Euthanasia

Should Euthanasia be lawful?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 61.5%
  • No

    Votes: 5 38.5%

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
Wry does not face the real possibility that "others" may someday terminate her life for other reasons than capital punishment for crimes.

Should euthanasia be used by the state to terminate people so that they are not competing for resources?

Wry is a he, and does understand that concern. Slippery slope arguments do not make for a reasoned debate, however.

I framed the issue by suggesting an individual might - if mercy killing were legal - express their wishes in an end of life document, a will or revocable trust. Some may wish to let 'God" decide, others, myself included, would rather allow others to make that decision.

My wife and I have included a DNR in our revocable trust as we agree our sons should not be faced with making a life or death decision. We would include euthanasia too if legal, under for specific conditions, such as Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. See:

Euthanasia in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
It is a political issue and the question was do you support or not support euthanasia, and why. You posted an opinion, I responded and you continue to ignore the question - which is your right. I acknowledged DNR is not killing, per se, yet you continue to push that resolved point and ignore the second question.

Once again: "Turning off the equipment keeping someone alive is an affirmative action, do you believe a doctor engaging in such an act should be arrested, his license to practice medicine revoked, and if convicted placed in prison?"

So I'm going to assume you would allow a loved one to suffer even knowing that they wished to have the suffering end. If that is true, you've taken the callous conservative to a new lower level.

My position is simple.

Doctors should never kill.

Period.

Feel free to assume whatever you want out of that, just don't expect me to care.

Fine. You voted and that is all which was expected. I respect you privacy, I simply don't respect you. And I know you don't care so don't bother to respond.

If you really cared about your loved one you wouldn't make the decision for them, you would let them make it for themselves, then you would do what they want, even if it cost you personally. You wouldn't want the government to be involved, and you wouldn't care if they disapproved. The reason you prefer to pretend you don't respect me is you actually hate that I am want to take the government out of the picture.
 
My family was faced with exactly such a situation last year. One brother had suffered a massive stroke. The prognosis was very, very poor. His quality of life, should he survive, would have been absolutely horrible, given the parts of his brain affected by the stroke.
The majority of the siblings were able to gather and confer with the doc. We mutually decided to remove our brother from life sustaining treatment and go from there. Well, he died. But he died with the greater majority of his family and loved ones gathered by his side. For our part, we all had an opportunity to say our goodbyes. We did the right thing. It wasn't easy.
I think the option should be available.

Thank you. Putting a human face on this thread is helpful. I too believe the option should be available.

The option is available, just man up and accept that your principles might get you in trouble with the rest of the world, unless you don't have any.
 
Your assertion of slippery slope argument is simplistic and incorrect.

I concede individual right. But I am talking about euthanasia as a state policy for allocating resources for the living.

Such is far more important than individual rights to euthanasia.


Wry does not face the real possibility that "others" may someday terminate her life for other reasons than capital punishment for crimes.

Should euthanasia be used by the state to terminate people so that they are not competing for resources?

Wry is a he, and does understand that concern. Slippery slope arguments do not make for a reasoned debate, however. I framed the issue by suggesting an individual might - if mercy killing were legal - express their wishes in an end of life document, a will or revocable trust. Some may wish to let 'God" decide, others, myself included, would rather allow others to make that decision. My wife and I have included a DNR in our revocable trust as we agree our sons should not be faced with making a life or death decision. We would include euthanasia too if legal, under for specific conditions, such as Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.
 
Katzndogz, you had very little credibility before posting what you did above. Unless you can post a credible source to prove your allegations about Michael Schavio, you have shamed yourself beyond redemption.

With liberals, I'd be shocked to have any credibility at all. Michael Schiavo is a murderer who was able to use the system to kill his wife in a particularly horrible way. He had motive to kill her because he got a lot of money after her death and was able to finally marry the mother of his child. While his wife was horribly ill, Michael Schiavo found time to put aside all his worry and fuck someone else.

Honestly after supporting a vile little insect like barack obama, are liberals concerned with shame at all? After making a point of killing off the elderly, the sick and unborn children, is the word shame even in the liberal vocabulary?

It's laughable.
 
Your assertion of slippery slope argument is simplistic and incorrect.

I concede individual right. But I am talking about euthanasia as a state policy for allocating resources for the living.

Such is far more important than individual rights to euthanasia.


Wry does not face the real possibility that "others" may someday terminate her life for other reasons than capital punishment for crimes.

