Dutch euthanasia law used kill alcoholic 41

[Ravi]

The Dutch euthanasia laws seem follow, historically, the same pattern as did Germany's in the 1920s.

1. Recognize and legislate the right to self-determined euthanasia by the individual, with an ever increasing grounds for reasons.

2. Transfer the right from individual to state, the latter having the right to determine 'quality of life' for an individual, and put said person to death if the state board said "do it."

3. The state then broadens the law to include those humans were are 'deleterious to the welfare of the state.'

4. In America, though I will be dead by then, its citizens should expect an effort by many of the millennial and digital generations, as they grow older, to terminate the elders for the welfare of the state and the younger generations.

The Dutch state does not have the right to determine quality of life for an individual.

That is among the initial steps to state euthanasia. A Medicare government official way up the chain explained to me how this process works.

That's interesting but a non sequitar. And Medicare doesn't get doctors to kill you.

 

[Preacher]

I don't think this was the intent when these laws were first proposed....

Dutch euthanasia law used to kill Mark Langedijk who decided death was the way to escape | Daily Mail Online

The death of Mr Langedijk marks a new departure in Dutch euthanasia practice, which killed more than 5,500 people last year.

The scope of the mercy killing law, introduced 16 years ago to apply only to those in unbearable suffering, has already widened so that those who die include many whose problems include ‘social isolation and loneliness’.

One of those who died was a woman in her 20s who had been a victim of child sex abuse.

Papers released to explain the workings of the euthanasia laws said doctors believed she could not live with her mental suffering and her post-traumatic stress disorder and other conditions were incurable.

These laws were supposed to be about terminally ill people in pain, with no chance of survival or recovery. I know this is The Netherlands, but seriously, this makes me very very nervous.

His life. I don't care.

 

[percysunshine]

The Dutch euthanasia laws seem follow, historically, the same pattern as did Germany's in the 1920s.

1. Recognize and legislate the right to self-determined euthanasia by the individual, with an ever increasing grounds for reasons.

2. Transfer the right from individual to state, the latter having the right to determine 'quality of life' for an individual, and put said person to death if the state board said "do it."

3. The state then broadens the law to include those humans were are 'deleterious to the welfare of the state.'

4. In America, though I will be dead by then, its citizens should expect an effort by many of the millennial and digital generations, as they grow older, to terminate the elders for the welfare of the state and the younger generations.

The original Obamacare protests noted specificly that process. Luckily, Obamacare derailed itself before it even got to that point.

The new program, unfortunately, under the GOP will include the advisory panels on end of death counseling. Watch and see.

Uh huh...let's wait and see.

Did you have the Cleveland Browns winning the Super Bowl at the start of the season?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Dutch euthanasia laws seem follow, historically, the same pattern as did Germany's in the 1920s.

1. Recognize and legislate the right to self-determined euthanasia by the individual, with an ever increasing grounds for reasons.

2. Transfer the right from individual to state, the latter having the right to determine 'quality of life' for an individual, and put said person to death if the state board said "do it."

3. The state then broadens the law to include those humans were are 'deleterious to the welfare of the state.'

4. In America, though I will be dead by then, its citizens should expect an effort by many of the millennial and digital generations, as they grow older, to terminate the elders for the welfare of the state and the younger generations.

The original Obamacare protests noted specificly that process. Luckily, Obamacare derailed itself before it even got to that point.

The new program, unfortunately, under the GOP will include the advisory panels on end of death counseling. Watch and see.

Uh huh...let's wait and see.

Did you have the Cleveland Browns winning the Super Bowl at the start of the season?

Do you think you are going to pick the SB winner?

 

[Silhouette]

Having had a brother die in the hospital a few years ago, I know he had to have a living will which was kept on file by the hospital as well as by family, when he was admitted. Prior to his last surgery the staff confirmed his living will and gave him a form to fill out confirming that his living will was his, and it was witnessed by family members and hospital staff. So my question is, did anyone inquire about a living will, which would specify any kind of medical measures and/or resuscitation in the event of a terminal illness?

The living will is also filed with the patient's attorney or other trustee.

A bacterial infection, treatable by simple antibiotics is not a "terminal illness". It is an acute situation which can be resolved. More than that, my family member was kept heavily sedated. But when I called and the phone was put to his ear, he roused. I asked him if he knew who I was. He said he did. Another person holding the phone confirmed their surprise that he had such clarity. Then I asked him if he wanted the staff to "give him medicine so he could wake up and be well". He said YES! YES!! (Also heard by the person holding the phone for him). A doctor came in and spoke with me later, confirming that unexpectedly, he had roused when I spoke to him. But then the doctor said (as he was still roused when Dr came in) "do you know what day it is? Who is president? (he had Alzheimer's, remember), the Dr. said that because this sick and addled patient couldn't answer those questions, my saying he wanted to wake up and be well again was "just him hallucinating". So his solution was to sedate my family member more heavily so he couldn't rouse and protest his murder anymore...only mumble incoherently under heavier sedation...thus paving the foundation for his murder to be complete.

