How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 The Right to Die   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The Right to Die

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


25 posted 04-02-2008 09:34 PM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

quote:
Don't be naive, that stuff happens everyday.

(terminally ill patient jumping)
Do you has data on this?

Most subside happens before 40 yrs.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


26 posted 04-02-2008 10:41 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Me: First of all, if you ridicule the whole concept of 'rights', why should we listen to your ideas about assisted suicide?  Are you suggesting that everyone should simply 'get what they want', when it comes to public policy?

BBP: Noper, I'm sayin everyone does what they want despite public policy. Rights are an illusion, made up in order to control people. And I'm not saying that its a bad thing, just an imaginary thing.


Why is there such a compelling conviction among most people that others should be treated ethically, if there is no reality behind the idea of 'rights' except the desire to control others?  And yes, even people who do unethical things to others feel this to be true ... they've merely rationalized that their own instance of mistreatment is circumstantially different.

I have no problem with you shrugging off a complex philosophical notion such as rights, but would like to ask for some reasonable explanation.  

quote:
Many people will find a way to end their painful life no matter what laws, all you want to do is punish them.


Even if that's true, it doesn't follow that much more will not find a way to end their lives if suicide finds legal and social sanction through the medical field.  Euphemized as 'treatment', I can see how Physician-assisted-suicide could become more popular than taking it into your own hands.  

And no, there's no element of legal "punishment" in my own mind that has to do with this particular issue.


quote:
Me: Well, who says we're not talking about mentally ill people?  And even if not, who says that the debate wouldn't soon extend into medical conditions which affect 'quality' of life rather than length?


BBP: Dude, think treatable vs. untreatable. You can't compare some poor sap painfully wasting away in bed with no cure or better life to look forward to with some guy who's life could improve with treatment or medication. That's just silly.


Dude, think curable vs. incurable.  You CAN qualitatively compare some person suffering from terminal cancer, with a person suffering with the mental torment of intractable depression ... or paraplegia ... or diabetes ... or COPD ... or Kidney Failure ... or ...

I work in an ICU and see the effects of chronic medical conditions probably a bit more than you.  To make such a comparison is not silly at all.  "No cure and no better life to look forward to" (your own words) is not limited to an imminently terminal condition.  And that's my whole point really, that the perceived quality of life will easily become just as much of a consideration as predicted quantity or length.  

quote:
Don't be naive, that stuff happens everyday.


Not nearly as often as it would if you made it as easy as asking for a sleeping pill, along with the legal and social sanctioning that would present it as noble and compassionate, which itself is quite debatable.

quote:
Yeah but don't worry, your "rights" are better than their rights so rest easy knowing you kept them in immense pain till they finally died, rather than allowing them a dignified peaceful death.


Explain to me how the medical community could "keep" anyone in pain, by not actively administering pharmacological death for them?  You slip in the word "allow".  But what you're advocating has nothing to do with passive allowance.  Think "assist", or even "perform" and you'll have a closer description of what is really being debated.  


quote:
BTW, don't know how to use the fancy quote thingy, if any could let me know I'd appreciate it.


Just do this, except without the spaces:  [ quote ] your text here [ /quote ]  


Seoulair:
quote:
Stephen, do you personally know them? Many may complain but I have not heard anyone made a decisive decision that "let go".


Not personally, but we are talking about a very small percentage.  We really don't have to depend upon personal encounters, since we have a historical precedent with the arrests of Dr. Jack Kervorkian.  So yes, it undoubtedly happens.  He didn't get his infamy or his court orders for just proposing a theory.


Stephen  
badboypoet
Junior Member
since 03-11-2008
Posts 45


27 posted 04-02-2008 11:36 PM       View Profile for badboypoet   Email badboypoet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for badboypoet

quote:
terminally ill patient jumping
Do you has data on this?


No more than you have data to refute it. But since people kill themselves everyday, for every reason, then I'm putting money down that some are doing it cause they're sick and dying. Actually, now that I think of it, I did watch a show once about people with a type of arthritis, rumatoid I think, and like a combined 25% intentionally and accidentally O.D. according to this specialty doctor.

quote:
Why is there such a compelling conviction among most people that others should be treated ethically, if there is no reality behind the idea of 'rights' except the desire to control others?


So you're telling me, that a piece of paper outlines how you treat other people? Without a law you wouldn't know how to treat people? Rights, wrongs, good, bad, it's all grey areas, and boils down to individual choice, not legeslature. It's no more wrong to kill a cow to eat, then it is to kill someone, take their money, and buy some food. We just say its wrong when it happens to people cause it hits closer to home and scares the poop out of us. Plus, most of us don't want to kill other people, again, think it hits too close to home to see images of ourselves die. So we make a law saying killing is wrong...but it don't matter cause killing keeps happening because the people who really want to kill, they kill, and the people who don't, don't, regardless of laws.

Right, wrong, it's all situational dude. Until we're both dying and in pain, we can't be sure what we'd want. Maybe you'd be asking a doctor to help you die and I'd be crying cause I'd fight to the end. Who knows?

quote:
Dude, think curable vs. incurable.  You CAN qualitatively compare some person suffering from terminal cancer, with a person suffering with the mental torment of intractable depression ... or paraplegia ... or diabetes ... or COPD ... or Kidney Failure ... or


Using dude, dude, doesn't suit you dude. So you say diabetes is the same as paraplegia? Or someone who is eligible for a transplant is the same as someone with a football tumor in their neck that will slowly chock them to death in a month?? Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. And not to sound cold, but someone with intractable depression you won't have to assist, they'll most likely do it on their own because the torment of living outweighs the fear of death. And maybe that's what you don't get about it all, that these people have calculated it. Wieghed it out. Put'er on the scales. And they decided it is worse for them to live than to die. And of course amigo, wer'e not talkig about some lady who just got dumped by her man so she wants to die that day, we're talking about sound of mind people who are suffering and asking for help to end the suffering. And since we have failed to find a cure four them, we should at least honor them by doing right by them.

