oneself intentionally 

See the difference?


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, it's infintesimal, as I said. Pretty much just a language thing..

Which is what the death cult is all about. Change the language to accomodate depravity and murder.


----------



## koshergrl

No, the difference between murder and ASSISTED suicide is a language thing.

It's the "assist" part, you see, that makes the difference. Essentially, lefties campaign to make murder into something else. In this case, they are pretending that murder isn't murder if you're "assisting" someone to kill themself..but they aren't able to (for whatever reason).

Technically, suicide is a crime as well....


----------



## AmyNation

koshergrl said:


> No, the difference between murder and ASSISTED suicide is a language thing.
> 
> It's the "assist" part, you see, that makes the difference. Essentially, lefties campaign to make murder into something else. In this case, they are pretending that murder isn't murder if you're "assisting" someone to kill themself..but they aren't able to (for whatever reason).
> 
> Technically, suicide is a crime as well....



Suicide is not a crime, hasn't been for several years now.

Assisted suicide is giving someone the means to kill themselves, you think that's the same as murder, I disagree.


----------



## Katzndogz

So says every spouse who says "I killed her(him) because she wanted to die.


----------



## AmyNation

Katzndogz said:


> So says every spouse who says "I killed her(him) because she wanted to die.





An accurate analogy would be "I loaded and cocked the gun for him/her so she could shoot herself"


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> No, the difference between murder and ASSISTED suicide is a language thing.
> 
> It's the "assist" part, you see, that makes the difference. Essentially, lefties campaign to make murder into something else. In this case, they are pretending that murder isn't murder if you're "assisting" someone to kill themself..but they aren't able to (for whatever reason).
> 
> Technically, suicide is a crime as well....



If there's a crime, it would have to be attempted suicide, since once you've committed suicide, it's too late to bother charging you with anything.  

Assisted suicide, at least as I understand the way people have attempted to have it legalized, is about providing drugs with which a person can kill themselves.  Calling it murder seems to ignore any personal responsibility on the part of the person killing themselves.  It would be more of an accessory to attempted suicide, I think.  I understand you are opposed to the practice, and can even understand the arguments as to why it is a bad idea to legalize, but going overboard and saying it's murder (or invoking the Nazis, because that never gets old....) doesn't strengthen your argument.  It does the opposite.


----------



## African

Its a criminal act


----------



## koshergrl

Katzndogz said:


> So says every spouse who says "I killed her(him) because she wanted to die.


 

"He told me to"
"He was in pain"
"He was depressed"
"He felt he was a burden"
"He felt it was time to leave his $$ to me"

And so on.

Gotta love excuses for murder.


----------



## koshergrl

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the difference between murder and ASSISTED suicide is a language thing.
> 
> It's the "assist" part, you see, that makes the difference. Essentially, lefties campaign to make murder into something else. In this case, they are pretending that murder isn't murder if you're "assisting" someone to kill themself..but they aren't able to (for whatever reason).
> 
> Technically, suicide is a crime as well....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there's a crime, it would have to be attempted suicide, since once you've committed suicide, it's too late to bother charging you with anything.
> 
> Assisted suicide, at least as I understand the way people have attempted to have it legalized, is about providing drugs with which a person can kill themselves. Calling it murder seems to ignore any personal responsibility on the part of the person killing themselves. It would be more of an accessory to attempted suicide, I think. I understand you are opposed to the practice, and can even understand the arguments as to why it is a bad idea to legalize, but going overboard and saying it's murder (or invoking the Nazis, because that never gets old....) doesn't strengthen your argument. It does the opposite.
Click to expand...

 
No, I think assisted suicide also includes administration of lethal doses of drugs.


----------



## AmyNation

koshergrl said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the difference between murder and ASSISTED suicide is a language thing.
> 
> It's the "assist" part, you see, that makes the difference. Essentially, lefties campaign to make murder into something else. In this case, they are pretending that murder isn't murder if you're "assisting" someone to kill themself..but they aren't able to (for whatever reason).
> 
> Technically, suicide is a crime as well....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there's a crime, it would have to be attempted suicide, since once you've committed suicide, it's too late to bother charging you with anything.
> 
> Assisted suicide, at least as I understand the way people have attempted to have it legalized, is about providing drugs with which a person can kill themselves. Calling it murder seems to ignore any personal responsibility on the part of the person killing themselves. It would be more of an accessory to attempted suicide, I think. I understand you are opposed to the practice, and can even understand the arguments as to why it is a bad idea to legalize, but going overboard and saying it's murder (or invoking the Nazis, because that never gets old....) doesn't strengthen your argument. It does the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I think assisted suicide also includes administration of lethal doses of drugs.
Click to expand...


