Dutch euthanasia law used kill alcoholic 41

[kaz]

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?

That sounds good to you? That you can do things to other people? That has nothing to do with the situation discussed or anything that I said, it's very clearly a false equivalence that you can do things to others

 

[martybegan]

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?

That sounds good to you? That you can do things to other people? That has nothing to do with the situation discussed or anything that I said, it's very clearly a false equivalence that you can do things to others

it's an absurd demonstration, I know. but again, its a nerf hammer, and only a plinking. If I think I have a right to it, what is to stop me? I am not doing any harm, and I claim its my right.

 

[kaz]

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?

That sounds good to you? That you can do things to other people? That has nothing to do with the situation discussed or anything that I said, it's very clearly a false equivalence that you can do things to others

it's an absurd demonstration, I know. but again, its a nerf hammer, and only a plinking. If I think I have a right to it, what is to stop me? I am not doing any harm, and I claim its my right.

First, we are talking about a situation where no one is having their rights infringed against their choice, so there is no applicability to the subject being discussed whether "plinking" in minor or not.

Second, it depends. It could quickly become harassment, particularly if you continue to do it to people who told you to stop. You don't have a right to infringe on the rights of others. They may tolerate you though, that doesn't make it your right

 

[martybegan]

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?

That sounds good to you? That you can do things to other people? That has nothing to do with the situation discussed or anything that I said, it's very clearly a false equivalence that you can do things to others

it's an absurd demonstration, I know. but again, its a nerf hammer, and only a plinking. If I think I have a right to it, what is to stop me? I am not doing any harm, and I claim its my right.

First, we are talking about a situation where no one is having their rights infringed against their choice, so there is no applicability to the subject being discussed whether "plinking" in minor or not.

Second, it depends. It could quickly become harassment, particularly if you continue to do it to people who told you to stop. You don't have a right to infringe on the rights of others. They may tolerate you though, that doesn't make it your right

Fine, I declare my right to gently plink ONCE, anyone who passes me with a very very soft nerf hammer. Now, If I say it is my right, tell me why it isn't a protected right.

 

[Ravi]

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?

That sounds good to you? That you can do things to other people? That has nothing to do with the situation discussed or anything that I said, it's very clearly a false equivalence that you can do things to others

it's an absurd demonstration, I know. but again, its a nerf hammer, and only a plinking. If I think I have a right to it, what is to stop me? I am not doing any harm, and I claim its my right.

First, we are talking about a situation where no one is having their rights infringed against their choice, so there is no applicability to the subject being discussed whether "plinking" in minor or not.

Second, it depends. It could quickly become harassment, particularly if you continue to do it to people who told you to stop. You don't have a right to infringe on the rights of others. They may tolerate you though, that doesn't make it your right

Fine, I declare my right to gently plink ONCE, anyone who passes me with a very very soft nerf hammer. Now, If I say it is my right, tell me why it isn't a protected right.

How would you have a right to touch someone's body without their permission?

 

[kaz]

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?

That sounds good to you? That you can do things to other people? That has nothing to do with the situation discussed or anything that I said, it's very clearly a false equivalence that you can do things to others

it's an absurd demonstration, I know. but again, its a nerf hammer, and only a plinking. If I think I have a right to it, what is to stop me? I am not doing any harm, and I claim its my right.

First, we are talking about a situation where no one is having their rights infringed against their choice, so there is no applicability to the subject being discussed whether "plinking" in minor or not.

Second, it depends. It could quickly become harassment, particularly if you continue to do it to people who told you to stop. You don't have a right to infringe on the rights of others. They may tolerate you though, that doesn't make it your right

Fine, I declare my right to gently plink ONCE, anyone who passes me with a very very soft nerf hammer. Now, If I say it is my right, tell me why it isn't a protected right.

Because you don't have the right to infringe on the right of others

 

[kaz]

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

That sounds good to you? That you can do things to other people? That has nothing to do with the situation discussed or anything that I said, it's very clearly a false equivalence that you can do things to others

it's an absurd demonstration, I know. but again, its a nerf hammer, and only a plinking. If I think I have a right to it, what is to stop me? I am not doing any harm, and I claim its my right.

