News ya can be happy with -- "Dr. Death" dead!

[enfield]

Kind words indeed.

[Mike.357]

Limbaugh is an egotistical blow hard. His opinion has no bearing for me on any topic.

[Guest clownsdd]

6.8ar...ya ain't older than me, but that makes no difference.

Rush is an egotistical windbag, that's out to make a buck. Get's all the publicity he can. Very similar to the other "superstars" in sports and hollywood. On the other hand, he gets people to thinking.

As far as the Dr. goes, regardless of anyone's opinion, I would suggest that everyone write down their wishes and let them be known. Give a copy to your lawyer. My family knows that I will not go in a nursing home, leave me alone and let me die. If I have had enough, I will finish it as a couple of other family members have. Just let them know it was no one's fault or decision by my own.

[leroy]

...I think this is the most civil conversation we would possibly have about this, and perhaps the most agreement you will ever find on this forum on such a contentious topic. I would be lying if I said it didn't surprise me. ...

Me too. I am astounded at the debate and comments on this subject.

RE: Dats82 ---This:

....Leroy you stated that ethics do not change with the whims of culture. This could not be further from the truth. With the increasing technology and abilities we now have, principles of ethics have evolved and changed....

Dats: Here is my definition of "ethics" (...link to whole definition here: Ethics*[internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]....)

I lifted this piece of the definition:

...Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves....

My definition of "ethics" would be more correctly "metaethics" as defined above. They do not "evolve" and "change".

Your definition of "ethics" (...in the post...) seems to come from the definitions referenced here:

....Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, ....

If you are a "stoic philosopher" or a "believer in Providence" (...i am...) you beleive that there are "universal truths". We can quibble about the "normative ethics" and "applied ethics". The fact is that the current culture (...the 'best and brightest", the specialists (...doctors, in this case...), the dean of the university school of ethics, politicos, you, me, them...) can all contribute to the "normative" and "applied" ethical thing.

In contrast; "Metaethics" is not a construct of pop culture and the "best and brightest" among us. It is a body of unchanging truths. My long winded pronouncements on this subject shoud be read in light of these definitions.

Hope this sheds a bit more light on this amazingly controversial subject.

leroy

[leroy]

I died about a week and a half ago.

How's that workin out for ya?!

leroy (...still alive...)

[dats82]

6.8, you have not stepped on anyone's toes or offended me in anyway. I am not a communist tree hugger as you have implied, and I never said Jack was a saint. I have never met him, and I have no idea what his patient interactions were like. As I stated earlier, medicine is about caring for a patient, and my position is simply that these types of patients should be able to choose the type of care they receive. The biggest underlying factor is the patient's complete freedom in life. You can absolutely have strong opinions on subjects but still be open minded enough to try to understand the basis of the opposing positions. I still do not understand the basis of your argument, but those efforts seem futile at this point.

Leroy, thanks for the clarification. I understand the difference. I just assumed normative ethics because that is what is generally used to evaluate conduct in the medical theatre.

By the way, for any who are interested, the CBS morning news program had a story this morning about it all. I was headed to early service, so I did not get to see it all. It should be on their website.

[Guest pfries]

Look folks, I don't really care if you want your car fixed, but do it yourself, please. Don't ask others to help.

If an individual is uncertain of how to do it safely and painlessly a professional should be able to help.

We live in a capitalistic society; services are bought and paid for.

We live in a society with corrupt morals and values, if we did not home protection and police would be unnecessary.

I have a personal belief and would not prescribe to assisted suicide, and yes I have watched family members suffer terribly for extended periods at the end.

I however am not omnipotent; I cannot tell an individual what is right or wrong for them. I believe that the moral and ethical question is up to the individual.

As the Declaration of Independence states

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.â€

I cannot tell one how to live their life or how to end it.

I cannot take away the choice of such, the individual is at liberty to choose.

And if assisted suicide is deemed viable by an individual because their quality of life is such, that they are no longer happy living I cannot take away that right either.

Because my forefathers fought and died to secure these rights for me and my family I will do the same.

These are my thoughts and opinions on the matter.