It took them four days to kill him as he slowly drowned in his own fluids from sepsis...a treatable bacterial infection. In spite of heavier sedation, another family member said he roused periodically coughing and choking on his own fluids, tears streaming down his face and mumbling incoherently. The Drs assured me he would be dead in one day. But as he fought through his third day...they still didn't see this as his will to live...His power of attorney (and immediate uncontested heir to his substantial assets) kept instructing the staff during that entire time "do not give him antibiotics"..because yes he had a living Will with her in charge that said "if death is imminent, don't do heroics". They made sure death was imminent when it was not. I do not consider simple IV antibiotics "heroics".. He died, fighting hard to live, on day four of drowning (pneumonia from the sepsis which shut his heart down finally)

He was a man extremely devoted to this wife. To the point of absurdity. He literally catered to her every whim. In hindsight, spoiling her in this manner was his death sentence since, as he became forgetful, her "whim" was "not to be bothered with a burden like that". So to the end, she got everything she wanted from him.

I wouldn't have let a cur dog die such a death. And this folks was a PRIVATE HMO complicit every step of the way. Enjoy!

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's your opinion.
Personally I don't think I have any right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do to his or her own body
Why do you feel you have the right to do so?

What i care about is that someone who is supposed to help a person's well being is allowed to kill them over mental issues.

So what if it's what the person wants?
The Dr doesn't have to actually kill him. He could merely prescribe enough drugs to be fatal and the patient can decide to take them or he could use a Kavorkian device and have the patient initiate the administration of the fatal drugs

In this case the Dr actually applied the drug. He technically and legally killed him. It's a homicide, but one seemingly covered under this Dutch law.

That it's "homicide" is a circular argument. We're arguing it should be between the doctor and the patient, not you and the patient

The fact that the Dr committed the homicide isn't a circular argument. He killed the guy.

Not all homicide is illegal

 

[Skull Pilot]

Crazy but his choice after all.

Then let him do it himself, don't get medical people involved. More importantly don't let government controlled medical people get involved.

Why not? Sounds like he's been trying to kill himself with alcohol for years. And according to your article HE REQUESTED IT.

In his quest for small government Marty thinks government should decide when we die. Hmm ... that isn't small government, is it?

No, and it's pretty surprising coming from him.

Why? Again, if this was about terminally ill people, I can understand why they would do it.

But I have been depressed before, and yes, i drank during that time. The idea that someone could convince me in my weakened state to just end it, for possibly ulterior motives, and get a medical professional to assist in it legally, is troubling. even more so when you add in the possible connection between the government and said medical professional.

It's not about you.
Who are you to tell someone they have to live if thy don't want to?

 

[kaz]

What i care about is that someone who is supposed to help a person's well being is allowed to kill them over mental issues.

So what if it's what the person wants?
The Dr doesn't have to actually kill him. He could merely prescribe enough drugs to be fatal and the patient can decide to take them or he could use a Kavorkian device and have the patient initiate the administration of the fatal drugs

In this case the Dr actually applied the drug. He technically and legally killed him. It's a homicide, but one seemingly covered under this Dutch law.

That it's "homicide" is a circular argument. We're arguing it should be between the doctor and the patient, not you and the patient

The fact that the Dr committed the homicide isn't a circular argument. He killed the guy.

Not all homicide is illegal

I know what you're trying to say. But "homicide" is by definition illegal. That's why what Marty said was ridiculous. Abortion is only murder if you make it illegal. That's why what he said is a circular argument.

What you're correctly trying to say is that all killing is not homicide

 

[kaz]

Then let him do it himself, don't get medical people involved. More importantly don't let government controlled medical people get involved.

Why not? Sounds like he's been trying to kill himself with alcohol for years. And according to your article HE REQUESTED IT.

In his quest for small government Marty thinks government should decide when we die. Hmm ... that isn't small government, is it?

No, and it's pretty surprising coming from him.

Why? Again, if this was about terminally ill people, I can understand why they would do it.

But I have been depressed before, and yes, i drank during that time. The idea that someone could convince me in my weakened state to just end it, for possibly ulterior motives, and get a medical professional to assist in it legally, is troubling. even more so when you add in the possible connection between the government and said medical professional.

It's not about you.
Who are you to tell someone they have to live if thy don't want to?

