National Death by Lethal Prescription Legislation

[AllieBaba]

If people choose to die, they can choose to kill themselves.

This is a non-topic, and a way to legalize the killing of people that other people think no longer have a place in society. Assisted suicide is the way the Netherlands ushered in post-birth abortions (a.k.a. baby killing) and assisted suicides for those who have never given their consent or even know anything about it.

It's a way to usher in eugenics and population control via DEATH of certain populations...with or without their consent.

 

[AllieBaba]

Pain meds for LIFE? what are you talking about Kitten? I thought this was about people who are dying...less than a couple of months to live, that want to commit suicide, instead of waiting out the 2 months with meds....

There is no LIFE period of taking pain killers, there is a couple of months before one dies....Doctors are required to give those dying, absolute pain relief or enough to make them comfortable.

We are not talking about someone having a doctor help them kill themselves because they have constant pain and just don't want to live with that pain and want to kill themselves via a doctor because of it?

Doctors take an OATH to do no harm, to kill NO ONE intentionally and personally, I don't EVER want to see that oath changed....giving Doctors permission to KILL another human being is unacceptable in my book....

If you want to OFF yourself, DO IT, but don't ask someone else to help kill you.....man up and do it yourself, don't make someone else, a killer.

care

Couldn't have been put much better than that.

They take a oath to do no harm. How much pain does someone suffer in terminal illness, you see no harm there? How could a doctor with any heart stand by and watch someone screaming in agony, knowing that there is no saving that person, because despite the agony they will still die. NO HARM? HUH?

Doctors can already provide the patients with power over their own morphine drip. I've been in a lot of hospitals and nursing homes. Very few of them had doctors hovering over the beds of screaming patients and doing nothing.

 

[AllieBaba]

These are all the same arguments the Nazis used when exterminating Jews, catholics, etc.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecilie, your comment in the last post makes it seem as though you think suicide is a relatively recent problem, or that it's much more common now than in the past.

The reason I asked earlier about not actually performing the act was to see if people had a different opinion about suicide than assisted suicide; to see if someone else performing the actual act was an issue. I don't know you so couldn't have a clue what you'd think about it before you respond. You obviously think it's bad either way, but unless you are happy doing just what you accuse Derek of and assume everyone else thinks like you or has your moral standards, how would I know that? The tone of your reply sounds as though you think I should.

Okay, I'm going to say this for the third time, and hope that THIS time, it sinks in.

I do not think suicide, terminal illness, or anything else of that sort is new or recent. What is new and recent is the attitude that suicide is a good thing, killing people whose lives are inconvenient is noble, and life is only worthwhile based on its entertainment value.

I have no idea what "issue" you're asking about. I think suicide is selfish and wrong, and I think "assisted" suicide is selfish and wrong and compounded. The difference is, if you kill yourself, you're at least not dragging others into your wrongness and corrupting them with your selfishness.

I don't expect you to know anything about me except what I tell you, but I DO expect you to know how to read well enough to figure out what I said adequately.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pain meds for LIFE? what are you talking about Kitten? I thought this was about people who are dying...less than a couple of months to live, that want to commit suicide, instead of waiting out the 2 months with meds....

There is no LIFE period of taking pain killers, there is a couple of months before one dies....Doctors are required to give those dying, absolute pain relief or enough to make them comfortable.

We are not talking about someone having a doctor help them kill themselves because they have constant pain and just don't want to live with that pain and want to kill themselves via a doctor because of it?

Doctors take an OATH to do no harm, to kill NO ONE intentionally and personally, I don't EVER want to see that oath changed....giving Doctors permission to KILL another human being is unacceptable in my book....

If you want to OFF yourself, DO IT, but don't ask someone else to help kill you.....man up and do it yourself, don't make someone else, a killer.

care

Couldn't have been put much better than that.

They take a oath to do no harm. How much pain does someone suffer in terminal illness, you see no harm there? How could a doctor with any heart stand by and watch someone screaming in agony, knowing that there is no saving that person, because despite the agony they will still die. NO HARM? HUH?

