Euthanasia

[Katzndogz]

The dog is owned. It is a pet. Its life is under the control of someone else. The dog has no freedom and no say in whether it lives or dies. Such ownership is very much like the ownership of slaves. The slave also has no say in whether it should live or die. The slave master might well want to put someone they own out of their misery. An act of kindness.

And that's why we force human beings to suffer? And why we take away the right to determine the time and/or method of one's own death?

As with the right to determine the time of one's reproductions, humans own their own bodies and should have the very basic right of choosing whether to live or die.

I have had several dogs put to sleep. It was quick and it was painless
Meanwhile, I watched my father struggle for two hours after life support was removed and he was "allowed to die"

You believe that your father's owner would have made a different decision in his best interests, of course.

Suppose it wasn't someone old and dying. Suppose it was a dog with a leg that needed amputation. Rather than pay for the expensive surgery, you elect (as the owner) to have the animal put down. You can do that. You own that dog. Suppose it was a person who needed a leg to be amputated. Should they be put down? Suppose they are old. Suppose it's a mentally disabled child. Should they be euthanized because the surgery to amputate the leg is too expensive? Suppose they don't want to be killed as a mercy to keep them from suffering with a leg that needs to be amputated. Should someone who knows better make that decision for them?

No matter how noble the intentions, euthanasia degenerates to the expedient. It turns the practice of medicine to the practice of veterinary medicine with the government as the owner.

 

[NoNukes]

The dog is owned. It is a pet. Its life is under the control of someone else. The dog has no freedom and no say in whether it lives or dies. Such ownership is very much like the ownership of slaves. The slave also has no say in whether it should live or die. The slave master might well want to put someone they own out of their misery. An act of kindness.

And that's why we force human beings to suffer? And why we take away the right to determine the time and/or method of one's own death?

As with the right to determine the time of one's reproductions, humans own their own bodies and should have the very basic right of choosing whether to live or die.

I have had several dogs put to sleep. It was quick and it was painless
Meanwhile, I watched my father struggle for two hours after life support was removed and he was "allowed to die"

My father was old and in the hospital after an operation. He quit eating and decided it was time to go. I accepted his wishes and let him go.

 

[Katzndogz]

The dog is owned. It is a pet. Its life is under the control of someone else. The dog has no freedom and no say in whether it lives or dies. Such ownership is very much like the ownership of slaves. The slave also has no say in whether it should live or die. The slave master might well want to put someone they own out of their misery. An act of kindness.

And that's why we force human beings to suffer? And why we take away the right to determine the time and/or method of one's own death?

As with the right to determine the time of one's reproductions, humans own their own bodies and should have the very basic right of choosing whether to live or die.

I have had several dogs put to sleep. It was quick and it was painless
Meanwhile, I watched my father struggle for two hours after life support was removed and he was "allowed to die"

My father was old and in the hospital after an operation. He quit eating and decided it was time to go. I accepted his wishes and let him go.

That's not euthanasia.

This is euthanasia

Assisted Suicide Out of Control in Netherlands
Deaths from euthanasia have risen by a total of 151 percent in a period of just seven years, with most cases involving cancer sufferers. However, there were also 97 people who were killed by their doctors because they had dementia.
The figures do not include "terminal sedation", where the patient is sedated and then has food and fluids withdrawn. If they did, however, euthanasia would account for one in eight of all deaths in the Netherlands.
Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship told the Daily Mail that euthanasia in the Netherlands is "way out of control", saying that it proves that assisted dying is impossible to regulate.
"The House of Lords calculated in 2005 that with a Dutch-type law in Britain we would be seeing over 13,000 cases of euthanasia per year," he added.
"On the basis of how Dutch euthanasia deaths have risen since this may prove to be a gross underestimate.
"What we are seeing in the Netherlands is 'incremental extension', the steady intentional escalation of numbers with a gradual widening of the categories of patients to be included.
"The lessons are clear. Once you relax the law on euthanasia or assisted suicide steady extension will follow as night follows day."