I'm sure there are a lot of doctors out there who agree with assisted suicide. Why are they wrong? Why are they not considered to be acting in the best medical interest of someone?

Furthermore, who cares what we think. It sholdn't be up to us. You don't wnt assisted suicide, then don't do it. Doesn't mean you should be allowed to stop it since it could happen everyday and never affect your life. And why shoujld you have a say in something that doesn't affect you?

quote:
Not nearly as often as it would if you made it as easy as asking for a sleeping pill, along with the legal and social sanctioning that would present it as noble and compassionate, which itself is quite debatable.


Well its a hell of a lot nobler than them splattering their brains out with a gun or jumping off a bridge. You make it sound like there wold be an epedimic if it was allowed. And if it did increase so much, maybe that's because it is something that people wanted more than they didn't want.

btw, thanks for telling me how to do the quote thing.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


28 posted 04-02-2008 11:47 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:

Stephen, do you personally know them? Many may complain but I have not heard anyone made a decisive decision that "let go".  One of my friend had cancer and refused further treatment  and died...it was a controllable cancer. ( i think that she was tired of living not because of sole reason of cancer)



     Sentence two and sentence three  comment on each other.  What we get from many folks who exercise some form of their right to die often leave others behind pondering exactly the kind of questions you try to come to grips with here.  Do she really and truly have to do this?
Wasn't she only depressed?  Couldn't she have chosen a more favorable path?

     It's in leaving these sorts of gifts behind that we can see the hostile and aggressive face of suicide.  Sometimes it's more obvious, sometimes less.  At times it may not be present at all, though I would suggest that almost always it carries something of those elements with it.

     I certainly do know people who have chosen suicide in one form or another as a way out of life and the pains it had for them.  I had a college room-mate for a summer or two, a guy I enjoyed a great deal and a pretty good beginning poet who killed himself.  I never knew why.
I had a friend in grade school who was a minister's son who killed himself as well.  The element of rage there was pretty obvious for anybody to see, but we can only suppose it, because nobody really knew the actual reasons behind it.  My grandmother had very serious cancer and decided to have elective surgery she knew she would not survive.  The surgeon had offered her the option, telling her that she would not survive it, because he knew that the pain had gotten unbearable and he knew she wouldn't want to surrender her dignity.  He was correct.  I kissed her goodbye on the way to the operating room.

     It's sad that physicians are not allowed to have this kind of relationship with their patients today, because within the depths of a lifelong relationship it may actually be possible to reach an honest resolution to such things.  I wouldn't be able to do such a thing, but others might be able to.

quote:


If you were given a choice, to die peacefully or struggle painfully...it would become a religion kind of matter. Patient can judge suffering but they have no judgment of prognosis of a treatment or certain disease, let along so many times doctors make wrong diagnosis and give wrong treatment. To live is also to give many other options time.  I take it as humanity issue. legal or illegal.




     As long as there's life, there's hope, I think you're saying.  Perhaps in a more complex way.

     I think the passive voice covers many sins.

     What the proverb should mean is that as long as (the patient) has life, (then) (the patient should have) hope (for a cure).

     Too often, however, when the physician says it, the patient has lost hope for a cure on realistic grounds, and what the physician is actually saying is something on the order of Where  (you, my patient) there's life (maintain a pulse), (I, your physician, still entertain some distant) hope (that somebody will pull a rhinoceros out of a beach bucket and come up with something that will put off your death a little bit longer.

     The goals do not have to be different, but they may be.
Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


29 posted 04-03-2008 12:36 AM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

quote:
As long as there's life, there's hope,

Exactly!!

Back to the original question, if the patient wants to die, shall medical staff assist her?

Even if law allows it, I will still say no. Because if the patient chooses to get into hospital, her will is very clear that she wants to get treated.  If one wants to die for whatever reasons, then it is not necessary that one has to die in hospital, right? The right of living or the "free choice" of end one's own life shall not be relevant to the thought of any other people.

To make it extreme situation, it is called helplessness to give up useless treatment.. waiting to die and to get a lethal dose are different. Could be days, months, years different. and I believe miracles.  

badboypoet
Junior Member
since 03-11-2008
Posts 45


30 posted 04-03-2008 02:10 AM       View Profile for badboypoet   Email badboypoet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for badboypoet

quote:
Because if the patient chooses to get into hospital, her will is very clear that she wants to get treated.  If one wants to die for whatever reasons, then it is not necessary that one has to die in hospital, right? The right of living or the "free choice" of end one's own life shall not be relevant to the thought of any other people.


Dude, I'm baffled. So you're saying that currently, right now, the people in a hospital who are asking for doctor asisted suicides, don't exist? According to you, if they are in a hospitl then their will is to live. If that's true, then why are they asking for help to die?

quote:
Could be days, months, years different. and I believe miracles.


There's an old saying, wish in one hand and poop in the other, and see what comes first. I think the same applies for "miracles". I'm not knocking your religion, I just ain't buying what your selling.

quote:
Even if law allows it, I will still say no.


And that's a fine, fine, example of what I was talking about with rights being make believe. Rights and laws are only as true as the people following them.

Lets say the earth was suddenly near out of water and food and only enough for 25% of the population...lets see how sturdy paper rights and laws are in that situation. Lets see how many Christians obey Thou Shalt Not Steal or Kill. But I'm straying from the topic.

In a nutshell, let me say my way is the best way cause its a win win for everyone. If you want to hang on till the very end and have docs do all they can to give you every extra second, then so be it. But if ya know yer time is done like dinner, and want to check out before yer raduced to pooping yer pants and having to eat from a straw, then so be that too. And if a doctor doesn't want to help, then he shouldn't have to, but if a doctor does, then he should be allowed to.  Maybe throw in a psych and physical evalution to make sure they aren't fuddy duddy in the head, and making there decision with a sound mind, also make sure there really is no realistic hope for decent treatment or cures.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


31 posted 04-03-2008 05:42 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
No one has "rights", they're all just make believe stuff that we feel we should follow.