To quote one of my favorite movies, life is pain. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.

And anyone who tells you that the instant pain happens, life should be ended is selling euthanasia.

Give me a break on the emotional melodrama, would you please? "Screaming in agony." Puhleeze. That's so reminiscent of the abortion lobby hiding behind rape and incest, it's scary.

Only leftists can convince themselves that killing people is the height of compassion.

 

[Montrovant]

Cecilie, your comment in the last post makes it seem as though you think suicide is a relatively recent problem, or that it's much more common now than in the past.

The reason I asked earlier about not actually performing the act was to see if people had a different opinion about suicide than assisted suicide; to see if someone else performing the actual act was an issue. I don't know you so couldn't have a clue what you'd think about it before you respond. You obviously think it's bad either way, but unless you are happy doing just what you accuse Derek of and assume everyone else thinks like you or has your moral standards, how would I know that? The tone of your reply sounds as though you think I should.

Okay, I'm going to say this for the third time, and hope that THIS time, it sinks in.

I do not think suicide, terminal illness, or anything else of that sort is new or recent. What is new and recent is the attitude that suicide is a good thing, killing people whose lives are inconvenient is noble, and life is only worthwhile based on its entertainment value.

I have no idea what "issue" you're asking about. I think suicide is selfish and wrong, and I think "assisted" suicide is selfish and wrong and compounded. The difference is, if you kill yourself, you're at least not dragging others into your wrongness and corrupting them with your selfishness.

I don't expect you to know anything about me except what I tell you, but I DO expect you to know how to read well enough to figure out what I said adequately.

Have there never been societies that considered suicide, at least in some situations, a valid choice?

Who here has said we should kill those who are inconvenient, who has said life's worth is based on entertainment value?

The issue I'm talking about is whether or not killing someone who wants to die is worse, in anyone's mind, than providing them a means to do it themselves. Perhaps you need to learn to read things adequately. It seemed like a fairly simple question. Again, just because you feel a certain way about it doesn't mean everyone does, and I didn't pose the question just to hear your answer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecilie, your comment in the last post makes it seem as though you think suicide is a relatively recent problem, or that it's much more common now than in the past.

The reason I asked earlier about not actually performing the act was to see if people had a different opinion about suicide than assisted suicide; to see if someone else performing the actual act was an issue. I don't know you so couldn't have a clue what you'd think about it before you respond. You obviously think it's bad either way, but unless you are happy doing just what you accuse Derek of and assume everyone else thinks like you or has your moral standards, how would I know that? The tone of your reply sounds as though you think I should.

Okay, I'm going to say this for the third time, and hope that THIS time, it sinks in.

I do not think suicide, terminal illness, or anything else of that sort is new or recent. What is new and recent is the attitude that suicide is a good thing, killing people whose lives are inconvenient is noble, and life is only worthwhile based on its entertainment value.

I have no idea what "issue" you're asking about. I think suicide is selfish and wrong, and I think "assisted" suicide is selfish and wrong and compounded. The difference is, if you kill yourself, you're at least not dragging others into your wrongness and corrupting them with your selfishness.

I don't expect you to know anything about me except what I tell you, but I DO expect you to know how to read well enough to figure out what I said adequately.

Have there never been societies that considered suicide, at least in some situations, a valid choice?

Personally killing yourself, as opposed to having someone else kill you? A couple, but only in very specific, prescribed circumstances, and I don't think ever on the basis of you not personally considering your life worth living. While the attitude that some things are worse than death isn't new, I don't think it's ever been approached with such an appalling lack of value placed on life in general.

Who here has said we should kill those who are inconvenient, who has said life's worth is based on entertainment value?

Um, that's the entire crux of the "right to die" movement. And FYI, that whole "we didn't use those exact words, so that's not what we're saying" schtick cuts no ice with me whatsoever. The issue is the attitude, not the specific words I choose to express it.