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The dog is owned. It is a pet. Its life is under the control of someone else. The dog has no freedom and no say in whether it lives or dies. Such ownership is very much like the ownership of slaves. The slave also has no say in whether it should live or die. The slave master might well want to put someone they own out of their misery. An act of kindness.

And that's why we force human beings to suffer? And why we take away the right to determine the time and/or method of one's own death?

As with the right to determine the time of one's reproductions, humans own their own bodies and should have the very basic right of choosing whether to live or die.

I have had several dogs put to sleep. It was quick and it was painless
Meanwhile, I watched my father struggle for two hours after life support was removed and he was "allowed to die"

You believe that your father's owner would have made a different decision in his best interests, of course.

Suppose it wasn't someone old and dying. Suppose it was a dog with a leg that needed amputation. Rather than pay for the expensive surgery, you elect (as the owner) to have the animal put down. You can do that. You own that dog. Suppose it was a person who needed a leg to be amputated. Should they be put down? Suppose they are old. Suppose it's a mentally disabled child. Should they be euthanized because the surgery to amputate the leg is too expensive? Suppose they don't want to be killed as a mercy to keep them from suffering with a leg that needs to be amputated. Should someone who knows better make that decision for them?

No matter how noble the intentions, euthanasia degenerates to the expedient. It turns the practice of medicine to the practice of veterinary medicine with the government as the owner.

Anything to keep decisions from being made by the real owner of that body, that life.

As with abortion, don't like it? Don't do it.

And, as with abortion, you have no right to that choice away from others.

 

[Taz]

If you're against euthanasia, don't do it to yourself, but please leave everyone else alone, their life isn't your call.

Nor is it the 'call' of many so sentenced.

Learn to read,

Euthanasia is what you do to a terminally sick person. Or an animal, including those on death row. The rest is called murder.

...unless government does it.

What are you talking about? The death penalty?

 

[Katzndogz]

The dog is owned. It is a pet. Its life is under the control of someone else. The dog has no freedom and no say in whether it lives or dies. Such ownership is very much like the ownership of slaves. The slave also has no say in whether it should live or die. The slave master might well want to put someone they own out of their misery. An act of kindness.

And that's why we force human beings to suffer? And why we take away the right to determine the time and/or method of one's own death?

As with the right to determine the time of one's reproductions, humans own their own bodies and should have the very basic right of choosing whether to live or die.

I have had several dogs put to sleep. It was quick and it was painless
Meanwhile, I watched my father struggle for two hours after life support was removed and he was "allowed to die"

You believe that your father's owner would have made a different decision in his best interests, of course.

Suppose it wasn't someone old and dying. Suppose it was a dog with a leg that needed amputation. Rather than pay for the expensive surgery, you elect (as the owner) to have the animal put down. You can do that. You own that dog. Suppose it was a person who needed a leg to be amputated. Should they be put down? Suppose they are old. Suppose it's a mentally disabled child. Should they be euthanized because the surgery to amputate the leg is too expensive? Suppose they don't want to be killed as a mercy to keep them from suffering with a leg that needs to be amputated. Should someone who knows better make that decision for them?

No matter how noble the intentions, euthanasia degenerates to the expedient. It turns the practice of medicine to the practice of veterinary medicine with the government as the owner.

Anything to keep decisions from being made by the real owner of that body, that life.

As with abortion, don't like it? Don't do it.

And, as with abortion, you have no right to that choice away from others.

Who is the real owner? In countries that have already legalized euthanasia, the real owner turns out to be the government. The person to be euthanized isn't even asked.

 

[rightwinger]

The dog is owned. It is a pet. Its life is under the control of someone else. The dog has no freedom and no say in whether it lives or dies. Such ownership is very much like the ownership of slaves. The slave also has no say in whether it should live or die. The slave master might well want to put someone they own out of their misery. An act of kindness.

And that's why we force human beings to suffer? And why we take away the right to determine the time and/or method of one's own death?