It does,administered by the person killing themselves.


----------



## koshergrl

No, I mean like a prescription for that specific purpose.






*Search Results*



*as·sist·ed su·i·cide*

Noun:The suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose.

Yup, I was right.


----------



## geauxtohell

rightwinger said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel terminally ill patients should have the right to ask doctors to help them die? Do we as a nation spend too much time trying to keep people alive that we have abandoned the notion of allowing people to have a dignified death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> You are now "allowed" to die by removing feeding tubes or a respirator and you can suffer for your last hours or days till you finally die. Barbaric
> 
> It shouldn't be done on a whim and there needs to be a formal process to end someones life but the patient should have the choice to say ...enough
Click to expand...


I just transferred a patient to hospice care today.

This issue is infinitely more complicated then people realize and, unless you have experienced it or are around it a lot, you probably wouldn't understand and your preconceived notions about death and dying and your personal religious beliefs mean little at the end of the day.  especially when it comes to someone else's pain and suffering.  

If you'd personally suffer in agony then do anything that could potentially offend the higher deity of your choice, you have that right.  You don't have the right to inflict that on other people.


----------



## koshergrl

Sure you do.

You have the right to live, even if you are in great pain, even if your life annoys the hell out of other people.

You do NOT have the right to demand that other people kill you..and people do not have the right to off people based on whether or not they want to care for them or not....


----------



## AmyNation

koshergrl said:


> No, I mean like a prescription for that specific purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Search Results*
> 
> 
> 
> *as·sist·ed su·i·cide*
> 
> Noun:The suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose.
> 
> Yup, I was right.



About the patient injecting themselves with drugs?


----------



## koshergrl

That's suicide.

It's ASSISTED suicide if the doctor prescribes a lethal dose for the specific purpose of killing his or herself.

This isn't all that complicated.


----------



## geauxtohell

koshergrl said:


> Sure you do.
> 
> You have the right to live, even if you are in great pain, even if your life annoys the hell out of other people.
> 
> You do NOT have the right to demand that other people kill you..and people do not have the right to off people based on whether or not they want to care for them or not....



And if only that were the actual reality of this debate, I would agree with you.  The very few people who have utilized Oregon's "Death With Dignity" act haven't been forced to do so by others and they haven't forced anyone to kill them.


----------



## koshergrl

That's your opinion, of course.
But really, you don't know.


----------



## geauxtohell

koshergrl said:


> That's your opinion, of course.
> But really, you don't know.



Which must be wrong as opposed to...... your opinion?


----------



## AmyNation

koshergrl said:


> That's suicide.
> 
> It's ASSISTED suicide if the doctor prescribes a lethal dose for the specific purpose of killing his or herself.
> 
> This isn't all that complicated.



Well yes, but it's still suicide, because you are killing yourself.


----------



## koshergrl

AmyNation said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's suicide.
> 
> It's ASSISTED suicide if the doctor prescribes a lethal dose for the specific purpose of killing his or herself.
> 
> This isn't all that complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, but it's still suicide, because you are killing yourself.
Click to expand...

 
And just in case you don't want to, Obama has some people who will talk you into it.


----------



## Aristotle

AmyNation said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about euthanasia. It is physician assisted suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not the same.
> 
> Physical assisted sucide is where someone has actively asked for help. The physican supplies the means for the patient to die, giving the person the drugs but allowing them to push the button or take the pills etc. The doctor is the supplier but is not an active participant in the death.
> 
> In euthanasia the person is unable to ask for help and the decision is on the doctors and family, and the person who administers the drugs is the doctor not the person who is dying/ill.
Click to expand...


Are you serious with this answer?

You're assuming (very badly) that there is a difference based on the communication between the physician and the patient. If the doctor gives a patient a lethal dose of medication whether the patient administers this dose via orally or intravenously its called Euthanasia. Euthanasia whether the patient communicates it to the doctor or not its still euthanasia. I don't understand how you dont understand it.


