Physician assisted suicide

[Aristotle]

I strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal.

I am also a firm believer of pulling the plugs on terminal patients and not keeping people alive just to keep them alive.

As for spending to much money on keeping people alive... If the family has the funds to pay for services to keep all the machines going, pay for all the care... fine, its their money to spend. If doing all of this care is on the public dime.... then no. Support should be withdrawn...and people allowed to die the natural death they were meant to have.....

So as long if its not on a taxpayer's dime its ok. I'm not following this logic

She is asking why it should be okay for the taxpayer to keep someone alive on a machine when there is no hope of a recovery. I agree with her.

You can make the same argument with deathrow inmates. There are people who will be on deathrow for years even decades before they're actually put to death....Your point?

 

[Noomi]

So as long if its not on a taxpayer's dime its ok. I'm not following this logic

She is asking why it should be okay for the taxpayer to keep someone alive on a machine when there is no hope of a recovery. I agree with her.

You can make the same argument with deathrow inmates. There are people who will be on deathrow for years even decades before they're actually put to death....Your point?

Death row inmates are not living via a machine.

 

[Aristotle]

I strongly believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal.

I am also a firm believer of pulling the plugs on terminal patients and not keeping people alive just to keep them alive.

As for spending to much money on keeping people alive... If the family has the funds to pay for services to keep all the machines going, pay for all the care... fine, its their money to spend. If doing all of this care is on the public dime.... then no. Support should be withdrawn...and people allowed to die the natural death they were meant to have.....

So as long if its not on a taxpayer's dime its ok. I'm not following this logic

the op asked about costs of keeping the... should be dead...alive. The cost of life support is quite something.....

If a person has private funds and a family willing to bear the burden of the cost... fine.. If not, the public should not be paying to do that.

It is rather simple....allow people to die the natural death that was coming to them.

Some facts to consider:

-18-20 Americans spend their last days in the Intensive care unit.
-In a typical Intensive Care Unit it cost roughly $10,000 per day.
-In 2009 Medicare paid $50 billion in doctor and hospital cost.

Mind you, the figures for medicare round the numbers which include specialized medicine, doctors fees etc.

What about the cost to kill an inmate?.......

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million)."

--California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, July 1, 2008

Reference: Death Penalty Cost | Amnesty International USA

 

[Aristotle]

She is asking why it should be okay for the taxpayer to keep someone alive on a machine when there is no hope of a recovery. I agree with her.

You can make the same argument with deathrow inmates. There are people who will be on deathrow for years even decades before they're actually put to death....Your point?

Death row inmates are not living via a machine.

We are talking about taxpayer dime right? It doesn't matter if they're living on a machine.....It cost more to kill deathrow inmates per year than it would for euthanasia. High cost in keeping patients alive have to do with patients being in the hospital and in specialized units such as the intensive care unit where expensive equipment, not to mention controlling the underlined illnesses have costly financial effects. Which is why medicare has a cap on what they will pay and after that, the patient is sent home or either to a hospice for palliative care. So I don't get it. Patient's that want to die might be less costly to the taxpayer but for someone guilty and is destined to die, out of my dime I am paying more for someone on deathrow than someone in a hospital?

 

[syrenn]

With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.

As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.

The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.

Actually... yes i do have enough medical knowledge......

Not all doctors are mentally up for assisted suicide..... some are.

Yes, there is such a thing as compassionate death....death at times is mercy.

Alright.... why do you assume that it will be the doctor doing the pushing of the button shall we say.... Cant the doctor set it all up and give the power of pushing the button or not to the patient? Or... here is the pill... take it or don't take it. Who is doing the deed then.... the doctor or the patient?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.

As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.

The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.

Why do you make an assumption that is patently offensive and then claim you mean no offense? Why not be honest about your intent to offend people?

The only people that need ethics are the ones that do not have morals. Morally, you are 100% correct, which is why I agree that doctors should not kill people. Ethically, it would depend on who you are talking to.

