Home - List All Discussions

Elective/Assisted Suicide

by: jid

Well it's been a while!
Studying is over for the moment and the current work/gym routine allows me time to entertain myself..
Part of my recent studies have concerned well publicised cases of assisted suicide, such as those of Daniel James, Debbie Purdy and Diane Pretty.
N.B: if you wish to 'get to know' these cases, please read the actual cases..
I believe the decision in 'Purdy' was correct, and that current UK legislation provides protection for vulnerable individuals, while at the same time taking into account the insignificant public interest in bringing prosecution against those who have assisted such suicides.
The case of Pretty, on reaching the European Court, brought up something rather interesting. The ECtHR found that a Governments interference in restricting an individuals choice as to how and when to die was in breach of Human Rights (Art. 8(1)), albeit that the interference was held justifiable. Is this the beginning of the recognition of a 'right to die'?
So.. What exactly is wrong with a mentally capable individual choosing to die?
Daniel James' mother, when interviewed, said:
"While not everyone in Dan's situation would find it as unbearable as Dan, what right does any human being have to tell any other that they have to live such a life, filled with terror, discomfort and indignity?"
Responses?

reply from: yoda

Who decides which people are "mentally capable"? Is a broken hearted teenager entitled to help in committing suicide? How about a middle aged divorcee?
And how about other people choosing for you, like mothers deciding that their unborn babies ought to die?

reply from: jid

Who decides which people are "mentally capable"? - seriously? ok.. I'll try my best here.. You know that courts are capable of holding someone responsible or not responsible for a crime right?... ok.. keep with me.. The medical profession is capable of deeming someone mentally capable of making their own decisions...
The situations you give of teenagers and divorcees only highlights your utter ignorance of the issue.. Are you aware of the cited cases? They concern permanent disability or incurable illness, not otherwise healthy people being a bit unhappy.
Now I'd really rather the topic was kept to the suicide issue but, as for your other example, a foetus/embryo is not a person, thus has no right to life. Choice rests with the parents.

reply from: yoda

Okay, so before you help someone off themselves you'd take them to a shrink and get them pronounces legally competent, right?
Why try to restrict this discussion to the "cited cases"? Did you not post this under a rather general thread title? Aren't you supporting assisted suicide in general?
Aw gee, you just couldn't resist a little lie, could you? Remember, you're claiming that NONE of these definitions fit an unborn human being:
per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human's body: a human being's body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

per.son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=person&x=16&y=16

Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=person&matchtype=exact

Definition person noun [C] plural people or FORMAL OR LAW persons
1 a man, woman or child:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=59039&dict=CALD

reply from: jid

Yoda.. I apologise.. I can't easily tell when your showing genuine stupidity or not so I'll make sure to put in some extra effort.. I'm not restricting the discussion to the cited cases. The cases are there to highlight the circumstances that assisted suicide occurs under. State assisted suicide does not occur for people who are simply unhappy, as in your examples. Cases of this occurring are, at best, anecdotal and would in any case be regarded as profoundly bad practice. Assisted suicide constitutes helping those who have made the choice to die but are incapable of doing so due to illness or disability, or who wish to do so legally. I do suggest you make yourself aware of these things before attempting to argue them.
Your first point is, essentially, correct.. After all, one does not want people to have been coerced into 'deciding' to die. That is not free choice. A, or ideally more than one, medical professional would be required to assess capacity.
This is not a remarkable concept. Medical assessment of mental capacity to make a choice and recognise its repercussions is commonplace in many fields.
Your final statement is correct. I apply none of those definitions to a foetus/embryo as none of them do apply. They refer to a person, as distinguished from a foetus/embryo. Regardless, it's not coincidence that the dictionary isn't used as scientific or moral authority.
Now if you don't mind I'll leave you in the corner with your stories and talk to the grown-ups...
Concerned, I hear your argument and quite agree, in part.. In reading the cases, in particular Purdy, large parts of the text concern the implications of a change in the law. Don't forget, i AGREE with the decision in Purdy NOT TO require the DPP to publish specific policy on assisted suicide, as this would, at least in the present climate, lead to an increased chance of abuse of the process of assisted dying. I don't necessarily agree with your statement that a desire to die amounts to emotional/psychological disturbance.. The circumstances surrounding assisted suicide, terminal illness, profound physical disability etc.. must obviously have extreme impact on those who are suffering. But to say that, especially in the case of terminal illness, accepting their mortality is a sign of disturbance would, for me, be a tad offensive.
But then what of the bigger question. Why would it be ANYONES choice other than theirs? I strongly advocate palliative care and psychological support for individuals that find themselves in these circumstances, and in the vast majority of situations this is enough for people. But for a few others, it isn't. This choice is theirs.

reply from: Faramir

In order for them to make this choice they would need an accomplice.
So we have to give doctors permission to be killers in addition to being healers, and I don't want any part in that, so would resist any legislation that would permit euthanasia.
If they carry out that choice on their own, with no help from anyone else, that's their business, but if they ask me to pull the trigger, I will refuse them directly, and will refuse indirectly, by voting against any legislation that would so grossly pervert the medical profession.

reply from: jid

Hmm... I can see what you're saying..
In the Daniel James case, the assistance being provided by Dignitas, a barbiturate drink was raised to the lips of James, allowing him to drink. To use your analogy, it's not so much pulling the trigger, but putting the gun in their hand and allowing them to make their choice. Daniel chose to take the straw and drink.
If you see conflict in this situation, I can perfectly understand, but disagree..