As with the right to determine the time of one's reproductions, humans own their own bodies and should have the very basic right of choosing whether to live or die.

I have had several dogs put to sleep. It was quick and it was painless
Meanwhile, I watched my father struggle for two hours after life support was removed and he was "allowed to die"

You believe that your father's owner would have made a different decision in his best interests, of course.

Suppose it wasn't someone old and dying. Suppose it was a dog with a leg that needed amputation. Rather than pay for the expensive surgery, you elect (as the owner) to have the animal put down. You can do that. You own that dog. Suppose it was a person who needed a leg to be amputated. Should they be put down? Suppose they are old. Suppose it's a mentally disabled child. Should they be euthanized because the surgery to amputate the leg is too expensive? Suppose they don't want to be killed as a mercy to keep them from suffering with a leg that needs to be amputated. Should someone who knows better make that decision for them?

No matter how noble the intentions, euthanasia degenerates to the expedient. It turns the practice of medicine to the practice of veterinary medicine with the government as the owner.

My father was very clear about his end of life decisions

Unfortunately, the hospital would not allow them to be carried out

 

[Katzndogz]

Euthanasia works IF you want to die. For those who don't want to die it isn't a mercy at all. When my husband was in the hospital he was so afraid of being killed (in his best interests) we put up a sign over his bed "Do not kill".

 

[PratchettFan]

Euthanasia works IF you want to die. For those who don't want to die it isn't a mercy at all. When my husband was in the hospital he was so afraid of being killed (in his best interests) we put up a sign over his bed "Do not kill".

Did they kill him?

 

[PratchettFan]

The dog is owned. It is a pet. Its life is under the control of someone else. The dog has no freedom and no say in whether it lives or dies. Such ownership is very much like the ownership of slaves. The slave also has no say in whether it should live or die. The slave master might well want to put someone they own out of their misery. An act of kindness.

And that's why we force human beings to suffer? And why we take away the right to determine the time and/or method of one's own death?

As with the right to determine the time of one's reproductions, humans own their own bodies and should have the very basic right of choosing whether to live or die.

I have had several dogs put to sleep. It was quick and it was painless
Meanwhile, I watched my father struggle for two hours after life support was removed and he was "allowed to die"

You believe that your father's owner would have made a different decision in his best interests, of course.

Suppose it wasn't someone old and dying. Suppose it was a dog with a leg that needed amputation. Rather than pay for the expensive surgery, you elect (as the owner) to have the animal put down. You can do that. You own that dog. Suppose it was a person who needed a leg to be amputated. Should they be put down? Suppose they are old. Suppose it's a mentally disabled child. Should they be euthanized because the surgery to amputate the leg is too expensive? Suppose they don't want to be killed as a mercy to keep them from suffering with a leg that needs to be amputated. Should someone who knows better make that decision for them?

No matter how noble the intentions, euthanasia degenerates to the expedient. It turns the practice of medicine to the practice of veterinary medicine with the government as the owner.

My father was very clear about his end of life decisions

Unfortunately, the hospital would not allow them to be carried out

Mine too. I spent three days watching his comatose body shut down when a simple shot of morphine would have eased his passage and released him. What we put him through in the name of what some call "morality" was inexcusable.

 

[Katzndogz]

The dog is owned. It is a pet. Its life is under the control of someone else. The dog has no freedom and no say in whether it lives or dies. Such ownership is very much like the ownership of slaves. The slave also has no say in whether it should live or die. The slave master might well want to put someone they own out of their misery. An act of kindness.

And that's why we force human beings to suffer? And why we take away the right to determine the time and/or method of one's own death?

As with the right to determine the time of one's reproductions, humans own their own bodies and should have the very basic right of choosing whether to live or die.

I have had several dogs put to sleep. It was quick and it was painless
Meanwhile, I watched my father struggle for two hours after life support was removed and he was "allowed to die"

You believe that your father's owner would have made a different decision in his best interests, of course.

