Dutch euthanasia law used kill alcoholic 41

[martybegan]

In this case the Dr actually applied the drug. He technically and legally killed him. It's a homicide, but one seemingly covered under this Dutch law.

That it's "homicide" is a circular argument. We're arguing it should be between the doctor and the patient, not you and the patient

The fact that the Dr committed the homicide isn't a circular argument. He killed the guy.

It's a circular argument if you knew the definition of "homicide." Look it up, it's clearly a circular argument with the position of the people who disagree with you

Someone else contributed to his death, even if its a justifiable homicide by this law, its a homicide.

so what not all homicide is illegal

Noted (again)

 

[kaz]

In this case the Dr actually applied the drug. He technically and legally killed him. It's a homicide, but one seemingly covered under this Dutch law.

That it's "homicide" is a circular argument. We're arguing it should be between the doctor and the patient, not you and the patient

The fact that the Dr committed the homicide isn't a circular argument. He killed the guy.

Not all homicide is illegal

I know what you're trying to say. But "homicide" is by definition illegal. That's why what Marty said was ridiculous. Abortion is only murder if you make it illegal. That's why what he said is a circular argument.

What you're correctly trying to say is that all killing is not homicide

Homicide Definition - FindLaw


To begin with, not all homicides are crimes. Homicides include all killings of humans. Many homicides, such as murder and manslaughter, violate criminal laws. Others, such as a killing committed in justified self-defense, are not criminal. Illegal killings range from manslaughter to murder, with multiple degrees of each representing the gravity of the crime.

I had looked at one definition and it said it was the "illegal" killing of another. I saw your definition and searched more and it's inconsistent.

You realize we're just discussing the narrow definition of words but in content we're saying the same thing, right?

 

[kaz]

Crazy but his choice after all.

Then let him do it himself, don't get medical people involved. More importantly don't let government controlled medical people get involved.

Why not? Sounds like he's been trying to kill himself with alcohol for years. And according to your article HE REQUESTED IT.

In his quest for small government Marty thinks government should decide when we die. Hmm ... that isn't small government, is it?

No, and it's pretty surprising coming from him.

Sorry, but allowing mentally ill people to off themselves with the help and condoning of society is not a big or small government issue.

Sure, just prove they are mentally ill in a court of law providing them due process to remove their rights Constitutionally

 

[kaz]

So what if it's what the person wants?
The Dr doesn't have to actually kill him. He could merely prescribe enough drugs to be fatal and the patient can decide to take them or he could use a Kavorkian device and have the patient initiate the administration of the fatal drugs

In this case the Dr actually applied the drug. He technically and legally killed him. It's a homicide, but one seemingly covered under this Dutch law.

That it's "homicide" is a circular argument. We're arguing it should be between the doctor and the patient, not you and the patient

The fact that the Dr committed the homicide isn't a circular argument. He killed the guy.

It's a circular argument if you knew the definition of "homicide." Look it up, it's clearly a circular argument with the position of the people who disagree with you

Someone else contributed to his death, even if its a justifiable homicide by this law, its a homicide.

And if someone breaks into your house or threatens you with a gun it's justifiable. If you're sent into war and kill it's legal. If you're on a SWAT team and someone is holding a hostage. You're not making an argument that the baby has a right to the mother's body. And she's not doing it to "murder" the baby but to retain her own body. You're entitled to your moral view of that, we'd generally agree on that. But the use of her body legally should be up to her, not government

 

[kaz]

In his quest for small government Marty thinks government should decide when we die. Hmm ... that isn't small government, is it?

Again, he can do it himself. When he gets someone else involved, someone with connections to the government, that should start sounding alarm bells.

What connections to the government are you talking about, exactly?

In Holland they have government health care. I assume the Dr. was paid by the government to do this.

Now on that we agree, government should not pay doctors to end lives. Government should't pay for any medical procedures. Or control medical care. So that's your issue? As long as government doesn't fund it we agree, it's none of their fucking business what the guy does with his body?