----------



## AmyNation

Aristotle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about euthanasia. It is physician assisted suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not the same.
> 
> Physical assisted sucide is where someone has actively asked for help. The physican supplies the means for the patient to die, giving the person the drugs but allowing them to push the button or take the pills etc. The doctor is the supplier but is not an active participant in the death.
> 
> In euthanasia the person is unable to ask for help and the decision is on the doctors and family, and the person who administers the drugs is the doctor not the person who is dying/ill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious with this answer?
> 
> You're assuming (very badly) that there is a difference based on the communication between the physician and the patient. If the doctor gives a patient a lethal dose of medication whether the patient administers this dose via orally or intravenously its called Euthanasia. Euthanasia whether the patient communicates it to the doctor or not its still euthanasia. I don't understand how you dont understand it.
Click to expand...


I don't consider euthanasia the same as assisted suicide. I do think it matters if you shoot me, or you load the gun and then hand it to me. I see a distinction.


----------



## Aristotle

AmyNation said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not the same.
> 
> Physical assisted sucide is where someone has actively asked for help. The physican supplies the means for the patient to die, giving the person the drugs but allowing them to push the button or take the pills etc. The doctor is the supplier but is not an active participant in the death.
> 
> In euthanasia the person is unable to ask for help and the decision is on the doctors and family, and the person who administers the drugs is the doctor not the person who is dying/ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious with this answer?
> 
> You're assuming (very badly) that there is a difference based on the communication between the physician and the patient. If the doctor gives a patient a lethal dose of medication whether the patient administers this dose via orally or intravenously its called Euthanasia. Euthanasia whether the patient communicates it to the doctor or not its still euthanasia. I don't understand how you dont understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't consider euthanasia the same as assisted suicide. I do think it matters if you shoot me, or you load the gun and then hand it to me. I see a distinction.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what you think, the medical board is in agreement that Euthanasia means physician assisted suicide.


----------



## AmyNation

Aristotle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious with this answer?
> 
> You're assuming (very badly) that there is a difference based on the communication between the physician and the patient. If the doctor gives a patient a lethal dose of medication whether the patient administers this dose via orally or intravenously its called Euthanasia. Euthanasia whether the patient communicates it to the doctor or not its still euthanasia. I don't understand how you dont understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider euthanasia the same as assisted suicide. I do think it matters if you shoot me, or you load the gun and then hand it to me. I see a distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think, the medical board is in agreement that Euthanasia means physician assisted suicide.
Click to expand...


I'm aware that PAS is considered a category of euthanasia, however that is a really broad brush.


----------



## koshergrl

Euthanasia isn't the same as assisted suicide, but it's still just a matter of degrees.

Euthanasia is the *next step*.


----------



## geauxtohell

Jarlaxle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont want to sound rude but just because you guys share your own personal experiences with your loved ones who suffered, does mean you come up with a logical reason for euthanasia. Pain should not be the sole criteria for euthanasia nor should the patient asking for it. Euthanasia is a slippery slope. You allow euthanasia might as well allow it for people with clinical depression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Euthanasia is not the same as physican assisted suicide. I would say, it would have to be written in a will by the person, death would have to be certain and verified by a panel of independent doctors and signed off on by at least 2 members of the family, the patients physican and the independent panel. And if any objection is raised by any family member, then it's an automatic no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...you want my crazy sister (who I can't stand and haven't seen in years) able to forcibly keep me alive for months (or YEARS!) with ALS?  You want her able to force my wife (who she loathes) to die in agony of cancer?  (Yes, she IS fully capable of doing either of those solely to hurt my wife!)  Not just no, I say *HELL NO!*
Click to expand...


It sounds like you have a specific issue with a family member.  The rational thing to do is to get an advanced directive and remove any decisional capacity from her.  This happens all the time and your wishes will be easily honored.  Especially if they are in writing.  

I am sorry you have ALS.  It's a horrible disease.


----------



## geauxtohell

Aristotle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious with this answer?
> 
> You're assuming (very badly) that there is a difference based on the communication between the physician and the patient. If the doctor gives a patient a lethal dose of medication whether the patient administers this dose via orally or intravenously its called Euthanasia. Euthanasia whether the patient communicates it to the doctor or not its still euthanasia. I don't understand how you dont understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider euthanasia the same as assisted suicide. I do think it matters if you shoot me, or you load the gun and then hand it to me. I see a distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think, the medical board is in agreement that Euthanasia means physician assisted suicide.
Click to expand...