The thing is, in order to assume a need to involve a doctor, I have to assume that the person in question is a complete idiot that does not have access to the internet. There are a multitude of sites that describe the various drugs, their side effects, and how to administer them. There is no need to involve a doctor in the decision at all.

I grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the belief that where there is life, there is hope, resonates in me to my core. That does not mean I would never commit suicide, it does mean that the situation is unimaginable. Unlike most of the people here, I have volunteered in a hospice. I saw what people were like when they knew they were going to die. All of them were waiting to die, some of them had refused care that would have extended their lives, most of them suffered every day. None of them wanted to loose one moment of their life.

If I had a friend that wanted to die, and needed my help, I wouldn't ask a doctor, and I wouldn't need the permission of a bunch of dogooders in the government. I would argue with him, try to convince him to keep living, and do whatever I needed to do to help them with their decision.

That is death with dignity. Involving the government takes away dignity, and gives the government more power to kill.

Only fools want to make it easier for the government to kill.

 

[syrenn]

So as long if its not on a taxpayer's dime its ok. I'm not following this logic

She is asking why it should be okay for the taxpayer to keep someone alive on a machine when there is no hope of a recovery. I agree with her.

You can make the same argument with deathrow inmates. There are people who will be on deathrow for years even decades before they're actually put to death....Your point?

lol...if it was up to me.... no they would not be on death row for long.

death row inmates are alive an well.... we are not keeping them alive.

 

[Aristotle]

She is asking why it should be okay for the taxpayer to keep someone alive on a machine when there is no hope of a recovery. I agree with her.

You can make the same argument with deathrow inmates. There are people who will be on deathrow for years even decades before they're actually put to death....Your point?

lol...if it was up to me.... no they would not be on death row for long.

death row inmates are alive an well.... we are not keeping them alive.

Technically we are. With appeal proceedings that are long and drawn out we continually pay for the inmates to stay alive. These inmates get three meals a day, are allowed shower, and recreation time. So when talking about tax dollars and costly figures, what is more costly annually, keeping a patient alive or an inmate?

 

[Aristotle]

With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.

As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.

The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.

Why do you make an assumption that is patently offensive and then claim you mean no offense? Why not be honest about your intent to offend people?

The only people that need ethics are the ones that do not have morals. Morally, you are 100% correct, which is why I agree that doctors should not kill people. Ethically, it would depend on who you are talking to.

The thing is, in order to assume a need to involve a doctor, I have to assume that the person in question is a complete idiot that does not have access to the internet. There are a multitude of sites that describe the various drugs, their side effects, and how to administer them. There is no need to involve a doctor in the decision at all.

I grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the belief that where there is life, there is hope, resonates in me to my core. That does not mean I would never commit suicide, it does mean that the situation is unimaginable. Unlike most of the people here, I have volunteered in a hospice. I saw what people were like when they knew they were going to die. All of them were waiting to die, some of them had refused care that would have extended their lives, most of them suffered every day. None of them wanted to loose one moment of their life.

If I had a friend that wanted to die, and needed my help, I wouldn't ask a doctor, and I wouldn't need the permission of a bunch of dogooders in the government. I would argue with him, try to convince him to keep living, and do whatever I needed to do to help them with their decision.

That is death with dignity. Involving the government takes away dignity, and gives the government more power to kill.

Only fools want to make it easier for the government to kill.

The reason why most people say "I mean no offense" is because what will be said is not to offend, but to indirectly inform the person being addressed that what will be said is not a personal attack nor to be insulting.

Regarding the bold. What is so dignifying about being put to death by a physician?

 

[Aristotle]

With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.

As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.

The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.

Actually... yes i do have enough medical knowledge......

Not all doctors are mentally up for assisted suicide..... some are.

Yes, there is such a thing as compassionate death....death at times is mercy.

Alright.... why do you assume that it will be the doctor doing the pushing of the button shall we say.... Cant the doctor set it all up and give the power of pushing the button or not to the patient? Or... here is the pill... take it or don't take it. Who is doing the deed then.... the doctor or the patient?

For a person with medical knowledge I am surprised you even mentioned the word "pill."

