Euthanasia and/or assisted suicide

[whitehall]

It's the first time in history that a president authorized the execution of American citizens without due process by drone strike. The administration even joked about collateral damage "the kid should have picked a better father". Would it be a surprise if the Hussein administration authorized the "mercy" executions of American citizens to save a couple of bucks in the ironically named "affordable care act"?

 

[Pauli007001]

That's what they say but what they do is the exact opposite.

Then there's religion that wants to force people to be miserable. If you kill yourself you can't be buried in consecrated ground - that sort of thing.

Whether its politics or religion or cultural tradition, there are always those who want to control others. And these meddling butt-in-skis will always find some reason to get all holier than thou about it while lying about it.

You support Obamacare, I don't. You want to control others, I don't.

Actually, I have consistently posted that no one has the right to control what other people do with their bodies. Period. No exceptions. No restrictions.

We each own our body and we each have the sovereign right to do as we wish with that body.

There are no exceptions to that fact.

Obamacare is an exception to that fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's what they say but what they do is the exact opposite.

Then there's religion that wants to force people to be miserable. If you kill yourself you can't be buried in consecrated ground - that sort of thing.

Whether its politics or religion or cultural tradition, there are always those who want to control others. And these meddling butt-in-skis will always find some reason to get all holier than thou about it while lying about it.

You support Obamacare, I don't. You want to control others, I don't.

Actually, I have consistently posted that no one has the right to control what other people do with their bodies. Period. No exceptions. No restrictions.

We each own our body and we each have the sovereign right to do as we wish with that body.

There are no exceptions to that fact.

You support Obamacare, that negates your assertion that no one can control my body. Actions speak louder than words.

I oppose Obamacare, the death penalty, think prisons should be pretty much emptied, all pre trial confinement ended, and believe in the power of my words to change people's opinions without writing laws that force other people to do what I believe.

You lose.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No. ObamaCare has nothing in common with these questions.

Nothing.

 

[Pauli007001]

No. ObamaCare has nothing in common with these questions.

Nothing.

Obamacare is murder.

 

[Michelle420]

The developing child is the woman's "pet"?

As usual you miss the point.

Whatever the situation – contemplating the death of a loved one or termination of a pregnancy – that’s a decision best left to the individual and/or family to make, not the state.

As conservatives have preached for decades: government lacks the competence to make such decisions, there needs to be less government involvement in our personal lives.

That's what they say but what they do is the exact opposite.

Then there's religion that wants to force people to be miserable. If you kill yourself you can't be buried in consecrated ground - that sort of thing.

Whether its politics or religion or cultural tradition, there are always those who want to control others. And these meddling butt-in-skis will always find some reason to get all holier than thou about it while lying about it.

You can choose to be religious or not, you cannot break a government law without a penalty to be paid.

In once instance you have a choice and in the other your choice has been made for you.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The developing child is the woman's "pet"?

As usual you miss the point.

Whatever the situation – contemplating the death of a loved one or termination of a pregnancy – that’s a decision best left to the individual and/or family to make, not the state.

As conservatives have preached for decades: government lacks the competence to make such decisions, there needs to be less government involvement in our personal lives.

That's what they say but what they do is the exact opposite.

Then there's religion that wants to force people to be miserable. If you kill yourself you can't be buried in consecrated ground - that sort of thing.

Whether its politics or religion or cultural tradition, there are always those who want to control others. And these meddling butt-in-skis will always find some reason to get all holier than thou about it while lying about it.

I have never heard of anyone being denied burial anywhere in the USA on the grounds of their having committed suicide, Luddly. Can you give me a source for that one? I have never heard of it before. - Jeri

 

[Katzndogz]

It is not a criminal offense to keep a paralyzed dog alive unless you refuse to take care of it.

Best Friend Mobility Dog Wheelchair | Wayfair

ok..so a dog paralysed from the neck. I think you know what I meant.

I know what you mean too. Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeve should have been put to death.

 

[Octarine]

Best Friend Mobility Dog Wheelchair | Wayfair

ok..so a dog paralysed from the neck. I think you know what I meant.

I know what you mean too. Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeve should have been put to death.