[Caster]

Good post Pfries.

You don't have to like it. I can't say I like it, but I couldn't vote against it either. I don't know what tomorrow holds, and I wouldn't want someone taking options away from me that's none of their business anyway. If a man [or woman] is not physically hurting/endangering someone else It's absolutely NONE of anyone else's business what they do with their life. NONE!

That's everyone's problem in this country. Can't nobody mind their own damn business. ALWAYS with their nose stuck in someone else's life instead of dealing with their own problems. If someone can actually say they have no problems and have so much free time that they need to deal with other people's problems, I'd like to meet them so I can tell them how full of they are.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Caster

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Rush is an idiot...people who believe what he says are worse...they're deluded idiots.

By your definition, I'm proud to be a deluded idiot.

Anyone who would say something like,without knowing to whom he is speaking,

needs a rectal craniotomy performed.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Omnipotent? Cute. Comparing an inanimate object to human life? That's how propaganda gets started.

I agreed with most everything else you stated, pfries. That's where I think some of you misunderstand me.

And I guess that's fine, since this seems to be drifting in the wrong direction.

I would rather keep the option of taking your own life away from hospitals and the medical community,

since their purpose is maintaining and improving life. I never said I had a problem with what an individual

did with his own body. If he wishes to kill himself, so be it, but why is it such a great thing to allow another

to "assist" you in doing it? By allowing another in on this process, I think you open a can of worms legally,

and, until you find Utopia, the justice system will be involved, the federal government will be involved and

ultimately government adopts this as a practice for population control or another, more devious process. I

said "Soyulent Green" only for the contrast and in "Brave New World" the entire society was corrupted

by social engineering. Yes, they are fiction, too, but look what happened in NAZI Germany, and how it

turned out. That's what was going on.

As far as mosinon's assertion that objectivist's all agree with Kevorkian, that is absurd. Don't take one piece

used in the op-ed section of a website and assume everyone agrees. He wasn't writing representing all

on that website. He wrote his opinion. They chose to post it.

Yes, you do have inalienable rights, individual rights, and the right to pursue happiness, but when you codify

laws, sometimes you can infringe on others' rights, can't you? If you don't like my opinion, you don't have to.

It's only an opinion, just like yours. A good discussion of a topic should stimulate others to think about other

possibilities. Otherwise, you're just competing, for what I don't know. Perhaps a misplaced ego?

That article I submitted portrayed the potential problems by putting labels on the types of death, if you will,

and was meant to make you understand a bit more deeply the problems associated with this topic.

It's kind of like someone who says "I believe it's the woman's right to choose" about an abortion. A bit too

shallow for me. They must have heard it somewhere.

[Tnscooter63]

By your definition, I'm proud to be a deluded idiot.

Anyone who would say something like,without knowing to whom he is speaking,

needs a rectal craniotomy performed.

Thank you, Thank you very much 6.8 that makes 2 of us and is much better than obummer koolaid

[Guest pfries]

Comparing an inanimate object to human life? That's how propaganda gets started.

Please see below

I would rather keep the option of taking your own life away from hospitals and the medical community,

The option is still in the individuals hand it is merely to afford the individual a way to do it with professional help (i.e. the comparison)

but why is it such a great thing to allow another to "assist" you in doing it?

Not trying to be blunt here but it is for the same reason you euthanize a pet versus hanging it or shooting it.

It is also because for many, by the time they hit that point in their life they are no longer capable of acquiring the means to do it without assistance.

By allowing another in on this process, I think you open a can of worms legally,

This can has already been opened

And, until you find Utopia, the justice system will be involved, the federal government will be involved and

ultimately government adopts this as a practice for population control or another,

This is why it is still the individual’s choice

As far as mosinon's assertion that objectivist's all agree with Kevorkian, that is absurd. Don't take one piece

used in the op-ed section of a website and assume everyone agrees. He wasn't writing representing all

on that website. He wrote his opinion. They chose to post it.

Whole heartedly agree

If you don't like my opinion, you don't have to.

It's only an opinion, just like yours. A good discussion of a topic should stimulate others to think about other

possibilities.