Suppose it wasn't someone old and dying. Suppose it was a dog with a leg that needed amputation. Rather than pay for the expensive surgery, you elect (as the owner) to have the animal put down. You can do that. You own that dog. Suppose it was a person who needed a leg to be amputated. Should they be put down? Suppose they are old. Suppose it's a mentally disabled child. Should they be euthanized because the surgery to amputate the leg is too expensive? Suppose they don't want to be killed as a mercy to keep them from suffering with a leg that needs to be amputated. Should someone who knows better make that decision for them?

No matter how noble the intentions, euthanasia degenerates to the expedient. It turns the practice of medicine to the practice of veterinary medicine with the government as the owner.

My father was very clear about his end of life decisions

Unfortunately, the hospital would not allow them to be carried out

Mine too. I spent three days watching his comatose body shut down when a simple shot of morphine would have eased his passage and released him. What we put him through in the name of what some call "morality" was inexcusable.

Should the same treatment be given to a teenage girl unhappy about her haircut?

 

[PratchettFan]

And that's why we force human beings to suffer? And why we take away the right to determine the time and/or method of one's own death?

As with the right to determine the time of one's reproductions, humans own their own bodies and should have the very basic right of choosing whether to live or die.

I have had several dogs put to sleep. It was quick and it was painless
Meanwhile, I watched my father struggle for two hours after life support was removed and he was "allowed to die"

You believe that your father's owner would have made a different decision in his best interests, of course.

Suppose it wasn't someone old and dying. Suppose it was a dog with a leg that needed amputation. Rather than pay for the expensive surgery, you elect (as the owner) to have the animal put down. You can do that. You own that dog. Suppose it was a person who needed a leg to be amputated. Should they be put down? Suppose they are old. Suppose it's a mentally disabled child. Should they be euthanized because the surgery to amputate the leg is too expensive? Suppose they don't want to be killed as a mercy to keep them from suffering with a leg that needs to be amputated. Should someone who knows better make that decision for them?

No matter how noble the intentions, euthanasia degenerates to the expedient. It turns the practice of medicine to the practice of veterinary medicine with the government as the owner.

My father was very clear about his end of life decisions

Unfortunately, the hospital would not allow them to be carried out

Mine too. I spent three days watching his comatose body shut down when a simple shot of morphine would have eased his passage and released him. What we put him through in the name of what some call "morality" was inexcusable.

Should the same treatment be given to a teenage girl unhappy about her haircut?

You actually equate those two things?

 

[Katzndogz]

Euthanasia works IF you want to die. For those who don't want to die it isn't a mercy at all. When my husband was in the hospital he was so afraid of being killed (in his best interests) we put up a sign over his bed "Do not kill".

Did they kill him?

I had to keep an eagle eye on them to make sure they didn't. They knew I had a lawsuit in the wings. There was no DNR on file for a reason. The hospital badgered me to let them kill him but I knew that wasn't what he wanted. When they couldn't get agreement from me, they badgered his daughter who shut them down by saying she knew what her father's wishes were and they weren't for her to be making decisions. What they wanted was to get an empty bed as soon as possible.

 

[Katzndogz]

I have had several dogs put to sleep. It was quick and it was painless
Meanwhile, I watched my father struggle for two hours after life support was removed and he was "allowed to die"

You believe that your father's owner would have made a different decision in his best interests, of course.

Suppose it wasn't someone old and dying. Suppose it was a dog with a leg that needed amputation. Rather than pay for the expensive surgery, you elect (as the owner) to have the animal put down. You can do that. You own that dog. Suppose it was a person who needed a leg to be amputated. Should they be put down? Suppose they are old. Suppose it's a mentally disabled child. Should they be euthanized because the surgery to amputate the leg is too expensive? Suppose they don't want to be killed as a mercy to keep them from suffering with a leg that needs to be amputated. Should someone who knows better make that decision for them?

No matter how noble the intentions, euthanasia degenerates to the expedient. It turns the practice of medicine to the practice of veterinary medicine with the government as the owner.