It's bizarre how people all make fun of government, then they want government for what they consider the most important things to them. A logical mind would particularly NOT want government for things that are most important to them. It takes out of our own hands the ability to make a real difference

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what if it's what the person wants?
The Dr doesn't have to actually kill him. He could merely prescribe enough drugs to be fatal and the patient can decide to take them or he could use a Kavorkian device and have the patient initiate the administration of the fatal drugs

In this case the Dr actually applied the drug. He technically and legally killed him. It's a homicide, but one seemingly covered under this Dutch law.

That it's "homicide" is a circular argument. We're arguing it should be between the doctor and the patient, not you and the patient

The fact that the Dr committed the homicide isn't a circular argument. He killed the guy.

Not all homicide is illegal

I know what you're trying to say. But "homicide" is by definition illegal. That's why what Marty said was ridiculous. Abortion is only murder if you make it illegal. That's why what he said is a circular argument.

What you're correctly trying to say is that all killing is not homicide

Homicide Definition - FindLaw


To begin with, not all homicides are crimes. Homicides include all killings of humans. Many homicides, such as murder and manslaughter, violate criminal laws. Others, such as a killing committed in justified self-defense, are not criminal. Illegal killings range from manslaughter to murder, with multiple degrees of each representing the gravity of the crime.

 

[rahtruelies]

I don't think this was the intent when these laws were first proposed....

Dutch euthanasia law used to kill Mark Langedijk who decided death was the way to escape | Daily Mail Online

The death of Mr Langedijk marks a new departure in Dutch euthanasia practice, which killed more than 5,500 people last year.

The scope of the mercy killing law, introduced 16 years ago to apply only to those in unbearable suffering, has already widened so that those who die include many whose problems include ‘social isolation and loneliness’.

One of those who died was a woman in her 20s who had been a victim of child sex abuse.

Papers released to explain the workings of the euthanasia laws said doctors believed she could not live with her mental suffering and her post-traumatic stress disorder and other conditions were incurable.

These laws were supposed to be about terminally ill people in pain, with no chance of survival or recovery. I know this is The Netherlands, but seriously, this makes me very very nervous.

Dutch progs are doing things for which we hanged Nazi's.

 

[martybegan]

I don't think this was the intent when these laws were first proposed....

Dutch euthanasia law used to kill Mark Langedijk who decided death was the way to escape | Daily Mail Online

The death of Mr Langedijk marks a new departure in Dutch euthanasia practice, which killed more than 5,500 people last year.

The scope of the mercy killing law, introduced 16 years ago to apply only to those in unbearable suffering, has already widened so that those who die include many whose problems include ‘social isolation and loneliness’.

One of those who died was a woman in her 20s who had been a victim of child sex abuse.

Papers released to explain the workings of the euthanasia laws said doctors believed she could not live with her mental suffering and her post-traumatic stress disorder and other conditions were incurable.

These laws were supposed to be about terminally ill people in pain, with no chance of survival or recovery. I know this is The Netherlands, but seriously, this makes me very very nervous.

Socialism at its best… Controlling everybody's thoughts. Lol

Not wanting mentally ill people to off themselves with the permission of the State is controlling people's thoughts?

 

[martybegan]

Crazy but his choice after all.

Then let him do it himself, don't get medical people involved. More importantly don't let government controlled medical people get involved.

Why not? Sounds like he's been trying to kill himself with alcohol for years. And according to your article HE REQUESTED IT.

In his quest for small government Marty thinks government should decide when we die. Hmm ... that isn't small government, is it?

No, and it's pretty surprising coming from him.

Sorry, but allowing mentally ill people to off themselves with the help and condoning of society is not a big or small government issue.

 

[martybegan]

Then let him do it himself, don't get medical people involved. More importantly don't let government controlled medical people get involved.

Why not? Sounds like he's been trying to kill himself with alcohol for years. And according to your article HE REQUESTED IT.

In his quest for small government Marty thinks government should decide when we die. Hmm ... that isn't small government, is it?

No, and it's pretty surprising coming from him.

Why? Again, if this was about terminally ill people, I can understand why they would do it.

But I have been depressed before, and yes, i drank during that time. The idea that someone could convince me in my weakened state to just end it, for possibly ulterior motives, and get a medical professional to assist in it legally, is troubling. even more so when you add in the possible connection between the government and said medical professional.

Doctor's are licensed by the government so ALL doctors are connected to the government in one way or another.

And according to your article, no one convinced this guy to do it. He convinced himself.

Because he was an alcoholic?

 

[martybegan]

What i care about is that someone who is supposed to help a person's well being is allowed to kill them over mental issues.

