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

[Guest Drewsett]

Like most here I feel that a person should have the right to end their own life on their own terms. I have seen terminal illnesses in friends and family and I wouldn't wish that sort of pain on anyone. A doctor who is following his patient's wishes to end their own life is not doing any harm, especially if the patient is the one who initiates the actual process. Dr. K provided the means to the end that his patients desired.

I'd rather have a society where a person can take their own life in a dignified manner than a society where a government gets involved in a doctor-patient relationship.

[G27]

dats82 - fantastic post. Thank you.

[Guest clownsdd]

dats82:woohoo:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Soyulent Green

Ah, that's the heroic way of dying. "Put me out of my misery!"

My father lived a long lingering time before he died. As best I recall he never asked anyone to

give him anything to let him die. He wanted to see as much of his one grandson as he could.

He was given pain medication and was allowed to die at home. Maybe it was his religious beliefs.

I'm not sure, but I'm of the same beliefs. When you take another's life, you also take the responsibility

of his life. You better be damned sure you're right, because turning back if you do it.

Pimping out a doctor is the wrong use of medicine because their job is preserving life.

Ah, these quality of life issues always get thrown in to complicate matters. Any of you guys died lately.

How'd it feel? Was it painful? What the Hell do you know about death, except from a textbook, or

from some politicized argument about life and death. I know somewhere in biological life there will be an

example of self euthanizing. Never heard of it, but just like the gay penguins, someone will.

Work in a hospital for a while and see what kind of problems there are with life and death issues with

doctors and nurses, chaplains and priests, not to mention the law.

I just can't find an example where medicine is supposed to put the idea of killing in the doctor's hands

to better you or society. His or her job is to preserve life and/or improve it.

Now, if you are a communist or some version of population controller, you might approve of it. It's all

in Obamacare, when you figure that one out. If you truly believe human beings are wrecking this

planet, you might also believe in killing off your own species, except yourself, of course.

I just don't get it, I guess. Maybe while killing off grandma or grandpa and allowing abortions because

the fetus contains trisomy-21 or is to be otherwise born handicapped and you have embraced eugenics,

we will improve society and will finally be a free and just society.

I think all that stuff is tied together.

[G27]

I just can't find an example where medicine is supposed to put the idea of killing in the doctor's hands

to better you or society. His or her job is to preserve life and/or improve it.

While it's fun to throw up all sorts of extreme examples of killing off grandma and grandpa (sarcasm), how do you explain pulling the plug on life support according to the wishes of the patient?

And for the record, what Dr. K did (in all but one case, iirc) was set up the system so the patient could kill themselves.

[Ebow1]

I died about a week and a half ago.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

While it's fun to throw up all sorts of extreme examples of killing off grandma and grandpa (sarcasm), how do you explain pulling the plug on life support according to the wishes of the patient?

And for the record, what Dr. K did (in all but one case, iirc) was set up the system so the patient could kill themselves.

There's no fun in this discussion at all. Kevorkian, by his acts, whether he pushed a button, or the victim did doesn't matter. He facilitated an act, borne by a belief that went against medicine. I think that's wrong. If the victim does it on his own, what's the difference? Volition and determination. It's not a right, but simply a choice and I don't agree with it. You just don't go to a doctor and ask to die. Well, I guess there are some that will, nowadays.

Assisted suicide, hmm. Something about that just doesn't sound right. I brought up the politics of it to also give you a reason to ponder about the ramifications when the government gets involved and evidentually uses it as a tool for something a bit more nefarious. But that's just that old slippery slope argument, isn't it?

Our founders said and wrote a lot about freedoms and rights and how to protect them, but I guess they figured dying and it's qualifications didn't need this depth. They did warn about the evils of government and how it could corrupt anything. That's why I said "Soyulent Green".

If you want to kill yourself, I can't help that, but don't include me in the process. Do it on your own terms, only, and be successful and happy with your results, but don't politicize it. I'll take another path, thank you.

[dats82]

6.8, I am sorry to hear that your father had a lingering death, but that goes back to autonomy. It was his choice to stick around as long as he could to spend precious moments with your family. That is noble, and I will never argue that he made the wrong decision. However, I will also never condemn a person who decides it is time to go when they have reached the point of medical futility.

Your argument about practicing eugenics holds no water. There is not a fine line between assisted suicide and government killings with death panels. I think it would be more akin to an twelve foot prison fence topped with razor wire. There is a very clear distinction, and that distinction is who is making the choice. Your argument against assisted suicide is actually the more communist way to look at it. Telling a patient that they are not allowed to choose how they leave this world and allowing the government to decide what final care they do or do not receive is giving the power to the governmemt, i.e. less autonomy (freedom) for the patient.

Practicing medicine is about the art of caring for the patient. Preserving life means nothing and is not noble or sacred when you remove the person from the equation. The discussion here is not about arbitrarily killing off people because they are old and are of no use to society. This is an issue on how you provide the best care possible for patients who have reached the point of medical futility and who wish to be in complete control of their care through the end. This dicussion should never involve third party money or the burden on society. It is strictly about a patient's complete freedom to decide how to live their life. Is one course out of life more noble or more right? That is not for you or anyone other than the patient to decide.

It is clear this is an emotional issue. I have always been told you cannot use logic to argue against emotion.

Edited June 4, 2011 by dats82

[Caster]

Soyulent Green

Ah, that's the heroic way of dying. "Put me out of my misery!"

My father lived a long lingering time before he died. As best I recall he never asked anyone to

give him anything to let him die. He wanted to see as much of his one grandson as he could.

He was given pain medication and was allowed to die at home. Maybe it was his religious beliefs.

I'm not sure, but I'm of the same beliefs. When you take another's life, you also take the responsibility

of his life. You better be damned sure you're right, because turning back if you do it.

Pimping out a doctor is the wrong use of medicine because their job is preserving life.

Ah, these quality of life issues always get thrown in to complicate matters. Any of you guys died lately.

How'd it feel? Was it painful? What the Hell do you know about death, except from a textbook, or

from some politicized argument about life and death. I know somewhere in biological life there will be an

example of self euthanizing. Never heard of it, but just like the gay penguins, someone will.

Work in a hospital for a while and see what kind of problems there are with life and death issues with

doctors and nurses, chaplains and priests, not to mention the law.

I just can't find an example where medicine is supposed to put the idea of killing in the doctor's hands

to better you or society. His or her job is to preserve life and/or improve it.

Now, if you are a communist or some version of population controller, you might approve of it. It's all

in Obamacare, when you figure that one out. If you truly believe human beings are wrecking this

planet, you might also believe in killing off your own species, except yourself, of course.

I just don't get it, I guess. Maybe while killing off grandma or grandpa and allowing abortions because

the fetus contains trisomy-21 or is to be otherwise born handicapped and you have embraced eugenics,

we will improve society and will finally be a free and just society.

I think all that stuff is tied together.

Well it's not tied together. The subject in the OP was about one's own life. Abortion deals with someone else's life. As does "Killing off" grandma and grandpa. A person's life is theirs to do with as they please. You cannot make that call for others, but you should have every right to make that decision for yourselves. ANd if grandma or grandpa should want to make that decision for themselves who is anyone to be so selfish as to tell them they are not free to do so.

Sounds more like "Freedom and Liberty as long as you're exactly like us." <----- that attitude is why I say God is great, religion is crap and forgive me Lord but half your followers are nuts.

Honestly the people that cry "Wrong" on this [and you have every right to think so!] sound to me like "Well it's always been that way, that makes it right." Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm at peace with the way I feel so I really don't much care.

Edit: I meant "Organized Religion" BTW

Edited June 4, 2011 by Caster
clarification

[bajabuc]

I died three times in the hospital, I know what happens, I know how it feels, and I know how it feels to come back. Dying is cool...coming back sucks...for a number of reasons.

Caster...you got it...God is great...religion sucks.

Edited June 4, 2011 by bajabuc

[pitt2magic]

I think the man deserved a Nobel prize. While I also do not agree with suicide I believe that he gave the terminally ill a peaceful, less painful way of ending their lives. If you know that all you have left is a few weeks or months of pain and misery why should have to suffer because someone else thinks it is wrong to end your own life?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

6.8, I am sorry to hear that your father had a lingering death, but that goes back to autonomy. It was his choice to stick around as long as he could to spend precious moments with your family. That is noble, and I will never argue that he made the wrong decision. However, I will also never condemn a person who decides it is time to go when they have reached the point of medical futility.

Your argument about practicing eugenics holds no water. There is not a fine line between assisted suicide and government killings with death panels. I think it would be more akin to an twelve foot prison fence topped with razor wire. There is a very clear distinction, and that distinction is who is making the choice. Your argument against assisted suicide is actually the more communist way to look at it. Telling a patient that they are not allowed to choose how they leave this world and allowing the government to decide what final care they do or do not receive is giving the power to the governmemt, i.e. less autonomy (freedom) for the patient.

Practicing medicine is about the art of caring for the patient. Preserving life means nothing and is not noble or sacred when you remove the person from the equation. The discussion here is not about arbitrarily killing off people because they are old and are of no use to society. This is an issue on how you provide the best care possible for patients who have reached the point of medical futility and who wish to be in complete control of their care through the end. This dicussion should never involve third party money or the burden on society. It is strictly about a patient's complete freedom to decide how to live their life. Is one course out of life more noble or more right? That is not for you or anyone other than the patient to decide.

It is clear this is an emotional issue. I have always been told you cannot use logic to argue against emotion.

Unfortunately you and others weren't paying attention when I said there is something wrong with all this.

I said I didn't care what you did with your life, but there is something wrong with involving someone else

in the process.

If you wish to die, at some point, that's fine with me. Just don't go looking for someone to help you.

I wasn't looking for pity about my father, either. It was the sole experience I have on the subject, and I came away with the thoughts I have now. He did die peacefully. He had pain medication. Sometimes I gave it to him. He never asked anyone to push a bunch of it and let him go, but I guess that was just him.

I added those examples of killing to offset the topic only, with other versions of mutilation that have been done in the past. If you feel comfortable with this stuff and allowing it to be codified into law, good for you. I don't.

Asking a doctor for pain meds is one thing, but asking him to kill you is quite another.

babajuc, when you "died" and came back(not being sarcastic at all) was it voluntary? I've heard of these stories from lots of places. People have experiences like this. The difference is the action that caused it. Actions have consequences. So do natural acts. There is a difference, though.

Y'all really took too much out of my saying "killing off grandpa" and led the argument away from my intentions.

Caster, you may think they aren't tied together, but they usually end up that way. "You cannot make that call for others, but you should have every right to make that decision for yourselves." I didn't disagree with that at all. But Kevorkian placed himself in that position by facilitating other's deaths. If one aids and abets, is he not a party in a transaction, action, crime, whatever? He made the call for others by being part of it. Did I interject anything religious? I didn't think so.

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

Rationalizing life away and you end up with less of it.

[Guest Bronker]

I believe there are far worse things in life than dying.

I believe in dignity and decency associated with quality of life, more so than the quantity of life that we often seek from exhausting all available options to prolong existence, merely because we falsely believe we have the capability of doing so.

Mankind is guilty of doing this, and so is the medical community. Yes, I'm talking to myself included. I believe in research; however, I do not advocate mankind in any capacity making the decision who has 'quality' of life, and thus, making the decision who shall be granted 'quantity'.

I also believe that there is one God who has appointed the time that man should live and die. To think that we can intervene in preventing death...or assisting it...in contrast to His will, is futile.

Your opinion's mileage may vary

[Guest 6.8 AR]

While it's fun to throw up all sorts of extreme examples of killing off grandma and grandpa (sarcasm), how do you explain pulling the plug on life support according to the wishes of the patient?

And for the record, what Dr. K did (in all but one case, iirc) was set up the system so the patient could kill themselves.

Actually, the protocall of discontinuing life support is more complicated than just turning off equipment.

There has to be a point reached where the life support does nothing but nourish and breathe a patient

but death can be defined several ways. Brain death or damage. A doctor can determine whether a patient

is still viable but will not do anything to kill. He will act on the wishes of stopping heroic measures only after

knowing the patient and/or family is well informed and has consent to stop using those measures, or, in the

case of emergencies, reaches the point of no viability and stops resuscitation because he has made the

determination that the patient has already died and there is no point.

I see a distinct difference between the two ideas, don't you?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think the man deserved a Nobel prize. While I also do not agree with suicide I believe that he gave the terminally ill a peaceful, less painful way of ending their lives. If you know that all you have left is a few weeks or months of pain and misery why should have to suffer because someone else thinks it is wrong to end your own life?

Yeh, he fits right well with a Nobel Prize, just like Obama and Al Gore.

[dats82]

6.8, are you a physician? I am not being a smartass, I am just trying to understand where you are coming from and what your strong opinions are founded on.

From what I can gather, it seems like you are okay with the terminal patients taking proactive measures, but you have an unwavering objection to using medical practices to facilitate. Unless you are practicing medicine, I am having a hard time understanding why you are so adamant in rejecting the idea of physicians providing this type of care to the patient. I have a strong interest in these types of issues, so I am just trying to understand the basis of your argument.

[pitt2magic]

6.8, are you a physician? I am not being a smartass, I am just trying to understand where you are coming from and what your strong opinions are founded on.

From what I can gather, it seems like you are okay with the terminal patients taking proactive measures, but you have an unwavering objection to using medical practices to facilitate. Unless you are practicing medicine, I am having a hard time understanding why you are so adamant in rejecting the idea of physicians providing this type of care to the patient. I have a strong interest in these types of issues, so I am just trying to understand the basis of your argument.

Whether or not he is in the medical field or not he sure appears to be closed minded. My wife is an doctor and I have been an ER/ICU nurse for 13 years. I have seen a lot of suffering and for me to say that someone should be forced to live when they are terminal and have nothing left to live for but pain and suffering is disgusting. Who are any of us to make that judgement for another person? Pulling someone off life support and turning off feeding tubes is much more cruel than giving the patient a peaceful option to ending their life. Simply stopping life support can leave the patient with hours, days or weeks of suffering. I have watched hundreds of people die, most of them died without the dignity that they probably deserved. Obviously this is not an issue that everyone is going to agree on.

[Mike.357]

Jack provided a real service to people who were not in a position to end their lives. Most of these people would not have had the physical where with all to get up and pull their plug or access a pistol to shoot themselves.

Just because a book of fiction proclaims it immoral or a sin to end ones own life should not even enter into it.

People have a right to dignity both in life and death. No one should have to die an agonizing death.

[Daniel]

Jack provided a real service to people who were not in a position to end their lives. Most of these people would not have had the physical where with all to get up and pull their plug or access a pistol to shoot themselves.

Just because a book of fiction proclaims it immoral or a sin to end ones own life should not even enter into it.

People have a right to dignity both in life and death. No one should have to die an agonizing death.

this.

[Guest mosinon]

but what would the objectivists say?

Apparently they supported Dr. Kervorkian

[mikegideon]

Jack provided a real service to people who were not in a position to end their lives. Most of these people would not have had the physical where with all to get up and pull their plug or access a pistol to shoot themselves.

Just because a book of fiction proclaims it immoral or a sin to end ones own life should not even enter into it.

People have a right to dignity both in life and death. No one should have to die an agonizing death.

I think most (maybe all) of his patients had to hit their own buttons. I agree with what you're saying though.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Let me ask a question of you gentlemen. Did I step on anyone's toes here? Did I say something that offended someone's intelligent thoughts? Did I tell someone that they were closed minded?

I will say this about my thoughts and leave it at that. Evidently I am a tiny bit more conservative in my thoughts and deeds than many. Hell, I'm older than most of you. I hope none of you thought I was trying to sway you to my way of thinking. That would be very undignified of me. I don't think I've ever tried to do that around here.

Now, if we are trying to gather a concensus and try to get everyone to agree, I think that would be rather closed minded, don't you folks? I merely stated my opinion, based on my years of life experiences.

No, I am not a doctor. Is that a qualification for stating an opinion? My wife is a nurse. Does that help? How many experts on this topic do we have on this forum? I'm certainly not going to brag on some credentials because it isn't necessary for me to feel better about myself for the sake of attempting to persuade you to agree with me.

I only stated my opinion. Get a life.

If you claim to be open minded and have such a strong opinion, it sounds like a contradiction to me.

Here. Kevorkian was a saint. Hug a tree. God Bless America. I had to throw that last part in since it's fiction, anyway.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Interesting what Rush had to say.

"RUSH: I guess now Obama's gonna have to find somebody else to head up the death panels. I understand that Kevorkian was leading the list there. You know, Kevorkian did an interview with CNN not long ago. Jack Kevorkian said that the worst moment of his life was the moment he was born. And he was serious. He was dead serious. Now, he died, as you know, in the comfort and the pleasant confines of a hospital, receiving the best of treatment available. He didn't go to the back of a VW bus and have somebody shoot him up with a disease like he was doing with other people.

Jack Kevorkian has assumed room temperature at age 83. The New York Times has an obituary, and they call him "fiercely principled." This is a guy who killed people. This is a guy who took psychologically weak people and convinced them they'd be better off dead. Fiercely principled. I don't think they ever said anything that laudatory in their obituary for William F. Buckley Jr. back in 2008. Now, they do point out here one of the drugs that he was using in his so-called assisted suicide was thiopental. It has been banned from death row in America because it's considered to be too inhumane. That's what he was using. The New York Times also gave Kevorkian his first interview the same day he performed his first assisted suicide in the back of a VW van. The only thing missing was Arlo Guthrie. And there's an excerpt in this obituary, there's an excerpt from a CNN interview from this time last year where Kevorkian says the worst moment of his life was the moment that he was born. It was an interview with Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who is the medical grand pooh-bah on CNN.

"He [Kevorkian] shifted his gaze from his lawyer back to me. 'Sanjay, you want to know the single worst moment of my life?' That wasn't the question I asked, but in fact I was curious to know the answer. 'OK,' I replied - a little uneasily. He smiled now and said in a very deliberate, almost staccato voice: 'The single worst moment of my life... was the moment I was born.'"

Fiercely principled, Jack Kevorkian, and he may have had a point. "Mr. Kevorkian suffered from ailments yet he stubbornly insisted on being treated in a hospital and clinging to life. ... The cause of his death was not immediately known, but local media reported that he had suffered from kidney and respiratory problems and that his condition had been worsening in recent days. His death was confirmed by Geoffrey Feiger, the lawyer who represented him during several of his trials in the 1990s."

So no instant suicide for him. No 72 virgins for him. Go convince everybody else that it's a virtuous thing to die, but not for Jack Kevorkian. Listen to this. "Dr. Kevorkian rediscovered the fascination with death, not as a private event but as a focus of public policy ... Fiercely principled and highly inflexible, he rarely dated and never married. He lived a penurious life, eating little, avoiding luxury and dressing in threadbare clothing that he often bought at the Salvation Army and Goodwill. In 1976, bored with medicine, he moved to Long Beach, Calif., where he spent 12 years producing an unsuccessful film about Handel’s 'Messiah,' painting and writing, supporting himself with part-time pathology positions at two hospitals." But he wasn't crazy. No, of course not. Dr. Death, no way. He was not crazy."

Public policy. Now that's interesting. I'll have to look that one up. "The moment I was born." Some

worst moment. That's a real gem.

My opinion was about Kevorkian, not your right to die.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Maybe this will help explain some of my view on this subject. I hope so.

American Thinker- Print Article

I've followed Dr. Jack Kevorkian as long as he was doing the deed. It doesn't make me an expert on him,

but i have given it a lot of thought throughout the years. He was a twisted person and had some real

twisted issues with life but apparently none with death.

Individual choice doesn't mean calling someone up and ordering assisted suicide. Maybe Dr. Kaplan will explain

it better.

And I certainly don't want to go into the politics of this.

[bajabuc]

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