My father was very clear about his end of life decisions

Unfortunately, the hospital would not allow them to be carried out

Mine too. I spent three days watching his comatose body shut down when a simple shot of morphine would have eased his passage and released him. What we put him through in the name of what some call "morality" was inexcusable.

Should the same treatment be given to a teenage girl unhappy about her haircut?

You actually equate those two things?

Those are the things actually being equated in countries that have legal euthanasia. It is legal in the Netherlands to euthanize depressed children and it is what is being debated in England.

 

[PratchettFan]

Euthanasia works IF you want to die. For those who don't want to die it isn't a mercy at all. When my husband was in the hospital he was so afraid of being killed (in his best interests) we put up a sign over his bed "Do not kill".

Did they kill him?

I had to keep an eagle eye on them to make sure they didn't. They knew I had a lawsuit in the wings. There was no DNR on file for a reason. The hospital badgered me to let them kill him but I knew that wasn't what he wanted. When they couldn't get agreement from me, they badgered his daughter who shut them down by saying she knew what her father's wishes were and they weren't for her to be making decisions. What they wanted was to get an empty bed as soon as possible.

So, they didn't kill him. He made his wishes known and those wishes were honored. Why did your husband get his wishes and my father not get his?

 

[PratchettFan]

You believe that your father's owner would have made a different decision in his best interests, of course.

Suppose it wasn't someone old and dying. Suppose it was a dog with a leg that needed amputation. Rather than pay for the expensive surgery, you elect (as the owner) to have the animal put down. You can do that. You own that dog. Suppose it was a person who needed a leg to be amputated. Should they be put down? Suppose they are old. Suppose it's a mentally disabled child. Should they be euthanized because the surgery to amputate the leg is too expensive? Suppose they don't want to be killed as a mercy to keep them from suffering with a leg that needs to be amputated. Should someone who knows better make that decision for them?

No matter how noble the intentions, euthanasia degenerates to the expedient. It turns the practice of medicine to the practice of veterinary medicine with the government as the owner.

My father was very clear about his end of life decisions

Unfortunately, the hospital would not allow them to be carried out

Mine too. I spent three days watching his comatose body shut down when a simple shot of morphine would have eased his passage and released him. What we put him through in the name of what some call "morality" was inexcusable.

Should the same treatment be given to a teenage girl unhappy about her haircut?

You actually equate those two things?

Those are the things actually being equated in countries that have legal euthanasia. It is legal in the Netherlands to euthanize depressed children and it is what is being debated in England.

No, they are not.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The dog is owned. It is a pet. Its life is under the control of someone else. The dog has no freedom and no say in whether it lives or dies. Such ownership is very much like the ownership of slaves. The slave also has no say in whether it should live or die. The slave master might well want to put someone they own out of their misery. An act of kindness.

And that's why we force human beings to suffer? And why we take away the right to determine the time and/or method of one's own death?

As with the right to determine the time of one's reproductions, humans own their own bodies and should have the very basic right of choosing whether to live or die.

I have had several dogs put to sleep. It was quick and it was painless
Meanwhile, I watched my father struggle for two hours after life support was removed and he was "allowed to die"

You believe that your father's owner would have made a different decision in his best interests, of course.

Suppose it wasn't someone old and dying. Suppose it was a dog with a leg that needed amputation. Rather than pay for the expensive surgery, you elect (as the owner) to have the animal put down. You can do that. You own that dog. Suppose it was a person who needed a leg to be amputated. Should they be put down? Suppose they are old. Suppose it's a mentally disabled child. Should they be euthanized because the surgery to amputate the leg is too expensive? Suppose they don't want to be killed as a mercy to keep them from suffering with a leg that needs to be amputated. Should someone who knows better make that decision for them?

No matter how noble the intentions, euthanasia degenerates to the expedient. It turns the practice of medicine to the practice of veterinary medicine with the government as the owner.

My father was very clear about his end of life decisions

Unfortunately, the hospital would not allow them to be carried out

Mine too. I spent three days watching his comatose body shut down when a simple shot of morphine would have eased his passage and released him. What we put him through in the name of what some call "morality" was inexcusable.