If I did not like your opinion I would not have put myself into this discussion/debate,

It obviously has gotten me thinking or I would not be posting

Otherwise, you're just competing, for what I don't know. Perhaps a misplaced ego?

These are the statements that would be causing this thread to be “to be drifting in the wrong directionâ€

It's kind of like someone who says "I believe it's the woman's right to choose" about an abortion. A bit too shallow for me. They must have heard it somewhere.

As far as this goes I am against it, however I live in America and realize you have the right to choose for yourself. Whether I like it or not I will do all I can to protect that Right.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I did choose a few words haphazardly, pries.

My apology for that. I was referring to several

others that posted essentially a slur to those

disagreeing with them without expanding on

the point, whatever it may have been.

I do take exception to comparing humans with

pets as a comparison. I'll leave that one alone,

in the interest of not getting someone's dander

up thinking I hate animals, but that isn't really a

good comparison since laws regarding animals

don't compare well with man's law.

My main concern with the Kevorkian approach

stems from ethical behavior with a professional

class, since it is against a physician's purpose.

If one wishes to corrupt another, what else do

we wish to compromise? Where do you draw the

line in ethical behavior and moral behavior?

Politicians do it every time they pass bad

legislation and they do it without regard to it's

impact on society.

This stuff concerning Kevorkian may sound good

to some, and it may actually pass a mob rule

approach somewhere, but I doubt it any time

soon, and I'm glad we haven't quite gotten there

while our republic still stands.

If you( plural) would rather have life made easier,

before you figure out easier ways to die, why not

focus on more productive and beneficial ways of

living first. We can always take some help there.

Hospice care provides a great service to the

terminally ill without resorting to killing. Pain

management and end of life issues are handled

well without new laws allowing for the misuse

of a physician. I find it kind of creepy thinking

about the possibility of my doctor, who has

given me great health care services, that someday

she might be the one who kills me. I don't want to

see it come to that.

When you expand the role of ideologues into

social engineering you and everyone around you

will suffer. Don't use mistaken compassion or altruism

to kill society off because there are plenty willing to

do just that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[East_TN_Patriot]

Funny how we put suffering animals out of their misery and call it humane, but when a coherent human being who is suffering asks to be put out of their misery, society wants to call that murder.

Who does your body and life ultimately belong to? Some politician? Some bureaucrat? Some religious leader? Last time I checked, my body and my life are mine. Those who fully understand and believe in our concept of Natural Rights and human liberty already understand why the answer to this question is important. If we lose control over what we do with our own bodies because someone else doesn't like it, we have lost the greatest part of our liberty.

[G27]

Funny how we put suffering animals out of their misery and call it humane, but when a coherent human being who is suffering asks to be put out of their misery, society wants to call that murder.

Who does your body and life ultimately belong to? Some politician? Some bureaucrat? Some religious leader? Last time I checked, my body and my life are mine. Those who fully understand and believe in our concept of Natural Rights and human liberty already understand why the answer to this question is important. If we lose control over what we do with our own bodies because someone else doesn't like it, we have lost the greatest part of our liberty.

This - big +1.

Fact is, as a Christian, I don't think suicide is the 'right thing to do', but I'm not about to impose my moral beliefs on someone else. Liberty isn't always pretty, but it IS always better than the alternative....

[Guest pfries]

Funny how we put suffering animals out of their misery and call it humane, but when a coherent human being who is suffering asks to be put out of their misery, society wants to call that murder.

Who does your body and life ultimately belong to? Some politician? Some bureaucrat? Some religious leader? Last time I checked, my body and my life are mine. Those who fully understand and believe in our concept of Natural Rights and human liberty already understand why the answer to this question is important. If we lose control over what we do with our own bodies because someone else doesn't like it, we have lost the greatest part of our liberty.

I do agree with both you and 6.8AR respectively I think the largest part of the debate is where do we draw the line?

