Dutch euthanasia law used kill alcoholic 41

[kaz]

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.

Well, you should be an absolutist with government. Here is my absolutist position on government. Government is the worse solution to any problem, therefore it should only be used when it is the ONLY solution to the problem. For example, police, military, civil and criminal courts, recognition of property, ...

Can you think of a case where that absolute position is wrong? Government sucks at everything. The only reason it has to compel you to do things is because the things it's compelling us to do are not in our own interest. Else force would not be necessary.

Can you think of anything that contradicts that? Government force is a better choice than individual liberty (as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others to make their own choices as well)?

 

[martybegan]

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

Mentally unstable and mentally adjudicated are two different things. Honestly, can you really say a person who wants to commit suicide is mentally stable? Preservation of self is a basic natural instinct. For that to be ignored for reasons of great pain, or say sacrifice for a greater good is one thing, to suppress it because one is a drunk and unhappy is something else.

If one goes by strict constructionism, there is no right in the constitution to be aided in killing yourself. Thus is it left up to the States via legislation. At that point I can say I would NOT support assisted suicide legislation except in cases of terminal illness.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Well, you should be an absolutist with government. Here is my absolutist position on government. Government is the worse solution to any problem, therefore it should only be used when it is the ONLY solution to the problem. For example, police, military, civil and criminal courts, recognition of property, ...

Can you think of a case where that absolute position is wrong? Government sucks at everything. The only reason it has to compel you to do things is because the things it's compelling us to do are not in our own interest. Else force would not be necessary.

Can you think of anything that contradicts that? Government force is a better choice than individual liberty (as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others to make their own choices as well)?

Ah, but see my federalist point made above.

 

[kaz]

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

Mentally unstable and mentally adjudicated are two different things. Honestly, can you really say a person who wants to commit suicide is mentally stable? Preservation of self is a basic natural instinct. For that to be ignored for reasons of great pain, or say sacrifice for a greater good is one thing, to suppress it because one is a drunk and unhappy is something else.

If one goes by strict constructionism, there is no right in the constitution to be aided in killing yourself. Thus is it left up to the States via legislation. At that point I can say I would NOT support assisted suicide legislation except in cases of terminal illness.

Exactly as I thought, you're using the Catch 22 logic.

No one sane would want to fly an airplane, get shot at and drop bombs on people they don't know, so if they want to, they are insane and they shouldn't have to do that. However, to not do that, they have to ask to stop doing that. But asking to stop doing that shows they don't want to do that and are perfectly sane ...

You're like no one sane would want to die, so wanting to die is in itself proof of lack of sanity. It's ridiculous. They do have a painful, fatal disease. True alcoholism is an unending nightmare and it definitely leads to death.

As for "adjudicated" you don't seem to have gotten my point. The Constitution states your rights can only be removed with due process of law. So I'm not just putting up a random hurdle by saying you go to court to remove their rights, I am saying the Constitution tells you to do that

 

[martybegan]

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

Mentally unstable and mentally adjudicated are two different things. Honestly, can you really say a person who wants to commit suicide is mentally stable? Preservation of self is a basic natural instinct. For that to be ignored for reasons of great pain, or say sacrifice for a greater good is one thing, to suppress it because one is a drunk and unhappy is something else.

If one goes by strict constructionism, there is no right in the constitution to be aided in killing yourself. Thus is it left up to the States via legislation. At that point I can say I would NOT support assisted suicide legislation except in cases of terminal illness.

Exactly as I thought, you're using the Catch 22 logic.

No one sane would want to fly an airplane, get shot at and drop bombs on people they don't know, so they shouldn't have to do that. However, to not do that, they have to ask to stop doing that. But asking to stop doing that shows they don't want to and are perfectly sane ...

You're like no one sane would want to die, so wanting to die is in itself proof of lack of sanity. It's ridiculous. They do have a painful, fatal disease. True alcoholism is an unending nightmare and it definitely leads to death.

As for "adjudicated" you don't seem to have gotten my point. The Supreme Court states your rights can only be removed with due process of law. So I'm not just putting up a random hurdle by saying you go to court to remove their rights, I am saying the Constitution tells you to do that

Again, where is the right to have a doctor kill you if you want it in the constitution?

I am drawing a line in a position, nothing earth shattering about it.

I am saying that self preservation is a strong impulse, that either takes extreme situations or something wrong with you to suppress.

 

[kaz]

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.

Well, you should be an absolutist with government. Here is my absolutist position on government. Government is the worse solution to any problem, therefore it should only be used when it is the ONLY solution to the problem. For example, police, military, civil and criminal courts, recognition of property, ...

