The guys who do themselves in.. their stoicism beggars belief.
I enjoyed it immensely, and it further reinforces my belief that I should be allowed to die in the beer garden of my local pub, with something gak on my MP3 player after a last meal of chicken fried steak and noodle doodles.
Snow or rain of course, but English snow and rain!
Had to re-inforce my bottom lip for watching that last night.
In other news; How annoying was that disabled woman on the debate afterwards? They one that was against it, and kept saying that it would lead to sinister places. That the people weren't even terminally ill, so shouldn't have died.
I have no idea why assisted dying at a place like Dignitas is illegal over here. Obviously there needs to be certain limitations but it's a fantastic idea. Why should anybody have to suffer through to the bitter end when this option is available.
In other, other news; Jeremy Paxman should have interviewed the Duke instead of Ms. Bruce.
Medium of Death wrote:Had to re-inforce my bottom lip for watching that last night.
In other news; How annoying was that disabled woman on the debate afterwards? They one that was against it, and kept saying that it would lead to sinister places. That the people weren't even terminally ill, so shouldn't have died.
I have no idea why assisted dying at a place like Dignitas is illegal over here. Obviously there needs to be certain limitations but it's a fantastic idea. Why should anybody have to suffer through to the bitter end when this option is available.
In other, other news; Jeremy Paxman should have interviewed the Duke instead of Ms. Bruce.
I watched last night and it got a bit smoky in the living room.
Very un PC of me but that woman in wheel chair who was against 'minorities choosing their fate' I called a stupid puppet version of Gollum.
I was sad because she made me angry and yet the religious guy made some sense even though I do not agree with his position.
English law is perfectly able and would be eminently suitable to enable centres like Dignitas to exist on our shores. The vulnerable are well catered for in law.
We just need to throw out 2000 years or so of dogma that has taught us to fear death in all its forms.
If I was able to I would like to choose the time and method of my own passing. And as the programme stated a lot of those who sign up with Dignitas do not take up that option (whatever the reason), having a choice is enabling.
Medium of Death wrote:
I have no idea why assisted dying at a place like Dignitas is illegal over here. Obviously there needs to be certain limitations but it's a fantastic idea. Why should anybody have to suffer through to the bitter end when this option is available.
Because humans are selfish and would rather a loved one suffered than they themselves suffer the grief from losing said loved one...
If my pets are suffering and near death, I opt for the Green Dream for them... why not humans?
Emperors Faithful wrote:Can't watch it here, apparently.
We should have the choice of when to pop our clogs.
There is no diginity in death, there is only dignity in life.
A mate of mine lingered in a PVS for 5 months because his family argued over when to turn the machines off. Only the machines kept him alive. They stopped administering nutrients 6 weeks before he finally (metaphorically) just said "stuff it" and popped away.
chromedog wrote:We should have the choice of when to pop our clogs.
There is no diginity in death, there is only dignity in life.
A mate of mine lingered in a PVS for 5 months because his family argued over when to turn the machines off. Only the machines kept him alive. They stopped administering nutrients 6 weeks before he finally (metaphorically) just said "stuff it" and popped away.
I'm with Terry P on this one.
Agree 100%.
I haven't seen the programme, but I have seen 2 relatives dying from terminal illnesses, and to say the end phases were unpleasant would be an understatement. Certainly made me realise I wouldn't want to suffer like that.
People should be given the right to decide what's best for them, it's their life afterall.
I've always been a supporter of assisted suicide (although euthanasia would be a more fitting term).
If I was diagnosed with an uncurable, terminal illness, the only possible outcome of which is a long suffering agonising death, I'd rather take a syringe of morphine and never wake up that watch my family get slowly destroyed by having to care for me in my suffering.
Of course, there is the issue of 'who is allowed to die', which I feel should be placed in the jurisdiction of a commitee of knowledgable and competent individuals. This way each 'request' to end a life has to be carefully considered, so that, for example, a terminal cancer patient would be allowed to die with dignity if he/she chooses, but a guy who loses one arm is told to 'man up' (a little crude but you get the idea).
But then again, UK health law is based on the principle of 'sanctity of life', so we are not allowed to even acknowledge that a person might be better off dead, regardless of how much they are suffering...
On the other side of the argument, consider Stephen Hawking...
Leigen_Zero wrote:I've always been a supporter of assisted suicide (although euthanasia would be a more fitting term).
If I was diagnosed with an uncurable, terminal illness, the only possible outcome of which is a long suffering agonising death, I'd rather take a syringe of morphine and never wake up that watch my family get slowly destroyed by having to care for me in my suffering.
Of course, there is the issue of 'who is allowed to die', which I feel should be placed in the jurisdiction of a commitee of knowledgable and competent individuals. This way each 'request' to end a life has to be carefully considered, so that, for example, a terminal cancer patient would be allowed to die with dignity if he/she chooses, but a guy who loses one arm is told to 'man up' (a little crude but you get the idea).
But then again, UK health law is based on the principle of 'sanctity of life', so we are not allowed to even acknowledge that a person might be better off dead, regardless of how much they are suffering...
On the other side of the argument, consider Stephen Hawking...
Stephen Hawking generates his own reason for living, and is a far better proponent of disabled rights than that shrieking dogmatised woman who happened to be in a wheelchair could ever hope to be.
I didn't watch it as I kind of have views about watching someone's final moments on TV*, but I'm not wholly against the idea of assisted suicides.
I am highly irritated by all the people complaining about the program though. It was quite clear as to what the content would be, so if this stuff offends them, why bloody watch it?!
*I remember flicking over to Newsnight once just as they were showing the execution of the Ceaușescus. Most unpleasant.
Medium of Death wrote:
I have no idea why assisted dying at a place like Dignitas is illegal over here. Obviously there needs to be certain limitations but it's a fantastic idea. Why should anybody have to suffer through to the bitter end when this option is available.
Because humans are selfish and would rather a loved one suffered than they themselves suffer the grief from losing said loved one...
Or maybe because humans are short-sighted and would rather take a short-term perceived benefit than realize a long term gain. Or because we're concerned about the selfishness of individuals who "choose to die" rather than give their friends & loved ones more time with them.
I recall reading a survey of people who had jumped off of a bridge (Brooklyn? Golden gate? Not sure) in an attempted suicide, but survived. The last thing each of them thought was "I can fix X, I can live with Y...the only thing I can't fix or deal with was jumping off of that bridge."
Another reason to prohibit "assisted suicide" (i.e. homicide) is because ease of access to the "procedure" can lead to an increase in suicide amongst depressed people. And if consent is a defense to homicide, it gives criminal defendants a new tool in their defense that functions as a means to attack the victim.
I caught the end of the program, and I must say I found it very moving. In particular, when Peter Smedley (iirc) drank the poison and took his wife's hand saying, 'be strong, my darling', I must confess to having a lump in my throat.
Such a brave and dignified bloke. Best of British, right there.
When I was in school we talked about Euthanasia in religion class. Everyone had different opinions on weather it was right or wrong. I then said 'Whats wrong with asian kids'. Embarrassing
Toastedandy wrote:When I was in school we talked about Euthanasia in religion class. Everyone had different opinions on weather it was right or wrong. I then said 'Whats wrong with asian kids'. Embarrassing
I spent a full 10 seconds just staring at the screen wondering if I missed something.
How long before we decide to euthanase people 'for their own/the greater good?'
The beeb had an interesting article about sterilisation and eugenics..
A mate of mine lingered in a PVS for 5 months because his family argued over when to turn the machines off. Only the machines kept him alive. They stopped administering nutrients 6 weeks before he finally (metaphorically) just said "stuff it" and popped away.
By not feeding him he probably starved to death as opposed to naturally died..
Phototoxin wrote:How long before we decide to euthanase people 'for their own/the greater good?'
Never. Simple answer. Its legal in other countries, and you don't see them killing everyone.
This is a bad argument.
There are plenty of things that are legal/illegal in other countries without the parade of horribles that supposedly come with the change in legality.
Abortion, drugs (either criminalization or decriminalization), capital punishment, etc.
I might have missed your point. Matty's argument that countries where euthanasia is legal aren't going around deciding who lives and who dies, is a bad argument becuase it's true? I mean, wouldn't your point reinforce matty's argument?
Phototoxin wrote:How long before we decide to euthanase people 'for their own/the greater good?'
