Post Reply
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
5 years ago  ::  Feb 20, 2009 - 11:11PM #11
lAuR1987
Posts: 174
Jesusfreakgal,
    I understand what you are saying, but when people make decisions about euthanasia they have to make these decisions on the information avaliable to them. Not a what if its not the correct diagnosis, what if they may lead an ordinary life,etc. We cannot predict the future and have to rely on what is in the present to base our decisions on the matter.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 20, 2009 - 11:11PM #12
lAuR1987
Posts: 174
Jesusfreakgal,
    I understand what you are saying, but when people make decisions about euthanasia they have to make these decisions on the information avaliable to them. Not a what if its not the correct diagnosis, what if they may lead an ordinary life,etc. We cannot predict the future and have to rely on what is in the present to base our decisions on the matter.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 08, 2009 - 5:59PM #13
Americafirst
Posts: 66

If people want to kill themselves, they can easily do it on their own, without assistance.  The only point of euthenasia is to enable a third person to assist in the suicide.  The problem with that is that it can be too easy to cover up a murder with this type of pretext.


Today, many people commit murder by fabricating an accident.  Legal sucide will be another major form of murder disguised as a suicide.


Many people do a half hearted sucide because it's a cry for help, not a real desire to end their life.   If they really wanted to end it all, and they have any intelligence, they can figure out how to do it successfully, without the help of doctors or others.


The people Dr. Death didn't want on his jury were the elderly, because he and his lawyers knew the elderly didn't trust a doctor assisting in "suicides."   This will also be a major way for Obama to save money on medical care, just assist the elderly in ending their lives earlier, to save "trillions" in medical costs.  


Who gets the life saving operations?   Obama will, with his new health care plan, effectively assist the suicide of everyone not deemed worthy to get government run medical care.


Obama's health plan is assisted sucide for millions, all to save money.  Frugality he called it.  If you don't have health insurance, Obama will fine you a $1,000 or two.  We all will be required to be part of the assisted suicide plan Congress plans to pass.


"Assisted suicide" is murder, in many forms.  If you want more murders, just promote "assisted suicide."      Homicide, infanticide, suicide, ... we use ephemisms to avoid the reality.   "Abortion,"  "Euthenasia,"     The quality of life people will use words to define away an obvious murder.     We're more concerned with the lives of dogs and animals than we are with people.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 10, 2009 - 1:45AM #14
SatanicStalker
Posts: 719

Jul 8, 2009 -- 5:59PM, Americafirst wrote:


If people want to kill themselves, they can easily do it on their own, without assistance.  The only point of euthenasia is to enable a third person to assist in the suicide.  The problem with that is that it can be too easy to cover up a murder with this type of pretext.




This is an entirely 100% false statement, a bald-faced LIE. If this were true, there would be no need for euthanasia to be legalized and no point in having this discussion in the first place. 


The people who might be eligible for euthanasia are not the able-bodied, that's the point. 


Ever hear of Don Cowart a.k.a. Dax? How would you kill yourself if you were completely blind, had all ten fingers burned off, and couldn't walk on your own? Guns require a finger to pull the trigger, pill bottles require hands to open them, jumping in front of a semi truck would require being able to locate one, not to mention opening a door knob or walking out the door. He did not live next to any convenient cliffs or bodies of water. How is a man who for a long time couldn't even take a piss himself going to kill himself without assistance? 


Or what about late-stage Lou Gehrig's disease? How would you kill yourself if you had no voluntary muscle movement south of your nose? Even if you could get some pills and get them up to your mouth without assistance (impossible), you couldn't swallow them. Much less lift a weapon, or even a plastic sack to cover your face with. 


I could give many more examples, but I've already proven your statement wrong. I doubt you will be able to come up with some brilliant plan of suicide for people in either situation, since many very intelligent and motivated people in those and similar situations, often thinking about the problem for months on end, could not. 


