Let's be Just Like The Netherlands!!

[no1tovote4]

But the idea that a doctor can look at a patient and say I deem their quality of life is bad so let's save some money and bed space and kill them is absurd, and very uncivilized. What if there is someone who can't speak, seems in pain, but really doesn't want to die just yet? A doctor steps in does the deed........there are just too many what if's here and we are talking about human life , death is final at least on this earth.

That is one of my points, only people who have clearly made the choice could make the choice in any other time it would be wrong.

It would be morally wrong to have the Doctor deciding if and when people should die and it should be strictly written that way into any law that would allow the extension of such help to people in those circumstances.

If there is no evidence of the choice being made the Doctor would have to be put on trial for murder regardless of the closeness of death it would be wrong unless the person chose to effect their soul in such a way. Just as a Doctor today making such a judgement would also be tried for murder.

 

[dilloduck]

Once again, the only people that may need this help are those that are too incapacitated to be able to make the necessary changes to effect that goal themselves.

Those outside of that type of situation can always find a way, if that is their goal, and have always been able to.

It is only those in this type of situation that the choice is entirely taken from them, that we insure that they must follow a certain moral code and that they no longer with any certainty can effect changes to their soul regardless of what those decisions may have them take upon themselves.

All throughout your life you can make this decision with inpunity, until the time when your incapacitation may finally make you decide it worth it at that point we take away any power to self-involved decisions that effect you in such ways.

OK i think i got it---when a person becomes physically unable to commit suicide, the law should step in and appoint him someone who can do it for him similar to a trustee or guardian. In this case it would most likely be a Dr.
I assume the patient would be able to collect insurance if the act is legally sanctioned. With that in mind, why is anone else punished for commiting suicide by losing insurance money ? Is this right to kill ourselves only legal if we can't do it ourselves. Catch-22 huh?

 

[no1tovote4]

OK i think i got it---when a person becomes physically unable to commit suicide, the law should step in and appoint him someone who can do it for him similar to a trustee or guardian. In this case it would most likely be a Dr.
I assume the patient would be able to collect insurance if the act is legally sanctioned. With that in mind, why is anone else punished for commiting suicide by losing insurance money ? Is this right to kill ourselves only legal if we can't do it ourselves. Catch-22 huh?

I never said anything of the sort. They must still live with the consequences of their actions. Insurance companies should not be responsible to pay insurance on the life of somebody who chose to end their life.

It simply would allow the Dr. to provide help to somebody without being prosecuted, thus allowing the patient to make the choice for themselves. In what way can an incapacitated patient get out of bed and buy illegal drugs? Could they drive their car over a cliff? All of the choices that you can make for yourself are taken from them.

My point is we should allow the patient to make the choices that are of consequence for himself rather than attempt to make them all for them.

 

[dilloduck]

I never said anything of the sort. They must still live with the consequences of their actions. Insurance companies should not be responsible to pay insurance on the life of somebody who chose to end their life.

It simply would allow the Dr. to provide help to somebody without being prosecuted, thus allowing the patient to make the choice for themselves. In what way can an incapacitated patient get out of bed and buy illegal drugs? Could they drive their car over a cliff? All of the choices that you can make for yourself are taken from them.

My point is we should allow the patient to make the choices that are of consequence for himself rather than attempt to make them all for them.

Got it---no special insurance benefits for assisted suicide. Why then do we stop people from commiting suicide or for that matter even think about it? Is this not taking away a choice as effectively as being too decrepit. We lock em up if they try but if they can't we give em permission ?

 

[no1tovote4]

Got it---no special insurance benefits for assisted suicide. Why then do we stop people from commiting suicide or for that matter even think about it? Is this not taking away a choice as effectively as being too decrepit. We lock em up if they try but if they can't we give em permission ?

Those who truly want to are successful. Most often an unsuccessful attempt is a half-hearted attempt. It may sound crass or even hurtful but I am not trying to be. People have a right to make choices that effect the destination of their soul according to their beliefs and are responsible as well of the effects their actions will have on those left behind up to an including the insurance protection.