Never. Simple answer. Its legal in other countries, and you don't see them killing everyone.
This is a bad argument.
There are plenty of things that are legal/illegal in other countries without the parade of horribles that supposedly come with the change in legality.
Abortion, drugs (either criminalization or decriminalization), capital punishment, etc.
I might have missed your point. Matty's argument that countries where euthanasia is legal aren't going around deciding who lives and who dies, is a bad argument becuase it's true? I mean, wouldn't your point reinforce matty's argument?
Arguing that X won't happen because it didn't happen in country Y is a bad argument because it proves too much.
People in the United States aren't rounded up and summarily executed simply because we have the death penalty. Is this a reason to support the death penalty in the UK? No.
People in Amsterdam don't get high all the time and abandon their families simply because pot is legal. Is this a reason to support pot legalisation? No.
Women in Ireland aren't oppressed because abortion is illegal. Is this a reason to support bans on abortion? No.
Phototoxin wrote:How long before we decide to euthanase people 'for their own/the greater good?'
It's a pretty big leap from a person electing to end their life at a time of their own choosing, to killing people for 'the greater good'. Actually, the leap is huge.
I'm not even sure how you can draw an equivalency between permission and coercion, to be honest.
biccat wrote:
Arguing that X won't happen because it didn't happen in country Y is a bad argument because it proves too much.
People in the United States aren't rounded up and summarily executed simply because we have the death penalty. Is this a reason to support the death penalty in the UK? No.
But it does destroy the argument that the death penalty in the UK will lead to people being rounded up and summarily executed.
People in Amsterdam don't get high all the time and abandon their families simply because pot is legal. Is this a reason to support pot legalisation? No.
But it does destroy the argument that legalizing weed will mean that everyone will get high and abandon their family.
Women in Ireland aren't oppressed because abortion is illegal. Is this a reason to support bans on abortion? No.
Now that is debatable. My entire family is Irish, emmigrated here, and they're all of the opinion that it's a bit of a dump (to put it kindly).
biccat wrote:Women in Ireland aren't oppressed because abortion is illegal.
Luckily for them, there is a more enlightened nation right next door, with zero in the way of passport control for persons passing between the two. And they are oppressed - being told that one cannot do something (or must do something) by persons in a position of power is oppression.
biccat wrote:
Arguing that X won't happen because it didn't happen in country Y is a bad argument because it proves too much.
People in the United States aren't rounded up and summarily executed simply because we have the death penalty. Is this a reason to support the death penalty in the UK? No.
People in Amsterdam don't get high all the time and abandon their families simply because pot is legal. Is this a reason to support pot legalisation? No.
Women in Ireland aren't oppressed because abortion is illegal. Is this a reason to support bans on abortion? No.
That's all out of context, someone says that it would lead to people being killed for their own good, too which someone replied, it doesn't happen where its legal.
mattyrm, I think this is an issue we can agree on. Having given a dearly beloved pet a peaceful and dignified end this January, it angers me greatly that human friends and family have no such recourse.
The Debbie Purdy case was a textbook example of the hysteria that surrounds this issue. An MS sufferer, she wanted the supreme court to confirm what the law's position would be if her husband were to help her seek assisted suicide abroad; UK law carries a sentence of up to 14 years if you 'aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another'. She had to go to the House of Lords to force the courts to force the government to publish guidelines on assisted suicide law.
Note that this wasn't a campaign to change the law; it was a campaign to get the legal system to concretely state what the law is as it stands, and it still took multiple appeals to get anywhere.
Phototoxin wrote:How long before we decide to euthanase people 'for their own/the greater good?'
It's a pretty big leap from a person electing to end their life at a time of their own choosing, to killing people for 'the greater good'. Actually, the leap is huge.
I'm not even sure how you can draw an equivalency between permission and coercion, to be honest.
Thats the point.
Honestly, its flat out ridiculous. Cant people see that? The entire argument is ludicrous.
"Ok because I can end my life at a time of my own choosing Im off to kill everyone in a wheelchair"
If you think that doesn't sound absolutely fething ridiculous, then crack on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lindsay40k wrote:mattyrm, I think this is an issue we can agree on. Having given a dearly beloved pet a peaceful and dignified end this January, it angers me greatly that human friends and family have no such recourse.
The Debbie Purdy case was a textbook example of the hysteria that surrounds this issue. An MS sufferer, she wanted the supreme court to confirm what the law's position would be if her husband were to help her seek assisted suicide abroad; UK law carries a sentence of up to 14 years if you 'aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another'. She had to go to the House of Lords to force the courts to force the government to publish guidelines on assisted suicide law.
Note that this wasn't a campaign to change the law; it was a campaign to get the legal system to concretely state what the law is as it stands, and it still took multiple appeals to get anywhere.
Im glad we can agree on something mate.
As I said, if its good enough for peoples much loved cats and dogs, why not for ourselves? Its nobody's choice but your own, and as always its the churches sticking their fething noses in.
The main reason I got so militant against the church was because of their stance on this. If my wife is rotting to death because of cancer and she begs me to allow her to die, what the feth has this got to do with some guy in a funny costume who has never met me or my wife?
This is an issue which is very close to my heart. Both my mother and my mother's sister suffer from Friedreich's ataxia
You can read the Wiki link should you choose but essentially, I have watched them slowly die over the last 30 years - to the extent now that my mother cannot lift a fork or cup to her mouth, has chronic diabetes, has trouble speaking and enunciating words, is going blind, is nearly deaf and has breathing difficulties due to slumping posture.
Last year, my aunt decided she had had enough (she was slightly worse with her symptoms than my mother). She refused her insulin treatment, was taken into a hospice and died over a period of two weeks after ensuring she had declared a 'living will' in place to prevent treatment being administered.
Basically, the only way she could control her life and death, in a manner of her choosing, was to slip off the face of the earth by her fingernails in a way which if she were a dog, would be considered deplorable and inhumane. I wouldn't wish my mother the same fate and nor would I wish it on my worst enemy. My mother has already contemplated solutions like Dignitas and assisted suicide, because when you can do bugger all, you have plenty of time to think about it.
filbert wrote:This is an issue which is very close to my heart. Both my mother and my mother's sister suffer from Friedreich's ataxia
You can read the Wiki link should you choose but essentially, I have watched them slowly die over the last 30 years - to the extent now that my mother cannot lift a fork or cup to her mouth, has chronic diabetes, has trouble speaking and enunciating words, is going blind, is nearly deaf and has breathing difficulties due to slumping posture.
Last year, my aunt decided she had had enough (she was slightly worse with her symptoms than my mother). She refused her insulin treatment, was taken into a hospice and died over a period of two weeks after ensuring she had declared a 'living will' in place to prevent treatment being administered.
Basically, the only way she could control her life and death, in a manner of her choosing, was to slip off the face of the earth by her fingernails in a way which if she were a dog, would be considered deplorable and inhumane. I wouldn't wish my mother the same fate and nor would I wish it on my worst enemy. My mother has already contemplated solutions like Dignitas and assisted suicide, because when you can do bugger all, you have plenty of time to think about it.
fething right. I dont go into my life story cos I dont want to look like a big girls blouse, but my mum snuffed it at 32 with cancer, and she basically turned into a yellow skeleton over a period of about 6 months, and it was the worst thing you can see as a kid. If she demanded my Dad help her out and give her some extra morphine, why has that got anything to do with Religious people? Its between my mum, my dad, and if we were old enough, their kids.
Nobody else.
If they had it their way my old man would have had to do it with a fething shovel while nobody was looking!
biccat wrote:
Another reason to prohibit "assisted suicide" (i.e. homicide) is because ease of access to the "procedure" can lead to an increase in suicide amongst depressed people. And if consent is a defense to homicide, it gives criminal defendants a new tool in their defense that functions as a means to attack the victim.
This is why we place the decision in the hands of a learned and experience commitee of people that is controlled and regulated by the government. That way, only people who would actually be better off dead would be considered. The commitee looks at quality of life, treatability of condition, options left etc etc to decide whether they are allowed to be euthanised.
Two examples:
Depression - Treatable? Yes, Terminal? No, Quality of Life? Likely to improve through continuous treatment and counselling, Suffering? Yes but again likely to improve. So commitee denies suicide
Terminal Cancer (i.e. all treatments have failed, death is guaranteed) - Treatable? By definition no, Terminal? Yes, Quality of Life? Will slowly degrade as cancer develops, Suffering? Guaranteed, will get worse as cancer develops. So commitee approves suicide.