Where do you get that from? We are talking about a CHOICE of wishing to die because YOU want to not executing people.
Tell me please why you think a person who formally led a very active life but who is paralysed from the neck down or lives permanently fogged by painkillers or any other of the myriad similar situation, be forced to endure it by the opinion of someone else simply because they are unable to end their own life because they cannot move.
Do you think they would not do it for themselves if they could?
What right have you or anyone else to say.... " No, you can't die yet because 'I' find the idea repulsive so linger on in your undignified existence until the God you don't believe in decides your life can stop. Don't even think about the mental anguish my decision causes you on top of your physical problems"
What would you actually 'say' to a person if you stood beside them? "Oh it's not so bad." "You can still communicate through blinking so lifes worth living" Tell me please, I'd really like to know.

 

[Katzndogz]

As I pointed out Christopher Reeve was very active, an athlete, he was paralyzed in a horse riding accident. He did not decide to die, he kept active until he died. Was he FORCED to endure his condition?
What right have YOU or anyone else to decide whose life is worthless and should be put to death and who should live? What right have you to say "I am so self-righteous that I believe your life is not worth living therefore in MY opinion, you should kill yourself and if you don't, we'll do it for you.?" It's really you that finds the crippled and those who are paralyzed repulsive. You don't want to look at them any more. They have lost the title of pretty people. Kill them and get them out of your sight.

My best friend, Tracy, got brain cancer. We were friends for more than 25 years, we were roommates for many years. Lacking any other family we became custodians for one another's health care decisions. She told me, many many MANY times that rather than live needing 24 hour care she'd prefer to die. "Just let me go" is what she said. At the end, she was living with a couple who provided 24/7 care. Most of her brain had been eaten away by cancer. She could not speak, walk, she was incontinent, she had some sort of neurological issue that led to her screaming which she could not control, much like a baby's crying. Her ex boyfriend stepped in and tried to get her removed to a hospice where she would be denied food and water until she died. A truly horrible death. Because I was the only one authorized to make her health care decisions I went to see her. She could only communicate by blinking or squeezing my hand. I told her that I had not forgotten that she made me promise to "let her go" if she ever got in this condition but I came to ask her if that was still what she wanted. No. She wanted to live. It was not up to me to ask what in life she found so valuable that accepted going from a dynamic, active lawyer to this. Her caregiver said that Tracy loved butterscotch pudding. If she wanted to live, it could be because she would again get to enjoy butterscotch pudding one more time. I refused to let her be moved to a hospice. She died peacefully in her sleep.

When you ask me what right I have to say that someone should not be put to death because it's more convenient to do so, what right do you have to get the pathetic and inconvenient out of the way because you are tired of looking at them?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

As usual you miss the point.

Whatever the situation – contemplating the death of a loved one or termination of a pregnancy – that’s a decision best left to the individual and/or family to make, not the state.

As conservatives have preached for decades: government lacks the competence to make such decisions, there needs to be less government involvement in our personal lives.

That's what they say but what they do is the exact opposite.

Then there's religion that wants to force people to be miserable. If you kill yourself you can't be buried in consecrated ground - that sort of thing.

Whether its politics or religion or cultural tradition, there are always those who want to control others. And these meddling butt-in-skis will always find some reason to get all holier than thou about it while lying about it.

I have never heard of anyone being denied burial anywhere in the USA on the grounds of their having committed suicide, Luddly. Can you give me a source for that one? I have never heard of it before. - Jeri

I've never heard of anyone "being denied burial anywhere in the USA on the grounds of their having committed suicide" either but I have certainly heard of what I said in my post which was - "... If you kill yourself you can't be buried in consecrated ground..."

If I am incorrect, I apologize.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

As I pointed out Christopher Reeve was very active, an athlete, he was paralyzed in a horse riding accident. He did not decide to die, he kept active until he died. Was he FORCED to endure his condition?
What right have YOU or anyone else to decide whose life is worthless and should be put to death and who should live? What right have you to say "I am so self-righteous that I believe your life is not worth living therefore in MY opinion, you should kill yourself and if you don't, we'll do it for you.?" It's really you that finds the crippled and those who are paralyzed repulsive. You don't want to look at them any more. They have lost the title of pretty people. Kill them and get them out of your sight.