Anyone with some knowledge of some medical teminology or pharmacology you'd know that first and foremost the fastest way to circulate medication through the bloodstream would be intravenously. So there is no pushing a button, and even if there was, the patient may be too weak and sick to even push anything. Second, taking a pill takes longer than taking something intravenously- due to the fact of digestion and at this stage (assuming the patient has stage 4 cancer for example) the metabolism may be too slow, so even if the patient is taking the pill there is still a "wait towards death."

In other words even if euthanasia was to be legal, most patients would die similarly like the inmates on deathrow, lethal injection.

 

[syrenn]

You can make the same argument with deathrow inmates. There are people who will be on deathrow for years even decades before they're actually put to death....Your point?

lol...if it was up to me.... no they would not be on death row for long.

death row inmates are alive an well.... we are not keeping them alive.

Technically we are. With appeal proceedings that are long and drawn out we continually pay for the inmates to stay alive. These inmates get three meals a day, are allowed shower, and recreation time. So when talking about tax dollars and costly figures, what is more costly annually, keeping a patient alive or an inmate?

this thread is not about death row ass holes or the enormous costs they run. As i said before...if it was up to me they would not be on death row for long......

 

[syrenn]

With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.

As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.

The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.

Why do you make an assumption that is patently offensive and then claim you mean no offense? Why not be honest about your intent to offend people?

The only people that need ethics are the ones that do not have morals. Morally, you are 100% correct, which is why I agree that doctors should not kill people. Ethically, it would depend on who you are talking to.

The thing is, in order to assume a need to involve a doctor, I have to assume that the person in question is a complete idiot that does not have access to the internet. There are a multitude of sites that describe the various drugs, their side effects, and how to administer them. There is no need to involve a doctor in the decision at all.

I grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the belief that where there is life, there is hope, resonates in me to my core. That does not mean I would never commit suicide, it does mean that the situation is unimaginable. Unlike most of the people here, I have volunteered in a hospice. I saw what people were like when they knew they were going to die. All of them were waiting to die, some of them had refused care that would have extended their lives, most of them suffered every day. None of them wanted to loose one moment of their life.

If I had a friend that wanted to die, and needed my help, I wouldn't ask a doctor, and I wouldn't need the permission of a bunch of dogooders in the government. I would argue with him, try to convince him to keep living, and do whatever I needed to do to help them with their decision.

That is death with dignity. Involving the government takes away dignity, and gives the government more power to kill.

Only fools want to make it easier for the government to kill.

The reason why most people say "I mean no offense" is because what will be said is not to offend, but to indirectly inform the person being addressed that what will be said is not a personal attack nor to be insulting.

Regarding the bold. What is so dignifying about being put to death by a physician?

And what if the person is begging for assistance? What is so dignified about begging for help and not receiving it?

 

[syrenn]

With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.

As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.

The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.

Actually... yes i do have enough medical knowledge......

Not all doctors are mentally up for assisted suicide..... some are.

Yes, there is such a thing as compassionate death....death at times is mercy.

Alright.... why do you assume that it will be the doctor doing the pushing of the button shall we say.... Cant the doctor set it all up and give the power of pushing the button or not to the patient? Or... here is the pill... take it or don't take it. Who is doing the deed then.... the doctor or the patient?

For a person with medical knowledge I am surprised you even mentioned the word "pill."

Anyone with some knowledge of some medical teminology or pharmacology you'd know that first and foremost the fastest way to circulate medication through the bloodstream would be intravenously. So there is no pushing a button, and even if there was, the patient may be too weak and sick to even push anything. Second, taking a pill takes longer than taking something intravenously- due to the fact of digestion and at this stage (assuming the patient has stage 4 cancer for example) the metabolism may be too slow, so even if the patient is taking the pill there is still a "wait towards death."

In other words even if euthanasia was to be legal, most patients would die similarly like the inmates on deathrow, lethal injection.

i know IV injection is the fastest way...... i also know its not pushing a button... Get a grip and try an understand what i was saying.....