The issue I'm talking about is whether or not killing someone who wants to die is worse, in anyone's mind, than providing them a means to do it themselves. Perhaps you need to learn to read things adequately. It seemed like a fairly simple question. Again, just because you feel a certain way about it doesn't mean everyone does, and I didn't pose the question just to hear your answer.

When I have ever said, or even acted like I thought, that everyone agree with me? Would I be here debating the topic if I thought everyone agreed with me? Duhhh.

I think taking an active hand in someone else's death is a generally undesirable thing, although if you're going to parse that and start bringing up "Ah ha!" stuff like self-defense, capital punishment, blah blah blah, then I can add that there are obviously exceptions, although it's still not what I would call "desirable". Strictly in the bounds of THIS topic, I consider it a bad thing no matter how you do it.

I never said you asked a difficult or complicated question. I said, and will say again, that you asked a simple question, and I have given a simple answer, and been obliged to keep giving it because you can't seem to just grasp it and move on.

If you didn't pose the question to hear the answer, why DID you pose it? What other purpose is there for asking a question?

 

[Father Time]

These are all the same arguments the Nazis used when exterminating Jews, catholics, etc.

 

[Derek_Plumber]

I have no idea what "issue" you're asking about. I think suicide is selfish and wrong, and I think "assisted" suicide is selfish and wrong and compounded. The difference is, if you kill yourself, you're at least not dragging others into your wrongness and corrupting them with your selfishness.

You know it helps if you read the thread before running your mouth and showing your ignorance.

 

[Tinktink]

Couldn't have been put much better than that.

They take a oath to do no harm. How much pain does someone suffer in terminal illness, you see no harm there? How could a doctor with any heart stand by and watch someone screaming in agony, knowing that there is no saving that person, because despite the agony they will still die. NO HARM? HUH?

Doctors can already provide the patients with power over their own morphine drip. I've been in a lot of hospitals and nursing homes. Very few of them had doctors hovering over the beds of screaming patients and doing nothing.

Morphine drips are a wonderful, but they are limited to how much can be used, because they are also deadly. Cancer eats the body away, bit by bit. Very painful. And (look it up) a morphine drip can only go so far to stop that pain. If you pain is over and above the legal dose of Morphine, trust me you will scream and cry.

Doctors can only give patients the power over their morphine drip as long as it is not lethal. I would bet you my first born that there is a limit to how much morphine you can use in a certain time frame. Sometimes the morphine needed to become pain free is lethal. With all your visits to the hospitals and nursing homes, I am confused that you don't understand that.

Doctors don't give patients a free for all on morphine when it comes to pain. Because morphine is lethal.

 

[Tinktink]

I have no idea what "issue" you're asking about. I think suicide is selfish and wrong, and I think "assisted" suicide is selfish and wrong and compounded. The difference is, if you kill yourself, you're at least not dragging others into your wrongness and corrupting them with your selfishness.

You know it helps if you read the thread before running your mouth and showing your ignorance.

Some people are so selfish in their own needs, they would rather others suffer so they can be met.

Grief isn't about those who die, as they are gone and don't have the ability to do so. Grief belongs to those folks left behind. And for someone to not allow death to a terminal patient verses pain, is the ultimate act of selfishness. Because in reality, they are more worried about how the death will effect them, then they are about the person dying.

Ironic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have no idea what "issue" you're asking about. I think suicide is selfish and wrong, and I think "assisted" suicide is selfish and wrong and compounded. The difference is, if you kill yourself, you're at least not dragging others into your wrongness and corrupting them with your selfishness.

You know it helps if you read the thread before running your mouth and showing your ignorance.

I know what the issue being discussed in the thread is, lackwit. I'm referring specifically to YOUR use of the word "issue" in your post.

"The reason I asked earlier about not actually performing the act was to see if people had a different opinion about suicide than assisted suicide; to see if someone else performing the actual act was an issue."