My best friend, Tracy, got brain cancer. We were friends for more than 25 years, we were roommates for many years. Lacking any other family we became custodians for one another's health care decisions. She told me, many many MANY times that rather than live needing 24 hour care she'd prefer to die. "Just let me go" is what she said. At the end, she was living with a couple who provided 24/7 care. Most of her brain had been eaten away by cancer. She could not speak, walk, she was incontinent, she had some sort of neurological issue that led to her screaming which she could not control, much like a baby's crying. Her ex boyfriend stepped in and tried to get her removed to a hospice where she would be denied food and water until she died. A truly horrible death. Because I was the only one authorized to make her health care decisions I went to see her. She could only communicate by blinking or squeezing my hand. I told her that I had not forgotten that she made me promise to "let her go" if she ever got in this condition but I came to ask her if that was still what she wanted. No. She wanted to live. It was not up to me to ask what in life she found so valuable that accepted going from a dynamic, active lawyer to this. Her caregiver said that Tracy loved butterscotch pudding. If she wanted to live, it could be because she would again get to enjoy butterscotch pudding one more time. I refused to let her be moved to a hospice. She died peacefully in her sleep.

When you ask me what right I have to say that someone should not be put to death because it's more convenient to do so, what right do you have to get the pathetic and inconvenient out of the way because you are tired of looking at them?

Excellent example of an individual having a CHOICE and making a CHOICE.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's what they say but what they do is the exact opposite.

Then there's religion that wants to force people to be miserable. If you kill yourself you can't be buried in consecrated ground - that sort of thing.

Whether its politics or religion or cultural tradition, there are always those who want to control others. And these meddling butt-in-skis will always find some reason to get all holier than thou about it while lying about it.

I have never heard of anyone being denied burial anywhere in the USA on the grounds of their having committed suicide, Luddly. Can you give me a source for that one? I have never heard of it before. - Jeri

I've never heard of anyone "being denied burial anywhere in the USA on the grounds of their having committed suicide" either but I have certainly heard of what I said in my post which was - "... If you kill yourself you can't be buried in consecrated ground..."

If I am incorrect, I apologize.

It used to be common practice, I am not sure it really applies now.

That said, I would say you were, essentially, right.

 

[Katzndogz]

Have you checked Catholic cemetaries?

 

[hangover]

Euthanasia and/or assisted suicide

Somebody might have mentioned this already, but I'm not going through five pages to see if they did.
It's legal in Oregon.

 

[MikeK]

I've lived in a retirement community since 1966. The average age here is around 75. About a year or two after moving here I heard about a fellow who committed suicide by untying a rowboat late at night, rowing out to the middle of the lake, and shooting himself through the forehead with a hunting rifle.

Some time later I met someone who knew him. She told me he was reclusive, had no family or close friends, and once told her he wished he was dead.

Over the years I've heard about a few more suicides in this community of 2,400 units. None as remarkable as the rowboat fellow but one can only assume the motivation was pretty much the same. Intolerable loneliness, a sense of futility, possibly medical problems, and no wish to face each barren day.

This is not the only retirement community in America. There are hundreds. And I'm sure there are suicides in all of them. What it means to me is some people are not so fortunate as to grow old in good health with loving relatives and good friends. When life becomes no longer worth living, why should these unfortunates be forced to put an end to it in such terribly unpleasant, even more gruesome, messy, and socially disruptive ways as the rowboat fellow? Why should there not be some place where such individuals could go after settling all their legal affairs and be allowed to pass through a brief state of narcotic ecstasy to a calm and peaceful end to their unhappy, probably miserable lives?

There also are many thousands of people who are serving long prison sentences whom I am sure would prefer to go to sleep knowing they will never wake to spend another day in the miseries of penal confinement. Their suicides would be beneficial to all concerned.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I've lived in a retirement community since 1966. The average age here is around 75. About a year or two after moving here I heard about a fellow who committed suicide by untying a rowboat late at night, rowing out to the middle of the lake, and shooting himself through the forehead with a hunting rifle.