First, we are talking about a situation where no one is having their rights infringed against their choice, so there is no applicability to the subject being discussed whether "plinking" in minor or not.

Second, it depends. It could quickly become harassment, particularly if you continue to do it to people who told you to stop. You don't have a right to infringe on the rights of others. They may tolerate you though, that doesn't make it your right

Fine, I declare my right to gently plink ONCE, anyone who passes me with a very very soft nerf hammer. Now, If I say it is my right, tell me why it isn't a protected right.

How would you have a right to touch someone's body without their permission?

I'm completely wiffing on his point since the discussion isn't about anyone having their rights violated by others. We're discussing that government doesn't have the right to violate the rights of it's citizens

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

I already addressed this. The Dr then can prescribe him enough medication to overdose or set up a Kavorkian device and let the patient initiate it

But what it all boils down to is that it really is none of your business

 

[martybegan]

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

That sounds good to you? That you can do things to other people? That has nothing to do with the situation discussed or anything that I said, it's very clearly a false equivalence that you can do things to others

it's an absurd demonstration, I know. but again, its a nerf hammer, and only a plinking. If I think I have a right to it, what is to stop me? I am not doing any harm, and I claim its my right.

First, we are talking about a situation where no one is having their rights infringed against their choice, so there is no applicability to the subject being discussed whether "plinking" in minor or not.

Second, it depends. It could quickly become harassment, particularly if you continue to do it to people who told you to stop. You don't have a right to infringe on the rights of others. They may tolerate you though, that doesn't make it your right

Fine, I declare my right to gently plink ONCE, anyone who passes me with a very very soft nerf hammer. Now, If I say it is my right, tell me why it isn't a protected right.

Because you don't have the right to infringe on the right of others

With the way 2nd amendment haters define the word infringe these days, I can say a light plink with a soft nerf hammer is no where near infringement.

 

[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.

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.

I already addressed this. The Dr then can prescribe him enough medication to overdose or set up a Kavorkian device and let the patient initiate it

But what it all boils down to is that it really is none of your business

So are a lot of things we legislate. That isn't a real answer.

 

[kaz]

That sounds good to you? That you can do things to other people? That has nothing to do with the situation discussed or anything that I said, it's very clearly a false equivalence that you can do things to others

it's an absurd demonstration, I know. but again, its a nerf hammer, and only a plinking. If I think I have a right to it, what is to stop me? I am not doing any harm, and I claim its my right.

First, we are talking about a situation where no one is having their rights infringed against their choice, so there is no applicability to the subject being discussed whether "plinking" in minor or not.

Second, it depends. It could quickly become harassment, particularly if you continue to do it to people who told you to stop. You don't have a right to infringe on the rights of others. They may tolerate you though, that doesn't make it your right

Fine, I declare my right to gently plink ONCE, anyone who passes me with a very very soft nerf hammer. Now, If I say it is my right, tell me why it isn't a protected right.

Because you don't have the right to infringe on the right of others

With the way 2nd amendment haters define the word infringe these days, I can say a light plink with a soft nerf hammer is no where near infringement.

Well, it's a true statement, but I'd never use the left as my standard

 

[martybegan]

it's an absurd demonstration, I know. but again, its a nerf hammer, and only a plinking. If I think I have a right to it, what is to stop me? I am not doing any harm, and I claim its my right.

First, we are talking about a situation where no one is having their rights infringed against their choice, so there is no applicability to the subject being discussed whether "plinking" in minor or not.

Second, it depends. It could quickly become harassment, particularly if you continue to do it to people who told you to stop. You don't have a right to infringe on the rights of others. They may tolerate you though, that doesn't make it your right

Fine, I declare my right to gently plink ONCE, anyone who passes me with a very very soft nerf hammer. Now, If I say it is my right, tell me why it isn't a protected right.

Because you don't have the right to infringe on the right of others

With the way 2nd amendment haters define the word infringe these days, I can say a light plink with a soft nerf hammer is no where near infringement.

Well, it's a true statement, but I'd never use the left as my standard

It just shows that for a court to protect a right, it should really be explicit in the constitution at the level of the court's jurisdiction. Yes, rights are reserved to the people, and not only the rights enumerated in the Federal and Various State Constitutions, but for government to PROTECT something that the majority decides it doesn't like via legislative action, letting courts make it up as they go along is a bad idea.