What medical board?


----------



## geauxtohell

koshergrl said:


> Euthanasia isn't the same as assisted suicide, but it's still just a matter of degrees.
> 
> Euthanasia is the *next step*.



So....  Ultimately.....  Another "slippery slope" argument.

I reject that.  There is a big and distinguishable difference between PAS and euthanasia that boils down to who administers the lethal drug.


----------



## Aristotle

geauxtohell said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider euthanasia the same as assisted suicide. I do think it matters if you shoot me, or you load the gun and then hand it to me. I see a distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think, the medical board is in agreement that Euthanasia means physician assisted suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What medical board?
Click to expand...


Well for starters the California Medical Association. In 1988 the board of trustees voted to oppose the "humane and dignified death act" and also proposition 161, "Death with dignity act" in which this board felt:

"Legalizing physician "aid-in-dying" would introduce disturbing potentials for abuse. The "right" to a lethal injection could become an expectation of appropriate behavior, and then a duty, pressed forward by other demands on scarce resources and by the perceived burden imposed on others. Further down this "slippery slope," an expectation might arise for other "unfit" members of society (e.g., certain disabled individuals) to voluntarily end their expensive suffering as well."

As I mentioned before they also discussed psychological factors in the following:

"Suicide is rarely a rational decision; most often it is a psychologically abnormal event associated with depression or other disorders. This has been found to be as true among terminal patients as among others. Suicidal behavior suggests a condition deserving medical treatment, not lethal medication."

Regarding pain, they said in the following: 

"Pain suffered by the vast majority of terminal patients can be controlled, and other needs, including emotional counseling and support, can be provided for through hospice care. Legalizing euthanasia could undermine efforts to further improve pain control and to promote hospice care, since an expectation could arise that terminal patients should simply dispatch themselves rather than consume valuable resources by "prolonging the inevitable."

See: California Medical Association Policy On Physician-Assisted Suicide


----------



## geauxtohell

Aristotle said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think, the medical board is in agreement that Euthanasia means physician assisted suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What medical board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well for starters the California Medical Association. In 1988 the board of trustees voted to oppose the "humane and dignified death act" and also proposition 161, "Death with dignity act" in which this board felt:
> 
> "Legalizing physician "aid-in-dying" would introduce disturbing potentials for abuse. The "right" to a lethal injection could become an expectation of appropriate behavior, and then a duty, pressed forward by other demands on scarce resources and by the perceived burden imposed on others. Further down this "slippery slope," an expectation might arise for other "unfit" members of society (e.g., certain disabled individuals) to voluntarily end their expensive suffering as well."
> 
> As I mentioned before they also discussed psychological factors in the following:
> 
> "Suicide is rarely a rational decision; most often it is a psychologically abnormal event associated with depression or other disorders. This has been found to be as true among terminal patients as among others. Suicidal behavior suggests a condition deserving medical treatment, not lethal medication."
> 
> Regarding pain, they said in the following:
> 
> "Pain suffered by the vast majority of terminal patients can be controlled, and other needs, including emotional counseling and support, can be provided for through hospice care. Legalizing euthanasia could undermine efforts to further improve pain control and to promote hospice care, since an expectation could arise that terminal patients should simply dispatch themselves rather than consume valuable resources by "prolonging the inevitable."
> 
> See: California Medical Association Policy On Physician-Assisted Suicide
Click to expand...


And the Oregon Medical Board says something completely different.  To act like their is some sort of national consensus on this issue is stretching the truth.

Pain can be controlled to an extent in hospice.  However, it is acknowledged that by administering morphine or narcotics to control pain, you are likely shortening life.  So, again, we can't get around this sticky issue that everyone is going to die and there is only so much medical science can do about that fact.   Some people are going to suffer as they die.  In an attempt to alleviate that suffering, you shorten their life.  

So there you go.