Some time later I met someone who knew him. She told me he was reclusive, had no family or close friends, and once told her he wished he was dead.

Over the years I've heard about a few more suicides in this community of 2,400 units. None as remarkable as the rowboat fellow but one can only assume the motivation was pretty much the same. Intolerable loneliness, a sense of futility, possibly medical problems, and no wish to face each barren day.

This is not the only retirement community in America. There are hundreds. And I'm sure there are suicides in all of them. What it means to me is some people are not so fortunate as to grow old in good health with loving relatives and good friends. When life becomes no longer worth living, why should these unfortunates be forced to put an end to it in such terribly unpleasant, even more gruesome, messy, and socially disruptive ways as the rowboat fellow? Why should there not be some place where such individuals could go after settling all their legal affairs and be allowed to pass through a brief state of narcotic ecstasy to a calm and peaceful end to their unhappy, probably miserable lives?

There also are many thousands of people who are serving long prison sentences whom I am sure would prefer to go to sleep knowing they will never wake to spend another day in the miseries of penal confinement. Their suicides would be beneficial to all concerned.

I agree with the point you've made but I've just gotta ask ...

You've lived in a retirement community since 1966???

How old ARE you????

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When you ask me what right I have to say that someone should not be put to death because it's more convenient to do so, what right do you have to get the pathetic and inconvenient out of the way because you are tired of looking at them?

You have the right to your opinion only, not to codify it.

No one is advocating anyone be ‘put to death,’ nor does the issue have anything to do with ‘inconvenient’ or putting someone ‘out of the way,’ that’s ignorant idiocy on your part.

 

[Iceman]

This is my view on the subject. Life is like animal porn, its not for everybody. It's like a movie, if you have sat through half of it and it sucks, it probably wont get better towards the end. You should be allowed to walk out early.

 

[Octarine]

As I pointed out Christopher Reeve was very active, an athlete, he was paralyzed in a horse riding accident. He did not decide to die, he kept active until he died. Was he FORCED to endure his condition?
What right have YOU or anyone else to decide whose life is worthless and should be put to death and who should live? What right have you to say "I am so self-righteous that I believe your life is not worth living therefore in MY opinion, you should kill yourself and if you don't, we'll do it for you.?" It's really you that finds the crippled and those who are paralyzed repulsive. You don't want to look at them any more. They have lost the title of pretty people. Kill them and get them out of your sight.

My best friend, Tracy, got brain cancer. We were friends for more than 25 years, we were roommates for many years. Lacking any other family we became custodians for one another's health care decisions. She told me, many many MANY times that rather than live needing 24 hour care she'd prefer to die. "Just let me go" is what she said. At the end, she was living with a couple who provided 24/7 care. Most of her brain had been eaten away by cancer. She could not speak, walk, she was incontinent, she had some sort of neurological issue that led to her screaming which she could not control, much like a baby's crying. Her ex boyfriend stepped in and tried to get her removed to a hospice where she would be denied food and water until she died. A truly horrible death. Because I was the only one authorized to make her health care decisions I went to see her. She could only communicate by blinking or squeezing my hand. I told her that I had not forgotten that she made me promise to "let her go" if she ever got in this condition but I came to ask her if that was still what she wanted. No. She wanted to live. It was not up to me to ask what in life she found so valuable that accepted going from a dynamic, active lawyer to this. Her caregiver said that Tracy loved butterscotch pudding. If she wanted to live, it could be because she would again get to enjoy butterscotch pudding one more time. I refused to let her be moved to a hospice. She died peacefully in her sleep.

When you ask me what right I have to say that someone should not be put to death because it's more convenient to do so, what right do you have to get the pathetic and inconvenient out of the way because you are tired of looking at them?

With respect, you need to read posts more carfully. I have never used the term 'put to death' . You seem to think I want to execute people who are critically ill or infirm and that is not the case.
People should have CHOICE. Its their life, not anyone elses and if they want to have help in ending an existence that to them is so horrible they do not want it to continue but are physically unable to do anything about it themselves then why should you or anyone else deny them.
Your friend chose to live. That was her choice. Others would have chosen to die, that 'should' be their choice. Why do you want to prolong their suffering if they want to die?