Dr. Kevorkian to run for Congress.......

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

The argument is whether or not he should be assisting them with it. He's not forcing them to die a slow death... if they want to, they are more than welcome to pull the trigger on their own accord.

Not disagreeing with what you said, but just offering the other side.

I think the true "other side" is that the means to end your life shouldn't be provided at all, no matter what the circumstances.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I think the true "other side" is that the means to end your life shouldn't be provided at all, no matter what the circumstances.

Never been an advocate of promoting suicide (I had two family members commit suicide), but if someone wants to end their own life, that is their choice IMO.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Never been an advocate of promoting suicide (I had two family members commit suicide), but if someone wants to end their own life, that is their choice IMO.

Unfortunately, been there, done that as well...I'm sorry.
There is a slippery slope that you can get to in a hurry here, but if you limit the conversation to the terms and conditions that Dr K was working under, I think it is a black and white situation. Either you believe you should be able have control of your own mind and body in terminal cases, or you don't.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Unfortunately, been there, done that as well...I'm sorry.
There is a slippery slope that you can get to in a hurry here, but if you limit the conversation to the terms and conditions that Dr K was working under, I think it is a black and white situation. Either you believe you should be able have control of your own mind and body in terminal cases, or you don't.

He may have crossed that line in the case of Youk.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

He may have crossed that line in the case of Youk.

Why because ALS isn't terminal enough or because he videotaped it so could be on 60 Minutes?

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Why because ALS isn't terminal enough or because he videotaped it so could be on 60 Minutes?

No, because the patient wasn't the one to press the button. In his other cases, he assisted by providing the means, but he wasn't the one to actually do it.

Speaking of ALS...

http://web.alsa.org/goto/cajungator26

A good friend of mine at work is dying and we're walking on April 19th...

[Mortimer]

This place is mekin' me sick!




You all have to bring in real life here....I hate it.


I will not join in on bashing and smashing over something like this...life's unfair----boy do we all know that.


Whatever it says....I'm also sick of donations!


Everybody wants donations.....Jesus!

Give here...give there....make another bourgois swine rich over a poor soul.






I think you're all crazy and I'm leaving.........no eyerollers,please.



Too much seriousness here.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Unfortunately, been there, done that as well...I'm sorry.
There is a slippery slope that you can get to in a hurry here, but if you limit the conversation to the terms and conditions that Dr K was working under, I think it is a black and white situation. Either you believe you should be able have control of your own mind and body in terminal cases, or you don't.

Of course it's not that simple...it never is! It's like abortion, and lets not go down that road again so Mersameg can say I'm not a feminist. Here's the thing, I believe all life is sacred...I oppose abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and all other forms of legalized "death by others" (notice I refrain from using the word "murder" to not stoke the fire). Of course the last thing in this world I want is to see ANYBODY suffer! I no longer support reversing Roe, nor do I support any criminalization of suicide. In regards to Roe, it's useless to close the barn door, the horses have long since run away...my objection is the government "legalizing" abortion. Had it been simply "decriminalized" and left to the woman, it wouldn't have had the sociological impact of lessening the value of life. Euthanasia is indeed a "slippery slope"...who decides who has the right to take their life? Does a 16 year old who just broke up with the "love of his/her life?" How about the 19 year old suffering from schizophrenia? The 30 year old who lost a child? The 40 year old struggling through a lifetime of depression? The 50 year old cancer patient? Is pain the criteria? How much pain? Who decides?? If it's the person then that's where free will and consequences for personal behavior come in...but if the government "legalizes" euthanasia then we're one step closer to eating Soilent Green! Do we want to live in a society where "death parlors" are on every corner like McD's? When will folks understand that you can't legislate morality and the government has no right in the private affairs of people? I live by the Rede and it says, "and ye harm none, do what ye will"...so I will never take my own life through any physical act and I'm damn well opposed to others making that decision for me. What you decide is governed by your faith, circumstance, and belief....I am responsible for what I do, and you are likewise...keep the damn government out of it!

[Mortimer]

What if a puppy wanted to throw himself off of Cliff's bridge.....what would you do?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Of course it's not that simple...it never is! It's like abortion, and lets not go down that road again so Mersameg can say I'm not a feminist. Here's the thing, I believe all life is sacred...I oppose abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and all other forms of legalized "death by others" (notice I refrain from using the word "murder" to not stoke the fire). Of course the last thing in this world I want is to see ANYBODY suffer! I no longer support reversing Roe, nor do I support any criminalization of suicide. In regards to Roe, it's useless to close the barn door, the horses have long since run away...my objection is the government "legalizing" abortion. Had it been simply "decriminalized" and left to the woman, it wouldn't have had the sociological impact of lessening the value of life. Euthanasia is indeed a "slippery slope"...who decides who has the right to take their life? Does a 16 year old who just broke up with the "love of his/her life?" How about the 19 year old suffering from schizophrenia? The 30 year old who lost a child? The 40 year old struggling through a lifetime of depression? The 50 year old cancer patient? Is pain the criteria? How much pain? Who decides?? If it's the person then that's where free will and consequences for personal behavior come in...but if the government "legalizes" euthanasia then we're one step closer to eating Soilent Green! Do we want to live in a society where "death parlors" are on every corner like McD's? When will folks understand that you can't legislate morality and the government has no right in the private affairs of people? I live by the Rede and it says, "and ye harm none, do what ye will"...so I will never take my own life through any physical act and I'm damn well opposed to others making that decision for me. What you decide is governed by your faith, circumstance, and belief....I am responsible for what I do, and you are likewise...keep the damn government out of it!

I think I was pretty specific about when I thought euthanasia is a black and white situation. You seemed to take it down the slippery slope to areas where I think it isn't so black and white. But, and I'm not lumping you into this catgory, many like you do that with issues. The NRA comes to mind right away. But you did it this time with your examples of a kid breaking up, schitzo, etc. That wasn't even part of the conversation or was ever remotely considered or proposed that I have ever heard of

I guess I was confused because you started out, I think, saying you oppose what Kivorkian did, but then say that the end "I'm damn well opposed to others making that decision for me"?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I think I was pretty specific about when I thought euthanasia is a black and white situation. You seemed to take it down the slippery slope to areas where I think it isn't so black and white. But, and I'm not lumping you into this catgory, many like you do that with issues. The NRA comes to mind right away. But you did it this time with your examples of a kid breaking up, schitzo, etc. That wasn't even part of the conversation or was ever remotely considered or proposed that I have ever heard of

I guess I was confused because you started out, I think, saying you oppose what Kivorkian did, but then say that the end "I'm damn well opposed to others making that decision for me"?

I don't understand??? His entire "platform" is the legalization of euthanasia...I think I was pretty clear on why I oppose same??? Again, accusing me of this or that does little to address the argument imo.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I don't understand??? His entire "platform" is the legalization of euthanasia...I think I was pretty clear on why I oppose same??? Again, accusing me of this or that does little to address the argument imo.

ok..I'll try and narrow this further..Yes, I think euthanasia should be legal for people with terminal illnesses. To get more specific about the rules, reference Brian's Oregon laws. They have it structured so it is absolutely black and white.

Do you agree with the above? Or not...I really am not sure

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I believe all life is sacred...

So you've never put a pet down?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by dr. fager

So you've never put a pet down?

Again, what I have or have not done is not the point...to repeat, I have free will and I make decisions and live with the consequences. Have I put a pet down? Yes, but not without much personal agony. I believe animals have souls but I also believe that man has dominion over animals...not so other human beings. If my dog could communicate with me, I would honor his/her request but since they can't, I make the decision...and I accept any consequences. That's my point here...if a person decides to end their life, they are responsible for that act; if someone else decides to end it for them, they are responsible for same. Having the government legalize the act removes the responsibility legally but not morally and at the same time sends a clear message about the sanctity of life!

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

If my dog could communicate with me, I would honor his/her request but since they can't, I make the decision...and I accept any consequences. That's my point here...if a person decides to end their life, they are responsible for that act; if someone else decides to end it for them, they are responsible for same.

that wasn't personal that was euthanasia for pets, I should have generalized.

but it still doesn't add up, if a dog could talk you'd honor the request....but if a person asks you wouldn't....

consequences, huh? like that bootleg move of picking up Willie Parker and stooping to the level of the idiots in the fantasy league when you were up against someone that was playing by the rules.....

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Again, what I have or have not done is not the point...to repeat, I have free will and I make decisions and live with the consequences. Have I put a pet down? Yes, but not without much personal agony. I believe animals have souls but I also believe that man has dominion over animals...not so other human beings. If my dog could communicate with me, I would honor his/her request but since they can't, I make the decision...and I accept any consequences. That's my point here...if a person decides to end their life, they are responsible for that act; if someone else decides to end it for them, they are responsible for same. Having the government legalize the act removes the responsibility legally but not morally and at the same time sends a clear message about the sanctity of life!

I dont think you understand what assisted suicide is. People who are in too much pain or do not have the functions to commit it, but want to end their pain, have someone like Dr. K assist them.

You saying "if someone else dicides to end it for them" is completely off base because the assistant is NOT deciding this, they are just helping with someones wishes.

I really have no idea how you and Cajun dont get this.