The whole point is that we should be able to request to die with dignity, but the decision should be based solely on an unbiased and medically sound analysis.
filbert wrote:You can read the Wiki link should you choose but essentially, I have watched them slowly die over the last 30 years - to the extent now that my mother cannot lift a fork or cup to her mouth, has chronic diabetes, has trouble speaking and enunciating words, is going blind, is nearly deaf and has breathing difficulties due to slumping posture.
And do you think your life would have been better off without your mother and aunt for the last 30 years? Did either one of them have an enjoyable experience in those 30 years that they (and friends or family) would have missed out on during those 30 years?
I imagine the answers are "no" and "yes," respectively.
The idea that a hard life is worse than no life at all is astounding to me.
Leigen_Zero wrote:Two examples:
Depression - Treatable? Yes, Terminal? No, Quality of Life? Likely to improve through continuous treatment and counselling, Suffering? Yes but again likely to improve. So commitee denies suicide.
I would suggest that anyone who wants to end their life in a secure environment be granted consideration. Even with heavy medication and treatment, some people suffering from depression still have no quality of life.
There are a number of non-terminal illnesses or accidents that I could suffer where-by I would consider (at least, I believe I would consider) ending my own life (or asking someone to end it for me). If someone genuinely wants to die they should be considered regardless of their "illness".
filbert wrote:You can read the Wiki link should you choose but essentially, I have watched them slowly die over the last 30 years - to the extent now that my mother cannot lift a fork or cup to her mouth, has chronic diabetes, has trouble speaking and enunciating words, is going blind, is nearly deaf and has breathing difficulties due to slumping posture.
The idea that a hard life is worse than no life at all is astounding to me.
Maybe that's because you haven't had any experience of it? If you had to live with what my mother and aunt go through and have gone through daily, you would change your mind believe me. That's not to say it has always been like this; its a degenerative illness - but the point is it gets to a stage where living with is too hard.
Leigen_Zero wrote:This is why we place the decision in the hands of a learned and experience commitee of people that is controlled and regulated by the government. That way, only people who would actually be better off dead would be considered. The commitee looks at quality of life, treatability of condition, options left etc etc to decide whether they are allowed to be euthanised.
This is even worse. Giving a panel of "experts" the right to determine if you have the opportunity to "choose to die"? The government making a determination that some people "would be better off dead."
I am honestly sickened at the thought that some panel of experts can:
1) determine that your life is not worth living; or
2) determine the scope of your rights (assuming there's a "right to die")
Automatically Appended Next Post:
filbert wrote:Maybe that's because you haven't had any experience of it? If you had to live with what my mother and aunt go through and have gone through daily, you would change your mind believe me.
I can say with complete sincerity that I would not change my mind.
Leigen_Zero wrote:This is why we place the decision in the hands of a learned and experience commitee of people that is controlled and regulated by the government. That way, only people who would actually be better off dead would be considered. The commitee looks at quality of life, treatability of condition, options left etc etc to decide whether they are allowed to be euthanised.
This is even worse. Giving a panel of "experts" the right to determine if you have the opportunity to "choose to die"? The government making a determination that some people "would be better off dead."
I am honestly sickened at the thought that some panel of experts can:
1) determine that your life is not worth living; or
2) determine the scope of your rights (assuming there's a "right to die")
Automatically Appended Next Post:
filbert wrote:Maybe that's because you haven't had any experience of it? If you had to live with what my mother and aunt go through and have gone through daily, you would change your mind believe me.
I can say with complete sincerity that I would not change my mind.
The point is YOU decide bic, cant you understand that simple point?
YOU choose. Not a panel, not your wife, not a random guy. You dont roll a dice, you decide to do it yourself while still of sound mind.
Would you describe yourself as a Religious man Bicc? I ask because Ive yet to meet a man who strongly disagrees with the right to die who isn't.
biccat wrote:The idea that a hard life is worse than no life at all is astounding to me.
If you were confined to your bed for the rest of your life, were incontinent, had little to no control over your limbs and could only continue through a massive intake of various drug and pain killers which only just took the edge off your condition, would you still want to live?
Granted, this is a pretty nebulous debate - the point at which life is worth living differs for many people. Some will cling to it with both hands, fighting for every second, others will cry out for an end to their suffering, even if comparatively "mild" in the grand scheme of things.
Some people who would have said they would end their life when the time came change their mind and keep the machines on and pills flowing, whilst others who are staunchly against suicide, assisted or otherwise, will seek the embrace of death. It is one of those situations where you will never really know how you will react until you get there. However, the point remains is that people do decide that they want to end their lives, but are denied the ability to do so.
filbert wrote:Maybe that's because you haven't had any experience of it? If you had to live with what my mother and aunt go through and have gone through daily, you would change your mind believe me.
I can say with complete sincerity that I would not change my mind.
filbert wrote:Maybe that's because you haven't had any experience of it? If you had to live with what my mother and aunt go through and have gone through daily, you would change your mind believe me.
I can say with complete sincerity that I would not change my mind.
I don't believe you - simple as that.
If he is toppers with Jesus juice I absolutely believe it and I absolutely believe he is sincere.
They also happily ignore science, logic, common sense and outright facts if it contradicts what their pastors tell them or what they think Jesus apparently said.
Religious beliefs aside, Michael Moore made a pertinent point in one of his books/diatribes, that once Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimers, a surprising amount of previously anti stem cell treatment proponents suddenly reversed their opinion and thought that stem cell treatment might actually be a good thing.
The point is, you can never say for certain what you will or won't do until you get in the situation.
filbert wrote:This is an issue which is very close to my heart. Both my mother and my mother's sister suffer from Friedreich's ataxia
You can read the Wiki link should you choose but essentially, I have watched them slowly die over the last 30 years - to the extent now that my mother cannot lift a fork or cup to her mouth, has chronic diabetes, has trouble speaking and enunciating words, is going blind, is nearly deaf and has breathing difficulties due to slumping posture.
Last year, my aunt decided she had had enough (she was slightly worse with her symptoms than my mother). She refused her insulin treatment, was taken into a hospice and died over a period of two weeks after ensuring she had declared a 'living will' in place to prevent treatment being administered.
Basically, the only way she could control her life and death, in a manner of her choosing, was to slip off the face of the earth by her fingernails in a way which if she were a dog, would be considered deplorable and inhumane. I wouldn't wish my mother the same fate and nor would I wish it on my worst enemy. My mother has already contemplated solutions like Dignitas and assisted suicide, because when you can do bugger all, you have plenty of time to think about it.
fething right. I dont go into my life story cos I dont want to look like a big girls blouse, but my mum snuffed it at 32 with cancer, and she basically turned into a yellow skeleton over a period of about 6 months, and it was the worst thing you can see as a kid. If she demanded my Dad help her out and give her some extra morphine, why has that got anything to do with Religious people? Its between my mum, my dad, and if we were old enough, their kids.
Nobody else.
Agree totally with both of these statements - says it far better than I ever could.
mattyrm wrote: The point is YOU decide bic, cant you understand that simple point?
Of course I understand the point. And I think that people should have the right to decide if they want to end their life. I think it's a poor decision, but they do have that choice.
What they don't (and shouldn't) have the "right" to do is procure the services of someone else.
mattyrm wrote:YOU choose. Not a panel, not your wife, not a random guy. You dont roll a dice, you decide to do it yourself while still of sound mind.
Um, the point has been made that a panel of experts decides whether you get that option or not. Depressed people can walk into the suicide booth, pop in a quarter, and get processed into soylent green.
I think that such easy access to suicide (as a right) is a problem. However, if you impose substantial burdens on the exercise of this "right," then you're admitting it's not a right.
mattyrm wrote:Would you describe yourself as a Religious man Bicc? I ask because Ive yet to meet a man who strongly disagrees with the right to die who isn't.
I am religious (in that I have religious beliefs), but my opposition to assisted suicide isn't based on religion, it's based on several objective facts, as I've pointed out before.
SilverMK2 wrote:If you were confined to your bed for the rest of your life, were incontinent, had little to no control over your limbs and could only continue through a massive intake of various drug and pain killers which only just took the edge off your condition, would you still want to live?
Yes.