However to remove such choices from those people simply because they are in hospital care is IMO just as wrong as attempting to legislate religion, to take from people those choices that will affect their souls.

 

[sagegirl]

True we can't legislate morality.. nor can we legislate or sanction lack of morality as you suggest. No one is stopping anyone from committing suicide, and by the way, it's not religious people that made up laws preventing people form jumping off a buliding onto pavement. It's usually cops that show up with the handcuffs and the nice white jackets.

The problem is who is going to determine what is moral and what is not...YOU?
We legislate moral issues all the time.....murder, theft, issues that generally affect another person or property. I think it crosses the boundary when one persons moral beliefs restrict the options of someone else when the actions are of a personal nature and have no direct consequences on someone else.
Yeah the cops are the ones who enforce the laws, so the laws need to be changed. And I do think it is the influence of religion that is the basis of laws like those against suicide.

 

[Bonnie]

The problem is who is going to determine what is moral and what is not...YOU?

I could ask the same thing of you??

We legislate moral issues all the time.....murder, theft, issues that generally affect another person or property. I think it crosses the boundary when one persons moral beliefs restrict the options of someone else when the actions are of a personal nature and have no direct consequences on someone else.

Because this is extremely dangerous territory you are talking about. Making it legal for doctors to kill patients because they ask them to...What makes you think this has no consequences on anyone or society as a whole???

And I do think it is the influence of religion that is the basis of laws like those against suicide

.


Yes heaven forbid religion has any influence on this very important topic.

Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe there is some truth to what religion says about this????

 

[dilloduck]

Those who truly want to are successful. Most often an unsuccessful attempt is a half-hearted attempt. It may sound crass or even hurtful but I am not trying to be. People have a right to make choices that effect the destination of their soul according to their beliefs and are responsible as well of the effects their actions will have on those left behind up to an including the insurance protection.

However to remove such choices from those people simply because they are in hospital care is IMO just as wrong as attempting to legislate religion, to take from people those choices that will affect their souls.

No one took away any choices from those who are unable to kill themselves.
They never had the LEGAL choice. If we are to give it them , there is no defensible position to not give it to others. This is the true freedom to choose. I wish every fetus had it.

 

[Bonnie]

No one took away any choices from those who are unable to kill themselves.
They never had the LEGAL choice. If we are to give it them , there is no defensible position to not give it to others.

This is the true freedom to choose. I wish every fetus had it

.


God me too Dillo!!

 

[MissileMan]

The church says anyone has the right to deny artificial means to save them, they can stipulate that in writing......... How does killing someone with poison on their deathbed equate with "shortening their life with artificial means????

I think you misunderstood the question. I was asking how you differentiate using a drug to maintain or extend someone's life as not the same thing as using a drug to end someone's life. Both acts interfere with the natural course of a person's life. One of your main objections has been that the early death of a terminally ill patient is altering nature's course. The curing of a potentially fatal disease could be argued to be the same kind of interference.

Yes if a person dies on their own it is God's will, if they are killed it's not God's will. Very easy concept......

Why couldn't the suicide be God's will also? What if God is running pain-threshold experiments to see if He needs to introduce a new, more painful malady because we have become too proficient at easing pain?

 

[no1tovote4]

No one took away any choices from those who are unable to kill themselves.
They never had the LEGAL choice. If we are to give it them , there is no defensible position to not give it to others. This is the true freedom to choose. I wish every fetus had it.

As I said others already have this choice, the legality is not defined by what they have done but what others responsibility toward the decedent are.

It is not to legalize the choice in those regards, but to simply give them the same choice that you have all your life until you get to that point. The same laws would effect the choice, no further legalities would be effected. The only difference is where you are in life, and your ability to effect your choice yourself without any aid from another.