So what if it's what the person wants?
The Dr doesn't have to actually kill him. He could merely prescribe enough drugs to be fatal and the patient can decide to take them or he could use a Kavorkian device and have the patient initiate the administration of the fatal drugs

In this case the Dr actually applied the drug. He technically and legally killed him. It's a homicide, but one seemingly covered under this Dutch law.

That it's "homicide" is a circular argument. We're arguing it should be between the doctor and the patient, not you and the patient

The fact that the Dr committed the homicide isn't a circular argument. He killed the guy.

It's a circular argument if you knew the definition of "homicide." Look it up, it's clearly a circular argument with the position of the people who disagree with you

Someone else contributed to his death, even if its a justifiable homicide by this law, its a homicide.

 

[martybegan]

Why not? Sounds like he's been trying to kill himself with alcohol for years. And according to your article HE REQUESTED IT.

In his quest for small government Marty thinks government should decide when we die. Hmm ... that isn't small government, is it?

Again, he can do it himself. When he gets someone else involved, someone with connections to the government, that should start sounding alarm bells.

What connections to the government are you talking about, exactly?

In Holland they have government health care. I assume the Dr. was paid by the government to do this.

Now on that we agree, government should not pay doctors to end lives. Government should't pay for any medical procedures. Or control medical care. So that's your issue? As long as government doesn't fund it we agree, it's none of their fucking business what the guy does with his body?

That's part of it, but I still have an issue with a profession that is supposed to save lives having a part in ending it unless a terminal illness is involved.

Get someone else to do it.

 

[martybegan]

What i care about is that someone who is supposed to help a person's well being is allowed to kill them over mental issues.

So what if it's what the person wants?
The Dr doesn't have to actually kill him. He could merely prescribe enough drugs to be fatal and the patient can decide to take them or he could use a Kavorkian device and have the patient initiate the administration of the fatal drugs

In this case the Dr actually applied the drug. He technically and legally killed him. It's a homicide, but one seemingly covered under this Dutch law.

That it's "homicide" is a circular argument. We're arguing it should be between the doctor and the patient, not you and the patient

The fact that the Dr committed the homicide isn't a circular argument. He killed the guy.

Not all homicide is illegal

Noted.

 

[martybegan]

Then let him do it himself, don't get medical people involved. More importantly don't let government controlled medical people get involved.

Why not? Sounds like he's been trying to kill himself with alcohol for years. And according to your article HE REQUESTED IT.

In his quest for small government Marty thinks government should decide when we die. Hmm ... that isn't small government, is it?

No, and it's pretty surprising coming from him.

Why? Again, if this was about terminally ill people, I can understand why they would do it.

But I have been depressed before, and yes, i drank during that time. The idea that someone could convince me in my weakened state to just end it, for possibly ulterior motives, and get a medical professional to assist in it legally, is troubling. even more so when you add in the possible connection between the government and said medical professional.

It's not about you.
Who are you to tell someone they have to live if thy don't want to?

Again if they want to do it themselves, I don't care. its when you bring another person, a person who's profession is to SAVE lives into the picture, and the State condones this, that I have an issue.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what if it's what the person wants?
The Dr doesn't have to actually kill him. He could merely prescribe enough drugs to be fatal and the patient can decide to take them or he could use a Kavorkian device and have the patient initiate the administration of the fatal drugs

In this case the Dr actually applied the drug. He technically and legally killed him. It's a homicide, but one seemingly covered under this Dutch law.

That it's "homicide" is a circular argument. We're arguing it should be between the doctor and the patient, not you and the patient

The fact that the Dr committed the homicide isn't a circular argument. He killed the guy.

It's a circular argument if you knew the definition of "homicide." Look it up, it's clearly a circular argument with the position of the people who disagree with you

Someone else contributed to his death, even if its a justifiable homicide by this law, its a homicide.

so what not all homicide is illegal

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why not? Sounds like he's been trying to kill himself with alcohol for years. And according to your article HE REQUESTED IT.

In his quest for small government Marty thinks government should decide when we die. Hmm ... that isn't small government, is it?

No, and it's pretty surprising coming from him.

Why? Again, if this was about terminally ill people, I can understand why they would do it.

But I have been depressed before, and yes, i drank during that time. The idea that someone could convince me in my weakened state to just end it, for possibly ulterior motives, and get a medical professional to assist in it legally, is troubling. even more so when you add in the possible connection between the government and said medical professional.

It's not about you.
Who are you to tell someone they have to live if thy don't want to?

Again if they want to do it themselves, I don't care. its when you bring another person, a person who's profession is to SAVE lives into the picture, and the State condones this, that I have an issue.

get over it