SilverMK2 wrote:Granted, this is a pretty nebulous debate - the point at which life is worth living differs for many people. Some will cling to it with both hands, fighting for every second, others will cry out for an end to their suffering, even if comparatively "mild" in the grand scheme of things.
And some will end their life at the drop of a hat, or because their girlfriend dumped them. Should we be encouraging or abetting such behavior?
SilverMK2 wrote:Some people who would have said they would end their life when the time came change their mind and keep the machines on and pills flowing, whilst others who are staunchly against suicide, assisted or otherwise, will seek the embrace of death. It is one of those situations where you will never really know how you will react until you get there. However, the point remains is that people do decide that they want to end their lives, but are denied the ability to do so.
I have made my intentions clear to my family on life saving treatments. The so-called "right-to-die" isn't about the right to refuse treatment (a passive death), but the right of physicians to help the person actively achieve death.
filbert wrote:
biccat wrote:
filbert wrote:Maybe that's because you haven't had any experience of it? If you had to live with what my mother and aunt go through and have gone through daily, you would change your mind believe me.
I can say with complete sincerity that I would not change my mind.
I don't believe you - simple as that.
If you can't take someone at their word, how do you expect to know when someone really means that they want to end their life, rather than just posturing?
filbert wrote:Maybe that's because you haven't had any experience of it? If you had to live with what my mother and aunt go through and have gone through daily, you would change your mind believe me.
I can say with complete sincerity that I would not change my mind.
I don't believe you - simple as that.
If you can't take someone at their word, how do you expect to know when someone really means that they want to end their life, rather than just posturing?
Because its not a case of someone wandering up to a Dr Kervorkian character and saying 'I want to die' and expecting a decision to be made on the spot on the basis of someone's word. If I had to sit down with someone and consider their mental and physical state, health records, physician's opinions as well as spending time talking to them and their family then I would think I would be in a better position of judging whether that person really wants to end their life. As I said, if you haven't been in that position or had close experience of what it is like, then it is very difficult to say with certainty what you would or wouldn't do and how you would or wouldn't act. Anything else is just postulating.
As far as assissted suicide goes, I personally don't think that it is right, however, I can understand why a person would choose to do it. I refuse to judge a person since I don't know what they are going through, how they feel, or how they see any given situation. If I were brain dead and had no possiblility or recovery then as far as I'm concerned I'm already dead, my body just doesn't know it yet. If I have to face a slow decline of health until my eventual painful death then I'll take it since I can at least spend some time with family and friends. I've had family members die this way and yes it sucks, but I respect them for be willing to endure just for everyone else's sake. I am a religious person, but I believe in free will and I won't force my view on anyone so if they want to go quick and painless, then I wont stop them.
filbert wrote:Because its not a case of someone wandering up to a Dr Kervorkian character and saying 'I want to die' and expecting a decision to be made on the spot on the basis of someone's word.
Wait, why not? If you are going to give someone the right to assisted suicide on the grounds that they are better off dead, why make them suffer another day?
filbert wrote:As I said, if you haven't been in that position or had close experience of what it is like, then it is very difficult to say with certainty what you would or wouldn't do and how you would or wouldn't act. Anything else is just postulating.
And what are you basing your knowledge on that I "haven't been in that position or had close experience of what it is like"?
filbert wrote:Because its not a case of someone wandering up to a Dr Kervorkian character and saying 'I want to die' and expecting a decision to be made on the spot on the basis of someone's word.
Wait, why not? If you are going to give someone the right to assisted suicide on the grounds that they are better off dead, why make them suffer another day?
So you advocate allowing people to come in off the street, tell a Doctor there and then and receive a lethal injection without any form of control, scrutiny, checks or balances?
filbert wrote:Because its not a case of someone wandering up to a Dr Kervorkian character and saying 'I want to die' and expecting a decision to be made on the spot on the basis of someone's word.
Wait, why not? If you are going to give someone the right to assisted suicide on the grounds that they are better off dead, why make them suffer another day?
So you advocate allowing people to come in off the street, tell a Doctor there and then and receive a lethal injection without any form of control, scrutiny, checks or balances?
No, I'm advocating against assisted suicide.
I'm just pointing out that your position is inconsistent.
biccat wrote:
I'm just pointing out that your position is inconsistent.
I haven't said anything about assisted suicide, either in principle or in how it would be practiced. All I have outlined is my mother and aunt's situation and the manner with which they live/die and suggested that it might not be entirely humane.
biccat wrote:
I'm just pointing out that your position is inconsistent.
I haven't said anything about assisted suicide, either in principle or in how it would be practiced. All I have outlined is my mother and aunt's situation and the manner with which they live/die and suggested that it might not be entirely humane.
My mistake then for assuming you were advocating for assisted suicide. The tone of your post was slanted in that direction so I mentally lumped you in with the others I was responding to.
The point I was trying to make (and failing it seems) is that you can't really say what you may or may not do, until such time as you are in that given situation. I have often said if I found myself in a position like my mother, given what I have experienced with her, that I would top myself, but would I really? If it came to the crunch and I was staring down the barrel of a gun or a syringe, would I really have the mettle to do it? Maybe not. That's why I have enormous respect for my aunt; she choose to go out with the only realistic option left to her, given that she was incapable of taking her life any other way, knowing full well that it would be a slow and painful death. That takes a lot of balls, frankly.
I can't say I am for or against assisted suicide; its not an easy call to make and I wouldn't want to be the one making that call. I would suggest that perhaps we contemplate how we care for the terminally ill and whether a patient has the right to ask a doctor to withhold treatment or whether someone should be allowed to choose the manner and time of their own death.
Its just such a shame it gets used as a political (and to a certain extent) religious football. We should be concerned with people's well being, not scoring points off either side.
I agree there filbert. It really does make me wanna slap people when they sit there and force you to live the way they want to live. Then they get pissed when you tell them that you don't want to live like that and they tell you that you wrong about everything or whatever.
mattyrm wrote: If I WANT to kill myself, what the feth has it got to do with you?
It might make others think that they can make their own choices...even if they don't agree with them? Heaven forbid we do something an over opinionated person doesn't like...
mattyrm wrote:If I WANT to kill myself, what the feth has it got to do with you?
You're not killing yourself. You're asking someone else to kill you.
I have no problem (at least, legally) if you want to off yourself. But society shouldn't help you to do so.
Ergo, is it not causing "cruel and unnecessary suffering" to a human being, by forcing me to do it by sticking two pencils up my nostrils and headbutting a fething desk?
You don't take your beloved dog to a vet to get him put to sleep when he cant walk anymore and the guy goes "feth off mate, kill him yourself with a hammer"
Emperors Faithful wrote:My entire family is Irish, emmigrated here, and they're all of the opinion that it's a bit of a dump (to put it kindly).
HEY! Now wait just one minute. We may have a failed government, out of date laws, rubbish tv, overpaid officials, massive lines for the dole, over priced drink/drugs, crappy weather....wait, why am I arguing against that
mattyrm wrote:If I WANT to kill myself, what the feth has it got to do with you?
You're not killing yourself. You're asking someone else to kill you.
I have no problem (at least, legally) if you want to off yourself. But society shouldn't help you to do so.
Ergo, is it not causing "cruel and unnecessary suffering" to a human being, by forcing me to do it by sticking two pencils up my nostrils and headbutting a fething desk?
Umm...what?
Look, it's simple:
Want to off yourself? Go for it. I promise we won't put your body in a jail cell for 15-20 years.
Fail to off yourself? We'll send you in for some psychiatric help, because you're (probably) fething crazy.
Want to stop medical treatment? No problem.
Want someone else to help kill you? Sorry, we call that homicide (and more likely than not, "murder").
Silly accents?! I take it you haven't seen Hot Fuzz then. We all presume you all talk like that, except the wealthy, who talk like the queen.
Basically, until I see an English person in real life, I am going to believe all the sterotypes I have seen. Namely Hot Fuzz, Family Guy and the queens speech.
Then I admire (or pity, I am not entirely sure which) your determination to live. As I have said, I most probably would seek to die. But again, you only know what you want when you are faced with the situation.
And some will end their life at the drop of a hat, or because their girlfriend dumped them. Should we be encouraging or abetting such behavior?