I think also we have to divide this topic into what we think is "right", and what we think is constitutional.

 

[kaz]

First, we are talking about a situation where no one is having their rights infringed against their choice, so there is no applicability to the subject being discussed whether "plinking" in minor or not.

Second, it depends. It could quickly become harassment, particularly if you continue to do it to people who told you to stop. You don't have a right to infringe on the rights of others. They may tolerate you though, that doesn't make it your right

Fine, I declare my right to gently plink ONCE, anyone who passes me with a very very soft nerf hammer. Now, If I say it is my right, tell me why it isn't a protected right.

Because you don't have the right to infringe on the right of others

With the way 2nd amendment haters define the word infringe these days, I can say a light plink with a soft nerf hammer is no where near infringement.

Well, it's a true statement, but I'd never use the left as my standard

It just shows that for a court to protect a right, it should really be explicit in the constitution at the level of the court's jurisdiction. Yes, rights are reserved to the people, and not only the rights enumerated in the Federal and Various State Constitutions, but for government to PROTECT something that the majority decides it doesn't like via legislative action, letting courts make it up as they go along is a bad idea.

I think also we have to divide this topic into what we think is "right", and what we think is constitutional.

Constitutionally, abortion isn't there so by the 10th Amendment it goes to the States or the people.

I think the States should keep it legal, but the Constitution isn't involved at that point.

I have clearly said that

 

[2aguy]

I don't think this was the intent when these laws were first proposed....

Dutch euthanasia law used to kill Mark Langedijk who decided death was the way to escape | Daily Mail Online

The death of Mr Langedijk marks a new departure in Dutch euthanasia practice, which killed more than 5,500 people last year.

The scope of the mercy killing law, introduced 16 years ago to apply only to those in unbearable suffering, has already widened so that those who die include many whose problems include ‘social isolation and loneliness’.

One of those who died was a woman in her 20s who had been a victim of child sex abuse.

Papers released to explain the workings of the euthanasia laws said doctors believed she could not live with her mental suffering and her post-traumatic stress disorder and other conditions were incurable.

These laws were supposed to be about terminally ill people in pain, with no chance of survival or recovery. I know this is The Netherlands, but seriously, this makes me very very nervous.

Imagine what would have happened if we had those laws here....after Trump was elected...do you know how many fewer left wing whiny pants we would probably have here...as they all offed themselves.......?

 

[martybegan]

Fine, I declare my right to gently plink ONCE, anyone who passes me with a very very soft nerf hammer. Now, If I say it is my right, tell me why it isn't a protected right.

Because you don't have the right to infringe on the right of others

With the way 2nd amendment haters define the word infringe these days, I can say a light plink with a soft nerf hammer is no where near infringement.

Well, it's a true statement, but I'd never use the left as my standard

It just shows that for a court to protect a right, it should really be explicit in the constitution at the level of the court's jurisdiction. Yes, rights are reserved to the people, and not only the rights enumerated in the Federal and Various State Constitutions, but for government to PROTECT something that the majority decides it doesn't like via legislative action, letting courts make it up as they go along is a bad idea.

I think also we have to divide this topic into what we think is "right", and what we think is constitutional.

Constitutionally, abortion isn't there so by the 10th Amendment it goes to the States or the people.

I think the States should keep it legal, but the Constitution isn't involved at that point.

I have clearly said that

And I agree. So shouldn't Assisted Euthanasia go to the States as well then? Doesn't it at that point go from being a rights issue to a legislative one?

 

[kaz]

Because you don't have the right to infringe on the right of others

With the way 2nd amendment haters define the word infringe these days, I can say a light plink with a soft nerf hammer is no where near infringement.

Well, it's a true statement, but I'd never use the left as my standard

It just shows that for a court to protect a right, it should really be explicit in the constitution at the level of the court's jurisdiction. Yes, rights are reserved to the people, and not only the rights enumerated in the Federal and Various State Constitutions, but for government to PROTECT something that the majority decides it doesn't like via legislative action, letting courts make it up as they go along is a bad idea.

I think also we have to divide this topic into what we think is "right", and what we think is constitutional.