Should euthanasia be used by the state to terminate people so that they are not competing for resources?

Wry is a he, and does understand that concern. Slippery slope arguments do not make for a reasoned debate, however. I framed the issue by suggesting an individual might - if mercy killing were legal - express their wishes in an end of life document, a will or revocable trust. Some may wish to let 'God" decide, others, myself included, would rather allow others to make that decision. My wife and I have included a DNR in our revocable trust as we agree our sons should not be faced with making a life or death decision. We would include euthanasia too if legal, under for specific conditions, such as Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.

What you propose is the natural and probable result of euthanasia.

By the way DNR has nothing to do with euthanasia. With a DNR directive, you are already dead, unequivocallly dead. Now the question is should they be resussitated? With euthanasia, no one is dead, nor is death imminent. There are other circumstances in which death may be preferable. Uncontrollable pain, extended to severe loss of quality of life. A boy just committed suicide because he blushed. He was otherwise healthy should he have been able to get a doctor to assist in his suicide? Under the qualification of lack of quality of life, Stephen Hawking would have been killed decades ago.
 
Katzndogz, you had very little credibility before posting what you did above. Unless you can post a credible source to prove your allegations about Michael Schavio, you have shamed yourself beyond redemption.

With liberals, I'd be shocked to have any credibility at all. Michael Schiavo is a murderer who was able to use the system to kill his wife in a particularly horrible way. He had motive to kill her because he got a lot of money after her death and was able to finally marry the mother of his child. While his wife was horribly ill, Michael Schiavo found time to put aside all his worry and fuck someone else.

Honestly after supporting a vile little insect like barack obama, are liberals concerned with shame at all? After making a point of killing off the elderly, the sick and unborn children, is the word shame even in the liberal vocabulary?

It's laughable.

You 'forgot' to offer evidence to support your opinion.
 
Your assertion of slippery slope argument is simplistic and incorrect.

I concede individual right. But I am talking about euthanasia as a state policy for allocating resources for the living.

Such is far more important than individual rights to euthanasia.


Wry is a he, and does understand that concern. Slippery slope arguments do not make for a reasoned debate, however. I framed the issue by suggesting an individual might - if mercy killing were legal - express their wishes in an end of life document, a will or revocable trust. Some may wish to let 'God" decide, others, myself included, would rather allow others to make that decision. My wife and I have included a DNR in our revocable trust as we agree our sons should not be faced with making a life or death decision. We would include euthanasia too if legal, under for specific conditions, such as Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.

What you propose is the natural and probable result of euthanasia.

By the way DNR has nothing to do with euthanasia. With a DNR directive, you are already dead, unequivocallly dead. Now the question is should they be resussitated? With euthanasia, no one is dead, nor is death imminent. There are other circumstances in which death may be preferable. Uncontrollable pain, extended to severe loss of quality of life. A boy just committed suicide because he blushed. He was otherwise healthy should he have been able to get a doctor to assist in his suicide? Under the qualification of lack of quality of life, Stephen Hawking would have been killed decades ago.

I see. Yes, I believe people should have the right to make their own determination with a DNR.

For those who don't like, simple, don't do it, but shut up about others' right to do so.
 
Your assertion of slippery slope argument is simplistic and incorrect.

I concede individual right. But I am talking about euthanasia as a state policy for allocating resources for the living.

Such is far more important than individual rights to euthanasia.





You are writing about, "euthanasia as a state policy for allocating resources for the living." That is a slippery slope argument not one I expressed explicitly or implicitly and not a policy any government would use to allocate resources to the living. It is far cheaper and much easier - as history has taught us - to exterminate people in ovens or with poison gas than to do so one at a time. One might argue the current Republican policy of attacking "entitlements" Collective Barganing and the ACA is an effort to allocate resources for 1% of the living.
 
Nope, no slippery slope exists in my comment, and your rebuttal falls flat.

I can leave it at that.
 
Katzndogz, you had very little credibility before posting what you did above. Unless you can post a credible source to prove your allegations about Michael Schavio, you have shamed yourself beyond redemption.

With liberals, I'd be shocked to have any credibility at all. Michael Schiavo is a murderer who was able to use the system to kill his wife in a particularly horrible way. He had motive to kill her because he got a lot of money after her death and was able to finally marry the mother of his child. While his wife was horribly ill, Michael Schiavo found time to put aside all his worry and fuck someone else.

