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

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

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?

This is actually part of the argument FOR assisted suicide. She had to go through that because Florida law allows you to be taken off life support (including nutrition), but does not allow your physician to administer a lethal dose of pain medication. The only options for her were being in a permanent vegetative state until she died, or to have nutrition removed causing death through dehydration. People who would permit assisted suicide are essentially asking for a third option - quick death without suffering. This would not be FORCED on anyone, of course, it would just be a permitted option. In fact, where such things are allowed, it probably wouldn't even have been on the option in Ms. Schiavo's case unless she had selected that for herself while still competent.

Look into how things are done in Oregon if you want to see how assisted suicide plays out in real life.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Crimsonaudio. Withdrawing support on a dying patient and allowing that patient to have pain medication

is different from injecting a drug to cause death isn't it? One is considered natural and the other is

considered killing, for what ever reason one wishes to gloss it over. I am thinking you and others are

considering it to be splitting hairs, but medical ethics defines the action a doctor may take and it does

not include taking a life.

Law of Causality "The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action.

All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of

the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature . . .

Extend that to human life. It isn't a natural act when one causes another to die.

"Pulling the plug" as you call it is something I do have experience with. Glad you asked.

Before that happens, it is determined that the patient is considered not viable by physicians,

nurses, medical ethicists and the family, not to mention the patient, if conscious. Also the

declaration by the patient by a living will or other legal document, witnessed. In other words,

careful review and understanding that upon a set of legally met circumstances the patient will

no longer be benefitting from any heroic or other medical treatment. Emphasis is on the use of

the word medical treatment to assume it means aiding in the life of the patient, not to be

confused with what some might consider a physician's role as a taker of life, in the case of Dr.

Kevorkian.

The patients he assisted might have been confused about what he was doing, due to the patient's:

state of mind at the time of agreeing to his style of treatment(murder), level of consciousness,

anxiety, and his own disclosures. We don't know those answers but they are suspect. Anyway,

the patients are dead, that's for certain. Compare all that to having surgery and consider what you

have to agree to when you have it. What he did was against all established medical protocol.

I fear that many people view this with their emotions instead of reason. Physicians can't do that

and for good reason.

I forgot who compared the dog and the patient and am too lazy to go back, but the dog didn't

have any say in the matter. The human may have some say, but not to have a physician put him

out of his misery by killing. Hospices don't kill people. They let them die with what ever dignity is

left. I think it's a distinctive difference.

If given this much thought, I imagine anything could eventually be rationalized, but not when logic

and reason is applied. There is no such animal as an inalienable right to have someone kill you.

[G27]

Oh well, agree to disagree I guess. Neither one of us is changing our mind here.

[enfield]

This is actually part of the argument FOR assisted suicide. She had to go through that because Florida law allows you to be taken off life support (including nutrition), but does not allow your physician to administer a lethal dose of pain medication. The only options for her were being in a permanent vegetative state until she died, or to have nutrition removed causing death through dehydration. People who would permit assisted suicide are essentially asking for a third option - quick death without suffering. This would not be FORCED on anyone, of course, it would just be a permitted option. In fact, where such things are allowed, it probably wouldn't even have been on the option in Ms. Schiavo's case unless she had selected that for herself while still competent.

Look into how things are done in Oregon if you want to see how assisted suicide plays out in real life.

Really.

A woman, not known to be suffering, not known to be in a persistent vegetative state but only diagnosed as such, being slowly tortured to death, without cause, is better off if someone kills her quickly? That makes it all okey-dokey? No harm, no foul? Is it a mercy killing when the person killed isn't known to be suffering -- when the victim's continued existence is merely inconvenient?

Why involve a doctor at all? What do you have against doctors? What do you do when you can't find a doctor to do the dirty work for you? Do you strangle them yourself?

Your "Brave New World" is my hell.

[bajabuc]

It's all got to do with the money...it's always about the money...it's never been anything else but the money and it will never be about humaine and gentle because there's no money in it!

Don't kid yourself with God and divine..He's in it for the money too. Why do you think the Catholic Church in Rome has Gold Chalices?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Oh well, agree to disagree I guess. Neither one of us is changing our mind here.

That's alright. So we have different opinions. I guess I'm a bit surprised, though that the distinction isn't

apparent to you. There is nothing natural in the act of killing another person. In any situation, not just this

one.

[Daniel]

What is so unnatural about it?>

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Why don't you start by telling me why you think it is natural? I've covered this I think.

[Oh Shoot]

Why don't you start by telling me why you think it is natural?..

Well, 3rd person on earth killed the 4th, for starters, and it's escalated from there.

- OS

[dats82]

I have bowed out of this discussion, but sense Schiavo was brought up, I would like to interject one tangential issue. Make SURE you have your documents in place to handle things if you were to find yourself in such a situation. She had no living will or power of attorney established which is what allowed the two opposing positions to argue and lead to such a debacle. It is sad that young people are typically the individuals who are subject to the injuries that cause vegetative states and such, and the young people are the least likely to have arrangements in place. I am being hypocritical here, but I will be taking care of it this summer prior to my wedding.

That is all. Carry on

[Guest WyattEarp]

All:______________

Here is some good news for the human race. Dr. Jack Kevorkian has finally "experienced and studied the dying process first hand".

Link here: Assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian dies | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Some may not see it this way; but i believe it is a great day for mankind. The Death Angel has finally called on this alleged researcher into the dying process. He has finally joined that other noted researcher Joseph Mengele. I say good riddance!

leroy

it's interesting that we as a nation, put down cats and dogs and other animals to end their suffering when they are at the end of their life span, or are mortally wounded/injured, but we're not humane enough to end the suffering of a human being who is dying from a terminal illness and/or mortal injuries/wounds.

seems a bit hypocritical to me. If a person wants to make the decision to have their suffering eased by ending their life and requests someone's assistance, whose business is it of anyone else's to stop them?

If I ever get cancer or some terminal illness, I'll fight it until the doc says the end is near or the pain/suffering is so great I can't stand it, then I'm pulling out my hand gun and putting a bullet in my head to end my suffering.

[enfield]

If I ever get cancer or some terminal illness, I'll fight it until the doc says the end is near or the pain/suffering is so great I can't stand it, then I'm pulling out my hand gun and putting a bullet in my head to end my suffering.

That's more manly than forcing someone else to kill you, through an imagined 'right'. Cain slew Abel, so it's apparently OK for the rest of us to murder. Oh, and the Pope approves, because he has a gold cup.

[Guest BenderBendingRodriguez]

If I ever get cancer or some terminal illness, I'll fight it until the doc says the end is near or the pain/suffering is so great I can't stand it, then I'm pulling out my hand gun and putting a bullet in my head to end my suffering.

To be clear, assisted suicide typically comes up when people are at the place described by Wyatt in terms of pain/suffering, but are physically incapable of killing themselves. Think in terms of someone who has lost all motor control due to, say, Parkinson's. Assuming they are interested in not hanging around in suffering until they die, they can either kill themselves while they still lead a productive life or... hang around and suffer until they die.

Assisted suicide lets that person live as long as they still believe their life is worth living, without worrying that they will wait to long and be physically unable to kill themselves at the time they believe their suffering is too great and just have to live out the rest of their days in agony.

Maybe you think that suicide is never the right answer (this is not directed at you, Wyatt), but if you believe that suicide is on the table under some circumstances, it seems especially cruel to tell people with these diseases AND WHO WANT TO END THEIR LIFE WHEN THEY THINK IT IS NO LONGER WORTH LIVING (emphasis because this is a personal decision -- no one here is seriously discussing forcing euthanasia on anyone against their will) that they either have to suck it up and suffer until they die naturally or they have to kill themselves before they perceive their life as intolerable.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, 3rd person on earth killed the 4th, for starters, and it's escalated from there.

- OS

That wasn't a natural act. I'm referring a natural

act as one where something happens to your

own body(disease, car wreck, etc.), without being

caused by another person. Dying without another

one's action is different from another one being

involved. The 3rd and 4th person on earth have

nothing to do with this. I've stayed away from the

Bible on this topic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest clownsdd]

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.

Very well put.....=+100

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So far, most people arguing in favor of assisted

suicide haven't considered what Dats82 said.

Something that is very important if you feel strongly

that you don't wish to linger is, put your wishes

in writing and have someone witness it. This

choice about a Kevorkian style end won't be

necessary, and it will also end this moral and

philosophical bankruptcy.

As I said before, that cat or dog had no choice

for or against euthanasia. A human made that

choice. One human making that choice for another

can lead to other nasty social practices.

Leroy's assertion about Mengele and Kevorkian

was absolutely right. Saying it is absurd is to deny

history. And history gets revised all the time by

those with an agenda.

You know? Ask Sarah Palin about that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Daniel]

Who said the choice was made for anyone,except you?

No one is advocating outside individuals make that choice.

[Daniel]

That wasn't a natural act. I'm referring a natural

act as one where something happens to your

own body(disease, car wreck, etc.), without being

caused by another person. Dying without another

one's action is different from another one being

involved. The 3rd and 4th person on earth have

nothing to do with this. I've stayed away from the

Bible on this topic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

this is a misunderstanding obviously. You are using it in terms of dying of "natural causes". What constitues natural causes for you? Anything not caused by man?

[Daniel]

I am saying it is completely natural for people to.kill each other.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What's an act of volition? Is that natural, too?

We have been talking about something quite

different, though. Are you equating the battle

field to all the other forms of death and dying?

That's quite a leap.

An act of volition requires thought, Daniel, and then

reason, before action. So that is the new definition

of natural? I don't follow. Please expand.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Daniel]

I am not following you.

[mikegideon]

That's more manly than forcing someone else to kill you, through an imagined 'right'. Cain slew Abel, so it's apparently OK for the rest of us to murder. Oh, and the Pope approves, because he has a gold cup.

If we're still talking about Kevorkian, he technically wasn't killing them. He was setting it up for them, and having them mash the button. That's how he stayed out of prison for so long (until he finally crossed that line). It was much closer to handing them a gun, and putting their finger on the trigger.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

this is a misunderstanding obviously. You are using it in terms of dying of "natural causes". What constitues natural causes for you? Anything not caused by man?

Not necessarily but that's close enough for this.

Saying it is natural for a man to kill another doesn't make sense. Do men do this? All the time!

Is it right, or justified? Sometimes. Is it murder sometimes? Yes. For you to call killing another

man natural, you would have to escape any emotional or rational thoughts. Without reason,

you cannot make a judgement of right or wrong. Either it is by pathology or lack of some kind

of mental capacity somewhere in your mind.

If you say something is natural because it is done every day, you leave out your argument for

of causality. the question is "why?"

I'm really struggling to understand what you are trying to get at. That's why I asked you to expand

on your thoughts.

"I am saying it is completely natural for people to.kill each other." Put your reasoning behind it and try

to justify a killing in whatever scenario you wish. Then we can talk about it. okay? It's not that simple.

It's certainly not natural.

[Daniel]

I have attempted to kill, I have no idea if I succeeded, people that were trying to kill me and my friends. I found nothing unnatural about it. I do not feel bad for them if I did in fact kill them nor, I am sure, do they feel bad for killing my friends. It was simply something that had to be done. People talk about how horrible it would be to have to shoot someone and I am here to tell you that it isn't that big of a deal. You have stated that it is not natural and I am simply asking why you think it is so.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You are talking about a battlefield situation. Your life is in imminent danger. You are doing

a job. It is justified. I imagine to you they are targets. That's understandable. Still not a natural

act. A force of law, an act of war, and an act of self defense are justifiable, which is a reason for

the action. It doesn't make it natural, only justifies it, in that case.