 


Considering the restrictions that would (and rightly so) be put in place, disguising murder as legal euthanasia would be nearly impossible. It would require several documented requests by the patient to the doctor, separated by a certain period of time to help ensure it was a stable, ongoing wish of the patient. It would require psychological analysis by a third party to prove the person was competent and under no duress. Certainly, it would be rather difficult for someone to fake all of this, especially after a murder, and impossible if the other people involved (even supposing the murderer was one of the medical staff) were doing their jobs properly. 


If you're under the impression that I could walk into a sick relative's house and give him/her lethal drugs and then claim it was euthanasia, you're very misinformed. I would go to prison for murder EVEN IF it actually was intended as a mercy for a dying loved one. Under no proposed plan would anything that uncontrollable or undocumented ever be legal. 


~Stalker

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 10, 2009 - 1:07AM #15
Americafirst
Posts: 66

You'll soon get your wish, after Obama signs Congress' health care "reform."  Its method of "efficiency" and economics is to save money by killing off the elderly and disabled, and focusing "health care" on funding abortion and illegal aliens.


Doctors will pull the plug to save money.   You can call it murder, "euthenasia" or some term Hitler had for eliminating the "defectives" such as the "Final Solution." 


Sarah Palin called it "evil."  That's too candid for America.  We prefer comforting euphemisms.  "murder" is just too harsh a term.   Cost savings and efficiency in health care sounds so much better.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 10, 2009 - 12:18PM #16
SatanicStalker
Posts: 719

Oops, sorry. 


I made the mistake of thinking I was talking to someone rational. 


How foolish of me. 


Sarah Palin's talk of a "death panel" is one of the biggest red herrings I've ever seen. Show me anywhere in the legislation where any person could be euthanized against his or her will and I'll take it back. Euthanasia of humans is still illegal in most states, and I really doubt Obama's health care reform is going to change much in that regard. Again, show me evidence (for the record, Sarah Palin's aimless unfounded ramblings are the opposite of evidence) that this isn't so and we'll talk. 


The true "death panel" is in the current system, where vast droves of people are left with no reasonable way to get health insurance. I work as a volunteer EMT, and I hate how often I hear people who really should go to the ER refuse because they don't have any way to pay for it. As a health care worker, I believe in doing what is best for my patients, therefore I support Obama's plan. People dying of treatable disease and injuries that didn't need to be fatal because they happen to fall into the cracks in the current system, and other people refusing to even consider change because they're too lazy to do their own research behind the stupid lies that defeated politicians tell... THAT is what is truly evil. 


By the way, that was a pretty good red herring also. Just because I had something to say on it, don't think I didn't notice how you just passed over all of my points which proved your initial statement to be a bald-faced lie. You've yet to answer just how you would commit suicide if you wanted to but were paralyzed from the ears down, without any help. 


~Stalker

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 10, 2009 - 1:52PM #17
Tmarie64
Posts: 5,277

I know it won't do any good... People like americafirst and that ilk are never going to believe a fact that contradicts their ignorance... but I'll put some FACTS in here now...


I'm pasting part of the page... PLEASE go to the link and read the FACTS, not the ignorant rantings of narrow minded people who would let their politics interfere with what is best for this country.


 http://factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/  


Many of the e-mails cite former Republican lieutenant governor of New York Betsy McCaughey’s interview on former senator and Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s radio show. On July 16, McCaughey, who founded a group called the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths in 2004, appeared on Thompson’s program to discuss health care. Citing page 425 of the bill, McCaughey claimed that “the Congress would make it mandatory … that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care … all to do what’s in society’s best interest … and cut your life short.” Thompson chuckled at this and said, “I’ve seen bits and parts of [the bill], Betsy, but I didn’t know that.” He hasn’t seen that bit, of course, because it doesn’t exist.

McCaughey misrepresents the content of page 425 of the bill. That section would require Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning counseling sessions with a health care practitioner. Here’s part of the section in question.