That's part of it, but I still have an issue with a profession that is supposed to save lives having a part in ending it unless a terminal illness is involved.

Get someone else to do it.

Being a severe alcoholic must be a terrible way to live. I think it's between the doctor and the patient if he is helping or harming the person sans your removing the patients rights providing them due process of law showing they are incapable of making their own decisions

 

[kaz]

Why not? Sounds like he's been trying to kill himself with alcohol for years. And according to your article HE REQUESTED IT.

In his quest for small government Marty thinks government should decide when we die. Hmm ... that isn't small government, is it?

No, and it's pretty surprising coming from him.

Why? Again, if this was about terminally ill people, I can understand why they would do it.

But I have been depressed before, and yes, i drank during that time. The idea that someone could convince me in my weakened state to just end it, for possibly ulterior motives, and get a medical professional to assist in it legally, is troubling. even more so when you add in the possible connection between the government and said medical professional.

It's not about you.
Who are you to tell someone they have to live if thy don't want to?

Again if they want to do it themselves, I don't care. its when you bring another person, a person who's profession is to SAVE lives into the picture, and the State condones this, that I have an issue.

Government wouldn't exist other than the desire of most people to have government use guns to compel others to follow what they think they should do. It wouldn't be necessary as an anti-choice instrument if we just all wanted to run our own lives and respect the right of others to do the same

 

[martybegan]

In this case the Dr actually applied the drug. He technically and legally killed him. It's a homicide, but one seemingly covered under this Dutch law.

That it's "homicide" is a circular argument. We're arguing it should be between the doctor and the patient, not you and the patient

The fact that the Dr committed the homicide isn't a circular argument. He killed the guy.

It's a circular argument if you knew the definition of "homicide." Look it up, it's clearly a circular argument with the position of the people who disagree with you

Someone else contributed to his death, even if its a justifiable homicide by this law, its a homicide.

And if someone breaks into your house or threatens you with a gun it's justifiable. If you're sent into war and kill it's legal. If you're on a SWAT team and someone is holding a hostage. You're not making an argument that the baby has a right to the mother's body. And she's not doing it to "murder" the baby but to retain her own body. You're entitled to your moral view of that, we'd generally agree on that. But the use of her body legally should be up to her, not government

Complete and total tangent to the argument at hand.

 

[martybegan]

Again, he can do it himself. When he gets someone else involved, someone with connections to the government, that should start sounding alarm bells.

What connections to the government are you talking about, exactly?

In Holland they have government health care. I assume the Dr. was paid by the government to do this.

Now on that we agree, government should not pay doctors to end lives. Government should't pay for any medical procedures. Or control medical care. So that's your issue? As long as government doesn't fund it we agree, it's none of their fucking business what the guy does with his body?

That's part of it, but I still have an issue with a profession that is supposed to save lives having a part in ending it unless a terminal illness is involved.

Get someone else to do it.

Being a severe alcoholic must be a terrible way to live. I think it's between the doctor and the patient if he is helping or harming the person sans your removing the patients rights providing them due process of law showing they are incapable of making their own decisions

Doctors are supposed to preserve life. Only in cases of unavoidable death and suffering should they be allowed to break their goal of preserving life to end it.

 

[kaz]

That it's "homicide" is a circular argument. We're arguing it should be between the doctor and the patient, not you and the patient

The fact that the Dr committed the homicide isn't a circular argument. He killed the guy.

It's a circular argument if you knew the definition of "homicide." Look it up, it's clearly a circular argument with the position of the people who disagree with you

Someone else contributed to his death, even if its a justifiable homicide by this law, its a homicide.

And if someone breaks into your house or threatens you with a gun it's justifiable. If you're sent into war and kill it's legal. If you're on a SWAT team and someone is holding a hostage. You're not making an argument that the baby has a right to the mother's body. And she's not doing it to "murder" the baby but to retain her own body. You're entitled to your moral view of that, we'd generally agree on that. But the use of her body legally should be up to her, not government

Complete and total tangent to the argument at hand.