 

[Aristotle]

Why do you make an assumption that is patently offensive and then claim you mean no offense? Why not be honest about your intent to offend people?

The only people that need ethics are the ones that do not have morals. Morally, you are 100% correct, which is why I agree that doctors should not kill people. Ethically, it would depend on who you are talking to.

The thing is, in order to assume a need to involve a doctor, I have to assume that the person in question is a complete idiot that does not have access to the internet. There are a multitude of sites that describe the various drugs, their side effects, and how to administer them. There is no need to involve a doctor in the decision at all.

I grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the belief that where there is life, there is hope, resonates in me to my core. That does not mean I would never commit suicide, it does mean that the situation is unimaginable. Unlike most of the people here, I have volunteered in a hospice. I saw what people were like when they knew they were going to die. All of them were waiting to die, some of them had refused care that would have extended their lives, most of them suffered every day. None of them wanted to loose one moment of their life.

If I had a friend that wanted to die, and needed my help, I wouldn't ask a doctor, and I wouldn't need the permission of a bunch of dogooders in the government. I would argue with him, try to convince him to keep living, and do whatever I needed to do to help them with their decision.

That is death with dignity. Involving the government takes away dignity, and gives the government more power to kill.

Only fools want to make it easier for the government to kill.

The reason why most people say "I mean no offense" is because what will be said is not to offend, but to indirectly inform the person being addressed that what will be said is not a personal attack nor to be insulting.

Regarding the bold. What is so dignifying about being put to death by a physician?

And what if the person is begging for assistance? What is so dignified about begging for help and not receiving it?

Well it depends. Has pain managment failed? Have we exercise all options to make the patioent comfortable? Is the "beggging" symptomatic of the illness? Your acting like everyone with terminal illness has severe pain. Some terminal people die quick. Some die slow. Some die painfully slow. Some die painfully quick.

 

[Aristotle]

Actually... yes i do have enough medical knowledge......

Not all doctors are mentally up for assisted suicide..... some are.

Yes, there is such a thing as compassionate death....death at times is mercy.

Alright.... why do you assume that it will be the doctor doing the pushing of the button shall we say.... Cant the doctor set it all up and give the power of pushing the button or not to the patient? Or... here is the pill... take it or don't take it. Who is doing the deed then.... the doctor or the patient?

For a person with medical knowledge I am surprised you even mentioned the word "pill."

Anyone with some knowledge of some medical teminology or pharmacology you'd know that first and foremost the fastest way to circulate medication through the bloodstream would be intravenously. So there is no pushing a button, and even if there was, the patient may be too weak and sick to even push anything. Second, taking a pill takes longer than taking something intravenously- due to the fact of digestion and at this stage (assuming the patient has stage 4 cancer for example) the metabolism may be too slow, so even if the patient is taking the pill there is still a "wait towards death."

In other words even if euthanasia was to be legal, most patients would die similarly like the inmates on deathrow, lethal injection.

i know IV injection is the fastest way...... i also know its not pushing a button... Get a grip and try an understand what i was saying.....

If a lethal injection is to be administered it has to be done by a physician

 

[Aristotle]

lol...if it was up to me.... no they would not be on death row for long.

death row inmates are alive an well.... we are not keeping them alive.

Technically we are. With appeal proceedings that are long and drawn out we continually pay for the inmates to stay alive. These inmates get three meals a day, are allowed shower, and recreation time. So when talking about tax dollars and costly figures, what is more costly annually, keeping a patient alive or an inmate?

this thread is not about death row ass holes or the enormous costs they run. As i said before...if it was up to me they would not be on death row for long......

Well there was a mentioning of taxpayer dime so I threw in the inmate statistics. Because when it comes to people nothing costs more than prisons.

 

[syrenn]

For a person with medical knowledge I am surprised you even mentioned the word "pill."

Anyone with some knowledge of some medical teminology or pharmacology you'd know that first and foremost the fastest way to circulate medication through the bloodstream would be intravenously. So there is no pushing a button, and even if there was, the patient may be too weak and sick to even push anything. Second, taking a pill takes longer than taking something intravenously- due to the fact of digestion and at this stage (assuming the patient has stage 4 cancer for example) the metabolism may be too slow, so even if the patient is taking the pill there is still a "wait towards death."

In other words even if euthanasia was to be legal, most patients would die similarly like the inmates on deathrow, lethal injection.

i know IV injection is the fastest way...... i also know its not pushing a button... Get a grip and try an understand what i was saying.....

If a lethal injection is to be administered it has to be done by a physician

oh please.... use your imagination on how it can be set up.... you claim to have some knowledge.... use it.

 

[syrenn]

Technically we are. With appeal proceedings that are long and drawn out we continually pay for the inmates to stay alive. These inmates get three meals a day, are allowed shower, and recreation time. So when talking about tax dollars and costly figures, what is more costly annually, keeping a patient alive or an inmate?

this thread is not about death row ass holes or the enormous costs they run. As i said before...if it was up to me they would not be on death row for long......

Well there was a mentioning of taxpayer dime so I threw in the inmate statistics. Because when it comes to people nothing costs more than prisons.

fine... it works for me too...

if inmates want to eat... they can damn well have their families pay up for their room and board......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

With no offense to anyone here but I assume many of you, with the exception of geauxtohell, have no medical knowledge nor understanding of bioethics. I don't want to downplay the significance of people's personal experiences but everyone's situation is different. There is no such thing as "compassionate death" the physician is in essence, killing the patient its not compassionate killing, the physician is killing the patient. So now we have a duality of roles among physicians.

As mentioned before there is hospice and palliative care for patient's with terminal illnesses, but as many of you seem to overlook, there are patients with terminal illnesses that don't go through the same situations as some of your loved ones. Which is why physicians have subscribed morphine patches, marijuana, and other drugs to ease the patient's pain.

The fact that many of you opt for euthanasia is also saying that these drugs along with palliative care, does not work. The next question I must ask is what about the loved ones? What about the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder? I would assume patients opting to die would receive it intravenously as it goes to the blood faster thanm orally so are we to send these patients away like we do deathrow inmates? These are questions we need to ask.

Why do you make an assumption that is patently offensive and then claim you mean no offense? Why not be honest about your intent to offend people?

The only people that need ethics are the ones that do not have morals. Morally, you are 100% correct, which is why I agree that doctors should not kill people. Ethically, it would depend on who you are talking to.

The thing is, in order to assume a need to involve a doctor, I have to assume that the person in question is a complete idiot that does not have access to the internet. There are a multitude of sites that describe the various drugs, their side effects, and how to administer them. There is no need to involve a doctor in the decision at all.

I grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the belief that where there is life, there is hope, resonates in me to my core. That does not mean I would never commit suicide, it does mean that the situation is unimaginable. Unlike most of the people here, I have volunteered in a hospice. I saw what people were like when they knew they were going to die. All of them were waiting to die, some of them had refused care that would have extended their lives, most of them suffered every day. None of them wanted to loose one moment of their life.

If I had a friend that wanted to die, and needed my help, I wouldn't ask a doctor, and I wouldn't need the permission of a bunch of dogooders in the government. I would argue with him, try to convince him to keep living, and do whatever I needed to do to help them with their decision.

That is death with dignity. Involving the government takes away dignity, and gives the government more power to kill.

Only fools want to make it easier for the government to kill.

The reason why most people say "I mean no offense" is because what will be said is not to offend, but to indirectly inform the person being addressed that what will be said is not a personal attack nor to be insulting.

Regarding the bold. What is so dignifying about being put to death by a physician?

If you have to say it, saying it isn't going to make a difference.

Did you read my post at all? I spent all that time talking about how using a doctor is the wrong choice, and you ask me how using a doctor is dignified.

 

[Borillar]

Lefties embrace murder for a variety of reasons.

This is just another one.

So you feel people who live in constant pain should be forced to suffer instead of being allowed to ask a physican to help them die?

Ok.

Righties embrace torture for a variety of reasons. This is just another one.