No matter how many laws that you make before you reach that point you cannot stop somebody who wishes to make such a choice. Therefore the laws reflect that and protect others from having to pay out insurance etc. In my scenario those laws would be the same, the person would have just as much responsibility for their choice as they have before they get to that point. We therefore effect the moral choice for people at the moment when they no longer are physically able to effect the changes necessary to make their own choice, while they may still be hale in mind we take from them their moral responsibility for their own life.

Since everybody else has the same choice before they get to this point we are only extending the choice to people who are without recourse to make the changes to effect such a choice at the time. And as I said before, extending the right to make choices which effect their destination and soul, as all people have, the most basic of rights. There is no cause to take from them the choice that will effect their own soul and life other than we wish them to follow some preset moral code which we would place upon them.

I too wish we would take the wishes of the fetus into account before others make the choice to kill an innocent living being. But this is not the same affect as it would be the person choosing to effect their own life, not that of another as in the case of abortion.

While we may believe that what they do is wrong, it is their duty and right to make the choice for their own soul, as it was throughout their life. They too have that same right to effect choices for their own soul and we do not, it is their responsibility.

 

[Bonnie]

I think you misunderstood the question. I was asking how you differentiate using a drug to maintain or extend someone's life as not the same thing as using a drug to end someone's life. Both acts interfere with the natural course of a person's life. One of your main objections has been that the early death of a terminally ill patient is altering nature's course. The curing of a potentially fatal disease could be argued to be the same kind of interference.


Why couldn't the suicide be God's will also? What if God is running pain-threshold experiments to see if He needs to introduce a new, more painful malady because we have become too proficient at easing pain?

Much of my argument is based on having hope, is it not better to do everything possible to save life? Where there is life there is hope. What you base your argument on is lumping both life saving and killing on the same level. Okay let's say saving or prolonging someone's life is the same technically as ending their life. If Im a patient under a doctors care the last ting I would want is a doctor with the mindset that artificial death is always a viable option. I would want a doctor who would move heaven and earth to save my life. Life is precious, when death is legalized it no longer is precious, it's expendable.

Regarding God and suicide, that's quite a stretch to propose that God's will includes someone giving into despair and ending their own lives. But yes free will is an option so God allows suicide, just as he allows everything else. It's always our choice. One last time for the record.........I don't care if someone wants to kill themsleves, that's their choice............BUT when you bring someone else in on that action, you are also bringing them down with you. Now they are also responsible for your death. If you can live with that great, I could not. And if you happen to be religious not only is the person who wants to die going to be held responsible, but so is anyone who takes part in it. That's a lot of souls giving up.

 

[MissileMan]

Much of my argument is based on having hope, is it not better to do everything possible to save life? Where there is life there is hope. What you base your argument on is lumping both life saving and killing on the same level. Okay let's say saving or prolonging someone's life is the same technically as ending their life. If Im a patient under a doctors care the last ting I would want is a doctor with the mindset that artificial death is always a viable option. I would want a doctor who would move heaven and earth to save my life. Life is precious, when death is legalized it no longer is precious, it's expendable.

Regarding God and suicide, that's quite a stretch to propose that God's will includes someone giving into despair and ending their own lives. But yes free will is an option so God allows suicide, just as he allows everything else. It's always our choice. One last time for the record.........I don't care if someone wants to kill themsleves, that's their choice............BUT when you bring someone else in on that action, you are also bringing them down with you. Now they are also responsible for your death. If you can live with that great, I could not. And if you happen to be religious not only is the person who wants to die going to be held responsible, but so is anyone who takes part in it. That's a lot of souls giving up.

I understand your argument, but IMO, a doctor helping someone commit suicide would not be committing murder and would therefore not be in danger of any divine retribution.

 

[no1tovote4]

I understand your argument, but IMO, a doctor helping someone commit suicide would not be committing murder and would therefore not be in danger of any divine retribution.

Plus the Doctor would be able to choose whether to do such things thus only effecting his soul in ways that have been a choice for him as well.

I don't believe that anybody is suggesting that a Doctor would be forced to do this against his will.