It is if you've dropped the circular argument that abortion is illegal if government says it's illegal

 

[martybegan]

The fact that the Dr committed the homicide isn't a circular argument. He killed the guy.

It's a circular argument if you knew the definition of "homicide." Look it up, it's clearly a circular argument with the position of the people who disagree with you

Someone else contributed to his death, even if its a justifiable homicide by this law, its a homicide.

And if someone breaks into your house or threatens you with a gun it's justifiable. If you're sent into war and kill it's legal. If you're on a SWAT team and someone is holding a hostage. You're not making an argument that the baby has a right to the mother's body. And she's not doing it to "murder" the baby but to retain her own body. You're entitled to your moral view of that, we'd generally agree on that. But the use of her body legally should be up to her, not government

Complete and total tangent to the argument at hand.

It is if you've dropped the circular argument that abortion is illegal if government says it's illegal

That isn't circular logic its stating the obvious.

Circular logic is "Abortion should be illegal because the government says its illegal (which also has appeal to authority in it)

 

[kaz]

What connections to the government are you talking about, exactly?

In Holland they have government health care. I assume the Dr. was paid by the government to do this.

Now on that we agree, government should not pay doctors to end lives. Government should't pay for any medical procedures. Or control medical care. So that's your issue? As long as government doesn't fund it we agree, it's none of their fucking business what the guy does with his body?

That's part of it, but I still have an issue with a profession that is supposed to save lives having a part in ending it unless a terminal illness is involved.

Get someone else to do it.

Being a severe alcoholic must be a terrible way to live. I think it's between the doctor and the patient if he is helping or harming the person sans your removing the patients rights providing them due process of law showing they are incapable of making their own decisions

Doctors are supposed to preserve life. Only in cases of unavoidable death and suffering should they be allowed to break their goal of preserving life to end it.

Another circular argument.

Actually doctors are supposed to "do no harm." The question is who decides what is "harm." I think it's between the doctor and the patient. You think it's up to you and government should go out and fix the people who make the wrong choice. It is that use of force I object to

 

[kaz]

It's a circular argument if you knew the definition of "homicide." Look it up, it's clearly a circular argument with the position of the people who disagree with you

Someone else contributed to his death, even if its a justifiable homicide by this law, its a homicide.

And if someone breaks into your house or threatens you with a gun it's justifiable. If you're sent into war and kill it's legal. If you're on a SWAT team and someone is holding a hostage. You're not making an argument that the baby has a right to the mother's body. And she's not doing it to "murder" the baby but to retain her own body. You're entitled to your moral view of that, we'd generally agree on that. But the use of her body legally should be up to her, not government

Complete and total tangent to the argument at hand.

It is if you've dropped the circular argument that abortion is illegal if government says it's illegal

That isn't circular logic its stating the obvious.

Circular logic is "Abortion should be illegal because the government says its illegal (which also has appeal to authority in it)

I'm appealing to authority when I say government should have no say in what their citizens do with their own bodies. It should be up to us what we do with our bodies.



That makes sense to you?

I was pointing out you made the argument that abortion is illegal murder. Only if government makes it illegal murder. Why should government have that power? That's a far better example of appeal to authority. You are arguing government knows what we should do with our bodies better than we do. Why do they know that better than we do?

 

[martybegan]

In Holland they have government health care. I assume the Dr. was paid by the government to do this.

Now on that we agree, government should not pay doctors to end lives. Government should't pay for any medical procedures. Or control medical care. So that's your issue? As long as government doesn't fund it we agree, it's none of their fucking business what the guy does with his body?

That's part of it, but I still have an issue with a profession that is supposed to save lives having a part in ending it unless a terminal illness is involved.

Get someone else to do it.

Being a severe alcoholic must be a terrible way to live. I think it's between the doctor and the patient if he is helping or harming the person sans your removing the patients rights providing them due process of law showing they are incapable of making their own decisions

Doctors are supposed to preserve life. Only in cases of unavoidable death and suffering should they be allowed to break their goal of preserving life to end it.