We should promote engagement with the appropriate services, just as you would if you went to the GP and said you were depressed, or you felt a pain, etc. The hospital where I work at the moment sees many tens of thousands of people a year. The specialty area where I work probably sees... 10,000 a year? Each person is assessed and given treatment options based on their individual case: How old they are, co-morbidities, severity of case, past treatment history, etc, etc. One person may come in and have surgery, another person with the exact same illness may come in and have treatment with drugs, another may come in and essentially be given something to keep them as free from pain as possible until nature takes its course and some are not treated at all, getting better on their own.
Medicine is not a black and white field by any stretch of the imagination. Some people will genuinely be unable to cope with living after the slightest knock - not respond to drugs, counseling or any other kind of treatment you want to give. They can go for years hopping treatments, going to all the different specialists and still be no closer to being "cured", to being able to live without crushing depression that makes it almost impossible to get out of bed in the morning, to even feed and look after themselves; if their only remaining wish is for it to end, that option should be open to them.
It is not an option that would be suitable for everyone who might at one time or another consider suicide/assisted suicide, in the same way that amputation is not the first port of call if you stub your toe. As with all medical intervention, you need to take each case as it comes, and try everything that can be done.
I have made my intentions clear to my family on life saving treatments. The so-called "right-to-die" isn't about the right to refuse treatment (a passive death), but the right of physicians to help the person actively achieve death.
I'm not entirely certain why there is a difference in refusing treatment and dying of (say) starvation, or dehydration, or asphyxiation, or just whatever illness you have overtaking you, and asking someone to inject something into your drip that will ensure you don't wake up. Given the choice of the two I would much rather have a pill or injection and if I were capable of doing it myself, I would, I believe, administer it. The point comes when someone who wishes to die is unable to administer to their own death and requires someone else to assist them by injecting them, or giving them a pill, or whatever.
Why should anyone have to suffer needlessly when the option of a quick and painless end is there?
If you can't take someone at their word, how do you expect to know when someone really means that they want to end their life, rather than just posturing?
This is where something called sound medical judgment comes into play - I've seen a few patients who have repeatedly expressed a wish to die, some are genuine, no doubt, however, some are simply frustrated, or trying to get attention. As I mentioned above, you apply the appropriate medical diagnosis and treatment to each individual case.
Then I admire (or pity, I am not entirely sure which) your determination to live. As I have said, I most probably would seek to die. But again, you only know what you want when you are faced with the situation.
I can't imagine why you would pity someone for choosing life over death. The idea that death is in any way admirable is odd.
Anyone who succumbs to an illness or depression to such an extent that they take their own life should be pitied.
SilverMK2 wrote:We should promote engagement with the appropriate services, just as you would if you went to the GP and said you were depressed, or you felt a pain, etc.
So we should outsource the decision about whether someone should be able to take their own life to a doctor? And you would consider suicide a medical decision?
Given that the UK has a single payer who ultimately decides what treatments are available, is it possible that the government may ultimately decide that suicide is the only "covered" treatment for certain conditions?
(although this gets off topic...)
SilverMK2 wrote:Some people will genuinely be unable to cope with living after the slightest knock - not respond to drugs, counseling or any other kind of treatment you want to give. They can go for years hopping treatments, going to all the different specialists and still be no closer to being "cured", to being able to live without crushing depression that makes it almost impossible to get out of bed in the morning, to even feed and look after themselves; if their only remaining wish is for it to end, that option should be open to them.
Why should they be required to suffer or go through therapy before kicking off? If I'm depressed and I go into my GP, shouldn't I be able to choose between available medical options?
SilverMK2 wrote:It is not an option that would be suitable for everyone who might at one time or another consider suicide/assisted suicide, in the same way that amputation is not the first port of call if you stub your toe. As with all medical intervention, you need to take each case as it comes, and try everything that can be done.
You're comparing apples to oranges. A person who stubs their toe might not choose amputation. But someone who receives a horrific burn to their leg might choose amputation over dangerous surgery and years of rehabilitation. Should the same decision be available to a depressed patient? Why not?
SilverMK2 wrote:This is where something called sound medical judgment comes into play - I've seen a few patients who have repeatedly expressed a wish to die, some are genuine, no doubt, however, some are simply frustrated, or trying to get attention. As I mentioned above, you apply the appropriate medical diagnosis and treatment to each individual case.
As I said above, the idea that your rights are subject to the whim of experts and doctors is far more repellant than the idea of assisted suicide.
According to my parents, “back in their day” if someone was extremely ill, or terminal, doctors would leave a small bottle on the night stand and if the patient wanted to take it, they would get a painless way out.
Obviously no one can know 100% what they will decide until they are there. My mom for instance, is facing a couple different disabilities that are causing her to deteriorate physically. (Post polio and Fibromyalgia) She has always been the type to insist that as soon as she is hooked to the breathing machine and feeding tube she’s been promised is around the bend, she’s going to eat a bullet. This is not a happy proposition since she may very well be in that situation in a few short years. However, I have seen her attitude change a bit since the arrival of my daughter. She spends lots of time with her and not only talks about ending herself less, she constantly talks about how having her granddaughter around is the best medicine she could have. So although she still insists she does not want to live once she is “hooked up”, she is far less vocal about it now. I still lean towards letting people die if they chose, but I can definitely see how situations can change and you don’t know until you’re there.
biccat wrote:[I can't imagine why you would pity someone for choosing life over death. The idea that death is in any way admirable is odd.
Anyone who succumbs to an illness or depression to such an extent that they take their own life should be pitied.
Living for the simple sake of living, with no "dignity" or quality of life is no way to live at all.
So we should outsource the decision about whether someone should be able to take their own life to a doctor? And you would consider suicide a medical decision?
Given that the UK has a single payer who ultimately decides what treatments are available, is it possible that the government may ultimately decide that suicide is the only "covered" treatment for certain conditions?
I would say that generally healthcare professionals get it right most of the time. I would much rather go to the doctor who would assess, investigate, diagnose, treat and re-evaluate than have my treatment set out for me by some government, religious or social panel. Doctors (and associated professionals) obviously work within a framework set out by government, however, within that framework they do everything possible for the patient.
I'm not sure how clued up you are on how healthcare decisions are made by doctors/etc (and I am sure it will differ from the UK), however, almost every stage of a person's treatment is continually assessed, with groups from different specialties regularly getting together to look over complicated patients, as well as consultants, registrars, fellows, health officers (ie regular doctors), specialist nurses, etc within each clinical area working through the treatment options for each patient.
It is also prudent to point out that I'm specifically talking about people who go to their doctors seeking to end their own life in the care of health professionals, rather than people going to their doctors saying they feel suicidal or depressed, although they should obviously get appropriate care.
(although this gets off topic...)
It is covered in its general auspice.
Why should they be required to suffer or go through therapy before kicking off? If I'm depressed and I go into my GP, shouldn't I be able to choose between available medical options?
In the same way that you can't go up to your doctor and say "my leg hurts, do surgery!". It is not always the appropriate treatment - patients need to be assessed to some degree or other and alternate treatments should be discussed and trialled before the big guns are wheeled out, in the same way that you will more than likely get lithotripsy using ESW before you get surgery - the former option has a high success rate in certain circumstances, is not generally harmful if tried and it fails, and still leaves scope for further intervention if it fails. There will be cases, such as terminally ill patients, where the answer will be "certainly, when would you like us to arrange your death for?".
You're comparing apples to oranges. A person who stubs their toe might not choose amputation. But someone who receives a horrific burn to their leg might choose amputation over dangerous surgery and years of rehabilitation. Should the same decision be available to a depressed patient? Why not?
Sure, amputation may be discussed or even carried out in that case, however, the option of other less drastic treatment will always be considered first, and if appropriate and the patient agrees with it, will be tried. Again, you seem to want to lump everyone together, depressed, terminally ill, slightly upset, people who are just having a bad day, etc. As I say - each case is individual and must be looked at and treated as such.
Take a look at the field of Bariatrics - many people who are heavily overweight look to surgery as their first port of call for treatment (and I'm not saying all, as there are many who do not seek surgical treatment). However, it is standard practice to take them through the alternative treatments (diet, exercise, counseling, etc) before surgery is considered. Some people will do really well with the "lesser" treatment options and will not ever need surgery, while others will not be able to lose the weight without surgery. If you just gave surgery to everyone, not only are you tying up your theatres and surgeons, but you are doing highly invasive procedures that may not be necessary.
As I said above, the idea that your rights are subject to the whim of experts and doctors is far more repellant than the idea of assisted suicide.