Since I have been PAINFULLY clear in every single one of my posts that I think a person killing another person is a bad thing, I can either assume that you meant something else by "issue" in this post, or that you're a flatlined retard who doesn't understand that when I say "assisted suicide is wrong", I mean that assisted suicide is wrong. I was being nice and assuming you meant something else.

 

[Derek_Plumber]

I know what the issue being discussed in the thread is, lackwit. I'm referring specifically to YOUR use of the word "issue" in your post.

No, I don't think you do know what is being discussed in this thread, that is why I suggested you READ IT. Just to help you out, the "Issue" is at the start of the thread. Know what is being discussed before you run your mouth. If you don't like the thread, start your own, but for God sakes take your CONFUSION out of here.

 

[Montrovant]

I have no idea what "issue" you're asking about. I think suicide is selfish and wrong, and I think "assisted" suicide is selfish and wrong and compounded. The difference is, if you kill yourself, you're at least not dragging others into your wrongness and corrupting them with your selfishness.

You know it helps if you read the thread before running your mouth and showing your ignorance.

I know what the issue being discussed in the thread is, lackwit. I'm referring specifically to YOUR use of the word "issue" in your post.

"The reason I asked earlier about not actually performing the act was to see if people had a different opinion about suicide than assisted suicide; to see if someone else performing the actual act was an issue."

Since I have been PAINFULLY clear in every single one of my posts that I think a person killing another person is a bad thing, I can either assume that you meant something else by "issue" in this post, or that you're a flatlined retard who doesn't understand that when I say "assisted suicide is wrong", I mean that assisted suicide is wrong. I was being nice and assuming you meant something else.

This is getting ridiculous.

I think that was me you quoted Cecilie, not Derek.

When I said I wasn't just looking for your opinion, what I meant was my original question wasn't specific to Cecilie, I was looking for opinions from multiple people. I appreciate that you responded but now, with multiple posts getting mixed together, the conversation seems to have gotten muddled.

I would like to say that I disagree the idea of assisted suicide is only based on convenience or entertainment value. I'm sure those things can play a factor, but a person in constant, extreme pain wanting it to end doesn't seem to fit with it being inconvenient to me.

 

[Care4all]

You know it helps if you read the thread before running your mouth and showing your ignorance.

I know what the issue being discussed in the thread is, lackwit. I'm referring specifically to YOUR use of the word "issue" in your post.

"The reason I asked earlier about not actually performing the act was to see if people had a different opinion about suicide than assisted suicide; to see if someone else performing the actual act was an issue."

Since I have been PAINFULLY clear in every single one of my posts that I think a person killing another person is a bad thing, I can either assume that you meant something else by "issue" in this post, or that you're a flatlined retard who doesn't understand that when I say "assisted suicide is wrong", I mean that assisted suicide is wrong. I was being nice and assuming you meant something else.

This is getting ridiculous.

I think that was me you quoted Cecilie, not Derek.

When I said I wasn't just looking for your opinion, what I meant was my original question wasn't specific to Cecilie, I was looking for opinions from multiple people. I appreciate that you responded but now, with multiple posts getting mixed together, the conversation seems to have gotten muddled.

I would like to say that I disagree the idea of assisted suicide is only based on convenience or entertainment value. I'm sure those things can play a factor, but a person in constant, extreme pain wanting it to end doesn't seem to fit with it being inconvenient to me.

so are you talking about someone in constant pain who is not dying, should now be allowed to off themselves, with assistance of another?

Or are you speaking of people with a terminal disease, that will die within a couple of months, that is in constant pain, being able to kill themselves with assistance?

 

[Derek_Plumber]

So are you talking about someone in constant pain who is not dying, should now be allowed to off themselves, with assistance of another?

Or are you speaking of people with a terminal disease, that will die within a couple of months, that is in constant pain, being able to kill themselves with assistance?