Honestly after supporting a vile little insect like barack obama, are liberals concerned with shame at all? After making a point of killing off the elderly, the sick and unborn children, is the word shame even in the liberal vocabulary?

It's laughable.

You 'forgot' to offer evidence to support your opinion.

Even you know what he did. You just ascribe different motivations. Are you unaware that while Terri Schiavo was in a hospital bed, her husband was fucking around? Do you deny that he went to court to end her life? Are you unaware that he obtained a substantial amount of money from her settlement when she died? What is it that you do not know?
 
What we know is that we don't what actually happened and what we do know is that the court settled this for all of us. It's finished.

I was impressed that when Jeb Bush sent the state police to take custody of Ms. Schiavo, the country sheriff threw a cordon of officers around the clinic and stood the state officers off.

We are a country of Rule of Law not Rule of Katz's Opinion.

Let's move on.
 
Nope, no slippery slope exists in my comment, and your rebuttal falls flat.

I can leave it at that.

Please do.

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question..

Allowing euthanasia to be a legally acceptable end of life decision will not lead to a government policy to kill citizens to allocate resources to other more deserving citizens. If that is where our nation is headed, euthanasia will not be the driving force.
 
Should a person have the right, and should the medical profession have the legal authority to end a persons life under terms which the patient delineated in his Will/Trust?

Why?

There are a few Libs here for whom it should be legal; perhaps mandatory, though I fear many of them have already bred.
 
Wry, that is why you are fail.

I made no slippery slope argument, one leading from the other. I am for individual determined euthanasia. I have no quarrel with it.

My statement was that 25 years or so from now third-person determined euthanasia will be the cultural issue as abortion has been these last almost forty years.

You need to read much more carefully before flapping your lips.



Nope, no slippery slope exists in my comment, and your rebuttal falls flat.

I can leave it at that.

Please do.

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question..

Allowing euthanasia to be a legally acceptable end of life decision will not lead to a government policy to kill citizens to allocate resources to other more deserving citizens. If that is where our nation is headed, euthanasia will not be the driving force.
 
Wry, that is why you are fail.

I made no slippery slope argument, one leading from the other. I am for individual determined euthanasia. I have no quarrel with it.

My statement was that 25 years or so from now third-person determined euthanasia will be the cultural issue as abortion has been these last almost forty years.

You need to read much more carefully before flapping your lips.



Nope, no slippery slope exists in my comment, and your rebuttal falls flat.

I can leave it at that.

Please do.

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question..

Allowing euthanasia to be a legally acceptable end of life decision will not lead to a government policy to kill citizens to allocate resources to other more deserving citizens. If that is where our nation is headed, euthanasia will not be the driving force.

So your argument is logical do to ... precognition? You have seen the conclusion before it happened. Well, no wonder I thought your argument was of the slippery slope variety, I was unaware of your abilities. Mea culpa.
 
Wry Catcher implicitly admits that my comment was not a slippery slope argument, the implicitness revealing his weakness of character when caught out and unable to explicitly say he got it wrong.

Whether you believe in my assertion is immaterial. I have no doubt that the issue will be the towering moral dilemma of the forties on.


Wry, that is why you are fail.

I made no slippery slope argument, one leading from the other. I am for individual determined euthanasia. I have no quarrel with it.

My statement was that 25 years or so from now third-person determined euthanasia will be the cultural issue as abortion has been these last almost forty years.

You need to read much more carefully before flapping your lips.



Please do.

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question..

Allowing euthanasia to be a legally acceptable end of life decision will not lead to a government policy to kill citizens to allocate resources to other more deserving citizens. If that is where our nation is headed, euthanasia will not be the driving force.

So your argument is logical do to ... precognition? You have seen the conclusion before it happened. Well, no wonder I thought your argument was of the slippery slope variety, I was unaware of your abilities. Mea culpa.
 
Here is a question for those who voted in favor of allowing euthanasia:

If society allows a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, we give her control over another lifeform. As it is her body, she has the authority to decide what to do with her body.

But if that same woman were to become terminally ill and wanted to end her life, we forbid her to do this. Why? Why is she allowed complete control over here body when she is pregnant, but not when she is terminally ill?
 
If someone can given consent to having a appendix removed, then why isn't it just as acceptable to decide to end their lives?

The worry over euthanasia isn't so much individuals making individual decisions for themselves, its others making decisions for them and manipulating people who may not want to be killed into being killed. Involuntary euthanasia is already an issue in the Netherlands.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top