Again, this is not some kind of suicide panel which disallows any other mode of death, this is talking about people who seek out assisted suicide, who feel they want to die and wish for it to be administered by healthcare professionals in a safe environment with all the "hassle" taken out of the process (ie ensuring all the paperwork is done, family are informed, etc, etc). You have the right (if it can be called such), at any point, to take your own life, on your own cognisance, at any point you wish.
And as I have said repeatedly, you will not have to jump through every single hoop, you will not have to tick every box because everyone is different, and every case will be different and should be treated as such.
Hell, when it comes right down to it, I'm not in control of the system and I have no idea how it would be set up if it were to ever come into being. I am just a guy with a few ideas and thoughts on the matter. I don't have the whole "assisted suicide department action plan" fully formed in my head
I think people took my posts slightly incorrectly, what I meant by decision by commitee is that everyone has the right to die, but a commitee is in place to prevent stupid decisions.
E.g.
Yes a 14 year old girl has a right to a dignified death, but requesting suicide because their latest crush dumped them is not exactly a reason to die, so the commitee would be in place to stop such occurences, rather than acting as a judge who decides who has the right to die, the commitee would exist to prevent pointless suicides
OrangePine wrote:Not sure if I missed the answer to this question: is there a way to watch this in the United States?
not via bbc iplayer, i know (due to the fact that the content is pretty much paid for by the british taxpayer) that only UK IP addresses can watch shows on there.
It might be available by other means, but you will have to google those yourself, as the very mention of them on here could cause the modquisition to set upon me like bees around a honey-soaked bag of sugar...
I agree with the point that situation change, and with it opinions.
I may support the right to euthanasia in England, but I don't plan to use it as my religious beliefs are highly against taking ones own life. But I can also easily see my self considering the possibility of assisted suicide if I ever became paralyzed in the torso or whole body. Why? Because I live a life style where almost everything I am passionate about requires the articulate use of my upper limbs.
So as such, I would go and apply this thought process;
Can it be cured by medicine?
If no, could I survive on my own with the illness?
If no, could I still enjoy my life even with a carer or in a home?
If no, is there really any point for me to stay here?
If no, one less person needing feeding, power for heat and light and what ever machines I'm hooked to at the time, oxygen and a bed that could be given to someone who has the answer yes to one of the above. Several less doctors and nurses and support staff looking after me while they could look after someone with a yes to the above.
The answers and questions to the above would change depending on the person. Those are what I consider the most important things to ask myself should I find myself in such a situation.
Let me just say, that if someone wants to end their own life, then I won't try to stop them. But I personally wouldn't want to do it myself. If I was terminally ill, I'd do the best I could to make the most of the time I had left. But that's just me.
Emperors Faithful wrote:My entire family is Irish, emmigrated here, and they're all of the opinion that it's a bit of a dump (to put it kindly).
HEY! Now wait just one minute. We may have a failed government, out of date laws, rubbish tv, overpaid officials, massive lines for the dole, over priced drink/drugs, crappy weather....wait, why am I arguing against that
Well at least your women have that lovely accent...
biccat wrote:
Anyone who succumbs to an illness or depression to such an extent that they take their own life should be pitied.
Considering Filbert just mentioned his aunt who chose to off herself steadily and painfully over two weeks, because she couldn't tolerate her quality of life, I would deem you sir, damn insensitive. To claim that you should 'pity' someone for daring to 'succumb to an illness' is to be frank, condescending, offensive, and indicates no real knowledge of the position someone with a debilitating condition can find themselves in.
Emperors Faithful wrote: Well at least your women have that lovely accent...
The voice of angels I tells ya!
I'm with him (probably the first and only time. It's an enchanting accent.
Beware of raven haired, green eyed temptresses, though (especially when they have red heads in the family. The tempers tend to be the same).
When it comes to suicide now, those that are seriously intent on doing it, will do so regardless of the law. I had a friend do it 12 years ago, and he set it up so that no-one could stop him from carrying it out.
A brother-in-law did it in hospital, under psychiatric observation.
It's the failing-and surviving that gets you locked up and charged with offences.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
My entire family is Irish, emmigrated here, and they're all of the opinion that it's a bit of a dump (to put it kindly).
We're glad you ermmigrated then
Hey, I'm still dealing with this Catholic/Protestant gak that's followed them over here. So what if my dad married a protestant? It's not your business, feth off!
biccat wrote:
Anyone who succumbs to an illness or depression to such an extent that they take their own life should be pitied.
Considering Filbert just mentioned his aunt who chose to off herself steadily and painfully over two weeks, because she couldn't tolerate her quality of life, I would deem you sir, damn insensitive. To claim that you should 'pity' someone for daring to 'succumb to an illness' is to be frank, condescending, offensive, and indicates no real knowledge of the position someone with a debilitating condition can find themselves in.
Pity, Noun
The feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others
Yes, I feel sorrow and compassion for her suffering, illness, depression and the fact that she succumbed to her illness. No one should have to live like that. But that doesn't mean I should trumpet her decision to end her own life as something noble.
biccat wrote:
Anyone who succumbs to an illness or depression to such an extent that they take their own life should be pitied.
Considering Filbert just mentioned his aunt who chose to off herself steadily and painfully over two weeks, because she couldn't tolerate her quality of life, I would deem you sir, damn insensitive. To claim that you should 'pity' someone for daring to 'succumb to an illness' is to be frank, condescending, offensive, and indicates no real knowledge of the position someone with a debilitating condition can find themselves in.
Pity, Noun
The feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others
Yes, I feel sorrow and compassion for her suffering, illness, depression and the fact that she succumbed to her illness. No one should have to live like that. But that doesn't mean I should trumpet her decision to end her own life as something noble.
No one should have to live like that?
You just answered your own question. No, they shouldnt, so if they choose to end their life, that's their business. You dont have to trumpet anything, just not be a santimonious big mouth about it, like many Christians are.
Heres a simple question then.
If my mother had begged my father to get her some morphine so she could top herself, he did, she necked it all, and then died.
Should my 40 year old, no criminal record, never been on the dole, hard working family man with two kids father get sent to prison?
mattyrm wrote:No one should have to live like that?
Yup. It's a tragedy. That doesn't mean she has the right to kill herself.
mattyrm wrote:Should my 40 year old, no criminal record, never been on the dole, hard working family man with two kids father get sent to prison?
Yes.
Here's another question: Your mother is walking on her way to an appointment with her suicide doctor. A hoodlum comes out of nowhere and shoots her in the brainpan. Should he go to prison?
mattyrm wrote:Why do we even imprison people?
For the good of society.
And to punish them for violating social norms.
And as a deterrant against future conduct by third parties.
And to prevent them from doing the same thing again.
...
biccat wrote:Yup. It's a tragedy. That doesn't mean she has the right to kill herself.
I would be interested in knowing why someone doesn't have the "right" to kill themselves.
Here's another question: Your mother is walking on her way to an appointment with her suicide doctor. A hoodlum comes out of nowhere and shoots her in the brainpan. Should he go to prison?
While I am not going to answer on behalf of mattyrm, I would say yes. Intent comes into this in the same way as if someone randomly comes up to a pregnant woman on her way to get an abortion and punches her in the stomach, causing her to miscarriage.
biccat wrote:Yup. It's a tragedy. That doesn't mean she has the right to kill herself.
I would be interested in knowing why someone doesn't have the "right" to kill themselves.
Um...because they don't? The state has the right (and yes, this is fairly paternalistic) to prevent you from taking actions to kill yourself. If you go into a shop to buy a gun to kill yourself, the state can prohibit the sale. If you attempt to kill yourself, the state can have you involuntarily committed as a danger to yourself.
The rationale for this is that the state has a substantial interest in the continued existence of its citizens as productive contributors to society.
SilverMK2 wrote:
Here's another question: Your mother is walking on her way to an appointment with her suicide doctor. A hoodlum comes out of nowhere and shoots her in the brainpan. Should he go to prison?
While I am not going to answer on behalf of mattyrm, I would say yes. Intent comes into this in the same way as if someone randomly comes up to a pregnant woman on her way to get an abortion and punches her in the stomach, causing her to miscarriage.
How is intent different? In both the case of the father and the hoodlum there existed both the general intent to engage in the act and the specific intent to cause the result.
As with the case of the pregnant woman, the difference between the "hoodlum" and the abortion doctor is actually quite different. The hoodlum only has the general intent to commit the act (punching the woman) but not the specific intent to cause the death of the child. The doctor, on the other hand, possesses both the general intent to operate and the specific intent to cause the death of the child.
biccat wrote:Um...because they don't? The state has the right (and yes, this is fairly paternalistic) to prevent you from taking actions to kill yourself. If you go into a shop to buy a gun to kill yourself, the state can prohibit the sale. If you attempt to kill yourself, the state can have you involuntarily committed as a danger to yourself.
The rationale for this is that the state has a substantial interest in the continued existence of its citizens as productive contributors to society.
But you have the "right" to die by refusing treatment, food, water, etc (well, in some circumstances anyway - you can be force fed/treated against your will in some cases)? You have the "right" to live in insufferable conditions? To me this is base hypocrisy.
How is intent different? In both the case of the father and the hoodlum there existed both the general intent to engage in the act and the specific intent to cause the result.
Sorry, I may have misread earlier posts (or am not catching on to where you are referring to), but where did the father come from?
As with the case of the pregnant woman, the difference between the "hoodlum" and the abortion doctor is actually quite different. The hoodlum only has the general intent to commit the act (punching the woman) but not the specific intent to cause the death of the child. The doctor, on the other hand, possesses both the general intent to operate and the specific intent to cause the death of the child.
Can it be proven that the hood didn't target the woman specifically because she was pregnant in the attempt to cause her to lose her baby?
The point is that someone acting out at someone causing them harm, death, or the death of an unborn child "on the street" is illegal in the same way that back street clinics are illegal - because there is a very well defined and regulated area of medicine which deals with the exceptions to these laws, ie when it is legal to terminate a pregnancy, when it is legal to take someones life, etc, where the legally sanctioned and approved practitioner has followed through the legal and medical framework to ensure that the procedure is required, is necessary, and is done in the safest way possible within the framework, etc.
A euthanasia doctor could go out on the street and start shooting people and it would be illegal, even though it is his legally sanctioned "job" to kill people. Just as if some hood put on a lab coat and opened up a clinic and started injecting people would be illegal, even though such clinics do exist and they are legal, because the hood has not been certified as being able to carry out such procedures.
mattyrm wrote:No one should have to live like that?
Yup. It's a tragedy. That doesn't mean she has the right to kill herself.
mattyrm wrote:Should my 40 year old, no criminal record, never been on the dole, hard working family man with two kids father get sent to prison?
Yes.
And there we have it. It does society LOADS of good to imprison people like that.
An absolutely ridiculous notion. The notion you can only cling to so dogmatically if you are hardwired to believe it thanks to indoctrination.
You religious chaps can say anything you want, don't expect people that don't share your "faith" to think it sounds anything other than utterly ridiculous however.
SilverMK2 wrote:But you have the "right" to die by refusing treatment, food, water, etc (well, in some circumstances anyway - you can be force fed/treated against your will in some cases)? You have the "right" to live in insufferable conditions? To me this is base hypocrisy.
It's not the "right to die", it's the "right to refuse treatment". Different concepts, and not hypocritical at all. The right to refuse medical treatment does not necessarily lead to death (I can refuse treatment for my broken leg). The "right to die" does.
SilverMK2 wrote:
How is intent different? In both the case of the father and the hoodlum there existed both the general intent to engage in the act and the specific intent to cause the result.
Sorry, I may have misread earlier posts (or am not catching on to where you are referring to), but where did the father come from?
Father was from matty's hypothetical. Probably more appropriate because it's not done in a "well defined and regulated area of medicine."
SilverMK2 wrote:Can it be proven that the hood didn't target the woman specifically because she was pregnant in the attempt to cause her to lose her baby?
I said he didn't in the hypothetical, so he didn't. Assume that it is a fact that has been conclusively proven.
SilverMK2 wrote:The point is that someone acting out at someone causing them harm, death, or the death of an unborn child "on the street" is illegal in the same way that back street clinics are illegal - because there is a very well defined and regulated area of medicine which deals with the exceptions to these laws, ie when it is legal to terminate a pregnancy, when it is legal to take someones life, etc, where the legally sanctioned and approved practitioner has followed through the legal and medical framework to ensure that the procedure is required, is necessary, and is done in the safest way possible within the framework, etc.
So you're not talking about a "right to die," you're talking about a newly defined medical procedure that has the purpose and effect of terminating life. I'm not sure how well this sits with the hipocratic oath, or the general idea that doctors are supposed to 'treat' people. Is life a condition requiring treatment?
mattyrm wrote:And there we have it. It does society LOADS of good to imprison people like that.
An absolutely ridiculous notion. The notion you can only cling to so dogmatically if you are hardwired to believe it thanks to indoctrination.
You religious chaps can say anything you want, don't expect people that don't share your "faith" to think it sounds anything other than utterly ridiculous however.
Your bias against religious people is clouding your judgment. Your dogmatic belief that religious people are "indoctrinated" is leading you to dismiss arguments against your position simply because of the person making the comments.
I'd ask you to address the comments I made rather than my religious beliefs, but I honestly don't think you're capable of seeing beyond your own bias against religion.
biccat wrote: Your dogmatic belief that religious people are "indoctrinated" is leading you to dismiss arguments against your position simply because of the person making the comments.
I'd ask you to address the comments I made rather than my religious beliefs, but I honestly don't think you're capable of seeing beyond your own bias against religion.
Not so. You must address the comments by commenting on your religious beliefs.
You believe what you believe BECAUSE of your religion. As I said at the start of the thread, I could see by your stance (dogmatically opposed in every sense) you were Religious, and I was right.
Its extremely easy to ping.
Secular people will be for and against this issue for a variety of different reasons. Some agree with my stance, some don't. But only those that follow a religious dogma never bend and are utterly 100% opposed to something every time always no matter the circumstances.
Your Religion is the reason that you feel the way that you do. So its clearly pertinent to this discussion.
I have never ever met a person who would happily say "Yes, send him to prison he deserves it" for our discussions who wasn't commanded so by his religion of choice.
You know it is true.. surely common sense can tell you that? Find me a non believer (of any political slant at all) who thinks that slinging a man in prison for assisting his agonized wife get some illegal morphine is a great idea.
You wont, cos its only you guys.
And dont even start me on abortion... rape victim or not!
biccat wrote:It's not the "right to die", it's the "right to refuse treatment". Different concepts, and not hypocritical at all. The right to refuse medical treatment does not necessarily lead to death (I can refuse treatment for my broken leg). The "right to die" does.
However, we have not been discussing the right to refuse treatment, we have been discussing the "right to die" and the "right to have someone assist in your death" (which can be one and the same, but may only extend as far as the "right to refuse treatment").
biccat wrote:So you're not talking about a "right to die," you're talking about a newly defined medical procedure that has the purpose and effect of terminating life. I'm not sure how well this sits with the hipocratic oath, or the general idea that doctors are supposed to 'treat' people. Is life a condition requiring treatment?
I'm pretty sure that this entire thread is about patients electing to end their lives through medical intervention... Have you not been reading?
mattyrm wrote:Not so. You must address the comments by commenting on your religious beliefs.
I have no need to defend or justify my religious beliefs. I have never used religious tenets in support of my argument (e.g., "the bible says so"), but rather on the secular problems.
mattyrm wrote:You believe what you believe BECAUSE of your religion.
That's offensive. You're suggesting that religious people are incapable of rational thought and anything other than dogmatic adherence to a religion based position. Believe it or not, religious people are not brain dead idiots.
mattyrm wrote:As I said at the start of the thread, I could see by your stance (dogmatically opposed in every sense) you were Religious, and I was right.
Its extremely easy to ping.
Again, you mischaracterize what I have been saying. And my thoughts on this issue are separate from my religious belief. Believe it or not, religious people, as rational thinking creatures, are capable of separating their political and religious beliefs.
mattyrm wrote:Secular people will be for and against this issue for a variety of different reasons. Some agree with my stance, some don't. But only those that follow a religious dogma never bend and are utterly 100% opposed to something every time always no matter the circumstances.
Your Religion is the reason that you feel the way that you do. So its clearly pertinent to this discussion.
You're imputing motives onto me that aren't present in my arguments. If you're unable or unwilling to address the substance of my argument, then feel free to leave the thread. To attack my arguments based on my status as having religious beliefs is fallacious.
mattyrm wrote:I have never ever met a person who would happily say "Yes, send him to prison he deserves it" for our discussions who wasn't commanded so by his religion of choice.
I'm pretty sure my religion doesn't "command me" to say "send him to prison." In fact, I'm 99% sure you don't know what my religion is.
mattyrm wrote:You know it is true.. surely common sense can tell you that? Find me a non believer (of any political slant at all) who thinks that slinging a man in prison for assisting his agonized wife get some illegal morphine is a great idea.
You wont, cos its only you guys.
SilverMK2, whether he's religious or not, appears to believe that. He has said that the procedure should be allowed as a medical "treatment," and the father in your case would be guilty of medical malpractice.
mattyrm wrote:And dont even start me on abortion... rape victim or not!
"Getting started" on a topic is a conscious choice that you make. If you have the inability to make a conscious choice in the matter, it's not my problem.
SilverMK2 wrote:I'm pretty sure that this entire thread is about patients electing to end their lives through medical intervention... Have you not been reading?
Matty proposed a scenario above that did not involve medical intervention. Let me forward that hypothetical to you: If a woman is bedridden and suffering and begs her husband to procure poison and kill her, is he guilty of murder?
Rather than prattle on and get the thread locked I will simply say this.
biccat wrote:
Again, you mischaracterize what I have been saying. And my thoughts on this issue are separate from my religious belief. Believe it or not, religious people, as rational thinking creatures, are capable of separating their political and religious beliefs.
If thats true. Why don't they?
I disagree entirely with your statement. Sure they CAN seperate their beliefs, but they hardly ever do!
You know, pretty much ever? I can ping someone's general "beliefs" within 5 minutes of meeting them, they read off like a score card. If I meet a guy who supported President Bush for example, 99 times out of a 100 he is also very pro gun ownership, or thinks that climate change is a myth. Things just go together.
Find me a creationist who isn't against gay marriage and against abortion.
Actually were way OT, so just.. find me one and get him to PM me.
biccat wrote:
Again, you mischaracterize what I have been saying. And my thoughts on this issue are separate from my religious belief. Believe it or not, religious people, as rational thinking creatures, are capable of separating their political and religious beliefs.
If thats true. Why don't they?
You have a serious problem here. I'm not being flippant or argumentative, but you are denying the basic humanity of religious people and denegrating their thought processes. This is a problem.
Roughly 10% of Americans are atheists (somewhere around there, it could be less, who knows). But there are a wide variety of political views in the U.S. Even with an individual church or denomination views can differ greatly. Consider Hasidic Jews versus Modern Orthodox Jews, or look at the split within the Episcopal Church over the issue of gay marriage.
mattyrm wrote:You know, pretty much ever? I can ping someone's general "beliefs" within 5 minutes of meeting them, they read off like a score card. If I meet a guy who supported President Bush for example, 99 times out of a 100 he is also very pro gun ownership, or thinks that climate change is a myth. Things just go together.
Yes, you're right. Things go together. But you're only giving one side of the story. I'll bet most people who supported Al Gore were pro-censorship of public media, pro-gun control and pro-abortion. Heck, they probably even thought that a power point presentation was deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize!
mattyrm wrote:Find me a creationist who isn't against gay marriage and against abortion.
Belief in creationism is way more indicative of personal beliefs than simply being religous. Find me a gay marriage supporter and I'll bet he's pro-abortion and believes in climate change.
Sorry, but I'm religious and I tend to think someone with extreme pain/terminal illness has a right to choose their own end. I just don't understand how, if death is unavoidable, checking out little early to avoid some agony is a bad thing.
@biccat-Your entire argument here seems to be "If someone's suffering masively, has little chance of surviving and wants to die, then theycan if they want. Except they shouldn't have the right to because they shouldn't kill themeselves." Am I missing something here? Is it because the law says so, and the law is neeeeeever wrong? [sarcasm off]
Personally, I think if someone wants to kill themself, it's a basic human right to do so. If they can't pull the trigger themselves, they have the right to get someone to do it for them. It prevents suffering and, not to sound cruel here, but saves resources that were being used to keep them alive.
Anyway, it's impossible to seperate political and religious beliefs and there isn't any point trying, simply because it's the midset of a person that determines all their beliefs. For example, if someone thinks homosexuality is disgusting, he'll be against gay marriage. The Bible agrees with him, so he'll be more likely to become devoted to the Bible and it's teachings, such as Jesus and God. Basically, all your beliefs are dependant on each other. But when your own personal beliefs cause you to deny basic human rights from people with completely different views, then you've gone too far. If that person decides the gay couple across the street have no right to be together, and somehow bans gay marriage, then he's interferring with what doesn't concern him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Graveyman wrote:Sorry, but I'm religious and I tend to think someone with extreme pain/terminal illness has a right to choose their own end. I just don't understand how, if death is unavoidable, checking out little early to avoid some agony is a bad thing.
TrollPie wrote:@biccat-Your entire argument here seems to be "If someone's suffering masively, has little chance of surviving and wants to die, then theycan if they want. Except they shouldn't have the right to because they shouldn't kill themeselves." Am I missing something here? Is it because the law says so, and the law is neeeeeever wrong? [sarcasm off]
No, it's a matter of practicality. More specifically, it's difficult to punish someone when they're dead.
If you kill yourself, there shouldn't be any adverse consequences for your surviving family.
If you attempt to kill yourself and fail, you should get psychiatric help, because it is not normal, healthy behavior.
But if someone helps kill you, they are guilty of murder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TrollPie wrote:
Graveyman wrote:Sorry, but I'm religious and I tend to think someone with extreme pain/terminal illness has a right to choose their own end. I just don't understand how, if death is unavoidable, checking out little early to avoid some agony is a bad thing.
QFT. Exactly.
I like the part where you attack people who are religious, but "quote for truth" a religious person who agrees with you.
I only commented to show that not all religious people believe exactly the same thing, to exactly the same degree. Biccat, I understand you're reasoning and in most of your posts I've seen I completely agree with you, but on this one I'm torn.
TrollPie wrote:@biccat-Your entire argument here seems to be "If someone's suffering masively, has little chance of surviving and wants to die, then theycan if they want. Except they shouldn't have the right to because they shouldn't kill themeselves." Am I missing something here? Is it because the law says so, and the law is neeeeeever wrong? [sarcasm off]
No, it's a matter of practicality. More specifically, it's difficult to punish someone when they're dead.
If you kill yourself, there shouldn't be any adverse consequences for your surviving family.
If you attempt to kill yourself and fail, you should get psychiatric help, because it is not normal, healthy behavior.
Except if you are going to die anyway and suicide would prevent a massive amount of suffering, it would be selfish for your family to keep you suffering just to feel the misery of watching you slowly die. Trying to kill yourself under these circumstances is expectable and practical.
But if someone helps kill you, they are guilty of murder.
Unless you want to die, in which case it's euthanasia.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TrollPie wrote:
Graveyman wrote:Sorry, but I'm religious and I tend to think someone with extreme pain/terminal illness has a right to choose their own end. I just don't understand how, if death is unavoidable, checking out little early to avoid some agony is a bad thing.
QFT. Exactly.
I like the part where you attack people who are religious, but "quote for truth" a religious person who agrees with you.
That's some good debatin' right there.
I like the part where you skim over my post, say I did things which I didn't and use these made up things to attack me.
But if someone helps kill you, they are guilty of murder.
Unless you want to die, in which case it's euthanasia.
Um...nope. Look at my example above w/r/t the hoodlum. Is murder on the street acceptable if the victim was on her way to the suicide booth?
No, because the hoodlum intends to harm the woman, while the suicide booth kills her because it's what she wants, as has been said already. The hoodlum is therefore a danger to society and should go to prison for murder. The suicide booth isn't.
TrollPie wrote:I like the part where you skim over my post, say I did things which I didn't and use these made up things to attack me.
That's some good debatin' right there.
I know, right? Like when you say:
But when your own personal beliefs cause you to deny basic human rights from people with completely different views, then you've gone too far.
Because religion is all about denying basic human rights.
Except I said personal beliefs. Not religion. Now you're obviously going to say they're the same thing. They're not. Religion is a small part of your beliefs that is usually chosen because of existing beliefs, rather than choosing your beliefs for you.
