Dana7360
Diamond Member
- Aug 6, 2014
- 15,147
- 13,596
- 2,405
The law in Oregon is still quite new. In the Netherlands and Switzerland that have had these kinds of laws longer the scope of the law has expanded. A doctor no longer needs the agreement or request of the ill patient. Only an opinion that death is in the patient's best interests. Extended even to children.Because the government invariably starts telling people to end their own lives and when. Legalized suicide has never stayed confined to the terminally ill. We are all terminal. The government always wants to be able to make that determination.A person wanting to commit suicide because their girlfriend or boyfriend broke up with them is wrong. But someone wanting to commit suicide to avoid the horrors that their terminal disease will bring them is not wrong. Using your religious beliefs to stop them is what is wrong.
Why is suicide due to depression wrong but suicide to avoid pain associated with terminal disease OK?
Why is suicide to avoid pain and misery associated with terminal disease wrong?
Depression is recognized as a usually temporary mental condition- suicide would be a very permanent solution for a temporary problem- a problem that in and of itself could lead to judgement impairment.
But suicide for someone who is terminal? That is just moving up the end date of 'terminal', and giving the person control of when- and how that terminal condition ends. The law requires that the person be mentally competent in order to make that decision- something a depressed person would not be.
So why is suicide to avoid pain and misery associated with terminal disease wrong?
Why should government tell a person that they can't end their own life?
Invariably......
So show me where that is happening in Oregon.
I don't want government to tell me I can't decide when to end my life, or when I can't.
You just want government to tell me I can.t.
I don't think the government should tell you that you can't. I do think the government should never be able to tell you that you must.
If you call a law that's nearly 20 years old in Oregon quite new, you don't know what you're talking about.
If you think that any politician is going to vote to change that law to allow insurance companies to decide then I've got a bridge to sell to you.
This isn't the Netherlands or Switzerland. Nor do I believe what you said about the laws in those states. I would need credible and honest proof of that.
Otherwise, you're just posting a bunch of garbage. Like the fact that the law is new.