Your rights might well be as imaginary as you imagine them to be. Mine, however, are intractable. Don't believe me? Try taking one of my rights away and see what happens. You can't. No one can. The absolute most that you or anyone else can do is make me pay a higher price for exercising my rights. Rights are, indeed, as inalienable as Jefferson contended, but no one ever said they were free. There's always a price, even in a society such as ours. In other societies, and sometimes even in ours, the price can be much higher. The price you personally are willing to pay to exercise a right doesn't reflect the existence of that right, though. You can't give up a right. You can only choose not to exercise it, not to pay the price for exercising it.

Because that, too, is your right.

quote:
Using dude, dude, doesn't suit you dude.

It doesn't suit you, either, and it certainly doesn't fit well in these forums. It represents a familiarity you haven't earned yet. It's rude and it's potentially offensive. Please don't do it?

quote:
Furthermore, who cares what we think. It sholdn't be up to us. You don't wnt assisted suicide, then don't do it. Doesn't mean you should be allowed to stop it since it could happen everyday and never affect your life. And why shoujld you have a say in something that doesn't affect you?

Right. And the step after letting people legally kill themselves based on a subjective quality of life determination is to let them kill their children based on equally subjective criteria. The kid was born with a defect? Have the doctor give it a shot. After all, what business is it of yours? Why should you have any say in something that doesn't affect you? It's not your kid, after all.

Of course, the reality is that life and death decisions potentially affect us all. Again, you're not talking about a right to die but rather a right to kill. You want to give doctors (to start) the legal option to end a human life upon request. You've given us no meaningful, non-subjective criteria by which we can expect that legal option to be limited. You've, instead, used words like "terminable" when in truth everyone is terminable, words like "pain" when no one I know is without pain, and you've told us that it's essentially none of my business because it doesn't affect me personally. Sorry, but when you give doctors the option to end my life, that does indeed potentially affect me and those I love.

You cannot realistically hand anyone that kind of power without imposing some fairly strict limitations on the use of that power. You've even essentially acknowledged that on several levels in this conversation, but you've given no indication that you've thought it through enough to realize that such limitations are impossible to adequately define.

Here's the bottom line.

No one, yet, in this thread has argued a true right to die. A true right to die would impose no limitations at all. You got out of bed this morning and decided it should be your last? Fine, go to the doctor and get a prescription to die. You don't need a reason, you don't need an examination, you have simply but to ask. That's a right to die, any time, anywhere, for any reason. No one has, and I sincerely hope no one ever will, argue such a case.

So, what are some arguing? You (that's a generic you, not aimed at any specific individual) are arguing that people should be assisted with suicide so long as YOU agree with their reasons for wanting to die. Ironically, if you don't agree their reasons are valid, you seem to be quick enough to rescind your permission.

That's not a right to die. That's just another way of letting YOU decide who lives and who dies. And that, as always, is something I'll never willing accept.


Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


32 posted 04-03-2008 12:23 PM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

quote:
Lets say the earth was suddenly near out of water and food and only enough for 25% of the population...lets see how sturdy paper rights and laws are in that situation. Lets see how many Christians obey Thou Shalt Not Steal or Kill. But I'm straying from the topic.

Story of Titanic ...

quote:
YOU decide who lives and who dies. And that, as always, is something I'll never willing accept.

Absolutely agree!!!

Right of Death I would like to give my opinion on this since Ron has mentioned it more than twice.

I don't think that we have a right called the right of death. Since the first forbidden bite, death is a punishment from heaven. Or if by evolution, the motivation should be to survive  than evolute to a better death. (have we seen a better death yet among the species?). If there were not(still a arguable topic)  a right of death, then there would be not a situation as yield the right to other causes. So, it is still the situation of if one should give up the fighting (to be exactly) for the right of living.

(but in cellular level, there is process called programmed cell death--A program within a cell when activated by certain triggers will make the  cell die)

Right to kill
Do we have the right to kill? Ironically, Killing is one build-in human characters. That is why "thou shall not kill." So, we do have a right to kill.
but it is forbidden by  heavenly law and human social law,  unless there is a "law"-permitting  cause...as self-defense, war and when Titanic was down that many people rather chose to die(kill oneself) for young people and pregnant women and subside under pathologically mental stress.(I meant the motivation)

The case of doctor assisting subside of patient, he was exercising his right on following an order of rule or law, or his "higher calling" of whatever kind. But what should be the justified causes in law and rules?  

I am shivering just on thinking of those cases who got wrongly  capital punishment in jails.


In medical field, I shall say that  it has much a sarcastic sense as if there is no way to treat her, then kill her. It is a career failure, a self-slap on his face.    
badboypoet
Junior Member
since 03-11-2008
Posts 45


33 posted 04-03-2008 02:12 PM       View Profile for badboypoet   Email badboypoet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for badboypoet

quote:
Your rights might well be as imaginary as you imagine them to be. Mine, however, are intractable. Don't believe me? Try taking one of my rights away and see what happens. You can't. No one can.


Again, they're only as true as the people following them. If that ain't true, tell me what rights I have, where they came from, and who decided on what rights I have. And you're fooling yerself if you think someone can't take away your "rights". Cause you choose to live by them, you make them a tangible in yer life. and well that can be taken away, sometimes without you even knowing. Just cause you'd cuss and scream if the gov't forced you to move out of your house because they decided they wanted to build a Navy base there, doesn't mean they can't and won't make you leave. Try running fer presd. Your 'rights' say: a homeless guy should be allowed the same fair shake to be presd. as a millionaire, but lets see if that's true. People's so called "rights" get snatched away from them everyday, but I guess you're the guy they can't do it to. You may not want war, not go to war, not believe in war, want our troops to come home, don't like what they're there for, but sure as grass grows green, you're paying for war and supporting it one way or the other. Whether you like it or not, you're helping line the pockets of some fat cat. Try taking that "right" away from the gov't and see what happens.