----------



## Aristotle

geauxtohell said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What medical board?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well for starters the California Medical Association. In 1988 the board of trustees voted to oppose the "humane and dignified death act" and also proposition 161, "Death with dignity act" in which this board felt:
> 
> "Legalizing physician "aid-in-dying" would introduce disturbing potentials for abuse. The "right" to a lethal injection could become an expectation of appropriate behavior, and then a duty, pressed forward by other demands on scarce resources and by the perceived burden imposed on others. Further down this "slippery slope," an expectation might arise for other "unfit" members of society (e.g., certain disabled individuals) to voluntarily end their expensive suffering as well."
> 
> As I mentioned before they also discussed psychological factors in the following:
> 
> "Suicide is rarely a rational decision; most often it is a psychologically abnormal event associated with depression or other disorders. This has been found to be as true among terminal patients as among others. Suicidal behavior suggests a condition deserving medical treatment, not lethal medication."
> 
> Regarding pain, they said in the following:
> 
> "Pain suffered by the vast majority of terminal patients can be controlled, and other needs, including emotional counseling and support, can be provided for through hospice care. Legalizing euthanasia could undermine efforts to further improve pain control and to promote hospice care, since an expectation could arise that terminal patients should simply dispatch themselves rather than consume valuable resources by "prolonging the inevitable."
> 
> See: California Medical Association Policy On Physician-Assisted Suicide
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Oregon Medical Board says something completely different.  To act like their is some sort of national consensus on this issue is stretching the truth.
> 
> Pain can be controlled to an extent in hospice.  However, it is acknowledged that by administering morphine or narcotics to control pain, you are likely shortening life.  So, again, we can't get around this sticky issue that everyone is going to die and there is only so much medical science can do about that fact.   Some people are going to suffer as they die.  In an attempt to alleviate that suffering, you shorten their life.
> 
> So there you go.
Click to expand...


Well one may argue that shortening the life of someone terminally ill and in constant discomfort may actually be a good thing. I mean, who wants to prolong suffering anyway?


----------



## geauxtohell

Aristotle said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for starters the California Medical Association. In 1988 the board of trustees voted to oppose the "humane and dignified death act" and also proposition 161, "Death with dignity act" in which this board felt:
> 
> "Legalizing physician "aid-in-dying" would introduce disturbing potentials for abuse. The "right" to a lethal injection could become an expectation of appropriate behavior, and then a duty, pressed forward by other demands on scarce resources and by the perceived burden imposed on others. Further down this "slippery slope," an expectation might arise for other "unfit" members of society (e.g., certain disabled individuals) to voluntarily end their expensive suffering as well."
> 
> As I mentioned before they also discussed psychological factors in the following:
> 
> "Suicide is rarely a rational decision; most often it is a psychologically abnormal event associated with depression or other disorders. This has been found to be as true among terminal patients as among others. Suicidal behavior suggests a condition deserving medical treatment, not lethal medication."
> 
> Regarding pain, they said in the following:
> 
> "Pain suffered by the vast majority of terminal patients can be controlled, and other needs, including emotional counseling and support, can be provided for through hospice care. Legalizing euthanasia could undermine efforts to further improve pain control and to promote hospice care, since an expectation could arise that terminal patients should simply dispatch themselves rather than consume valuable resources by "prolonging the inevitable."
> 
> See: California Medical Association Policy On Physician-Assisted Suicide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Oregon Medical Board says something completely different.  To act like their is some sort of national consensus on this issue is stretching the truth.
> 
> Pain can be controlled to an extent in hospice.  However, it is acknowledged that by administering morphine or narcotics to control pain, you are likely shortening life.  So, again, we can't get around this sticky issue that everyone is going to die and there is only so much medical science can do about that fact.   Some people are going to suffer as they die.  In an attempt to alleviate that suffering, you shorten their life.
> 
> So there you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well one may argue that shortening the life of someone terminally ill and in constant discomfort may actually be a good thing. I mean, who wants to prolong suffering anyway?
Click to expand...


The goal of hospice care isn't to shorten life to prevent suffering, it's to make people as comfortable as possible in their terminal state.  The byproduct of that might be to shorten life, but that is not intended.  It's just accepted.  If you hit someone with enough narcotics, you are going to shorten their respiratory drive to the point where eventually they are going to go into respiratory failure. 

Though, if you feel that way, I can't understand your problem with PAS.

I think everyone agrees that "euthanasia" (which is not the same as PAS, as much as you might want to claim differently) is a bad thing and should never be tolerated.