Another circular argument.

Actually doctors are supposed to "do no harm." The question is who decides what is "harm." I think it's between the doctor and the patient. You think it's up to you and government should go out and fix the people who make the wrong choice. It is that use of force I object to

Again, not a circular argument. I am starting out with the point of the Hippocratic Oath, and extrapolating from there. To me "do no harm" is not breached when helping a terminally ill, in actual pain patient to stop suffering.

Offing someone because they drink to much, or are depressed all the time is not even in the same ball park.

 

[martybegan]

Someone else contributed to his death, even if its a justifiable homicide by this law, its a homicide.

And if someone breaks into your house or threatens you with a gun it's justifiable. If you're sent into war and kill it's legal. If you're on a SWAT team and someone is holding a hostage. You're not making an argument that the baby has a right to the mother's body. And she's not doing it to "murder" the baby but to retain her own body. You're entitled to your moral view of that, we'd generally agree on that. But the use of her body legally should be up to her, not government

Complete and total tangent to the argument at hand.

It is if you've dropped the circular argument that abortion is illegal if government says it's illegal

That isn't circular logic its stating the obvious.

Circular logic is "Abortion should be illegal because the government says its illegal (which also has appeal to authority in it)

I'm appealing to authority when I say government should have no say in what their citizens do with their own bodies. It should be up to us what we do with our bodies.



That makes sense to you?

No the statement "abortion is illegal if the government say it's illegal" has a portion of appeal to authority in it.

 

[kaz]

Now on that we agree, government should not pay doctors to end lives. Government should't pay for any medical procedures. Or control medical care. So that's your issue? As long as government doesn't fund it we agree, it's none of their fucking business what the guy does with his body?

That's part of it, but I still have an issue with a profession that is supposed to save lives having a part in ending it unless a terminal illness is involved.

Get someone else to do it.

Being a severe alcoholic must be a terrible way to live. I think it's between the doctor and the patient if he is helping or harming the person sans your removing the patients rights providing them due process of law showing they are incapable of making their own decisions

Doctors are supposed to preserve life. Only in cases of unavoidable death and suffering should they be allowed to break their goal of preserving life to end it.

Another circular argument.

Actually doctors are supposed to "do no harm." The question is who decides what is "harm." I think it's between the doctor and the patient. You think it's up to you and government should go out and fix the people who make the wrong choice. It is that use of force I object to

Again, not a circular argument. I am starting out with the point of the Hippocratic Oath, and extrapolating from there. To me "do no harm" is not breached when helping a terminally ill, in actual pain patient to stop suffering.

Offing someone because they drink to much, or are depressed all the time is not even in the same ball park.

Ding, ding, ding! That is the point of the discussion. I have no issue with your view to you. What I have an issue with is your advocating government use force to compel your view on others. Something you generally oppose

 

[kaz]

And if someone breaks into your house or threatens you with a gun it's justifiable. If you're sent into war and kill it's legal. If you're on a SWAT team and someone is holding a hostage. You're not making an argument that the baby has a right to the mother's body. And she's not doing it to "murder" the baby but to retain her own body. You're entitled to your moral view of that, we'd generally agree on that. But the use of her body legally should be up to her, not government

Complete and total tangent to the argument at hand.

It is if you've dropped the circular argument that abortion is illegal if government says it's illegal

That isn't circular logic its stating the obvious.

Circular logic is "Abortion should be illegal because the government says its illegal (which also has appeal to authority in it)

I'm appealing to authority when I say government should have no say in what their citizens do with their own bodies. It should be up to us what we do with our bodies.



That makes sense to you?

No the statement "abortion is illegal if the government say it's illegal" has a portion of appeal to authority in it.

OK, I see what you're saying. I thought you were saying I was appealing to authority. How is that not what you are arguing though, your argument hinges on it's illegal murder but that is true only if government makes it illegal

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

He probably had not hit bottom yet and needed to. Once he hit bottom and got the correct perspective, he could have straightened his life out and had a happy life without alcohol. Of course, this process cannot be completed, if you kill him.

 

[martybegan]

Complete and total tangent to the argument at hand.

It is if you've dropped the circular argument that abortion is illegal if government says it's illegal

That isn't circular logic its stating the obvious.

Circular logic is "Abortion should be illegal because the government says its illegal (which also has appeal to authority in it)

I'm appealing to authority when I say government should have no say in what their citizens do with their own bodies. It should be up to us what we do with our bodies.



That makes sense to you?

No the statement "abortion is illegal if the government say it's illegal" has a portion of appeal to authority in it.

OK, I see what you're saying. I thought you were saying I was appealing to authority. How is that not what you are arguing though, your argument hinges on it's illegal murder but that is true only if government makes it illegal

First, even if a doctor killing a willing patient was illegal, I wouldn't consider it murder, but something lesser.

Second, most societies start off on the principle that killing someone is inherently wrong. Its afterwards that justifications are allowed, both legally and ethically.

In the case of Holland, they are saying it is OK for a Doctor to assist or even perform a "mercy" suicide for pretty much any reason, as long as it is "willing".

My issues with that stem from the role we have assigned doctors in our society, and how "willing" can a mentally unstable person actually be?

 

[martybegan]

That's part of it, but I still have an issue with a profession that is supposed to save lives having a part in ending it unless a terminal illness is involved.

Get someone else to do it.

Being a severe alcoholic must be a terrible way to live. I think it's between the doctor and the patient if he is helping or harming the person sans your removing the patients rights providing them due process of law showing they are incapable of making their own decisions

Doctors are supposed to preserve life. Only in cases of unavoidable death and suffering should they be allowed to break their goal of preserving life to end it.

Another circular argument.

Actually doctors are supposed to "do no harm." The question is who decides what is "harm." I think it's between the doctor and the patient. You think it's up to you and government should go out and fix the people who make the wrong choice. It is that use of force I object to

Again, not a circular argument. I am starting out with the point of the Hippocratic Oath, and extrapolating from there. To me "do no harm" is not breached when helping a terminally ill, in actual pain patient to stop suffering.

Offing someone because they drink to much, or are depressed all the time is not even in the same ball park.

Ding, ding, ding! That is the point of the discussion. I have no issue with your view to you. What I have an issue with is your advocating government use force to compel your view on others. Something you generally oppose

Yes, but I am not an absolutist. As I said, if it is a case of a terminal illness, that leads to a long and painful death with no hope of cure, then let the doctor end the person's suffering.

My issue is with extending this concept to the idea that if a person is unhappy with their life, a doctor, someone tasked with preserving life, can take part in ending a life that wasn't going to end soon anyway.

 

[kaz]

It is if you've dropped the circular argument that abortion is illegal if government says it's illegal

That isn't circular logic its stating the obvious.

Circular logic is "Abortion should be illegal because the government says its illegal (which also has appeal to authority in it)

I'm appealing to authority when I say government should have no say in what their citizens do with their own bodies. It should be up to us what we do with our bodies.



That makes sense to you?

No the statement "abortion is illegal if the government say it's illegal" has a portion of appeal to authority in it.

OK, I see what you're saying. I thought you were saying I was appealing to authority. How is that not what you are arguing though, your argument hinges on it's illegal murder but that is true only if government makes it illegal

First, even if a doctor killing a willing patient was illegal, I wouldn't consider it murder, but something lesser.

Second, most societies start off on the principle that killing someone is inherently wrong. Its afterwards that justifications are allowed, both legally and ethically.

In the case of Holland, they are saying it is OK for a Doctor to assist or even perform a "mercy" suicide for pretty much any reason, as long as it is "willing".

My issues with that stem from the role we have assigned doctors in our society, and how "willing" can a mentally unstable person actually be?

You keep stating he is "mentally unstable" as if that's established fact. Where do you get that? Did anyone prove it in a court of law? I realize this is the Netherlands and Constitutional rights don't apply, but in the end I always approach it in terms of how it should work here since that is in our control