reply from: Faramir

I do feel a conflict similar to the abortion situation. I can't vote for someone who will support or fail to do what he can to reverse the injustice of abortion, and I can's support anyone who would give doctors the right to kill.
I would feel like an accomplice if I did.
I wouldn't do anything to help someone commit suicide. I wouldn't pull the trigger, and I wouldn't put the gun in their hand either.

reply from: jid

I wouldn't do anything to help someone commit suicide. I wouldn't pull the trigger, and I wouldn't put the gun in their hand either.
And that's fair enough.. But there are people who ARE willing to help in such a way.. And what I believe is that these people should be allowed to help those who are requesting it. It does not impact on the lives of those who disagree, save the busybodies who think it to be their business, as they will never require such help by their own convictions.

reply from: jid

Toofy: right... attempting to decipher what your getting at, I think your missing the point slightly.. I'm not talking about lone suicide, I'm discussing ASSISTED suicide. It would be moronic to the extreme for the state to assist people who wanted to end their lives simply on a whim, through coercion or otherwise..
A capable individual will not require state help to end their lives, particularly in the parts of the world where you can pick up a gun with your groceries...
As for any individual.. I personally believe in a right to die. One should be entitled to have a say in their death, provided it does not restrict the rights of others.

reply from: CDC700

Heck, we take guns with us to get groceries! OTC medication is probably more dangerous than a gun when it comes to suicide. Prescription medications cause more deaths than guns. I doubt anyone will agree with any of your statements, and I am sure that's why you come here to post. Some sort of twisted self gratification. In Texas, your kind would be best suited for stump training horses.

reply from: jid

Oh dear Toof.. Still not learned to read the material before commenting? Perhaps go and look at a case, hell, even a decent newspaper would do I guess. You're not even on the same planet as the point being made.
CDC700, guns to get groceries? That to fend of all the terrorists right? How civilised.. I genuinely couldn't care less what the residents of Texas would think of me.. It seems more than a quarter of them are incapable of maintaining a healthy body-weight so I don't really hold much hope of any higher function.. Your theories as to why I post here are interesting.. Who knows why.. Maybe its the same satisfaction I get from Law, being right and seeing how clearly is pisses people off. Maybe its an equivalent of that religious toss spouted about preaching 'the truth'? The same things that inspire the poor fools to stand outside clinics and berate people. All I know is that I get a damn good laugh from it..
Now, if you're done contributing absolutely nothing at all, feel free to pack up that arsenal of yours and head off to do whatever it is you like with horses.

reply from: CDC700

He He, had to look that one up eh? Are you a fag or what? Just be honest about it. I mean you must be suppressing your self disgust about something. What's your deal?

reply from: jid

Toof, you've demonstrated some utterly marvelous spin on this.. Somehow concluding that acknowledging a right to die discriminates.. Brilliant. You'd make a fantastic politician.

reply from: jid

CDC, sadly fella, the obesity crisis in that part of the world is widely known.. If I wanted to "look it up", I could list a purported 2008 figure of 27.2% of adults.. But simply knowing it was over a quarter was enough.. Clearly..
You're beginning to show your colours with the "fag" comment too.. I mean, I barely had to do anything to encourage you to further the stereotype. Want to know how high to jump next?

reply from: Banned Member

I'm sure plenty of people would agree with your statements. I've always been for assisted suicide in the cases of terminal patients. I see no reason to prolong their death, & I think they deserve the chance to die on their own terms. It's too hard for a loved one to do it, even if they do support their decision. A qualified doctor seems to me the best choice.

reply from: Banned Member

Who are you? This is some sort of joke, right?

reply from: CDC700

When my ex's grandfather was dying of cancer, I recieved a call to come to the hospital as he was probably going to pass away. I rushed to the hospital and all of the family members were surrounding him. He was a WWII Veteran, and had success with humble oil (exxon) and quite the fighter. You could tell his breathing was labored, but he was still fighting (HE DID NOT WANT TO DIE) IMHO, his daughter( MY ex mother in law) had a look of gratitude on her face (she was about to inherit millions) The doctor asked if she wanted her to give him (what I believe was a lethal dose) more morphine. She said yes. They injected it, and the Dr. held his wrist while he panted to breathe. Within minutes he was dead. To this day I am haunted by that sight. A loving and strong man who was fighting for every minute he could have, was denied that by people who did not know his thoughts at that moment. I believe that was an injustice to him and I am pretty sure that allowing "assisted suicide" would result in much more of the same.

reply from: sander

That's terrible.
Of course these stories would be repeated all the more once assisted suicide is made legal.
Look at the proaborts, they've taken what was once only allowed in the first trimester to the likes of tiller and now some other murderering monster that will murder your baby thru all nine months.
It won't be but a few short years before the kiddies can march grandma off to the local, "we kill em while you wait" factory. Just like an abortuary only for the born.
These proabort creatures that post here just love death....they're obsessed with it.
They would be better served with a long stint on a competent psychiatrist's couch, perhaps with some heavy medication.

reply from: Banned Member

Trolling- so easy a caveman can do it.

reply from: sander

Trolling- so easy a caveman can do it.
Good one, Augustine.

reply from: Shenanigans

Right to die? That's retarded, that's like saying "right to skin", we're all going to die, simple fact. Life is a terminal illness.
This isn't about a right to die, its about a right to kill yourself.
With one hand we spend so much time and money trying to convience the sullen teen not to top himself, yet now people want to turn and around and add "but its okay to do it if you've got cancer".
When I hear of people suffering from horrible diseeases, I don't think "gee, they shoudl be able to die", I think "who the fu*k is in charge of their palliative care? they need a good firm kick up the arse!"
And death with dignity? Where is the dignity in being killed?
This is shameful.