Can you think of a case where that absolute position is wrong? Government sucks at everything. The only reason it has to compel you to do things is because the things it's compelling us to do are not in our own interest. Else force would not be necessary.

Can you think of anything that contradicts that? Government force is a better choice than individual liberty (as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others to make their own choices as well)?

Ah, but see my federalist point made above.

Can you be more specific? The only use of the word federalist in this tread was your use of it here in this post

 

[kaz]

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

Mentally unstable and mentally adjudicated are two different things. Honestly, can you really say a person who wants to commit suicide is mentally stable? Preservation of self is a basic natural instinct. For that to be ignored for reasons of great pain, or say sacrifice for a greater good is one thing, to suppress it because one is a drunk and unhappy is something else.

If one goes by strict constructionism, there is no right in the constitution to be aided in killing yourself. Thus is it left up to the States via legislation. At that point I can say I would NOT support assisted suicide legislation except in cases of terminal illness.

Exactly as I thought, you're using the Catch 22 logic.

No one sane would want to fly an airplane, get shot at and drop bombs on people they don't know, so they shouldn't have to do that. However, to not do that, they have to ask to stop doing that. But asking to stop doing that shows they don't want to and are perfectly sane ...

You're like no one sane would want to die, so wanting to die is in itself proof of lack of sanity. It's ridiculous. They do have a painful, fatal disease. True alcoholism is an unending nightmare and it definitely leads to death.

As for "adjudicated" you don't seem to have gotten my point. The Supreme Court states your rights can only be removed with due process of law. So I'm not just putting up a random hurdle by saying you go to court to remove their rights, I am saying the Constitution tells you to do that

Again, where is the right to have a doctor kill you if you want it in the constitution?

I am drawing a line in a position, nothing earth shattering about it.

I am saying that self preservation is a strong impulse, that either takes extreme situations or something wrong with you to suppress.

That's how you think the Constitution works? We have only the rights specified in the Constitution? You're wrong about that. It's the other way around. Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the right to prevent you from killing yourself? Hint, it's not there

 

[martybegan]

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.

Well, you should be an absolutist with government. Here is my absolutist position on government. Government is the worse solution to any problem, therefore it should only be used when it is the ONLY solution to the problem. For example, police, military, civil and criminal courts, recognition of property, ...

Can you think of a case where that absolute position is wrong? Government sucks at everything. The only reason it has to compel you to do things is because the things it's compelling us to do are not in our own interest. Else force would not be necessary.

Can you think of anything that contradicts that? Government force is a better choice than individual liberty (as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others to make their own choices as well)?

Ah, but see my federalist point made above.

Can you be more specific? The only use of the word federalist in this tread was your use of it here in this post

The part relegating anything not described in the document to the State Legislatures.

 

[kaz]

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

Mentally unstable and mentally adjudicated are two different things. Honestly, can you really say a person who wants to commit suicide is mentally stable? Preservation of self is a basic natural instinct. For that to be ignored for reasons of great pain, or say sacrifice for a greater good is one thing, to suppress it because one is a drunk and unhappy is something else.

If one goes by strict constructionism, there is no right in the constitution to be aided in killing yourself. Thus is it left up to the States via legislation. At that point I can say I would NOT support assisted suicide legislation except in cases of terminal illness.

Exactly as I thought, you're using the Catch 22 logic.

No one sane would want to fly an airplane, get shot at and drop bombs on people they don't know, so they shouldn't have to do that. However, to not do that, they have to ask to stop doing that. But asking to stop doing that shows they don't want to and are perfectly sane ...

You're like no one sane would want to die, so wanting to die is in itself proof of lack of sanity. It's ridiculous. They do have a painful, fatal disease. True alcoholism is an unending nightmare and it definitely leads to death.

As for "adjudicated" you don't seem to have gotten my point. The Supreme Court states your rights can only be removed with due process of law. So I'm not just putting up a random hurdle by saying you go to court to remove their rights, I am saying the Constitution tells you to do that

Again, where is the right to have a doctor kill you if you want it in the constitution?

I am drawing a line in a position, nothing earth shattering about it.

I am saying that self preservation is a strong impulse, that either takes extreme situations or something wrong with you to suppress.

I'm really baffled by this argument from you. I'm shocked you think that you only have the rights given to you in the Constitution.

Actually the Federal government only has the powers given it in the Constitution. Read the 10th amendment

 

[martybegan]

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

Mentally unstable and mentally adjudicated are two different things. Honestly, can you really say a person who wants to commit suicide is mentally stable? Preservation of self is a basic natural instinct. For that to be ignored for reasons of great pain, or say sacrifice for a greater good is one thing, to suppress it because one is a drunk and unhappy is something else.