Constitutionally, abortion isn't there so by the 10th Amendment it goes to the States or the people.

I think the States should keep it legal, but the Constitution isn't involved at that point.

I have clearly said that

And I agree. So shouldn't Assisted Euthanasia go to the States as well then? Doesn't it at that point go from being a rights issue to a legislative one?

Constitutionally? Yes, I already agreed with you on that as well. I disagreed on what the States should do.

However, my view as a libertarian is that it's a blatant infringement on our freedom for government to intervene on an agreement between two parties in a voluntary association. There is no difference to me between infringing on your rights as an individual and you and another individual when you both voluntarily chose to associate. Frankly those positions are inseparable. If you can't chose to freely associate, you don't have individual liberties. My involving another person in free association doesn't make it the business of anyone other than the two of us.

Also, I agreed with you government shouldn't pay for euthanasia or abortion. Then again I don't think government should pay for anyone's medical or any other individual bills. That is the specific welfare, not the general welfare where everyone benefits. Like having roads. Entirely different things

 

[martybegan]

With the way 2nd amendment haters define the word infringe these days, I can say a light plink with a soft nerf hammer is no where near infringement.

Well, it's a true statement, but I'd never use the left as my standard

It just shows that for a court to protect a right, it should really be explicit in the constitution at the level of the court's jurisdiction. Yes, rights are reserved to the people, and not only the rights enumerated in the Federal and Various State Constitutions, but for government to PROTECT something that the majority decides it doesn't like via legislative action, letting courts make it up as they go along is a bad idea.

I think also we have to divide this topic into what we think is "right", and what we think is constitutional.

Constitutionally, abortion isn't there so by the 10th Amendment it goes to the States or the people.

I think the States should keep it legal, but the Constitution isn't involved at that point.

I have clearly said that

And I agree. So shouldn't Assisted Euthanasia go to the States as well then? Doesn't it at that point go from being a rights issue to a legislative one?

Constitutionally? Yes, I already agreed with you on that as well. I disagreed on what the States should do.

However, my view as a libertarian is that it's a blatant infringement on our freedom for government to intervene on an agreement between two parties in a voluntary association. There is no difference to me between infringing on your rights as an individual and you and another individual when you both voluntarily chose to associate. Frankly those positions are inseparable. If you can't chose to freely associate, you don't have individual liberties. My involving another person in free association doesn't make it the business of anyone other than the two of us.

Also, I agreed with you government shouldn't pay for euthanasia or abortion. Then again I don't think government should pay for anyone's medical or any other individual bills. That is the specific welfare, not the general welfare where everyone benefits. Like having roads. Entirely different things

Where we differ is the scope of the law allowing it, not it's existence. Something about people who are supposed to preserve life working to end if under flimsy pretext creeps the hell out of me. I get it in the case of terminal illness, but for mental issues? I will admit something, back in college, I had the knife in my hand one drunk night, and was contemplating offing myself (over rejection by a girl). It only lasted a few minutes, but it chills me to think that someone, legally could have been there to help me along. I know my example is a fleeting moment, and these people who have already done it have been thinking about if for a long time, but the principle still gives me the willies.

 

[kaz]

Well, it's a true statement, but I'd never use the left as my standard

It just shows that for a court to protect a right, it should really be explicit in the constitution at the level of the court's jurisdiction. Yes, rights are reserved to the people, and not only the rights enumerated in the Federal and Various State Constitutions, but for government to PROTECT something that the majority decides it doesn't like via legislative action, letting courts make it up as they go along is a bad idea.

I think also we have to divide this topic into what we think is "right", and what we think is constitutional.

Constitutionally, abortion isn't there so by the 10th Amendment it goes to the States or the people.

I think the States should keep it legal, but the Constitution isn't involved at that point.

I have clearly said that

And I agree. So shouldn't Assisted Euthanasia go to the States as well then? Doesn't it at that point go from being a rights issue to a legislative one?

Constitutionally? Yes, I already agreed with you on that as well. I disagreed on what the States should do.