reply from: jid

CDC: Your story highlights exactly what assisted suicide is NOT. This man did not want to die, therefore, his induced death was not according to his wishes, but likely those of members of his family. Seriously, I urge you, and others, to actually READ the material concerned with assisted suicide legislation. If you are attempting to associate what happened to you with assisted suicide, as terrible a situation as that must have been, you are misguided. That is NOT assisted suicide. That is NOT what is being advocated. You argue that assisted suicide legislation would increase the chances of these situations occurring. I argue that this is ALREADY happening. Properly drafted legislation would actually protect these vulnerable individuals.
Sander: Read your rant again, then decide who needs a course of psychotherapy..
(rhetorical statement, just in case that wasn't obvious)
Toof: The moment you start making any sense, I may engage you. "aint it descrimnation if you say 1 peep can choose to get help to die n teh other cant?" - its about as 'discriminatory' as disabled parking spaces discriminating against the able bodied, or the Paralympics 'discriminating' againsed non-disabled athletes.
Shenanigans: another case of missing the point. This is not about what YOU want for these people. Its about what THEY want. I also advocate palliative care, for those who want it. But there are people that don't. Again, READ the material.
You say where's the dignity in being killed?! These people question where the dignity is in dying in a panic, being choked by their own tongue. Or living a life being fed through a tube, having no control over any of their bodily functions. Just because you may find these situations more dignified does not mean that the people suffering them do. Look at what the mother of Daniel James said!

reply from: CDC700

My argument is not that it will increase the chance of this happening, my argument is that it would increase the frequency in which it happens. I haven't been able to find anything tangible that would prove otherwise. By the way, suicide is ILLEGAL. Since you are a self professed LAW student, I would hope that you don't advocate illegal activities. Or are you saying that the law needs to be changed because YOU disagree with it?

reply from: jid

"My argument is not that it will increase the chance of this happening, my argument is that it would increase the frequency in which it happens"
Regardless, properly drafted legislation would protect such vulnerable individuals, reducing the chance and therefore frequency of these situations. If you haven't found anything tangiable, then you either haven't been looking, or looking in the wrong place. Try legislation of Germany, France, Spain, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Belgium... to name a few.. Closer to home? Try Oregon. Again, Even the few cases I listed in the opening post contain more than enough text regarding current and potential legislative issues to provide a base. Legal and medical databases will more than likely contain studies or cases regarding assisted suicide and coersion or associated mental illness.
You are correct in saying that suicide is 'illegal' in both the US and UK. Funnily enough, studying the law does not simply mean blindly following what precedents have been set, it isn't religion you know. The beauty of the law is that it evolves with changing public perception and as our understanding of complex issues develops. The judiciary in the UK is bound to take into account decisions of the ECtHR which, if you read the case of Pretty, declared state interference in an individuals choice to die to be in breach of human rights, Art. 8(1).
The DPP in the UK has instigated action in only 1 of the multitude of cases of assisted suicide, which in itself applied no penalty, citing public interest. Many cases are dismissed simply due to a lack of public interest (See Daniel James and the discussion in Purdy). I'm not suggesting that the law be changed because I disagree with it. I'm suggesting it be changed because enough of society disagrees with it.

reply from: Shenanigans

That's terrible.
Of course these stories would be repeated all the more once assisted suicide is made legal.
Look at the proaborts, they've taken what was once only allowed in the first trimester to the likes of tiller and now some other murderering monster that will murder your baby thru all nine months.
It won't be but a few short years before the kiddies can march grandma off to the local, "we kill em while you wait" factory. Just like an abortuary only for the born.
These proabort creatures that post here just love death....they're obsessed with it.
They would be better served with a long stint on a competent psychiatrist's couch, perhaps with some heavy medication.
That*****is still happening, and will happen whether suicide is legal or not. I saw a few similar cases when I was working in a rest home as a student.
And of course, there's nothing we can do because the law will side with the "doctor" who was just trying to "allieviate" pain and so what if the dose to end pain also ended life?
I remember a woman who stroked, and after a few days started to recover quite well and was walking and talking and pooping willingly again, then they stuck her on a high dose morphine drip and that was it, death came within an hour.

reply from: sander

Sander: Read your rant again, then decide who needs a course of psychotherapy..
I did as you suggested.
You still need to find a very good mental health care provider.
There wasn't one thing in my post that was untruthful and you know it...now scurry along and find a good doc.

reply from: CDC700

As soon as you can tell me what constitutes "enough of society" to change a law, we can work on getting rid of abortion. What do you think?

reply from: 4choice4all

I fully support a persons CHOICE in making end of life decisions. I support assisted suicide and euthanasia. Fully. Like abortion I think the decision lies with the person, their doctors and their God...and in the case of someone not able to make that decision(coma/brain dead) the family.

reply from: CDC700

You support anything that results in a "legal" death. You are one sick B ITCH

reply from: CDC700

You support anything that results in a "legal" death. You are one sick B ITCH
What, exactly, do you feel is accomplished by this sort of comment? It obviously adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion, so what's the point? Does it make you feel better? Help me understand this....
Expression, one of the freedoms we still have. If you don't understand expression, I can't help you. If you can't deal with what I write, there is an ignore function on the forum. I'd rather you put me on ignore that than come in and whine about what I write. Do you obtain some kind of great righteousness by nit picking anyone who says something expressive?