What about slaves, guess they just stayed slaves cause they didn't know they could exercise their rights until a kindly white fella told them they could. You seem like a smart guy so I'm sure you know there is slavery still going on. Maybe ya could get in touch with them and let them know they have the right to refuse to work and get their heads chopped off. Them sure are some good old rights.

Or maybe something closer to home. Maybe you can tell some poor old fella working for next to nothing in some poor old town for some mean old codger, that he's got the right to demand higher wages, be laid off, and be homeless.

Right to an education. Well I'm sure poor areas are just uneducated cause they ain't exercising their rights good enough. Yeah I know, I'm sure ya think education should be free, but try telling that to the poor old fella working fer next ta nutt'n who'll lose more off his cheque to pay for someone else's education. I'm sure he'll enjoy that right.

But hey, it's all cool, we all have to live by some road map to navigate through life, and there ain't a perfect one that's been made. I'm all for you choosing how to live your life, just as I am for me doing the same. The whole system is pretty good and all, ya don't throw away a car cause the tire is flat, I'm just calling it how I see it, not trying to change the world or stuff.

quote:
Rights are, indeed, as inalienable as Jefferson contended, but no one ever said they were free


Of course, that would be like transferring imaginary money at a bank to an imaginary friend. Lovely words, but people give up they're rights everyday, have them taken away, or have em changed on them. Rights are inalienable because they ain't real. They ain't real because people made them up and can choose to interpret them however they see fit. Your rights, my rights, there rights, ain't none of it the same.

quote:
It doesn't suit you, either, and it certainly doesn't fit well in these forums. It represents a familiarity you haven't earned yet. It's rude and it's potentially offensive. Please don't do it?


Well its a friendly term where I'm from. Like man, or bro, or bra. And my last post the guy mocked me for using it, which ain't very nice. That's why I made the other dude comment I did. But I guess mocking me is cool, yeah I get it, kick the new guy. I've been around the block enough times to know that game. I ain't allowed to be myself until the "gang" says its fine. So why don't you scold someone else. But yeah, I guess I haven't "earned" that right to speak in a manner I'm comfy with, cause rights are inalienable and all that. I guess the guy couldn't say, please don't call me dude, I don't like it. Cause that would've only made me reply with sorry, didn't know that bugged ya or something along those lines. But yeah, again, I get it. New guy is the bad guy, but the other guy. The guy who has been here longer is always the good guy cause he's fit in and something different ain't all that good. And don't think that's some sort of poor old me statement cause I ain't look for sympathy, I can handle myself just fine. And I know what's coming next, I've lived many'a places, met many a man, and the next step is some talk about how ya have to do this or that, and be like this or that or however you have it laid out in yer mind that humans should act. Maybe if I use Mr. or sir from now on, or is that too formal? Ah fudge, let's just save some time, why don't ya just tell me how I should talk cause that's where this is going anyhow. And then I can go back to my sideways little village of ignorant cave dwellers and nut pickers and tell everyone that we can't say dude anymore cause we were being rude all along and didn't even have the decent sense to know it. Either that, or you could take a time machine from 1950 and into the present and discover dude ain't a rude term. Yeah, it ain't so fun being mocked is it? No one likes a burr under their saddle.

quote:
Right. And the step after letting people legally kill themselves based on a subjective quality of life determination is to let them kill their children based on equally subjective criteria.


Yeah, and after that it's to let them kill other people, then after that its to let them kill other people's kids, and pets, and grandparents and pretty soon everyone will be allowed to just put to sleep anyone if they think someone's life ain't as good as their own. Maybe skip all that and just have doctors keep or kill the good ones in the delivery room.

Whoa amigo! (is amigo ok? let me know) Think we're putting the cart before the horse so to speak. You're talking like cigarettes are a gateway to heroin. No one's talking about letting other people decide to kill other people(save for doctors cause ya have to weed out the crazies for their own good). I ain't saying "my kid walks a bit crooked, could we put em down". We're talking about sane people asking for themselves to be put down. I'd say crazies too, but they don't know what they're talking about sometimes, so ya can't say for sure they really want to die if they don't really know either. I don't know why you think some poor soul asking to be put out of his misery, adn some doc helping him, is leading to a genocide of handicapped kids. You almost make it sound like parents of handicapped kids don't love their kids as much as "normal" kids. Cause amigo, I know some parents with disabled kids, and it often seems like they love their kids more than the ones with "normal" kids. And I doubt there'd be a rush of people asking to kill their kids if you made it legal. If ya know anyone with a badly handicapped kid, ask them if they'd put'em down? But again, I'm not talking aobut people killing their kids, I'm talking about someone sick asking for their pain to end. What else should we do, keep em higher than a kite and stoned until they die? I've seen that, it ain't very pretty either. That ain't living.

quote:
Of course, the reality is that life and death decisions potentially affect us all.


And so does the price of soda pop. Everything kinda affects everything, but I'm talking day to day stuff here. Someone dying in the hospital today that you don't know, never met, yeah, that affects you in a round about way, about as much like a car crash in Japan. I can't see society slipping into a muderous mind frame over legalizing assisted suicides, so I can't really see some poor guy suffering badly and dying in the hospital, getting a shot of eternal sleep medicine by choice, really keeping ya up at night.

quote:
Again, you're not talking about a right to die but rather a right to kill.


Call it what'cha will. Feel free to get bogged down by whatever name yer giving it. Right to kill, right to die, right to this, right to that. The word "right" often gets in the way of doing actually doing right by someone. I dunno, maybe I'm just back frontwards and all, but I don't see how we give our kids machine guns, say go kill them cause they bug us, but then get all wishy washy and weepy eyed, when someone in really bad pain, who we know ain't gett'n better, asks for help to be put out of their misery, and we say no, life is precious. Don't make much sense at all.

quote:
You want to give doctors (to start) the legal option to end a human life upon request. You've given us no meaningful, non-subjective criteria by which we can expect that legal option to be limited.