----------



## Jarlaxle

geauxtohell said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Euthanasia is not the same as physican assisted suicide. I would say, it would have to be written in a will by the person, death would have to be certain and verified by a panel of independent doctors and signed off on by at least 2 members of the family, the patients physican and the independent panel. And if any objection is raised by any family member, then it's an automatic no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...you want my crazy sister (who I can't stand and haven't seen in years) able to forcibly keep me alive for months (or YEARS!) with ALS?  You want her able to force my wife (who she loathes) to die in agony of cancer?  (Yes, she IS fully capable of doing either of those solely to hurt my wife!)  Not just no, I say *HELL NO!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like you have a specific issue with a family member.  The rational thing to do is to get an advanced directive and remove any decisional capacity from her.  This happens all the time and your wishes will be easily honored.  Especially if they are in writing.
> 
> I am sorry you have ALS.  It's a horrible disease.
Click to expand...


I do not have ALS...it was the first thing that popped into my head.  If I am ever diagnosed with it, I will suck-start a shotgun that day.


----------



## Aristotle

geauxtohell said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Oregon Medical Board says something completely different.  To act like their is some sort of national consensus on this issue is stretching the truth.
> 
> Pain can be controlled to an extent in hospice.  However, it is acknowledged that by administering morphine or narcotics to control pain, you are likely shortening life.  So, again, we can't get around this sticky issue that everyone is going to die and there is only so much medical science can do about that fact.   Some people are going to suffer as they die.  In an attempt to alleviate that suffering, you shorten their life.
> 
> So there you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well one may argue that shortening the life of someone terminally ill and in constant discomfort may actually be a good thing. I mean, who wants to prolong suffering anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The goal of hospice care isn't to shorten life to prevent suffering, it's to make people as comfortable as possible in their terminal state.  The byproduct of that might be to shorten life, but that is not intended.  It's just accepted.  If you hit someone with enough narcotics, you are going to shorten their respiratory drive to the point where eventually they are going to go into respiratory failure.
> 
> Though, if you feel that way, I can't understand your problem with PAS.
> 
> I think everyone agrees that "euthanasia" (which is not the same as PAS, as much as you might want to claim differently) is a bad thing and should never be tolerated.
Click to expand...


I know about the goal of hospice care. I am saying as a sidenote, that the pain meds that may shorten the life may actually be a good thing.


----------



## koshergrl

Jarlaxle said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...you want my crazy sister (who I can't stand and haven't seen in years) able to forcibly keep me alive for months (or YEARS!) with ALS?  You want her able to force my wife (who she loathes) to die in agony of cancer?  (Yes, she IS fully capable of doing either of those solely to hurt my wife!)  Not just no, I say *HELL NO!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you have a specific issue with a family member.  The rational thing to do is to get an advanced directive and remove any decisional capacity from her.  This happens all the time and your wishes will be easily honored.  Especially if they are in writing.
> 
> I am sorry you have ALS.  It's a horrible disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not have ALS...it was the first thing that popped into my head.  If I am ever diagnosed with it, I will suck-start a shotgun that day.
Click to expand...


Good for you. So you don't need to worry about being kept forcibly alive.


----------



## koshergrl

geauxtohell said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Euthanasia isn't the same as assisted suicide, but it's still just a matter of degrees.
> 
> Euthanasia is the *next step*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....  Ultimately.....  Another "slippery slope" argument.
> 
> I reject that.  There is a big and distinguishable difference between PAS and euthanasia that boils down to who administers the lethal drug.
Click to expand...


That's not a big difference.


----------



## PaulS1950

Koshergrl,
I am advocating only that each individual has the right to decide when their life is no longer livable.
There is no need for counseling unless a person wants it. (there is no way counseling will help if they don't want it)
The individual right of choice is an inherent right.


----------



## Grandma

geauxtohell said:


> I think everyone agrees that "euthanasia" (which is not the same as PAS, as much as you might want to claim differently) is a bad thing and should never be tolerated.



I disagree. A strict criteria would have to be developed and written into the law books, but there are cases for euthanasia.