reply from: 4choice4all

CP...I believe some people can't handle people that disagree with them. This incites anger...and this is how immature people deal with anger. Don't sweat it....I stepped back for a few days and realized that wading through stuff like this is part of this board...and like many things in life, you sometimes have to take the bad with the good.

reply from: Faramir

This post is most amusing.

reply from: lukesmom

Except in the case of abortion the human being that is killed is never given the choice of life OR death. Most adult humans have made their opinions clear to their families of how they want to die or be allowed to live in case of coma/brain death. They also have the choice of making thier decision legal by writting out an advance directive. The unborn don't have that luxery.

reply from: faithman

Except in the case of abortion the human being that is killed is never given the choice of life OR death. Most adult humans have made their opinions clear to their families of how they want to die or be allowed to live in case of coma/brain death. They also have the choice of making thier decision legal by writting out an advance directive. The unborn don't have that luxery.http://www.lifedynamics.com/Abortion_Information/Pro-life_Product/maafa.cfm

reply from: faithman

You support anything that results in a "legal" death. You are one sick B ITCH
What, exactly, do you feel is accomplished by this sort of comment? It obviously adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion, so what's the point? Does it make you feel better? Help me understand this....
Expression, one of the freedoms we still have. If you don't understand expression, I can't help you. If you can't deal with what I write, there is an ignore function on the forum. I'd rather you put me on ignore that than come in and whine about what I write. Do you obtain some kind of great righteousness by nit picking anyone who says something expressive?
It is also proper identification. Speaking of which, order a copy of http://www.lifedynamics.com/Abortion_Information/Pro-life_Product/maafa.cfm

reply from: CDC700

I thought I gave you a pretty simple answer. Expression (see below)

reply from: faithman

I think we should encourge all abortionist to elect suicide, insted of killing babies.

reply from: galen

Except in the case of abortion the human being that is killed is never given the choice of life OR death. Most adult humans have made their opinions clear to their families of how they want to die or be allowed to live in case of coma/brain death. They also have the choice of making thier decision legal by writting out an advance directive. The unborn don't have that luxery.
***************
i agree

reply from: jid

Sander: Your reply to a rhetorical statement...
Thank you for providing me with such a good laugh this morning.
Concerned: Ok.. There seems to be come confusion here. I've already stated that I disagree with the fact that suicide is classed as illegal in both the UK and the US.
I agree with the ECtHR in Pretty, that this interference is in breach of human rights. So in response to your question, no, I would not like to see the rights of anyone who wishes to end their lives denied. Now back to ASSISTED suicide. It would be improper for the state to assist the suicide of anyone that tips up requesting it. Unsurprisingly, this is common sense. To see this as discriminatory is more than a little bizarre.
CDC: Simply being outspoken isn't enough..
Ok.. Because it seems that so many of you are having difficulty, lets have a little
recap. As an aside, I've stated my disagreement with legislation that makes suicide illegal. This isnt groundbreaking. Many countries contain no such provisions in their legislation. The ECtHR has hinted at its position as well.
The issue at hand though is ASSISTED suicide. Assistence provided either by the state, or state authorised bodies. There would be no 'right' to this, simply criteria. The reason there must be criteria is to afford protection to vulnerable individuals. If a melodramatic teenager wants to end their life, I have no right to stop them, as
much as I may want to. If however, they wish the state to assist them in doing so,
the state may refuse. The state setting criteria in order to assist individuals is
not exactly an unheard of concept, nor is it discriminatory.
Where on earth are you getting this assertion of a right to assisted
suicide? I have never claimed such a right. A right to die is not a right to be
assisted to die.

reply from: faithman

Close your mouth punk. You are drawing flies.

reply from: jid

"Close your mouth punk. You are drawing flies."
... and here I was wondering why you kept coming back.

reply from: Rosalie

Agreed on all counts.

reply from: faithman

Agreed on all counts.
I sure they sell rat poision at your local harware. Please!!! Be our guest!!!

reply from: sander

Agreed on all counts.
I sure they sell rat poision at your local harware. Please!!! Be our guest!!!
They don't have the guts to put thier money where their mouths are....when it comes their time they'll cry for mama.....
These people are in love with death for everyone but themselves. Try as they might, they're too transparent to hide their death wishe for others.
Everyone of them are cowards.

reply from: sk1bianca

it will be just like with abortion... many people will be convinced (not to say forced) to do it "for their own good" by others who "know better"...

reply from: Rosalie

Agreed on all counts.
I sure they sell rat poision at your local harware. Please!!! Be our guest!!!
And here we go, pro-fetal-lifers showing their true colors. It never takes long.
I can't decide whether you're just uneducated or stupid AND uneducated.
Go to the library and educate yourself on countries where euthanasia is legal. Oh wait, you'll never do this because it would destroy your ignorance and that's unacceptable.

reply from: faithman

Agreed on all counts.
I sure they sell rat poision at your local harware. Please!!! Be our guest!!!
They don't have the guts to put thier money where their mouths are....when it comes their time they'll cry for mama.....
These people are in love with death for everyone but themselves. Try as they might, they're too transparent to hide their death wishe for others.
Everyone of them are cowards.
You don't know how true that is. I have worked as a chaplin in a hospital. It is very upsetting to see the terror in their faces, and listen to their screems, when they know it is their time to die. the use death as a weapon, because they fear it. The only legit use of force, is to stop aggression against the innocent. But when it comes time for the aggressor to meet the dark mid night of their lost soul, it is a most disturbing event indeed.