Well I ain't a doctor now am I. I'm not claiming to know what's best for someone, I'm saying give em some freedom to decide what's best for themselves. They've come up with a pretty good way to judge abortions, so I'm sure they can find a way to judge the terminally ill. I'd be a fool to think I should be deciding who stays and who goes.

quote:
You've, instead, used words like "terminable" when in truth everyone is terminable, words like "pain" when no one I know is without pain,


Well I guess we'll have to wait and see if your definition changes if ya get some "terminable" disease and get so much unending "pain" that all you want to do is die. Then ya can write their perspective from their perspective. I think there's an expected "natural" lifespan of people, or so doctors say, and a "natural" amount of pain people are in, that's what doctors say too I've heard. Bones and porches get creaky cause they both get walked on. So you can twist those words into any balloon shaped animal ya want and stretch that taffy to look like more than it is. But in the end, you know what I'm implying and all the fancy side stepping don't change that.

quote:
Sorry, but when you give doctors the option to end my life, that does indeed potentially affect me and those I love.


Don't put foam in my mouth and call me rabid. I never said such a thing. I never said if you were sick that a doctor should have the option to end your life, I'm saying you should have the option of being allowed to asking a willing doctor to assist you in ending your own life. Son, why do you keep saying I was saying something that I wasn't. Stop dealing from the bottom of the deck.

quote:
You cannot realistically hand anyone that kind of power without imposing some fairly strict limitations on the use of that power. You've even essentially acknowledged that on several levels in this conversation, but you've given no indication that you've thought it through enough to realize that such limitations are impossible to adequately define.


Adequatly define for who? For you or for me? Cause I think we have a difference in what would be adequate or defined in that situation. And just cause one person isn't satisfied with their meal, doesn't mean you should take back the whole table's dinner. And the power you speak of ain't in the doctors hands really, it's in the person who is dying.

quote:
No one, yet, in this thread has argued a true right to die. A true right to die would impose no limitations at all.


So there's a "real" limitation to dying? Or just legal ramifications? Maybe we should arrest people who kill themselves.

quote:
You got out of bed this morning and decided it should be your last? Fine, go to the doctor and get a prescription to die. You don't need a reason, you don't need an examination, you have simply but to ask.


And I thought I was good at tall tales. I don't know why you see one thing apparently leading to another like it's enivitable. It's like the sky is grey and you're calling it Armegeddon.

quote:
So, what are some arguing? You (that's a generic you, not aimed at any specific individual) are arguing that people should be assisted with suicide so long as YOU agree with their reasons for wanting to die.


No sir, I'm saying as long as an educated doctor agrees with their reasons for wanting to die. Again, it ain't up to me. But what you are saying, is it should only be allowed if YOU agree. I ain't saying that at all, I'm saying I'm not to decide anymore than I think you should. I don't know better from a doctor anymore than I know better from someone who is in severe pain and dying. But apparently your side of the story seems to.

quote:
Ironically, if you don't agree their reasons are valid, you seem to be quick enough to rescind your permission.

No to that again, I'm saying that's between them and their doctor, and the good lord, not between me and them and my almighty.

quote:
That's not a right to die. That's just another way of letting YOU decide who lives and who dies. And that, as always, is something I'll never willing accept.


Again, I'm not asking to decide anything other than letting other people decide for themselves. It's YOU, and that there is a generic you, who want to decide who lives and dies, cause someone too weak to eat on their own ain't able to dash out the window or hang themselves by a neck tie. All they are able to do is lay in pain and agony until they die. The big difference between YOU and I, is I would rather empower these people with one last option where you'd rather force them to drag out every last painful minute of their lives. That ain't compassion man, that's just cruel. In war, if you shot someone, they didn't die, but you knew you couldn't get em medical help, but you also knew they'd live a day in excruciting pain, and they begged for you to help them into the afterlife, would ya finish them off or just let them suffer? What would be crueler? To let them live, or to help em die? Or would ya just tell them we are all "terminable" and in "pain".

If ya'd show such mercy to an "enemy", why couldn't ya show it to a friend?
badboypoet
Junior Member
since 03-11-2008
Posts 45


34 posted 04-03-2008 02:21 PM       View Profile for badboypoet   Email badboypoet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for badboypoet

quote:
I don't think that we have a right called the right of death. Since the first forbidden bite, death is a punishment from heaven.


That's fine and all but what if ya don't believe in heaven and all that stuff. Heck, in some religions its an honor to kill and die...rewards of virgins, and good meatloaf, and California wine, and all that hocus pocus. I ain't trying to squash your religion or nothing like that, I'm just saying why should your religion, or something you believe in that I don't, be allowed a say in my life or decisions? I have no problem with people cutting the skin off baby's weiners, (though they should have probably waited and asked the kid) because they believe that god told them to do so, all I'm saying is don't make me fall victim to the clippers just cause your God told you it was right for everyone. I'm saying practise your religion, and everyone in your religion can choose not to have assisted suicide, but don't impose your God onto my life. Just like I would never force you to "choose" assisted suicide.
Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


35 posted 04-03-2008 04:02 PM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

quote:
Well I ain't a doctor now am I. I'm not claiming to know what's best for someone, I'm saying give em some freedom to decide what's best for themselves. They've come up with a pretty good way to judge abortions, so I'm sure they can find a way to judge the terminally ill. I'd be a fool to think I should be deciding who stays and who goes.

I'm saying you should have the option of being allowed to asking a willing doctor to assist you in ending your own life

I'm saying as long as an educated doctor agrees with their reasons for wanting to die

I'm saying that's between them and their doctor, and the good lord,


Why it the business of medical doctors who are as fallible as everyone else?
Haven't heard any malpractice yet?


And here we are not talking about religion. we are talking about how we view life or death.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


36 posted 04-03-2008 05:55 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Just cause you'd cuss and scream if the gov't forced you to move out of your house because they decided they wanted to build a Navy base there, doesn't mean they can't and won't make you leave. Try running fer presd. Your 'rights' say: a homeless guy should be allowed the same fair shake to be presd. as a millionaire, but lets see if that's true. People's so called "rights" get snatched away from them everyday, but I guess you're the guy they can't do it to. You may not want war, not go to war, not believe in war, want our troops to come home, don't like what they're there for, but sure as grass grows green, you're paying for war and supporting it one way or the other. Whether you like it or not, you're helping line the pockets of some fat cat. Try taking that "right" away from the gov't and see what happens.

