POLL: What do you think of the new suicide machine?

Is the Sarco a good thing or a bad thing?

  • Good thing

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Bad thing

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Mango thing

    Votes: 5 45.5%

  • Total voters
    11
I support it as long as the decision meets legal requirements and has medical concurrence
Define ā€œmedical concurrenceā€ and explain why itā€™s needed.

Please and thank you.

Medical concurrence on the prospects of recovery, extent of the disease, quality of life

And the ā€œpro lifeā€ doctors?

I may be willing to go through the motions, but if the doctor says no, that just means I wouldnā€™t be using the machine.

When people are serious about ending it, they end it.
And if you screw up?
You die in agony or survive and make things worse

I am not comfortable with it being a patients decision
A patient can be depressed, have low pain tolerance, be unwilling to go through a short period of discomfort

You didnā€™t answer about the pro-life doctor.

My mother was bloody brilliant. Watching those lights go out over five years ...followed by two where there were no lights, before she finally passed away, was excruciating.

I can just hear some doctor chirping about how a cure may be right around the corner, and I should make the best of the time I have left.
Get another doctor
 
A euthanasia expert just unveiled his ā€˜suicide machineā€™ at an Amsterdam funeral fair

Introducing the "SARCO" suicide machine. Big enough for two!

Thoughts? Good thing or bad thing?

I think a proper regulation would be that full counseling would be required before use. Other than that, it's up to the individual.
.
DasN3U_W0AENMGR.jpg

It looks like a voting booth to me.
 
...I'm either going to take all the pills I have on-hand (90 day supply of four different meds,) take a walk into the woods for a snow nap, or both of the above. They both understand and promise they will not resent me.

I promise I wonā€™t resent it either.
 
Oregon's Death With Dignity Act has been in place now for 20 years despite a years-long assault from John Ashcroft and other religious nuts.

People predicted that thousands would kill themselves. Not so - less than 200 per year on average and the requirements are steep.

20 years of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act

Oregon gives us a good blueprint - I'm 100% behind their law.
 
I think a proper regulation would be that full counseling would be required before use. Other than that, it's up to the individual.

As long as the counseling is performed by Christians with a proper respect for the sanctity of life.
 
Oregon's Death With Dignity Act has been in place now for 20 years despite a years-long assault from John Ashcroft and other religious nuts.

People predicted that thousands would kill themselves. Not so - less than 200 per year on average and the requirements are steep.

20 years of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act

Oregon gives us a good blueprint - I'm 100% behind their law.

Funny how the people who screamed that thousands would be killing themselves because of a hangnail want everyone to forget they said it.

Oregon's law is exactly what we need.
 
I think a proper regulation would be that full counseling would be required before use. Other than that, it's up to the individual.

As long as the counseling is performed by Christians with a proper respect for the sanctity of life.

If the patient is a Christian and wants to use Christian counsellors, that is fine. But requiring a terminal patient suffer because of your beliefs is disgusting.
 
Funny how the people who screamed that thousands would be killing themselves because of a hangnail want everyone to forget they said it.

Oregon's law is exactly what we need.

Indeed, evangies pretty much went silent on the matter.

Now focused on much more pressing issues - Like defending their Pussy Grabber in Chief :)
 
I think a proper regulation would be that full counseling would be required before use. Other than that, it's up to the individual.

As long as the counseling is performed by Christians with a proper respect for the sanctity of life.

If the patient is a Christian and wants to use Christian counsellors, that is fine. But requiring a terminal patient suffer because of your beliefs is disgusting.

I guess it wasn't clear I was kidding. I was pointing out the inherent bias in trying to regulate something like this. Why is everyone so hell bent on telling others how to live (or, in this case, die)?
 
I think a proper regulation would be that full counseling would be required before use. Other than that, it's up to the individual.

As long as the counseling is performed by Christians with a proper respect for the sanctity of life.

If the patient is a Christian and wants to use Christian counsellors, that is fine. But requiring a terminal patient suffer because of your beliefs is disgusting.

I guess it wasn't clear I was kidding. I was pointing out the inherent bias in trying to regulate something like this. Why is everyone so hell bent on telling others how to live (or, in this case, die)?

My apologies. Sarcasm is hard to read here. And there are some who would...
 

Forum List

Back
Top