If one goes by strict constructionism, there is no right in the constitution to be aided in killing yourself. Thus is it left up to the States via legislation. At that point I can say I would NOT support assisted suicide legislation except in cases of terminal illness.

Exactly as I thought, you're using the Catch 22 logic.

No one sane would want to fly an airplane, get shot at and drop bombs on people they don't know, so they shouldn't have to do that. However, to not do that, they have to ask to stop doing that. But asking to stop doing that shows they don't want to and are perfectly sane ...

You're like no one sane would want to die, so wanting to die is in itself proof of lack of sanity. It's ridiculous. They do have a painful, fatal disease. True alcoholism is an unending nightmare and it definitely leads to death.

As for "adjudicated" you don't seem to have gotten my point. The Supreme Court states your rights can only be removed with due process of law. So I'm not just putting up a random hurdle by saying you go to court to remove their rights, I am saying the Constitution tells you to do that

Again, where is the right to have a doctor kill you if you want it in the constitution?

I am drawing a line in a position, nothing earth shattering about it.

I am saying that self preservation is a strong impulse, that either takes extreme situations or something wrong with you to suppress.

That's how you think the Constitution works? We have only the rights specified in the Constitution? You're wrong about that. It's the other way around. Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the right to prevent you from killing yourself? Hint, it's not there

We may have more rights, but the only ones protected explicitly are those found in the document.

It doesn't give the feds the ability to legislate on doctor assisted suicide, thus said topic is left to State Legislatures.

 

[kaz]

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.

Well, you should be an absolutist with government. Here is my absolutist position on government. Government is the worse solution to any problem, therefore it should only be used when it is the ONLY solution to the problem. For example, police, military, civil and criminal courts, recognition of property, ...

Can you think of a case where that absolute position is wrong? Government sucks at everything. The only reason it has to compel you to do things is because the things it's compelling us to do are not in our own interest. Else force would not be necessary.

Can you think of anything that contradicts that? Government force is a better choice than individual liberty (as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others to make their own choices as well)?

Ah, but see my federalist point made above.

Can you be more specific? The only use of the word federalist in this tread was your use of it here in this post

The part relegating anything not described in the document to the State Legislatures.

Or to the people themselves. You're going to have to explain how that is an example that government is a better solution than individual liberty, the question I asked you

 

[martybegan]

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

Mentally unstable and mentally adjudicated are two different things. Honestly, can you really say a person who wants to commit suicide is mentally stable? Preservation of self is a basic natural instinct. For that to be ignored for reasons of great pain, or say sacrifice for a greater good is one thing, to suppress it because one is a drunk and unhappy is something else.

If one goes by strict constructionism, there is no right in the constitution to be aided in killing yourself. Thus is it left up to the States via legislation. At that point I can say I would NOT support assisted suicide legislation except in cases of terminal illness.

Exactly as I thought, you're using the Catch 22 logic.

No one sane would want to fly an airplane, get shot at and drop bombs on people they don't know, so they shouldn't have to do that. However, to not do that, they have to ask to stop doing that. But asking to stop doing that shows they don't want to and are perfectly sane ...

You're like no one sane would want to die, so wanting to die is in itself proof of lack of sanity. It's ridiculous. They do have a painful, fatal disease. True alcoholism is an unending nightmare and it definitely leads to death.

As for "adjudicated" you don't seem to have gotten my point. The Supreme Court states your rights can only be removed with due process of law. So I'm not just putting up a random hurdle by saying you go to court to remove their rights, I am saying the Constitution tells you to do that

Again, where is the right to have a doctor kill you if you want it in the constitution?

I am drawing a line in a position, nothing earth shattering about it.

I am saying that self preservation is a strong impulse, that either takes extreme situations or something wrong with you to suppress.

I'm really baffled by this argument from you. I'm shocked you think that you only have the rights given to you in the Constitution.

Actually the Federal government only has the powers given it in the Constitution. Read the 10th amendment

You may have more rights, but unless they are in the document, they are not explicit, and thus not automatically protected.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Well, you should be an absolutist with government. Here is my absolutist position on government. Government is the worse solution to any problem, therefore it should only be used when it is the ONLY solution to the problem. For example, police, military, civil and criminal courts, recognition of property, ...

Can you think of a case where that absolute position is wrong? Government sucks at everything. The only reason it has to compel you to do things is because the things it's compelling us to do are not in our own interest. Else force would not be necessary.

Can you think of anything that contradicts that? Government force is a better choice than individual liberty (as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others to make their own choices as well)?

Ah, but see my federalist point made above.

Can you be more specific? The only use of the word federalist in this tread was your use of it here in this post

The part relegating anything not described in the document to the State Legislatures.

Or to the people themselves. You're going to have to explain how that is an example that government is a better solution than individual liberty, the question I asked you

So any doctor should be able to off a depressed person if they, at that moment, decide they don't want to live anymore?

 

[kaz]

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

Mentally unstable and mentally adjudicated are two different things. Honestly, can you really say a person who wants to commit suicide is mentally stable? Preservation of self is a basic natural instinct. For that to be ignored for reasons of great pain, or say sacrifice for a greater good is one thing, to suppress it because one is a drunk and unhappy is something else.

If one goes by strict constructionism, there is no right in the constitution to be aided in killing yourself. Thus is it left up to the States via legislation. At that point I can say I would NOT support assisted suicide legislation except in cases of terminal illness.

Exactly as I thought, you're using the Catch 22 logic.

No one sane would want to fly an airplane, get shot at and drop bombs on people they don't know, so they shouldn't have to do that. However, to not do that, they have to ask to stop doing that. But asking to stop doing that shows they don't want to and are perfectly sane ...

You're like no one sane would want to die, so wanting to die is in itself proof of lack of sanity. It's ridiculous. They do have a painful, fatal disease. True alcoholism is an unending nightmare and it definitely leads to death.

As for "adjudicated" you don't seem to have gotten my point. The Supreme Court states your rights can only be removed with due process of law. So I'm not just putting up a random hurdle by saying you go to court to remove their rights, I am saying the Constitution tells you to do that

Again, where is the right to have a doctor kill you if you want it in the constitution?

I am drawing a line in a position, nothing earth shattering about it.

I am saying that self preservation is a strong impulse, that either takes extreme situations or something wrong with you to suppress.

That's how you think the Constitution works? We have only the rights specified in the Constitution? You're wrong about that. It's the other way around. Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the right to prevent you from killing yourself? Hint, it's not there

We may have more rights, but the only ones protected explicitly are those found in the document.

It doesn't give the feds the ability to legislate on doctor assisted suicide, thus said topic is left to State Legislatures.

No, those are not the only ones protected explicitly. Read the 9th and 10th amendments. Every power not expressly granted the Federal government is withheld from it, and the 9th adds that makes those rights no less important than the enumerated ones.

So what you're arguing is States can ban assisted suicides? OK, I agree with that. I did keep saying I was referring to the Federal government. You could have been clearer is saying that.

However, the States cannot prevent you from committing suicide without the State going to court to remove your rights as due process is a Constitutional right

 

[kaz]

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

Mentally unstable and mentally adjudicated are two different things. Honestly, can you really say a person who wants to commit suicide is mentally stable? Preservation of self is a basic natural instinct. For that to be ignored for reasons of great pain, or say sacrifice for a greater good is one thing, to suppress it because one is a drunk and unhappy is something else.

If one goes by strict constructionism, there is no right in the constitution to be aided in killing yourself. Thus is it left up to the States via legislation. At that point I can say I would NOT support assisted suicide legislation except in cases of terminal illness.

Exactly as I thought, you're using the Catch 22 logic.

No one sane would want to fly an airplane, get shot at and drop bombs on people they don't know, so they shouldn't have to do that. However, to not do that, they have to ask to stop doing that. But asking to stop doing that shows they don't want to and are perfectly sane ...

You're like no one sane would want to die, so wanting to die is in itself proof of lack of sanity. It's ridiculous. They do have a painful, fatal disease. True alcoholism is an unending nightmare and it definitely leads to death.

As for "adjudicated" you don't seem to have gotten my point. The Supreme Court states your rights can only be removed with due process of law. So I'm not just putting up a random hurdle by saying you go to court to remove their rights, I am saying the Constitution tells you to do that

Again, where is the right to have a doctor kill you if you want it in the constitution?

I am drawing a line in a position, nothing earth shattering about it.

I am saying that self preservation is a strong impulse, that either takes extreme situations or something wrong with you to suppress.

I'm really baffled by this argument from you. I'm shocked you think that you only have the rights given to you in the Constitution.

Actually the Federal government only has the powers given it in the Constitution. Read the 10th amendment

You may have more rights, but unless they are in the document, they are not explicit, and thus not automatically protected.

According to the 9th and 10th amendments, you're wrong. They are explicitly protected

 

[Ravi]

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.

I'm beginning to doubt that this story is even true. I read through the guidelines that must be followed to keep a doctor from being persecuted and it does not seem they were met.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Doctors are supposed to listen to their patients.
If a person is in what he (not you) believes to be existential pain that is too great for him to bear it is not up to you or anyone else to tell him he must be forced to live and suffer his own personal torment.

 

[martybegan]

Mentally unstable and mentally adjudicated are two different things. Honestly, can you really say a person who wants to commit suicide is mentally stable? Preservation of self is a basic natural instinct. For that to be ignored for reasons of great pain, or say sacrifice for a greater good is one thing, to suppress it because one is a drunk and unhappy is something else.

If one goes by strict constructionism, there is no right in the constitution to be aided in killing yourself. Thus is it left up to the States via legislation. At that point I can say I would NOT support assisted suicide legislation except in cases of terminal illness.

Exactly as I thought, you're using the Catch 22 logic.

No one sane would want to fly an airplane, get shot at and drop bombs on people they don't know, so they shouldn't have to do that. However, to not do that, they have to ask to stop doing that. But asking to stop doing that shows they don't want to and are perfectly sane ...

You're like no one sane would want to die, so wanting to die is in itself proof of lack of sanity. It's ridiculous. They do have a painful, fatal disease. True alcoholism is an unending nightmare and it definitely leads to death.

As for "adjudicated" you don't seem to have gotten my point. The Supreme Court states your rights can only be removed with due process of law. So I'm not just putting up a random hurdle by saying you go to court to remove their rights, I am saying the Constitution tells you to do that

Again, where is the right to have a doctor kill you if you want it in the constitution?

I am drawing a line in a position, nothing earth shattering about it.

I am saying that self preservation is a strong impulse, that either takes extreme situations or something wrong with you to suppress.

That's how you think the Constitution works? We have only the rights specified in the Constitution? You're wrong about that. It's the other way around. Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the right to prevent you from killing yourself? Hint, it's not there

We may have more rights, but the only ones protected explicitly are those found in the document.

It doesn't give the feds the ability to legislate on doctor assisted suicide, thus said topic is left to State Legislatures.

No, those are not the only ones protected explicitly. Read the 9th and 10th amendments. Every power not expressly granted the Federal government is withheld from it, and the 9th adds that makes those rights no less important than the enumerated ones.

So what you're arguing is States can ban assisted suicides? OK, I agree with that. I did keep saying I was referring to the Federal government. You could have been clearer is saying that.

However, the States cannot prevent you from committing suicide without the State going to court to remove your rights as due process is a Constitutional right

Yes, prior restraint does apply to the last case, unless you are adjudicated. Again, I have no issue with someone offing themselves as long as they don't do any collateral damage, my issue is the 3rd party aspect to it.

 

[martybegan]

Mentally unstable and mentally adjudicated are two different things. Honestly, can you really say a person who wants to commit suicide is mentally stable? Preservation of self is a basic natural instinct. For that to be ignored for reasons of great pain, or say sacrifice for a greater good is one thing, to suppress it because one is a drunk and unhappy is something else.

If one goes by strict constructionism, there is no right in the constitution to be aided in killing yourself. Thus is it left up to the States via legislation. At that point I can say I would NOT support assisted suicide legislation except in cases of terminal illness.

Exactly as I thought, you're using the Catch 22 logic.

No one sane would want to fly an airplane, get shot at and drop bombs on people they don't know, so they shouldn't have to do that. However, to not do that, they have to ask to stop doing that. But asking to stop doing that shows they don't want to and are perfectly sane ...

You're like no one sane would want to die, so wanting to die is in itself proof of lack of sanity. It's ridiculous. They do have a painful, fatal disease. True alcoholism is an unending nightmare and it definitely leads to death.

As for "adjudicated" you don't seem to have gotten my point. The Supreme Court states your rights can only be removed with due process of law. So I'm not just putting up a random hurdle by saying you go to court to remove their rights, I am saying the Constitution tells you to do that

Again, where is the right to have a doctor kill you if you want it in the constitution?

I am drawing a line in a position, nothing earth shattering about it.

I am saying that self preservation is a strong impulse, that either takes extreme situations or something wrong with you to suppress.

I'm really baffled by this argument from you. I'm shocked you think that you only have the rights given to you in the Constitution.

Actually the Federal government only has the powers given it in the Constitution. Read the 10th amendment

You may have more rights, but unless they are in the document, they are not explicit, and thus not automatically protected.

According to the 9th and 10th amendments, you're wrong. They are explicitly protected

So if I create my right to go around and plink people with a nerf hammer, It's a right and is protected?

 

[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.

Doctors are supposed to listen to their patients.
If a person is in what he (not you) believes to be existential pain that is too great for him to bear it is not up to you or anyone else to tell him he must be forced to live and suffer his own personal torment.

No, he can off himself if he so chooses.