reply from: sk1bianca

rosalie you are as smart as a wooden fence. euthanasia and assisted suicide are not the same thing. i was talking about assisted suicide.

reply from: Rosalie

The same still applies. News to you, right?
Oh and by the way: I can't read your mind. You did not bother to specify in your comment.
I forgot how frustrating it was to try to communicate with stupid people.

reply from: faithman

The same still applies. News to you, right?
Oh and by the way: I can't read your mind. You did not bother to specify in your comment.
I forgot how frustrating it was to try to communicate with stupid people.
At least she has a mind to read. children were relieved of theirs at Tiller the ex-babykillerist on a regular basis. I would check the back of your neck for scissor holes. It would seem you have no mind to read.

reply from: sk1bianca

you can't even read the title of the topic...

reply from: Rosalie

you can't even read the title of the topic...
L-O-L.
Peopl have been talking about BOTH assisted suicide AND euthanasia in this topic. Oh my, another epic fail on your part.

reply from: faithman

you can't even read the title of the topic...
L-O-L.
Peopl have been talking about BOTH assisted suicide AND euthanasia in this topic. Oh my, another epic fail on your part.
You would know all about failure. You fail as a woman, and a human being. You have devolved into a death scanc monster.

reply from: sk1bianca

she keeps finding excuses for not using her brain before posting stuff.

reply from: faithman

Once again, I think it needs to check for scissor holes....

reply from: Rosalie

Oh dear, you really don't understand anything you read, right? It is fascinating that you are not ashamed still.
you can't even read the title of the topic...
L-O-L.
Peopl have been talking about BOTH assisted suicide AND euthanasia in this topic. Oh my, another epic fail on your part.
You would know all about failure. You fail as a woman, and a human being. You have devolved into a death scanc monster.
Awesome. LOL

reply from: sk1bianca

tiller sucked her brains out.

reply from: Rosalie

I wonder... do you think this is you being smart? Funny? Sarcastic?
Because my goodness, the level of pathetic you, faithman and sander have reached just today is absolutely incredible. Congrats on that, it seems to be the biggest achievement of your life.

reply from: sk1bianca

if stupidity was painful you would have to be euthanized.

reply from: yoda

Guys, I've got a confession...... Rosie is one of the few people I still have on iggy..... and when no one quotes her for a while, I don't see anything she has spewed out on the forum for a while. It's a nice thing, too.

reply from: sander

Smart man.
It's only amusing for so long reacting to someone as low and cold as this one.
It's stunning that people like that roam the streets at will.

reply from: Shenanigans

I didn't miss the point. Its not what I want, its about WHY they want to die, and usually its because they're in agony.
I've seen it so many times, pts who are in pain in the final stages of illness, once they get comfortable releif they no longer want us to kill them.
You ever had someone look you in the eye, dying the WORST death possible and ask you to kill them? The moment you get some decent morphine on board that thought passes and they're happy in their final moments.
At the end of the day, its contray to human nature to want to top ourselves, thats why those who do are often mentally unwell, but its also human nature to want to distance ourselves from pain. Once pain is controlled they can go peacefully, and without stressing their loved ones.

reply from: 4choice4all

Rosalie....did you just get Faithman to admit evolution in humans is real? You rock my socks.

reply from: Yuuki

On topic: I don't agree with euthanasia.

reply from: faithman

We should help all abortionist to elect to do suicide.

reply from: CDC700

The same still applies. News to you, right?
Oh and by the way: I can't read your mind. You did not bother to specify in your comment.
I forgot how frustrating it was to try to communicate with stupid people.
So what's the deal rosie? I'm just gonna go out on a limb and guess that English was not your first language. You come off like an immigrant, who migrated to this country, learned SOME english, and spend all of your waking hours trying to impress people by TRYING to sound smart and professing how dumb everyone else is. Such a sad shame. So many people who immigrate here, take full advantage of our education system and opportunities that are still available. Then they become confident and highly prosperous. Unfortunately, you have let yourself down. What color is the sun in your world rosie?

reply from: faithman

The same still applies. News to you, right?
Oh and by the way: I can't read your mind. You did not bother to specify in your comment.
I forgot how frustrating it was to try to communicate with stupid people.
So what's the deal rosie? I'm just gonna go out on a limb and guess that English was not your first language. You come off like an immigrant, who migrated to this country, learned SOME english, and spend all of your waking hours trying to impress people by TRYING to sound smart and professing how dumb everyone else is. Such a sad shame. So many people who immigrate here, take full advantage of our education system and opportunities that are still available. Then they become confident and highly prosperous. Unfortunately, you have let yourself down. What color is the sun in your world rosie?
Sun don't shine under rocks bro.

reply from: galen

On topic...
I've been in this position twice...
Once when my dear friend died a horrible painful death, because her disease so ravaged her nervous system that she had no relief from her pain with even the strongest of meds, and no doc would push her past the edge to end her suffering.
the second time was myself. i have always had a living will... and when i was diagnosed with a brain tumour i made myself DNR.
I agree that a terminally ill person or teenager or even a very intelligent child should have the right to ask thier doctor to help them end thier suffering...or find one who will help. Only if the end is near, and only if an ethics commitee has been consulted , and the patient's wishes are known. I believe in the case of a minor who can not make this choice for themselves , that the parents be allowed to make this choice for them. Again only in the case of a terminal illness, where the end is certain and the suffering is great.