Sorry, you and I are talking about very different things. The things you're talking about aren't human rights, they're just political agendas. And, yea, those can be stripped away. Good thing, too, because most of them in this country are loony as 'toons.  

quote:
Maybe ya could get in touch with them and let them know they have the right to refuse to work and get their heads chopped off. Them sure are some good old rights.

You mean like the founders of this country yelled "No taxation without representation" and stood up to an oppressive British rule? You mean like the soldiers of WWII fought and died to stop a madman from imposing his will on the world? Yea, them sure are some good old rights, at least if one has the courage to pay the price for them . . . or the luck to have someone else do it for them.

Again -- the failure to exercise your rights is always a choice. You might keep your mouth shut at work because you don't want to get fired, you might keep your mouth shut at home because you don't want to sleep on the couch, but no one can force you to remain silent unless you agree. The most they can do is kill you. And, yea, that's a price men have paid in the past and will likely pay again in the future.

quote:
Whoa amigo! (is amigo ok? let me know)

No, actually it's not okay. It's not any more okay than if you called me sweetheart. I'm not your friend, at least not yet, and I'm certainly not your lover.

Names actually work pretty well around here. At least until you get to know someone well enough to call them friend or dude.

p.s. I don't think I'm alone in how I feel, either. There's a new movie called 21 where an older teacher played by Kevin Spacey very directly and curtly tells a young student, "Don't call me dude." I can relate. Pet names should be reserved for lovers and close friends. Or, I guess, for pets?

quote:
I ain't saying "my kid walks a bit crooked, could we put em down".

No, you're not. And realistically, I don't actually expect that to happen any more than you do. But that's not the point. The point, rather, is that you've said nothing to preclude it and the arguments you've offered would very easily support it.

You want to hand someone a loaded gun but apparently haven't thought through the consequences of what they just might do with it. Worse, in my opinion, you seem to think there won't be any consequences?

quote:
Feel free to get bogged down by whatever name yer giving it.

Giving things names is what writers do. And this is, after all, a site devoted to writers?

More importantly, of course, giving things names is how we communicate.

quote:
Well I ain't a doctor now am I. I'm not claiming to know what's best for someone, I'm saying give em some freedom to decide what's best for themselves. They've come up with a pretty good way to judge abortions, so I'm sure they can find a way to judge the terminally ill. I'd be a fool to think I should be deciding who stays and who goes.

Ah, that explains a bit more, I think. You're not trying to decide who stays and who goes, you just want to decide who I should or shouldn't trust with my life? You want to give this guy and others like him the power to decide if my pain-induced pleas for surcease are carefully considered requests or the ranting of a man incapable of thinking beyond the next thirty seconds.

Sorry, but you trust people more than I do. I'd like to add "even doctors," but it would probably be more honest to say "especially doctors." Any doctor who would directly and willfully violate the oath they took to "do no harm" certainly can't be trusted to exercise the kind of power you want to give them. Believing in the justification of mercy killings is one thing; I personally think it's misguided but I would never fault someone for being misguided. It's another thing entirely, however, to take an oath to protect life and do no harm, only to turn around and use that guise to exercise a belief in mercy killings. That's not just misguided, that's deceitful and wrong.

And please don't be shocked, badboypoet, but apparently doctors can be deceitful and wrong. Not all of them, of course, but enough to warrant maybe just a little bit of caution?

People sometimes ask for the relief of death for all the right reasons. But people also ask for death for all the wrong reasons, the latter greatly outnumbering the former, and we don't have anyone we can fully trust to tell the difference.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


37 posted 04-03-2008 07:55 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Sometimes the solution is in asking the person who says they want to die the simple question, "What's the cost?"

     Frequently their answer is, "Nothing."  

     This is actually the case for only those with the most isolated and meaningless of lives, and frequently even not then.  Otherwise it amounts to delusional thinking.  For those with family, friends, communities, businesses, homes and entanglements of any sort, "Nothing" is not an accurate answer at all.  It is a lie to comfort one's self at a time such comfort is sorely needed.

     A person may build a life upon lies to the self; but it is poor rationale for recruiting somebody else's help in terminating that life.  The life of lies may be over for the suicide, but the helper is left holding the bag.  And the cost of that is scarcely "Nothing."

     The evidence we have from researches such as Stanislav Groff suggest that the whole nature of pain is quite plastic, and that there are therapeutic techniques that  alter the perception of pain quite radically.  What was once unbearable becomes bearable once again.  Hypnosis and decent use of serious drug therapy can also make a significant difference in the end stages of life.  Doctors have become very shy about using high doses of addictive drugs on terminal patients because they are paradoxically shy about addicting them and suffering the judgement of their fellow physicians.

     Much of this issue, I believe, is a result of oddnesses such as these within the medical profession and squeamishness on the part of governments in using drugs such as the "Brompton Cocktail," which is very effective for severe pain relief and is used in England, because it contains Heroin.  

     There are certainly large ethical issues here.  Let us not forget the policy issues that come along with them, and let us not forget that to some extent this issue has been dumped on the shoulders of those least in a position to make unpressured decisions by those of us who don't want to make courageous policy decisions about drugs and caretaking of the seriously ill among us.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


38 posted 04-04-2008 12:15 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

BBP:
quote:
So you're telling me, that a piece of paper outlines how you treat other people? Without a law you wouldn't know how to treat people?


Of course not.  But shouldn't laws reflect, as much as possible, right principles of how people should be treated?  The subject of this thread IS a legislative one, as well as a moral one.


quote:
. It's no more wrong to kill a cow to eat, then it is to kill someone, take their money, and buy some food.