There was a baby that was born without most of his brain. He was kept on life support. The parents wanted to pull the plug, but the doctors refused. They had to get a court order, and it took two appeals. If you've never given birth, you have no idea how that mother had to feel. The baby had zero quality of life, would never grow and thrive, but was being kept alive indefinitely as a vegetable. The whole family suffered.

There was the Schaivo case, where her brain was basically jello. Why keep someone on a machine for years when there's absolutely no chance of survival?

There was a woman at a nursing home I worked at. If you've ever seen mummified remains, that's how the poor thing looked. She was dried up and in a fetal position, weighing maybe 80 pounds. Maybe less. She couldn't speak. She never closed her blind eyes. She never moved at all. She developed bedsores. The nurse had trouble with the IVs and feeding tube because the woman was so incredibly thin and fragile. I felt so sorry for her. I was still into organized religion at the time and I prayed every night for her to be allowed to die.


----------



## Grandma

Men should be forced to bear children.


----------



## PaulS1950

Grandma said:


> Men should be forced to bear children.



That makes as much sense as saying that women should be forced not to bear children.

Using force to change patterns of thought rarely works and is never permanent.


----------



## geauxtohell

Grandma said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone agrees that "euthanasia" (which is not the same as PAS, as much as you might want to claim differently) is a bad thing and should never be tolerated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. A strict criteria would have to be developed and written into the law books, but there are cases for euthanasia.
> 
> There was a baby that was born without most of his brain. He was kept on life support. The parents wanted to pull the plug, but the doctors refused. They had to get a court order, and it took two appeals. If you've never given birth, you have no idea how that mother had to feel. The baby had zero quality of life, would never grow and thrive, but was being kept alive indefinitely as a vegetable. The whole family suffered.
> 
> There was the Schaivo case, where her brain was basically jello. Why keep someone on a machine for years when there's absolutely no chance of survival?
> 
> There was a woman at a nursing home I worked at. If you've ever seen mummified remains, that's how the poor thing looked. She was dried up and in a fetal position, weighing maybe 80 pounds. Maybe less. She couldn't speak. She never closed her blind eyes. She never moved at all. She developed bedsores. The nurse had trouble with the IVs and feeding tube because the woman was so incredibly thin and fragile. I felt so sorry for her. I was still into organized religion at the time and I prayed every night for her to be allowed to die.
Click to expand...



I don't see scenario 1 and 2 as euthanasia.   Withdrawing care is certainly not considered Euthanasia.

The last one would be if someone decided to take matters into their own hands on whether that person should live or die.

That is a criminal act.


----------



## geauxtohell

koshergrl said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a big difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a huge difference. Only the blind couldn't see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's a BRILLIANT argument.
> 
> It's not a huge difference. It's a tiny difference. Semantics.
Click to expand...


You shouldn't act so incredulous.  You basically bring your opinions and nothing else to every argument.  

At any rate.  It's a huge difference.  It's the central difference in this issue.


----------



## koshergrl

Says the loon who brings his own opinions and nothing else to every argument.


----------



## koshergrl

geauxtohell said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone agrees that "euthanasia" (which is not the same as PAS, as much as you might want to claim differently) is a bad thing and should never be tolerated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. A strict criteria would have to be developed and written into the law books, but there are cases for euthanasia.
> 
> There was a baby that was born without most of his brain. He was kept on life support. The parents wanted to pull the plug, but the doctors refused. They had to get a court order, and it took two appeals. If you've never given birth, you have no idea how that mother had to feel. The baby had zero quality of life, would never grow and thrive, but was being kept alive indefinitely as a vegetable. The whole family suffered.
> 
> There was the Schaivo case, where her brain was basically jello. Why keep someone on a machine for years when there's absolutely no chance of survival?
> 
> There was a woman at a nursing home I worked at. If you've ever seen mummified remains, that's how the poor thing looked. She was dried up and in a fetal position, weighing maybe 80 pounds. Maybe less. She couldn't speak. She never closed her blind eyes. She never moved at all. She developed bedsores. The nurse had trouble with the IVs and feeding tube because the woman was so incredibly thin and fragile. I felt so sorry for her. I was still into organized religion at the time and I prayed every night for her to be allowed to die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see scenario 1 and 2 as euthanasia. Withdrawing care is certainly not considered Euthanasia.
> 
> The last one would be if someone decided to take matters into their own hands on whether that person should live or die.
Click to expand...

 
In your opinion.


----------