I knew a woman who was dying of stage 4 cancer. No hope. In the hospital, unable to breathe and in unspeakable pain. They didn't want to give her more morphine because she could have become addicted. She and her family begged but instead, they wanted to send her home.

At Freud's request, his doctor, "Max", killed him with an overdose of morphine.

Apparently, katzen's answer is a different haircut.

 

[Katzndogz]

Euthanasia works IF you want to die. For those who don't want to die it isn't a mercy at all. When my husband was in the hospital he was so afraid of being killed (in his best interests) we put up a sign over his bed "Do not kill".

Did they kill him?

I had to keep an eagle eye on them to make sure they didn't. They knew I had a lawsuit in the wings. There was no DNR on file for a reason. The hospital badgered me to let them kill him but I knew that wasn't what he wanted. When they couldn't get agreement from me, they badgered his daughter who shut them down by saying she knew what her father's wishes were and they weren't for her to be making decisions. What they wanted was to get an empty bed as soon as possible.

So, they didn't kill him. He made his wishes known and those wishes were honored. Why did your husband get his wishes and my father not get his?

I was there to threaten them. Otherwise he would have been expediently executed. When my mother in law was in the hospital dying, my husband authorized disconnecting her life support and she was gone in ten minutes.

That's not the issue however. The issue is that once euthanasia is legalized it expands, it creates more categories of those who should be killed. It stops being the decision of the person and their family and becomes the decision of whatever is the power. It turns us all into pets with the government the owner making veterinary decisions on who should live and who should die. There is a steady escalation with an ever expanding pool of unwilling candidates. That's what's wrong with legalizing euthanasia.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Euthanasia works IF you want to die. For those who don't want to die it isn't a mercy at all. When my husband was in the hospital he was so afraid of being killed (in his best interests) we put up a sign over his bed "Do not kill".

Did they kill him?

I had to keep an eagle eye on them to make sure they didn't. They knew I had a lawsuit in the wings. There was no DNR on file for a reason. The hospital badgered me to let them kill him but I knew that wasn't what he wanted. When they couldn't get agreement from me, they badgered his daughter who shut them down by saying she knew what her father's wishes were and they weren't for her to be making decisions. What they wanted was to get an empty bed as soon as possible.

The hosp did not badger you to kill him.

 

[Katzndogz]

Euthanasia is out of control in the Netherlands and in Belgium where euthanizing those who are depressed is the acceptable treatment.

The number of euthanasia deaths in Belgium is skyrocketing with an increase of 25% in 2012. Recent studies indicate that up to 47% of all assisted deaths are not being reported, 32% of all assisted deaths are being done without request and nurses are killing their patients, even though the law restricts euthanasia to doctors.
SomeBelgian experts are supporting the extension of euthanasia to children with disabilities because they say that it is being done already. The same medical experts suggest that the extension of euthanasia will result in an increase of 10 to 100 euthanasia deaths each year.
The Belgian euthanasia law appears out-of-control. The Belgian Euthanasia Control and Evaluation Commission appear to be in a conflict of interest. The Commission supported the euthanasia deaths of: Nathan Verhelst (44) who was born as Nancy, Ann G who had Anorexia Nervosa and was sexually exploited by her psychiatrist, Mark & Eddy Verbessem, and at least one depressed woman. These are only the cases that we know about.

Belgium Approves Measure Allowing Doctors to Euthanize Children LifeNews.com

“They are already euthanising people who are depressed or tired of life because they have taken the interpretations of saying physical and/or psychological suffering – you don’t have to have both, if you have one, why is that not enough? If you are suffering, it’s a personal experience and it would be discriminatory for someone to judge what a person is suffering,” he says. “What this teaches us is that despite the government’s assurances that they will set very strict criteria, that won’t work.”

Belgium Senate Approves Measure Allowing Doctors to Euthanize Children LifeNews.com