H.R. 3200, page 425: Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning … .

(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders … .

The accepted definition of end-of-life planning means thinking ahead about the care you would like to receive at the end of your life – which may include the choice to reject extraordinary measures of life support, or the choice to embrace them. For instance, the National Library of Medicine describes end-of-life services as "services [that] are available to help patients and their families deal with issues surrounding death." This can include making decisions about treatment, designating a health care proxy, choosing a hospice program and putting together a living will, all of which the bill mentions explicitly as being part of an advance care planning consultation. In a 2003 study, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that "[p]atients who talked with their families or physicians about their preferences for end-of-life care had less fear and anxiety, felt they had more ability to influence and direct their medical care, believed that their physicians had a better understanding of their wishes, and indicated a greater understanding and comfort level than they had before the discussion."

Furthermore, the bill would not make these sessions mandatory. It modifies section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security Act, defining what services Medicare will pay for – if these definitions made treatments mandatory, seniors would all be required to get artificial legs and midwife services, too. In other words, this section of H.R. 3200 would require Medicare to pay doctors when they counsel their patients about such things as living wills, but no more frequently than once every five years, unless there’s a significant change in health status. "Both myself and our outside counsel have reviewed section 1233 of the House bill, and neither one of us can reach the conclusion that it is a mandatory consultation for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries," Jon Keyserling, vice president of public policy at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, told us. "The opportunity for the consultation is not only voluntary but patient-initiated."  



Feel free to ignore it, americafirst... I know you will.

James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 11, 2009 - 1:50PM #18
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,584

Yes, Euthanasia should be legal.


Because of, like, freedom, and all that jazz. 

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 21, 2009 - 6:04PM #19
Watchfilm
Posts: 15

Taking medication, there are many names for the pills doctors give.  They impose the risk of death and life alternately.  What is the cause of their affectivity?  Scientists say that things come from themselves.  Even though some research has been done on perception, it is still uncertain how the sunlight even functions.


Uncertainty is the only certainty in the scientific world.  Direct Perception is the antidote.  They would say maybe that you can't even directly perceive something, because the moment you observe it you have changed its existence.


Why are these Doctors responsible for life and death?  Because we trust them.  I would like to say that it is not the time to think that people are infallible and believe in a system of faith like that.


It is really faith that you have when you are going to die.  Doesn't it sound like the Doctor's are your captors here?


If you could actually choose your own life and death then you would not need to depend on Doctors.  Why now do you decide that it is okay and appropriate for you to have the ability to say you can live or die?


Because you think that the Doctor has the power to take and to give life. 


Because you don't have the power.  You are really just taking refuge in some worldly thing that will not bring any type of happiness or benefit.  Do you think its okay to do that?  I think it is not good.


What are the probabilities of abuse?


People who don't have the ability to choose between life and death should not have the ability or authority to enforce others to take or give them life.  If someone can't give them life why would they be able to give death?  It doesn't make sense.  It is totally dependent on the individual. 


If the individual is not ready to die he will not die.


You could pull the plug and it wouldn't matter.


What happens when you start creating people that don't want to die?  And then they don't die the right way because they don't want to go?


There would be mass hysteria.  It is a facade that death is a pleasant experience that can be given to you by a scientist.  Its like saying that a clone is you when you have never been a clone.


Even though the clone may be based on you the clone is not you.


The clone could ... well I'm sure you could imagine many probabilities.


See, the clone is different.


Just like life and euthenasia.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 05, 2011 - 9:05AM #20
Agnostic
Posts: 94

Euthanasia should be limited to politicians.  That way we wouldn't need the expense of impeachment or prosecution.  We could promote hari kari, like the Japanese.   Tell the disgraced politician it would be more honorable for him to just disappear.


As for lesser beings, it's too easy to fake euthanasia, masking murder.   But with a politician, in the public eye, it would harder.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook