Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2007 20:00:43 GMT -5
> Should our society allow its citizen who are terminally ill the privilege of picking the place, time and method of their death?
To answer the poll, choose "Right" if you think Kevorkian is right to allow a person to do himself or herself in.
|
|
|
Post by stray on May 31, 2007 20:01:38 GMT -5
He's absolutely right.
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on May 31, 2007 20:31:36 GMT -5
"Terminally ill" means call in hospice. So, does the pt. have to wait for whatever is eating them alive suffer? When the pain meds no longer work what is the ill to do? Increase the dose? Meanwhile the family also must wait and suffer and watch their loved one become so medicated that they are no longer a person.
The family calls in a Dr. Kevorkian he sets up an IV with a cocktail that will end the suffering and allow the pt. to move on peaceful and with grace.
I realize that there are issues, but it should be a family affair not a legal issue.
|
|
Dreamwebber
Senior Forumite
Denise Who?
Burning up my minutes since 1973
Posts: 2,181
|
Post by Dreamwebber on Jun 1, 2007 0:15:51 GMT -5
I am all for euthanasia!!! As long as the patient has a living will or is of sound mind when the decision was made.
|
|
|
Post by tcrashfx on Jun 1, 2007 4:10:21 GMT -5
Me, too!
And I have a list of people that need it......................
|
|
Felix
Global Moderator
Tepid One
Happy Morning
Posts: 4,137
|
Post by Felix on Jun 1, 2007 7:04:01 GMT -5
tcrash, endorsing euthanasia: And I have a list of people that need it...................... To which I add, "retroactively, as in at birth."
|
|
whimdriven
Full Member
Dagny Taggert
Minimum Rage
Posts: 448
|
Post by whimdriven on Jun 1, 2007 7:16:05 GMT -5
It's nice to see Jack get out of prison. He says he will continue to work, within the law, to pressure legislators on assisted suicide. I wish him much success.
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on Jun 1, 2007 7:28:05 GMT -5
Without a right to death, you have no "right" to live, it becomes a requirement. Whose idea was it to grant control of life & death to the state?
Maybe attempted suicide should be a capitol offense.
And in some cases I could agree with retroactive abortions ;D
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on Jun 1, 2007 9:50:45 GMT -5
He will be having a news conference next week .
And since we do live in the Bible belt. I thought some might like to read this
Department of Sociology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202.
Work on the impact of religion on suicide has not yielded consistent results. Classic Durkheimian models stressing religious affiliation (Catholic vs Protestant) have been questioned in recent years and some authors have argued for a model based on the alternative conception of religious commitment (e.g. religiosity per se) as a prophylactic against suicide. Almost all of this work has been based on highly aggregated data where it is not known if nonreligious people account for the suicides. The present study tests both models with national data on 1,687 respondents. No support is found for the Durkheimian model at the individual level, but some is found for the religious commitment model: the greater the church attendance the lower the approval of suicide. The effect of religiosity on suicide ideation is independent of education, gender, marital status, and age.
|
|
Jay
Senior Forumite
Captain Cupcake
Posts: 5,070
|
Post by Jay on Jun 2, 2007 0:28:38 GMT -5
I think the answer is 42...
|
|
Kordax
Senior Forumite
Hank Rearden
Posts: 2,537
|
Post by Kordax on Jun 2, 2007 7:14:58 GMT -5
Kevorkian is the patron saint of the unpaid hospital bill which, as everyone knows, really soars through the stratosphere as life is almost over for insured’s & uninsured’s alike. By convincing medical care providers that it's just & good to assist in offing the elderly, America might save billions of dollars which could be better spent on fully funding public skools' wish lists or paying for mo better Head Start or giving gang members $50/hour "jobs" to bribe them into civility. And when the elderly are offed sooner, their heirs won't have to fret about wasting huge chunks of their inheritance on someone who lacks the good graces to drop dead ASAP as happens now.
|
|
Dreamwebber
Senior Forumite
Denise Who?
Burning up my minutes since 1973
Posts: 2,181
|
Post by Dreamwebber on Jun 2, 2007 14:35:05 GMT -5
I would think if it was assisted suicide the family wouldn't be able to cash in the life insurance policy but, maybe I am wrong. So, in that instance the family would have to weigh their inheritance vs the policy lol
But, anyway, Did Kevorkian assist anyone other than the patient? I don't remember any cases where it was the family's decision and not the patient.
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on Jun 2, 2007 15:01:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Jun 4, 2007 8:06:39 GMT -5
Kordax, perhaps you have your parents or grandparents still around, or perhaps you are old enough that when they passed, there were no machines that would keep them alive for months or even years. But I've seen what "life" is like for someone who cannot live on their own, and are hooked up to tubes and ventilators and machines. It may be "life" but it is not living. Let them pull the plug. If that won't let them be, let them take the chemical cocktail.
|
|
Kordax
Senior Forumite
Hank Rearden
Posts: 2,537
|
Post by Kordax on Jun 4, 2007 9:53:28 GMT -5
It may be "life" but it is not living. Let them pull the plug. If that won't let them be, let them take the chemical cocktail.
Worm, I've witnessed relatives' going through end of life traumas & procedures & I agree with half of what you said -- "let them pull the plug" with qualifiers. Under no circumstances would I ever support that decision being made by medical personnel who decided for someone else that the patient's "quality of life" necessitated offing them -- that's a big HELL NO, GOOD BUDDY. It's moral for healthcare people to follow the directions & wishes contained in a bonafide living will where it's usual & customary to direct medical personnel not to use Herculean life saving procedures given a terminal illness/injury diagnosis. By not having a living will, the patient forces family members into an untenable position where others try to read the incapacitated mind of their loved one. It forces medical care pros into participating in calculated euthanasia which isn’t part of their job description.
As to the cocktail, forget it – poisoning people should always be a criminal offence regardless of anyone’s desire to the contrary.
|
|
Felix
Global Moderator
Tepid One
Happy Morning
Posts: 4,137
|
Post by Felix on Jun 4, 2007 11:43:27 GMT -5
Kordax asserted: Under no circumstances would I ever support that decision being made by medical personnel who decided for someone else that the patient's "quality of life" necessitated offing them -- that's a big HELL NO, GOOD BUDDY. Does "quality of life" in your view embrace the determination that irreversible brain damage has placed the body in a persistent vegetative state, with no possibility of brain function being restored? Or should bodies with brain damage that severe be kept functioning through machines and other extraordinary means so long as possible? Does a "living will" that specifies precisely what that person defines as reason to withdraw support fall outside your definition of allowable authority? Absolute answers in a complex moral, medical and ethical situation certainly simplify the debate, but I don't believe they can be so resolutely defined.
|
|
Kordax
Senior Forumite
Hank Rearden
Posts: 2,537
|
Post by Kordax on Jun 4, 2007 12:17:15 GMT -5
"...but I don't believe they can be so resolutely defined."
How about " While conceding that no absolutes in life or in "life's journey" exist, and continuously embracing the spirit, intent & possibilities of uncritical tolerance of all people, all philosophies, and all points of view, I can now neither believe nor disbelieve that medical personnel should be entitled to euthanize end-of-life patients as the medical authorities see fit."
Mo better?
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on Jun 4, 2007 13:41:31 GMT -5
Death is an absolute
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Jun 4, 2007 14:17:14 GMT -5
Dr. Kevorkian did not decide to euthanize his patients, they all asked him to help them do that for themselves.
|
|
Felix
Global Moderator
Tepid One
Happy Morning
Posts: 4,137
|
Post by Felix on Jun 4, 2007 14:53:57 GMT -5
With the qualifier,
...as the medical authorities see fit
I can agree.
But why do you say, "I neither believe nor disbelieve..."? Unless the whole thing is another Kordaxian sendup of poor old literal-minded me. I know you disbelieve in the medical authorities being entitled to unilateral decisions of life and death by action or inaction.
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on Jun 4, 2007 15:41:46 GMT -5
Marvell, I was going to reply as well, but how do you reply to "I neither believe nor disbelieve" I mean hell, what's left?
I do not understand how the medical authorities can not decide on such action? They are in the business of life & death.
|
|
Kordax
Senior Forumite
Hank Rearden
Posts: 2,537
|
Post by Kordax on Jun 4, 2007 16:16:24 GMT -5
But why do you say, "I neither believe nor disbelieve..."?
You're on to me ....
I thought this was a good way to demonstrate how much my forum-inspired, formerly judgmental consciousness has been raised & remediated when it comes to tolerating all things that may or may not occur in all situations & all circumstances....
In other words, tolerance of everything requires belief in nothing ....
But I'm there now.
And if someone needs to die ASAP because a family member, friend or heir wishes it for whatever quality of life issues they might conjur up like a hangnail, a headache or any form of depression, have the medical community off the bastard without question or reservation or liability.
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on Jun 4, 2007 17:14:45 GMT -5
To die ASAP is not what this is about. This has nothing to do w/ hangnail, or a h/a, or depression. This has to do w/ a cancer eating a person alive, this is about a person who has been sent home to die. This is about hospice being called in to monitor the death process. This is about choices made by the pt. in a living will or not. No one is talking about offing a bastard. This is about easing dying pain, etc.. and believe me etc.. can be nasty! This is so much more.
|
|
Felix
Global Moderator
Tepid One
Happy Morning
Posts: 4,137
|
Post by Felix on Jun 4, 2007 19:34:38 GMT -5
How sharper than a serpent's tooth is Kordax's sarcasm.
Heh.
|
|
Kordax
Senior Forumite
Hank Rearden
Posts: 2,537
|
Post by Kordax on Jun 4, 2007 20:03:03 GMT -5
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/03/wsuicide03.xmlTo die ASAP is not what this is about. Really? Read the linked story. This has nothing to do w/ hangnail, or a h/a, or depression. Really? Read the linked story. Having recently utilized Hospice's service for a dying relative, I'm a believer in their approach to assisting with so many things that need to get done for the patient & the family care givers. No one at Hospice, to my knowledge, took the position that they would assist a patient in committing suicide; they're all about nuturing & providing caring services.
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on Jun 5, 2007 8:12:20 GMT -5
Okay this issue for me. Hospice is a wondereful thing. However, just because something does not work for you or I, just because we may take a different approach does not mean that a person who goes in another direction is wrong.
|
|