reply from: Banned Member

I agree with galen....

reply from: 4choice4all

I agree with Galen too....and now I'm sad, because surely someone is going to step in and accuse her of not being a real prolifer.

reply from: faithman

Promote suicide for abortionist!

reply from: Darkmoon

When someone is suffering that much and they ask for it...let's just hope someone else has a hippa contract that will allow relief.
Trust me, you do not EVER want to watch a loved one struggle for breath and ask you to kill them.

reply from: faithman

Help all abortionist to elect their suicide. The fewer babykillerist the better.

reply from: carolemarie

I agree, what a horrible position to be in....

reply from: lukesmom

Morphine can be a beautiful thing especially in the case of endstage lung disease... Dying of slow suffication is not a nice way to go.

reply from: Faramir

There should be no treatment that kills by intent.
We have to use pro-choice arguments to justify it.
If we can say that a dying adult who is "dying anyway" can be killed, we can also say that for the fetus in the womb who is not expected to live much longer after birth.

reply from: Faramir

To me, it's kind of like abortion to save the mother. You must save the mother, but you must not intentionally kill the child. If the child doesn't survive the measures necessary to save the mother, so be it, it is unfortunate, but necessary, but should never be intentional.
Likewise, I think we must relieve the suffering of terminal patients, but our intention should never be to cause death. They should have a choice whether to risk death in order to minimize their suffering, and if death comes before relief, so be it....
I agree with you 100% cp, but your post seems to be showing agreement with the quoted post, but correct me if I am wrong.
It appears that she is supporting euthanasia, and not just a pain killer that that could hasten death as a side-effect, but an intentional killing.

reply from: faithman

Encourage suicide for abortionist.

reply from: galen

To me, it's kind of like abortion to save the mother. You must save the mother, but you must not intentionally kill the child. If the child doesn't survive the measures necessary to save the mother, so be it, it is unfortunate, but necessary, but should never be intentional.
Likewise, I think we must relieve the suffering of terminal patients, but our intention should never be to cause death. They should have a choice whether to risk death in order to minimize their suffering, and if death comes before relief, so be it....
I agree with you 100% cp, but your post seems to be showing agreement with the quoted post, but correct me if I am wrong.
It appears that she is supporting euthanasia, and not just a pain killer that that could hasten death as a side-effect, but an intentional killing.
***********************
We have had this discussion before... and a good dose of dilaudid or morphine.. that will end suffering and as a consequence hasten the end... but only when the end isw near at hand. why prolong misery?
The diffrence in fetal anomaly and terminal illness, is that whith the fetus you may or may not have a correct diagnosis... the child is not yet born...with a person outside of the womb you know what you have in front of you.
take end stage tay sachs... the first few months/years can be good.. but the suffering twards the end is horrendus... why not snow such a child out, with no pain and mom and dad there able to offer comfort?

reply from: galen

**************************************8
the intent is never to outright kill someone... however if that happens to be a side effect then it is a blessing.

reply from: Faramir

**************************************8
the intent is never to outright kill someone... however if that happens to be a side effect then it is a blessing.
There is a difference between administering a pain killer that has the UNINTENDED effect of hastening death and administering a dose of that or something else that intends death.
What does this mean? (below)
What do you mean by having "the right to ask their doctor to help them end their suffering"?
Don't we already have that right as far as pain killers go?

reply from: galen

It really depends on the hospital and who are the directors/administrators... The attitude is changing slowly , but in many religiosly sponsored hospitals you are not allowed to 'overdo' ( thier words) the painkillers, if it might hasten death.... there are even groups that follow the patients in assisted living/hospice/ hospitals and monitor how long it takes for the terminally ill to die... if a person has no living will or family things can get really sticky, these groups often sue on behalf of patients who are vegetables to make sure that they are 'coded' etc, long after any meaningful life is gone.
The woman who originally had this persona, begged for relief... the doctors were not allowed to give her a fatal dose of morphine etc, becuase it would hasten her death...
did that make any sense?

reply from: Faramir

I think I understand it now--that the object is to alleviate the pain with a very strong but necessary dose of pain-killer, and that if it causes death, that is not the intended consequence.

reply from: Shenanigans

Yeah, even the RCC acknowledges that, I think the term is "passive euthanasia", whereby the death is not willed.
Morphine is a great drug, quite misunderstood as well, a lot of people are offered morphine drips and start freaking out that the intent of this is to kill them or hurry the process. Morphine can be given quite liberally without a death occuring. HOwever, throw in a resp. illness you may get hurried death.
I've given morphine subcut to a patient who was very restless in their final moments but it was a dose that wouldn't kill them but would ease their suffering.
What i object to is that lying, unspoken behaviour of giving morphine in such a dose as the whole purpose of such a dose is to kill or hurry death.
Palliative care is still very misunderstood.

reply from: lukesmom

Certain meds aleviate pain and make a person more comfortable if they are in pain or struggling to breathe. These meds have the side effect of possibly depressing respirations which, if depressed enough, will cause death. So, when you are trying to make a pt more comfortable and have less suffering you could cause their death as a side effect of making them comfortable.

reply from: Faramir

Certain meds aleviate pain and make a person more comfortable if they are in pain or struggling to breathe. These meds have the side effect of possibly depressing respirations which, if depressed enough, will cause death. So, when you are trying to make a pt more comfortable and have less suffering you could cause their death as a side effect of making them comfortable.
I'm glad it was explained to me, because I really misunderstood, and thought that it was some form of euthanasia.
But this talk is depressing me, and I don't want to go that way.
I hope I can die peacefully in my sleep, like my father did, and not kicking and screaming like his passengers.