This is a subject matter that I feel cannot be compromised on. The ultimate choice is up to the individual, when politicians and legislation gets involved things get lost, confusing, oh heck convoluted. We have seen it more times than not.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not imposing any of my morals on anyone

else when I say it isn't the role a physician to

take life. I am imposing on the bastardizing of

medical ethics. If you will notice, I have kept

any of my personal religious beliefs elsewhere

as not to offend. Not needed in this discussion,

anyway.

Once again, if you want to kill yourself, great!

It is morally and ethically wrong to place a physician

in that position, however.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest bkelm18]

Once again, if you want to kill yourself, great!

It is morally and ethically wrong to place a physician

in that position, however.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How is it morally and ethically wrong if the physician chooses to be in that position?

[Guest pfries]

I will apologize for the comparison

6.8AR I believe that it is in making a choice to die peacefully without any more suffering, hospice is a wonderful thing for many. I worked in it for a while; many come to the end with no real suffering to speak of.

You make mention of your Dr., if I were to make that choice I would want to be able to utilize someone I had and could confide in, someone I trusted and knew.

We are not at a point medically/scientifically that we can guarantee pain free comfort to everyone in the end. In my personal opinion this is why the option needs to be left open at least for now.

[enfield]

How is it morally and ethically wrong if the physician chooses to be in that position?

In that case, the wrong is on the part of the physician. And it's wrong to lead another person into that position, or encourage it if it's their choice. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it. Black or white -- everyone has to answer for their deeds.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

How is it morally and ethically wrong if the physician chooses to be in that position?

He quit being a physician when he made that choice. He became death, the destroyer. It would place a normal physician

in an ethical conundrum to be both, to make that choice, if he believes and practices what he was trained to do.

If you want to take the pain out of life, I suggest you find your utopia, first, before you hire your death agent.

Good luck!

Someone start a thread about good and evil. It would be educational.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I will apologize for the comparison

6.8AR I believe that it is in making a choice to die peacefully without any more suffering, hospice is a wonderful thing for many. I worked in it for a while; many come to the end with no real suffering to speak of.

You make mention of your Dr., if I were to make that choice I would want to be able to utilize someone I had and could confide in, someone I trusted and knew.

We are not at a point medically/scientifically that we can guarantee pain free comfort to everyone in the end. In my personal opinion this is why the option needs to be left open at least for now.

I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. To me, it just isn't right reconciling a doctor doing that.

I don't know how to say it any other way. I'm sure this debate will continue for a long time and it will

polarize many, but I think we will do medicine an injustice if we allow this.

I think enfield said what I have been trying to elaborate, well enough.

[East_TN_Patriot]

There is a big difference in my mind between doing malicious harm and compassionate care. Doctors make ethical decisions all the time that result in the deaths of patients. Doctors must do some harm in many cases to help the person's illness. Surgery is doing harm to the patient, but it is done for the purpose of a greater good, which is to give the patient the best quality of life possible. Many treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiation, and pain management do tremendous harm to the patient, but are for the greater good of treating the patient's condition as much as possible, even if it means that the treatment will ultimately lead to the patient's death due to failure of the kidney's, liver, etc. Doctors abort unborn children, sometimes for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. Sometimes doctors must allow a mother to die to save an unborn child. Doctors remove people from life support, which essentially ends their life, and it is done for compassionate reasons. The ethical dilemma in my mind is whether the doctor is neglecting care and/or doing malicious harm, not doing harm in order to stop suffering.

[G27]

He quit being a physician when he made that choice. He became death, the destroyer. It would place a normal physician

in an ethical conundrum to be both, to make that choice, if he believes and practices what he was trained to do.

So again, how is this different from 'pulling the plug' or not furnishing nutrition to a patient - common end of life occurrences handled by doctors? Those are actions taken by the physician to end the life of the patient at their orders...

[enfield]

Terri Schiavo was murdered through the connivance of her husband, doctors and the court. Her death was ignored by all of the major religious denominations, including the Catholic church, who wouldn't even issue a statement condemning her torment. I begged the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church USA to at least notice the case and make a statement against the ruling.

Nothing.

She was tortured to death, forced to suffer death through slow, excruciating dehydration. It wasn't euthanasia - even a sick dog is treated better. It was all legal.

Is that plain enough?