So to you, eating a cheesburger as essentially no different than a murderous theft?  Please don't invite me to dinner.          


quote:
Right, wrong, it's all situational dude


Does that mean there's no such thing as a real right and wrong?  Weren't you just arguing a bit ago that it was wrong to force someone to die with pain and without dignity?


quote:
Maybe you'd be asking a doctor to help you die and I'd be crying cause I'd fight to the end. Who knows?


What does that have to do with this question?  We already know there are dying people for and against Kervorkian-style Euthanasia.  The question (in this thread) still boils down to what is the right thing to do legislatively.  If you don't think this subject belongs in legislative terms, then you are misunderstanding the entire question.  What doctors do is ALWAYS managed under legislation.


quote:
Using dude, dude, doesn't suit you dude


okay, dude is a bit too "eighties" anyway don't you think?          

quote:
So you say diabetes is the same as paraplegia?


Actually there's a complication of diabetes called "diabetic neuropathy" which involves nerve damage that can be painful and debilitating especially when coupled with PVD (peripheral vascular disease), which can render a patient unable to walk, cause them to lose their legs, and live very much like a paraplegic.  

So seeing that these are complications of diabetes (not to mention renal failure, gastroparesis, and blindness from retinopathy) ... Yes.  


quote:
Or someone who is eligible for a transplant is the same as someone with a football tumor in their neck that will slowly chock them to death in a month?? Yeah, that doesn't make much sense.


Have you even taken a precursory look into how difficult it is to get a transplant, or the potential complications of getting a transplant?  ... Have you considered that transplant wannabes usually have to be pretty healthy otherwise, and of a certain age range to be accepted?  It all makes more sense when you look at more critically.  What you keep evading is the fact that "Terminal" may be widely interpreted in the field of medicine.  To give you an example, we treat patients with "End Stage Renal Disease" who stay on Kidney dialysis for years.  There are patients with "End Stage COPD" who live for years with considerable breathing difficulty.  Are they terminal or not?  Should they be able to get a shot of death upon request?  Not so clear anymore?


quote:
And not to sound cold, but someone with intractable depression you won't have to assist, they'll most likely do it on their own because the torment of living outweighs the fear of death.


For many, this may not be true.  Dr. Assisted Suicide will never be presented as suicide (with all the connotations) by its advocates, but as "ending the pain", and "choosing dignity".

quote:
And maybe that's what you don't get about it all, that these people have calculated it. Wieghed it out. Put'er on the scales. And they decided it is worse for them to live than to die.


And maybe what you don't get, is the question of "what in the world does that have to do with doctors and nurses"?  


quote:
I'm sure there are a lot of doctors out there who agree with assisted suicide. Why are they wrong? Why are they not considered to be acting in the best medical interest of someone?


Because they are not acting in the best medical interest of someone.  It is not within the scope of medicine to kill.  As you said, apart from legislation, suicidal people may act out their temptations.  But don't distort the professional jurisdiction of medicine by adding suicide to their repitoire.

quote:
Furthermore, who cares what we think. It sholdn't be up to us. You don't wnt assisted suicide, then don't do it. Doesn't mean you should be allowed to stop it since it could happen everyday and never affect your life. And why shoujld you have a say in something that doesn't affect you?



How many times have I mentioned that I'm a Registered Nurse?  Remember what they do?  They administer pharmacological agents ordered by MDs.  Yes it would affect me directly.


However, even if it didn't, I don't think your insistence upon direct proximity is valid.  There are people who care about nearly extinct animal species, the loss of which would have no immediate or remarkable affect on them personally.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't do what they're doing.


quote:
Well its a hell of a lot nobler than them splattering their brains out with a gun or jumping off a bridge.


That's a fallacy.  Would it be more noble to sneak into your room at night and inject you with a lethal dose of Potassium Chloride, or to flay you open with a knife?  While one example is more grusome, neither is more noble than the other.

quote:
And if it did increase so much, maybe that's because it is something that people wanted more than they didn't want.


And if what is right were simply "what people want", then you would have won the argument.

quote:
They've come up with a pretty good way to judge abortions, so I'm sure they can find a way to judge the terminally ill.


I don't agree with any abortion, but I'm sure that most people would at least disagree with late-term or "partial birth" abortions.  But guess what was the "pretty good way" they dealt with that?  You guessed it ... legislation is the only reason that half-born babies can't be killed by physicians.

quote:
btw, thanks for telling me how to do the quote thing.


You're welcome.


Ron:
quote:
People sometimes ask for the relief of death for all the right reasons. But people also ask for death for all the wrong reasons, the latter greatly outnumbering the former, and we don't have anyone we can fully trust to tell the difference.


brilliant.
    
Stephen
badboypoet
Junior Member
since 03-11-2008
Posts 45


39 posted 04-04-2008 02:23 AM       View Profile for badboypoet   Email badboypoet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for badboypoet

quote:
Sorry, you and I are talking about very different things. The things you're talking about aren't human rights, they're just political agendas.


I think what you are calling human rights, I'm just calling personal freedom. To live and let live sort of thing. But I disagree with what you said, cause as far as I'm concerned, if there are human rights or freedom, then a man has a right not to be forced to sell his home and be allowed live where he chooses if he isn't doing anyone no harm. Just cause someone's taking his home away for political "rights" or agendas, doesn't mean it doesn't go against his human rights or freedom. It ain't the cause, it's the effect. And the effect is sometimes we lose our rights, both imagined and real.

quote:
You mean like the founders of this country yelled "No taxation without representation" and stood up to an oppressive British rule? You mean like the soldiers of WWII fought and died to stop a madman from imposing his will on the world? Yea, them sure are some good old rights, at least if one has the courage to pay the price for them . . . or the luck to have someone else do it for them.