reply from: Rosalie

Wrong on all counts, CDC, but it figures that trash like you would your own discriminatory delusions as insults.
All my immigrant friends have better grasp of the English language than most of you 'pro-lifers' here. Your spelling is atrocious, your grammar and sentence structure is nonexistent and it constantly sounds like the only book you have ever managed to finish reading was The Little Engine That Could.
And of course all my immigrant friends are about 100 times more useful than someone like you could ever be. But like I said, bigotry and xenofobia is to be expected from hicks like you.
In order to get to me you would have to 1) know me in person, 2) be intelligent. You don't fulfill either of these requirements. But of course if it makes you feel all powerful and in control (superiority complex and pathological need to feel in control of others is typical for people like you), keep lying. I don't think you know any better anyway.

reply from: prochoiceinNY

I think if we can abort our POC because its our body, then we should be abl;e to legally end our lives with assistence from a doctor if needed. Its my body. And if my body ever got horrbdly sick or in lots of pain, I'd want tobe able to be assisted to die. If the law said no, I'd find some way to do it myself, but I don't thnk I'd ask someone because I woldn't want them getting in trouble.

reply from: faithman

Support Assisted Suicide For Abortionist. Support this new organization SASFA. Scott Roeder president.

reply from: CDC700

Wrong on all counts, CDC, but it figures that trash like you would your own discriminatory delusions as insults.
All my immigrant friends have better grasp of the English language than most of you 'pro-lifers' here. Your spelling is atrocious, your grammar and sentence structure is nonexistent and it constantly sounds like the only book you have ever managed to finish reading was The Little Engine That Could.
And of course all my immigrant friends are about 100 times more useful than someone like you could ever be. But like I said, bigotry and xenofobia is to be expected from hicks like you.
In order to get to me you would have to 1) know me in person, 2) be intelligent. You don't fulfill either of these requirements. But of course if it makes you feel all powerful and in control (superiority complex and pathological need to feel in control of others is typical for people like you), keep lying. I don't think you know any better anyway.
My spelling is atrocious? Show me where. My grammar and sentence structure is non existent? If that were the case, how would you be responding to my posts? Do you know what xenophobia is? I have no doubt you have productive immigrant friends. I never indicated otherwise in my original post. I have very successful immigrant friends too. If you were to read History, you'd know that the United States was founded by immigrants so I don't get your logic. Can you explain what you meant by "my pathological need to feel in control of others"? Where do you derive that from in my post? What exactly did I lie about? If you can answer even two of these questions rationally I will be surprised.

reply from: sander

Wrong on all counts, CDC, but it figures that trash like you would your own discriminatory delusions as insults.
All my immigrant friends have better grasp of the English language than most of you 'pro-lifers' here. Your spelling is atrocious, your grammar and sentence structure is nonexistent and it constantly sounds like the only book you have ever managed to finish reading was The Little Engine That Could.
And of course all my immigrant friends are about 100 times more useful than someone like you could ever be. But like I said, bigotry and xenofobia is to be expected from hicks like you.
In order to get to me you would have to 1) know me in person, 2) be intelligent. You don't fulfill either of these requirements. But of course if it makes you feel all powerful and in control (superiority complex and pathological need to feel in control of others is typical for people like you), keep lying. I don't think you know any better anyway.
My spelling is atrocious? Show me where. My grammar and sentence structure is non existent? If that were the case, how would you be responding to my posts? Do you know what xenophobia is? I have no doubt you have productive immigrant friends. I never indicated otherwise in my original post. I have very successful immigrant friends too. If you were to read History, you'd know that the United States was founded by immigrants so I don't get your logic. Can you explain what you meant by "my pathological need to feel in control of others"? Where do you derive that from in my post? What exactly did I lie about? If you can answer even two of these questions rationally I will be surprised.
If old "toofy" can answer in coherent english, I'll be surprised too.
Wonder what these goofs think they're accomplishing?

reply from: Rosalie

Yes, I misspelled one word. It happens now and then to most people. The issue I was getting at was when people are incapable of using their/they're/there or your/you're etc. correctly, which happens here all the time.
As for the other thing, you're wrong. The 'missing verb thing' is called 'elision', it is a type of deletion that is used in casual, informal speech and usually concerns the first part of the sentence. Another examples may include [I bet your] pardon, [It is] nice to see you etc.
Actually, you are wrong. his is called compound subject. And compound subjects can take a singular verb, especially when the elements add up to the same/similar idea. Another example of this would be, "The wear and tear on the car is tremendous."
With all that said, I hate the way you choose to butcher the English language and I have to ask - why? Why don't you at least try? No one is 100% correct all the time but a little effort would be nice.
Nice try. You have posted a completely made-up story about me with an obvious intent to insult me, and in the process you managed to use the word "immigrant" as an insult and basically described them as people who leech off our educational system. And then you spewed some more insults, of course.
Oh and look up hyperbole. That is a grammatical phenomenon I applied when I was commenting on your "nonexistent sentence structure".