Of course it is a matter of individual choice, so both the person in constant pain, and the terminally ill could consider self delivery. Again, suicide is a product of mental illness. Self delivery is making a rational decision to end ones life because they can no longer enjoy a quality of life.

I believe that one day Jack Kevorkian will be remembered as a humanitarian and a pioneer.

 

[Montrovant]

so are you talking about someone in constant pain who is not dying, should now be allowed to off themselves, with assistance of another?

Or are you speaking of people with a terminal disease, that will die within a couple of months, that is in constant pain, being able to kill themselves with assistance?

Well, this thread seems to be focused on the terminally ill, that's really what I meant. However, I don't have a problem if the person isn't terminal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have no idea what "issue" you're asking about. I think suicide is selfish and wrong, and I think "assisted" suicide is selfish and wrong and compounded. The difference is, if you kill yourself, you're at least not dragging others into your wrongness and corrupting them with your selfishness.

You know it helps if you read the thread before running your mouth and showing your ignorance.

Some people are so selfish in their own needs, they would rather others suffer so they can be met.

Grief isn't about those who die, as they are gone and don't have the ability to do so. Grief belongs to those folks left behind. And for someone to not allow death to a terminal patient verses pain, is the ultimate act of selfishness. Because in reality, they are more worried about how the death will effect them, then they are about the person dying.

Ironic.

Maybe they're worried about how the lifelong knowledge that they offed their own loved one will affect them. And in all honesty, that's a perfectly fair and reasonable concern. And on the subject of being so selfish in one's own needs that they would rather someone else suffer, how about the person who wants someone to live with the knowledge that he or she killed him rather than endure the process of dyihng?

That IS ironic.

 

[Derek_Plumber]

so are you talking about someone in constant pain who is not dying, should now be allowed to off themselves, with assistance of another?

Or are you speaking of people with a terminal disease, that will die within a couple of months, that is in constant pain, being able to kill themselves with assistance?

Well, this thread seems to be focused on the terminally ill, that's really what I meant. However, I don't have a problem if the person isn't terminal.

I had to scour the Internet and only found one article that directly addresses your question. YOUR ANSWER IS "YES"



Assisted Suicide for Those Not Terminally Ill.
by Howard Brody


The 7 December 2000 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contains a letter to the editor from Michigan's Oakland County medical examiner L.J. Dragovic, along with Lori A Roscoe, Julie E. Malphurs, and Donna Cohen of the University of South Florida, that presents a "descriptive clinical analysis" of sixty-nine people known to have died with the assistance or intervention of Dr. Jack Kevorkian in that county in 1990-98. The most striking claim in the brief account was that only 25 percent of these persons had been classified as terminally ill.

Residents of Michigan who had been following the Kevorkian saga in the local media might well have wondered what was news here. The fact that the majority of those seeking Kevorkian's assistance suffered from degenerative diseases rather than from obviously terminal conditions had been well documented for some time. In 1997, the Detroit Free Press launched a major investigative series, later reprinted in book form as The Suicide Machine, that studied forty-seven of Kevorkian's cases (some from outside Oakland County). My quick survey of the newspaper accounts, tilted to give a terminal prognosis in doubtful cases, suggests this breakdown: sixteen were terminally ill; twenty-three suffered from a degenerative disease but were not terminal; and seven had poor quality of life due to medical conditions but were not terminal.

This is a new aspect for me, but I agree with you about the terminally ill, and those with degenerative diseases having the right to self delivery or assisted delivery. Thank you for bring up this point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I know what the issue being discussed in the thread is, lackwit. I'm referring specifically to YOUR use of the word "issue" in your post.

No, I don't think you do know what is being discussed in this thread, that is why I suggested you READ IT. Just to help you out, the "Issue" is at the start of the thread. Know what is being discussed before you run your mouth. If you don't like the thread, start your own, but for God sakes take your CONFUSION out of here.

Consider this possibility: Maybe the reason I think you're an utter, babbling, contemptible moron is because I DID read the thread.