However, my view as a libertarian is that it's a blatant infringement on our freedom for government to intervene on an agreement between two parties in a voluntary association. There is no difference to me between infringing on your rights as an individual and you and another individual when you both voluntarily chose to associate. Frankly those positions are inseparable. If you can't chose to freely associate, you don't have individual liberties. My involving another person in free association doesn't make it the business of anyone other than the two of us.

Also, I agreed with you government shouldn't pay for euthanasia or abortion. Then again I don't think government should pay for anyone's medical or any other individual bills. That is the specific welfare, not the general welfare where everyone benefits. Like having roads. Entirely different things

Where we differ is the scope of the law allowing it, not it's existence. Something about people who are supposed to preserve life working to end if under flimsy pretext creeps the hell out of me. I get it in the case of terminal illness, but for mental issues? I will admit something, back in college, I had the knife in my hand one drunk night, and was contemplating offing myself (over rejection by a girl). It only lasted a few minutes, but it chills me to think that someone, legally could have been there to help me along. I know my example is a fleeting moment, and these people who have already done it have been thinking about if for a long time, but the principle still gives me the willies.

Well, again, without the right to free association, you don't believe in individual rights. Individual rights meaning the right to make your own choices as long as you're not infringing on the individual rights of others. The thing with believing in individual rights is you don't get to decide when they apply and when they don't, that isn't believing in individual rights.

I will give you though that Doctors shouldn't be trolling bars looking for people who want a shot to end it on the spot

 

[martybegan]

It just shows that for a court to protect a right, it should really be explicit in the constitution at the level of the court's jurisdiction. Yes, rights are reserved to the people, and not only the rights enumerated in the Federal and Various State Constitutions, but for government to PROTECT something that the majority decides it doesn't like via legislative action, letting courts make it up as they go along is a bad idea.

I think also we have to divide this topic into what we think is "right", and what we think is constitutional.

Constitutionally, abortion isn't there so by the 10th Amendment it goes to the States or the people.

I think the States should keep it legal, but the Constitution isn't involved at that point.

I have clearly said that

And I agree. So shouldn't Assisted Euthanasia go to the States as well then? Doesn't it at that point go from being a rights issue to a legislative one?

Constitutionally? Yes, I already agreed with you on that as well. I disagreed on what the States should do.

However, my view as a libertarian is that it's a blatant infringement on our freedom for government to intervene on an agreement between two parties in a voluntary association. There is no difference to me between infringing on your rights as an individual and you and another individual when you both voluntarily chose to associate. Frankly those positions are inseparable. If you can't chose to freely associate, you don't have individual liberties. My involving another person in free association doesn't make it the business of anyone other than the two of us.

Also, I agreed with you government shouldn't pay for euthanasia or abortion. Then again I don't think government should pay for anyone's medical or any other individual bills. That is the specific welfare, not the general welfare where everyone benefits. Like having roads. Entirely different things

Where we differ is the scope of the law allowing it, not it's existence. Something about people who are supposed to preserve life working to end if under flimsy pretext creeps the hell out of me. I get it in the case of terminal illness, but for mental issues? I will admit something, back in college, I had the knife in my hand one drunk night, and was contemplating offing myself (over rejection by a girl). It only lasted a few minutes, but it chills me to think that someone, legally could have been there to help me along. I know my example is a fleeting moment, and these people who have already done it have been thinking about if for a long time, but the principle still gives me the willies.

Well, again, without the right to free association, you don't believe in individual rights. Individual rights meaning the right to make your own choices as long as you're not infringing on the individual rights of others. The thing with believing in individual rights is you don't get to decide when they apply and when they don't, that isn't believing in individual rights.

I will give you though that Doctors shouldn't be trolling bars looking for people who want a shot to end it on the spot

I believe in the right to free association, but like all rights it is not absolute. Individual rights should be paramount, and if they need to be limited, limited only in the least infringing way possible.

As a society we decide to license doctors. To me the task of offing people because they are unhappy is against the principles they are licensed to follow.

Maybe create a separate person who would handle the euthanasia? (god, who would want that job?)

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

I already addressed this. The Dr then can prescribe him enough medication to overdose or set up a Kavorkian device and let the patient initiate it

But what it all boils down to is that it really is none of your business

So are a lot of things we legislate. That isn't a real answer.

Of course it is.

You cannot legislate the choice to live or die