reply from: Rosalie

just ironic is all
not rong cuz not a complete sentense n dont matter what u call it
u would what your discriminatory delusions?
not complete sentense n not correct grammer n cuz there name 4 it dont change that
that cute tho u pretendin u did it on purpose
dunno were u go to scool but compound subject plural n call for plural verb wen subjcs join wit and
not corect 2 say teh wear n tear is tremendous ether teh ware n tare ARE tremendous
not plural if u say or insted of and
cuple more exepsions jus read this
http://grammarstars.bl...t.c.....rt-iii.html
"><br ">http://grammarstars.blogspot.com/2007/08/subject-verb-agreement-part-iii.html
<br ">http://.....t.c...rt-iii.html
I skool u on grammer that funny huh
Sorry but first of all, I can barely make out what you are saying. It's really horrid. And second of all, English is much more complex when you actually study the language (which I did) and I really happen to know that what I told you is a fact. No offense but I majored in English, I do not need links to random blogs.
Pick up for example Cambridge grammar (in an actual library) and check it out for yourself.
Or if that's too much of an inconvenience to you, here's something that might help you understand it:
http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/comsubjecterm.htm
You are wrong.
I just explained it to you. It's not my fault that you don't understand what 'elision' is.
There's a difference between for example misspelling a word or an accidental omission (both of which are usually results of quick, drive-by posting) and constant misuse of certain words, not distinguishing between who's/whose etc.
I really don't know how to explain it to you because you don't seem to understand even the very basics of English.
Your posts are headache inducing and I would appreciate if you type like a normal person and not like a 12 year old kid who got stuck in 2002 and thinks that this sort of spelling/misuse of language is cool.

reply from: CDC700

Really? Is that what you read? A made up story where I used immigrant as an insult? Okay, I'll explain it further, I know it's a difficult translation for you in English. Change "You come off" to Your representation of yourself appears" Entiende muchacha? If you take my use of the word immigrant as an insult, you are the one who looks down on immigrants in general, not I. Try reading it again, s l o w l y....

reply from: CDC700

Yo se que su ingles es mejor.Mi espanol es malo, pero puede comunicarse.La mayoría de mis empleados son mexico. Mis hijos son la mitad mexicano.

reply from: Faramir

Me gusta toofy!
Toofy es la bomba!
Me olvide mucho de mi espanol, pero entiendo su espanol mejor que su engles.
Que sera sera.

reply from: Faramir

Yo tambien.
I probably shouldn't be joking with "the enemy," but I can't help it--she's hilarious--in English that is--way too normal in Spanish.

reply from: CDC700

Yo tambien.
I probably shouldn't be joking with "the enemy," but I can't help it--she's hilarious--in English that is--way too normal in Spanish.
I have to say it took me by surprise.

reply from: Shenanigans

Hay servicios, duchas, lavabos alli? No, pero tengo un jersey en la mochila.

reply from: Shenanigans

¿Quién comió todos los pasteles?

reply from: jid

"I didn't miss the point. Its not what I want, its about WHY they want to die, and usually its because they're in agony.
I've seen it so many times, pts who are in pain in the final stages of illness, once they get comfortable releif they no longer want us to kill them.
You ever had someone look you in the eye, dying the WORST death possible and ask you to kill them? The moment you get some decent morphine on board that thought passes and they're happy in their final moments.
At the end of the day, its contray to human nature to want to top ourselves, thats why those who do are often mentally unwell, but its also human nature to want to distance ourselves from pain. Once pain is controlled they can go peacefully, and without stressing their loved ones."
A good point, and to answer your question, no, I haven't been in that situation. I know of people who have, family, and have had family who have been terminal and who have asked. I apologise but again, you're not getting the point. There ARE people for whom morphine is NOT enough. There are situations where physical pain is not the ONLY reason to want to seek assistance. The family of Daniel James summed it up perfectly. Daniel found his situation unbearable. Others may not have, but this is utterly irrelevant.
It is, without a shadow of a doubt, a better situation if simple application of opiates dispels a desire to want to be assisted to die. But what if it isn't? People like Daniel, Debbie, Diane etc.. should be made to tolerate THEIR suffering?
I could argue a hell of a lot of things are 'contrary to human nature', but of all things, not wanting to exist in a state of physical and mental suffering is not top of the list.

reply from: jid

Another insightful addition to the discussion there faith'.. I'd ask if you've run out of anything clever to say, but I haven't yet seen anything that comes close to clever..

reply from: jid

I take your lack of valuable input to be a concession on your part yes?
You could have done so with a little more..... dignity perhaps? *chuckle*

reply from: jid

.. a simple 'yes' would have sufficed. It's no wonder few people take your point of view seriously.

reply from: jid

I love it when common sense prevails..
Debbie Purdy wins her case in the House of Lords, forcing the DPP to publish specific guidance on assisted suicide.
Recent (basic) survey showing the majority of the public in support of assisted suicide.
Royal College of Nursing officially adopting neutral stance on assisted suicide.
Public to be consulted before interim policy is put in place.
And all in the last couple of weeks..

reply from: JRH

Every human being is the master and owner of their own life. No one has a greater claim on that life- to prevent people from ending their life is to assertyou have a greater moral claim on their life than they do. I believe this to be totally unacceptable, so I think suicide must absolutely be allowed.

reply from: lukesmom

So you are against abortion, the killing of unborn human beings?

reply from: JRH

I use the term "human being" to refer to human persons. A fetus is not a person, and for that matter neither is a newborn infant,

reply from: lukesmom

Oh right, I forgot that you are one sick dude.

reply from: sander

Oh right, I forgot that you are one sick dude.
Did he really say newborns that came from a woman's body, created with a man, is NOT human???
He's not only sick, he's delusional. And to think these vile creatures roam free.
Life can be so unfair.

reply from: faithman

Help abortionist elect suicide


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics