# Euthanasia



## Wry Catcher (Jul 11, 2012)

Should a person have the right, and should the medical profession have the legal authority to end a persons life under terms which the patient delineated in his Will/Trust?

Why?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 11, 2012)

Maybe not.   What someone says when they are in the best of health may not be the same thing when they are actually faced with the decision.

I had that very issue with my best friend.  For years she said she would not want to live if she were so sick as to no longer be able to take care of herself.   As the closest one to her she gave me her power of attorney for life ending decisions and make sure I knew under which circumstances she wished to die.

She got brain cancer and slowly lost the ability to care for herself.  She used diapers and had to be fed by hand.  She did not use a feeding tube.  She lost the ability to speak and couldn't walk.   She did understand what was said to her though and could communicate with great effort "yes" and "no" by moving her head up and down for yes or side to side for no.   When the time came and the doctors recommended removal to hospice where she would be denied food and water until she died they came to me to exercise final instructions.    I went to see her, I spoke with her and the woman who cared for her, fed her, cleaned her.  I told Tracy that for years she told me that if she couldn't take care of herself she wanted to be allowed to die and the time had come.   If she could answer at all, she had to tell me if this is what she truly wanted.  She stared at me for more than a few minutes, then slowly moved her head back and forth.  No matter how bad it was, she wanted to live.  Her caretaker wasn't surprised.   Tracy liked banana pudding and liked to watch television.   She also liked to have music on as she fell asleep.  How ever poor her quality of life had become, there was still some enjoyment left.  Tracy died about two months later, peacefully in her sleep.   Under the letter of what was in her written word, I could easily let her die a truly horrible and painful death by dehydration and starvation.   Maybe that's why she chose me to be the executor of her end of life decisions.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 11, 2012)

Suppose the Will/Trust doesn't provide for ending life, but all means including extraordinary means to keep them alive?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 11, 2012)

Your life belongs to you and no one else and is yours to do with as you wish including ending it whenever you want for whatever reason.


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 11, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Should a person have the right, and should the medical profession have the legal authority to end a persons life under terms which the patient delineated in his Will/Trust?
> 
> Why?



Yes, but not an absolute yes.

If someone is clinically ill or injured and is suffering, it should be his choice and a doc may assist.

A depressed or mentally challenged person is a tough call. Do we allow either to help kill themselves? Is there an age limit?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 11, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Suppose the Will/Trust doesn't provide for ending life, but all means including extraordinary means to keep them alive?



Most provide for a DNR, or not.  That is not the same and I doubt - but don't know - if a legally executed Will or Living Trust is able to cover euthanasia since the act itself is illegal.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 11, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Should a person have the right, and should the medical profession have the legal authority to end a persons life under terms which the patient delineated in his Will/Trust?
> ...



I think a person "in sound mind" can make the decision to end their life, and many do everyday.  The question however is if someone is in pain and suffering, are they of 'sound mind'?  

I would think if the choice is made when one is having a Will or Trust prepared, when they are in sound mind, they would likely put a clause in the document to the effect that when no medical intervention could alleviate the pain and suffering and the quality of life would for all intents and purposes be negligible a pain free and quick death should be provided.  I would also think that the document would be iron clad, once a medical professional (maybe two) agree the person holding power of attorney would have no legal right to change the patient's wishes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 11, 2012)

Doctors should never kill.

Period.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 11, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> Your life belongs to you and no one else and is yours to do with as you wish including ending it whenever you want for whatever reason.




So, if you went to visit your best friend and found him on a chair with a noose around his neck you'd just wish him a bon voyage and walk out?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 11, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Doctors should never kill.
> 
> Period.





Pos rep for excellent anti-abortion message.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 11, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Doctors should never kill.
> 
> Period.



Doctors do, everyday in America DNR's are honored; not acting to save a life when one has the ability to do so can be considered killing.  Turning off equipment keeping a patient alive is too.

Would you allow a loved one to suffer for days, weeks or months with no hope for a future?


----------



## Mr Natural (Jul 11, 2012)

There's big difference between living and being alive.

When my time comes, I sure as hell hope there's someone around with the good sense to pull the plug.


----------



## Peach (Jul 11, 2012)

No. As successful attempts by an individual cannot BE punished, and those unsuccessful will result in mental health care, why encourage this? Too much potential for DEADLY abuse if the 'right'.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2012)

Peach said:


> No. As successful attempts by an individual cannot BE punished, and those unsuccessful will result in mental health care, why encourage this? Too much potential for DEADLY abuse if the 'right'.



?  I see you are opposed to euthanasia; I don't understand your reasoning (other than too much potential for abuse).  What did you mean by your last sentence?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 12, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Doctors should never kill.
> ...



Damn, you really are stupid.

Obeying a DNR is not killing, euthanasia is, you are talking about two different things. 

Why ask me what I would do? Do you think that me insisting that doctors not kill would be inconsistent with me making some sort of choice I have not indicated I would make?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I'm not stupid; calling me a name does confirm my opinion that you're to 'weak' to engage in polite discourse. 

Of course you didn't respond to the second scenario wherein a doctor shuts off the equipment keeping someone alive.   

 In the abstract you are correct, not intervening when a patient's heart stops is not 'killing', it is however allowing a person to die when one has means to potentially prevent that death.  Turning off the equipment keeping someone alive is an affirmative action, do you believe a doctor engaging in such an act should be arrested, his license to practice medicine revoked, and if convicted place in prison?

As for allowing a loved one to suffer for days, weeks or months - how have you decided?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 12, 2012)

This is my body, and I believe I should have the right to exist this life when I choose, and how I choose. That means that if I become severely ill and have no quality of life, I want a doctor, or family member, whoever, to end my life for me if I am unable to end it myself.

People should not have the right to deny other people control over their own destinies.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 12, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Excuse me, this is not a political debate, it is a debate about a subject you know nothing about. Do not resuscitate orders are not euthanasia, only a complete and total ignoramus would ever confuse the two. That makes you stupid. your inability to admit that you were wrong in confusing them makes you pathetic. 

My personal decisions about a private issue are none of your business.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 12, 2012)

So, how would this issue be addressed in terms of payment of life insurance?  If you commit suicide life insurance does not pay off.  Even in it's most polite terms, euthanasia is a form of suicide.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 12, 2012)

What happens is that people sometimes change their minds.  What is reasonable when they are 30 is nonsense when they are 70.   It's like the 17  year old girl who says she'd rather die than not have a date for the prom.   If she doesnt' have a date, should she be put into a hospice until she's dead or given a quick and painless shot?   After all, there are instructions on when she wishes her life to end and under what circumstances.

In the Netherlands someone who is very ill is assumed to not have the mental capacity to make life ending decisions.  The familes of sick people are deemed too emotionally distraught to make life ending decisions.  Those decisions are with an impersonal panel who make a passionless cost benefit analysis (like Cass Sunstein wants to do) and finds for life or death based on how much treatment will cost.

It's what obama did when he told a woman that rather than a pacemaker to save her mother's life, mother should just be given a pill until she died.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It is a political issue and the question was do you support or not support euthanasia, and why.  You posted an opinion, I responded and you continue to ignore the question - which is your right.  I acknowledged DNR is not killing, per se, yet you continue to push that resolved point and ignore the second question.

Once again: "Turning off the equipment keeping someone alive is an affirmative action, do you believe a doctor engaging in such an act should be arrested, his license to practice medicine revoked, and if convicted placed in prison?"

So I'm going to assume you would allow a loved one to suffer even knowing that they wished to have the suffering end.  If that is true, you've taken the callous conservative to a new lower level.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> What happens is that people sometimes change their minds.  What is reasonable when they are 30 is nonsense when they are 70.   It's like the 17  year old girl who says she'd rather die than not have a date for the prom.   If she doesnt' have a date, should she be put into a hospice until she's dead or given a quick and painless shot?   After all, there are instructions on when she wishes her life to end and under what circumstances.
> 
> In the Netherlands someone who is very ill is assumed to not have the mental capacity to make life ending decisions.  The familes of sick people are deemed too emotionally distraught to make life ending decisions.  Those decisions are with an impersonal panel who make a passionless cost benefit analysis (like Cass Sunstein wants to do) and finds for life or death based on how much treatment will cost.
> 
> It's what obama did when he told a woman that rather than a pacemaker to save her mother's life, mother should just be given a pill until she died.



Obama said that?  Post the link, video or other source, please.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 12, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > What happens is that people sometimes change their minds.  What is reasonable when they are 30 is nonsense when they are 70.   It's like the 17  year old girl who says she'd rather die than not have a date for the prom.   If she doesnt' have a date, should she be put into a hospice until she's dead or given a quick and painless shot?   After all, there are instructions on when she wishes her life to end and under what circumstances.
> ...



I can't even remember how many times I've posted this video.   Because there was no obamacare, mother did get a pacemaker and is still alive and enjoying her life at the age of 105.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo]Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill - YouTube[/ame]

obama told Jane Strum that by getting her mother a pacemaker, she made a poor medical decision.  She should have taken painkillers instead.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2012)

Big Black Dog said:


> So, how would this issue be addressed in terms of payment of life insurance?  If you commit suicide life insurance does not pay off.  Even in it's most polite terms, euthanasia is a form of suicide.



Intersting question.  I suppose someone who valued the possibility of a pay day would put that factor first and ignore the pain and suffering of a loved one.  Euthanaisa is not suicide, however, it is an end of life decision when there is no future for the patient other than pain and suffering.

Today patients are allowed to die, see Teri Shavo for an example.  Who paid for her medical care during the time she was in a persistent vegetative state?  Her parents who demanded she be kept alive, her husband who wanted to terminate life support, the members of congress, or the insurance company?  

But the issue you've raised is would a life insurance company refuse to pay if a life was ended by euthanasia.  I don't know, I do know that insurance companies are in buisness to make money, not to pay claims.  Yet, lives are ended everyday in hospitals across America.  How do life insurance companies respond today?  Do you know?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Well, your spin was, "It's what Obama did when he told a woman that rather than a pacemaker to save her mother's life, mother should just be given a pill until she died".

Obama said much more than that, so I appreciate your posting the video, I simply disagree with your effort to characterize The President as callous.  Medical issues, medical ethics do need to be discussed within our culture and within each family.  As it is today, the issue of 'end of life' is the fodder for demagogues as the Teri Schivo case best illustrates.  This thread isn't about Obama or Romney, D's or R's, it is a simple question about an emotional and important issue for our times.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 12, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > So, how would this issue be addressed in terms of payment of life insurance?  If you commit suicide life insurance does not pay off.  Even in it's most polite terms, euthanasia is a form of suicide.
> ...



Yes I know.   Terry Schiavo's medical care was paid for out of a medical malpractice settlement award paid specifically for her care.   After she died, whatever was left went to husband Michael Schiavo.   He immediately started proceedings to end his wife's life and keep the remainder of the funds awarded for her care.   As it was, most of the money that was supposed to go for her medical care was squandered by Michael Schiavo paying legal fees in the fight to kill her.

Had there been no money in the pot, Michael would have divorced Terri and her family would have had her care as they wanted.  He could not divorce her because that would mean giving up all the money.  He simply went on to have a baby with his girlfriend without getting a divorce.

Where Michael Schiavo was most successful was in preventing Terri from having swallowing therapy that would have allowed her to eat without a feeding tube.  She was not on life support.  She had a feeding tube.   He won the fight to prevent swallowing therapy, then won the right to remove the feeding tube which caused her death.   He got away with quite a chunk of change too.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 12, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



The pacemaker for Ms. Strum's 100 year old mother was NOT an end of life issue.  No matter how obama wanted to make it one.   Mother at the point Ms. Strum asked the question was  105 and still alive and doing well.  End of life really should not an issue where the government gets to say "You've lived long enough."


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Euthanasia is not a partisan issue, nor should it be.  It should be a personal decision each of us prepares for, for all of us will someday die.  It is something that, IMO, should be regulated to prevent abuse, both in ending someone's life and in not ending someone's life.

"You've lived long enough" should be a decisions made by United Health Care or other medical insurance companies?  They do, every time they deny coverage for someone with an existing medical condition, deny coverage because the treatment is deemed by them to be experimental, or deny a transplant because of the age of the patient.

Let's be real.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...



Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2012)

Katzndogz, you had very little credibility before posting what you did above.  Unless you can post a credible source to prove your allegations about Michael Schavio, you have shamed yourself beyond redemption.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 12, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



My position is simple.

Doctors should never kill.

Period.

Feel free to assume whatever you want out of that, just don't expect me to care.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jul 12, 2012)

My family was faced with exactly such a situation last year.  One brother had suffered a massive stroke.  The prognosis was very, very poor.  His quality of life, should he survive, would have been absolutely horrible, given the parts of his brain affected by the stroke.
The majority of the siblings were able to gather and confer with the doc.  We mutually decided to remove our brother from life sustaining treatment and go from there.  Well, he died.  But he died with the greater majority of his family and loved ones gathered by his side.  For our part, we all had an opportunity to say our goodbyes.  We did the right thing.  It wasn't easy.
I think the option should be available.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Fine.  You voted and that is all which was expected.  I respect you privacy, I simply don't respect you.  And I know you don't care so don't bother to respond.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> My family was faced with exactly such a situation last year.  One brother had suffered a massive stroke.  The prognosis was very, very poor.  His quality of life, should he survive, would have been absolutely horrible, given the parts of his brain affected by the stroke.
> The majority of the siblings were able to gather and confer with the doc.  We mutually decided to remove our brother from life sustaining treatment and go from there.  Well, he died.  But he died with the greater majority of his family and loved ones gathered by his side.  For our part, we all had an opportunity to say our goodbyes.  We did the right thing.  It wasn't easy.
> I think the option should be available.



Thank you.  Putting a human face on this thread is helpful.  I too believe the option should be available.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 12, 2012)

Euthanasia will be the topic of the 2040s that abortion was of the 1960s and 1970s.

The question will be this: can individuals other than the subject have the legal right to terminate someone else's life: a parent, a sib, a child, a whomever.

The issue is going to be the certain of the younger generations, the Millennials first, trying to eliminate competition of seniors and handicapped and criminals for precious resources on a planet of many billions and billions.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 12, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Euthanasia will be the topic of the 2040s that abortion was of the 1960s and 1970s.
> 
> The question will be this: can individuals other than the subject have the legal right to terminate someone else's life: a parent, a sib, a child, a whomever.
> 
> The issue is going to be the certain of the younger generations, the Millennials first, trying to eliminate competition of seniors and handicapped and criminals for precious resources on a planet of many billions and billions.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Euthanasia will be the topic of the 2040s that abortion was of the 1960s and 1970s.
> 
> The question will be this: can individuals other than the subject have the legal right to terminate someone else's life: a parent, a sib, a child, a whomever.
> 
> The issue is going to be the certain of the younger generations, the Millennials first, trying to eliminate competition of seniors and handicapped and criminals for precious resources on a planet of many billions and billions.



A very provocative response.  Of course individuals other than the "subject" can have the legal right to terminate another human beings life.  Capital punishment is the obvious example.

Another take on the issue of death and dying:

_As the surgeon Atul Gawande put it in The New Yorker: "Our medical system is excellent at trying to stave off death with eight-thousand-dollar-a-month chemotherapy, three-thousand-dollar-a-day intensive care, five-thousand-dollar-an-hour surgery. But, ultimately, death comes, and no one is good at knowing when to stop."_

Maybe the "subject" ought to make the end of life decision years before the decision to pull the plug becomes a political football (see Teri Schivo, for an example).  If euthanasia were legal we baby boomer's might include in our revocable trust document our wishes.  As it stands today we cannot and the reasons for that might very well be related to the cost of end of life medical decisions.  Dr. Gawande's comment suggests that some profit from end of life medical decisions.  Why would those who profit wish the golden goose die before they benefited?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 12, 2012)

Wry does not face the real possibility that "others" may someday terminate her life for other reasons than capital punishment for crimes.

Should euthanasia be used by the state to terminate people so that they are not competing for resources?


----------



## Missourian (Jul 12, 2012)

Soylent Green is people...


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 12, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


Thank you for sharing that both horrific and scary statement by Obama, disagreeing with the medical treatment of an elderly woman who'd already recuperated 5 years after her surgery and is now 105.

He's a crazy man with too much power for our own good.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Wry does not face the real possibility that "others" may someday terminate her life for other reasons than capital punishment for crimes.
> 
> Should euthanasia be used by the state to terminate people so that they are not competing for resources?



Wry is a he, and does understand that concern.  Slippery slope arguments do not make for a reasoned debate, however.

I framed the issue by suggesting an individual might - if mercy killing were legal - express their wishes in an end of life document, a will or revocable trust.  Some may wish to let 'God" decide, others, myself included, would rather allow others to make that decision. 

My wife and I have included a DNR in our revocable trust as we agree our sons should not be faced with making a life or death decision.  We would include euthanasia too if legal, under for specific conditions, such as Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.  See:

Euthanasia in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 12, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



 If you really cared about your loved one you wouldn't make the decision for them, you would let them make it for themselves, then you would do what they want, even if it cost you personally. You wouldn't want the government to be involved, and you wouldn't care if they disapproved. The reason you prefer to pretend you don't respect me is you actually hate that I am want to take the government out of the picture.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 12, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > My family was faced with exactly such a situation last year.  One brother had suffered a massive stroke.  The prognosis was very, very poor.  His quality of life, should he survive, would have been absolutely horrible, given the parts of his brain affected by the stroke.
> ...



The option is available, just man up and accept that your principles might get you in trouble with the rest of the world, unless you don't have any.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 13, 2012)

Your assertion of slippery slope argument is simplistic and incorrect.

I concede individual right.  But I am talking about euthanasia as a state policy for allocating resources for the living.

Such is far more important than individual rights to euthanasia.



Wry Catcher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Wry does not face the real possibility that "others" may someday terminate her life for other reasons than capital punishment for crimes.
> ...


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 13, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Katzndogz, you had very little credibility before posting what you did above.  Unless you can post a credible source to prove your allegations about Michael Schavio, you have shamed yourself beyond redemption.



With liberals, I'd be shocked to have any credibility at all.   Michael Schiavo is a murderer who was able to use the system to kill his wife in a particularly horrible way.   He had motive to kill her because he got a lot of money after her death and was able to finally marry the mother of his child.   While his wife was horribly ill, Michael Schiavo found time to put aside all his worry and fuck someone else.

Honestly after supporting a vile little insect like barack obama, are liberals concerned with shame at all?  After making a point of killing off the elderly, the sick and unborn children, is the word shame even in the liberal vocabulary?

It's laughable.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your assertion of slippery slope argument is simplistic and incorrect.
> 
> I concede individual right.  But I am talking about euthanasia as a state policy for allocating resources for the living.
> 
> ...



What you propose is the natural and probable result of euthanasia.  

By the way DNR has nothing to do with euthanasia.  With a DNR directive, you are already dead, unequivocallly dead.  Now the question is should they be resussitated?   With euthanasia, no one is dead, nor is death imminent.    There are other circumstances in which death may be preferable.  Uncontrollable pain, extended to severe loss of quality of life.   A boy just committed suicide because he blushed.  He was otherwise healthy should he have been able to get a doctor to assist in his suicide?   Under the qualification of lack of quality of life, Stephen Hawking would have been killed decades ago.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 13, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz, you had very little credibility before posting what you did above.  Unless you can post a credible source to prove your allegations about Michael Schavio, you have shamed yourself beyond redemption.
> ...



You 'forgot' to offer evidence to support your opinion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 13, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your assertion of slippery slope argument is simplistic and incorrect.
> ...



I see.  Yes, I believe people should have the right to make their own determination with a DNR.

For those who don't like, simple, don't do it, but shut up about others' right to do so.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your assertion of slippery slope argument is simplistic and incorrect.
> 
> I concede individual right.  But I am talking about euthanasia as a state policy for allocating resources for the living.
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 13, 2012)

Nope, no slippery slope exists in my comment, and your rebuttal falls flat.

I can leave it at that.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 13, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Even you know what he did.  You just ascribe different motivations.   Are you unaware that while Terri Schiavo was in a hospital bed, her husband was fucking around?   Do you deny that he went to court to end her life?   Are you unaware that he obtained a substantial amount of money from her settlement when she died?  What is it that you do not know?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 13, 2012)

What we know is that we don't what actually happened and what we do know is that the court settled this for all of us.  It's finished.

I was impressed that when Jeb Bush sent the state police to take custody of Ms. Schiavo, the country sheriff threw a cordon of officers around the clinic and stood the state officers off.

We are a country of Rule of Law not Rule of Katz's Opinion.

Let's move on.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nope, no slippery slope exists in my comment, and your rebuttal falls flat.
> 
> I can leave it at that.



Please do.

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.. 

Allowing euthanasia to be a legally acceptable end of life decision will not lead to a government policy to kill citizens to allocate resources to other more deserving citizens.  If that is where our nation is headed, euthanasia will not be the driving force.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jul 13, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> Should a person have the right, and should the medical profession have the legal authority to end a persons life under terms which the patient delineated in his Will/Trust?
> 
> Why?



There are a few Libs here for whom it should be legal; perhaps mandatory, though I fear many of them have already bred.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 13, 2012)

Wry, that is why you are fail.

I made no slippery slope argument, one leading from the other.  I am for individual determined euthanasia.  I have no quarrel with it.

My statement was that 25 years or so from now third-person determined euthanasia will be the cultural issue as abortion has been these last almost forty years.

You need to read much more carefully before flapping your lips.




Wry Catcher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, no slippery slope exists in my comment, and your rebuttal falls flat.
> ...


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Wry, that is why you are fail.
> 
> I made no slippery slope argument, one leading from the other.  I am for individual determined euthanasia.  I have no quarrel with it.
> 
> ...



So your argument is logical do to ...  precognition? You have seen the conclusion before it happened.  Well, no wonder I thought your argument was of the slippery slope variety, I was unaware of your abilities.  Mea culpa.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 14, 2012)

Wry Catcher implicitly admits that my comment was not a slippery slope argument, the implicitness revealing his weakness of character when caught out and unable to explicitly say he got it wrong.

Whether you believe in my assertion is immaterial.  I have no doubt that the issue will be the towering moral dilemma of the forties on.




Wry Catcher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Wry, that is why you are fail.
> ...


----------



## Noomi (Jul 14, 2012)

Here is a question for those who voted in favor of allowing euthanasia:

If society allows a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, we give her control over another lifeform. As it is her body, she has the authority to decide what to do with her body.

But if that same woman were to become terminally ill and wanted to end her life, we forbid her to do this. Why? Why is she allowed complete control over here body when she is pregnant, but not when she is terminally ill?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 14, 2012)

That is a great question, Noomi.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 14, 2012)

If someone can given consent to having a appendix removed, then why isn't it just as acceptable to decide to end their lives?

The worry over euthanasia isn't so much individuals making individual decisions for themselves, its others making decisions for them and manipulating people who may not want to be killed into being killed.  Involuntary euthanasia is already an issue in the Netherlands.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Wry does not face the real possibility that "others" may someday terminate her life for other reasons than capital punishment for crimes.
> 
> Should euthanasia be used by the state to terminate people so that they are not competing for resources?



So you propose we eliminate the entire populations of Uganda, Ethiopia, and Darfur?


Hitler's argument was that killing off populations was okay because it guaranteed more resources for his fave group of people, too.

Funny, the parallel..don't you think?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 14, 2012)

You make a lot of sense, Katz, but understand that supposedly you are on the 'slippery slope' that Wry is worried about.



Katzndogz said:


> If someone can given consent to having a appendix removed, then why isn't it just as acceptable to decide to end their lives?
> 
> The worry over euthanasia isn't so much individuals making individual decisions for themselves, its others making decisions for them and manipulating people who may not want to be killed into being killed.  Involuntary euthanasia is already an issue in the Netherlands.


----------



## waltky (Oct 8, 2012)

Banker Chooses Life Despite Winning Right to Die; Grace Sung Eun Lee won ruling over her devout parents...

*Grace Sung Eun Lee says she wants to remain on ventilator*
_Oct 7, 2012 - Terminally ill woman who fought with her parents over right to die now indicates she wants to live_


> She wants to live.  Grace Sung Eun Lee, the terminally ill woman who has been locked in a legal battle with her parents over her right to die, has apparently had a change of heart.  Asked point-blank by her lawyer Saturday if she wanted to remain on a ventilator, Lee replied, Yes.  Asked if she expected that to change, Lee replied, No, her lawyer said.   Does that mean that you expect your decision to be to remain on a ventilator until you die, Lees attorney David Smith asked her.  Yes, Lee responded.
> 
> The exchange marked the first time the 28-year-old Lee, who has an inoperable brain tumor, has explicitly told her lawyer that she wants to keep fighting.   Since landing at Long Islands North Shore Hospital last month, Lee had made it clear to her doctors, her lawyer and the Daily News that she wanted to disconnect her tubes.  Lees devout parents, who believe shell go to hell if she hastens her death, rushed to court to stop her.  But their legal efforts have failed.
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2012)

Wry continues to wiggle away quietly,  not wanting to face his inconsistencey and slippery slope argument.



JakeStarkey said:


> Wry Catcher implicitly admits that my comment was not a slippery slope argument, the implicitness revealing his weakness of character when caught out and unable to explicitly say he got it wrong.
> 
> Whether you believe in my assertion is immaterial.  I have no doubt that the issue will be the towering moral dilemma of the forties on.
> 
> ...


----------