Well it's always easier to stand up for for what ya believe in when ya have an army behind ya. When you are standing alone, it's a much different thing. I'm sure a sex slave, who has been beaten half to death for refusing to work, so tired of the beatings that she eventually gives in, she might paint yer wagon a different color if you talked to her and told her she wasn't courageous enough to stand up for her basic human rights. Or if you were trapped in a dark alley by a dozen thugs with a dozen weapons, and said you had to pay a 'walking on their block' tax. Would ya pay them, or would you just tell them, "no taxation without representation"? Don't get me wrong, I know what yer saying too, and I agree that it's great when people stand up for freedom, just it ain't always glorified as you are saying. John Wayne won't be riding over the hill to come save ya when yer by yourself.

quote:
Again -- the failure to exercise your rights is always a choice. You might keep your mouth shut at work because you don't want to get fired, you might keep your mouth shut at home because you don't want to sleep on the couch, but no one can force you to remain silent unless you agree.


I'm sorry, it looks good on paper but that just ain't always realistic in the real world. So what yer saying is, people choose to be impoverished and dominated by a more powerful force? Guess the slaves just chose to be slaves cause they were cowards. You should go to B'nai Brith and tell them that the Jews who died before and during WWII gave up their freedom. That they had a choice and they just weren't brave or smart enough to make the right one. Because, as you say, the failure to exercise your human rights is always a choice. If a person can't choose death, can't get by the notion, won't grasp it, and so terrified of it and won't accept that as an option, then it falls short of being a choice. It ain't a choice if you can't choose the unchooseable. And if there are only two options in a situation, do as someone says or die, then really, is it a choice if you just can't choose death? Again, your idea looks good on paper and sounds good in speeches, but it ain't always practical or realistic.

quote:
The most they can do is kill you. And, yea, that's a price men have paid in the past and will likely pay again in the future.


I'm gonna steal a quote and say, "there are things worse than death." Otherwise people wouldn't kill themselves to escape it. I don't know yer background, or what you've seen, maybe a lot, maybe a little. So my next words aren't meant as a willy measuring contest, But I've been in some hairy situations where I was looking at the wrong end of a gun or knife. And if I had the gumption to declare my freedom from their oppression, then I probably wouldn't be here. And if they killed me, their life wouldn't have changed, they'd still be the SOBs they are. Well maybe they'd be in jail, but since they didn't catch em, doubt they would have if they killed me. So my choice wasn't really a choice. Declare freedom and die in a pool of my own blood, with them being the only ones enjoying the freedom I declared. Or comply and have my freedom taken away from me, and live to be free another day.

quote:
p.s. I don't think I'm alone in how I feel, either. There's a new movie called 21 where an older teacher played by Kevin Spacey very directly and curtly tells a young student, "Don't call me dude." I can relate. Pet names should be reserved for lovers and close friends. Or, I guess, for pets?


I guess you are not alone if Kevin Spacey is with ya. Wish I had movies stars in my corner. But who am I to disagree with Mr. Spacey. If it rubs ya the wrong way, then I'll just leave em be when I'm talking to ya. So lets set the table back on its legs, my apologies if my using dude, amigo, or man has ticked ya off. I'll choose my words more carefully around you pleasent, but fickle bunch.

quote:
No, you're not. And realistically, I don't actually expect that to happen any more than you do. But that's not the point.


But that is the point, or at least one of em. You said we shouldn't do it cause next we'll have parents sending their kids off to the promise land if the kid is disabled. That was what I read and one of yer reasons for not allowing it.

quote:
You want to hand someone a loaded gun but apparently haven't thought through the consequences of what they just might do with it. Worse, in my opinion, you seem to think there won't be any consequences?


Oh no, there's no mistake what I'm handing them the gun for. To kill, something we do everyday for many a reason a lot worse than for assisted suicide. Consequences, yeah course they'll be consequences, always is to just about everything. Don't confuse me with a loose turnip. I'm sure there will be mistakes along that path, but where isn't there. And then of course you'll have religious groups shooting doctors who assist in suicides to make their point of 'killing is wrong'. Political parties would molest the issue to gain votes. And the families will be sad to see a love one pass on. But come on, when was the last time you lost sleep over someone you didn't know about, being assisted with suicide? Cause that's what I mean when i say it won't have any consequences in your life. At least not anymore than a teen you never met aborting a baby. Cause assisted suicide happens with or without our permission and I'm sure you're life has managed fine and didn't miss a beat throughout it all. I'm sure you haven't missed a meal or lost sleep because of it. And I don't mean that in a bad way, it's just the way it is. Why should ya really care that someone dying was given a big dose of sleepy-time by their request? Its not like it will become a fad or trend. Unless of course MTV gets their mitts on it and Paris Hilton declares its hip to get assisted suicides by Versace.

What I don't get about what some of you are saying is this. You are saying it's fine and dandy to kill and die for your rights, but as long as it ain't for the right to kill and die.

I'm a carnivore, I ain't ashamed of that anymore than a wolf or lion should be. I eat the flesh of dead animals just about daily and a variety of critters too. But I ain't of the "might makes right" type of mindset. I don't go around killing things for the sake of killing and my belly will back me up when I say I always clean my plate. And I suspect not many people want to kill for the sake of killing. So if given the responsibility of deciding on assisting in suicides, I'm sure that would be a heavy weighing decision on a doctor who chooses to do so and he would do all in his power and knowledge not to make a bad mistake. Of course mistakes will happen, but just cause nothing is perfect, doesn't mean we should just do nothing.

quote:
Giving things names is what writers do. And this is, after all, a site devoted to writers? More importantly, of course, giving things names is how we communicate.


I wasn't saying that names aren't important, I was saying don't get bogged down in em. The first two hunters in Africa, came upon a lion. At the time they didn't know what it was. When the lion charged, one said look out the girraffe is coming for us, the other said, no not a girraffe, that's a hippo. Well they bickered and bickered as to what to call this new creature until it pounced on them and ate them both. Course there's two points to that story. The first is that if they both agreed to a name, then they wouldn't have been eaten. But the second is, if they wouldn't have worried about the name so much, as what was happening, then they wouldn't have been eaten either. So it's important to name things to communicate, but never more important than the message itself. Too many people try to debunk something just cause you didn't pick a word they wanted you to pick even when they know exactly what you are talking about.

quote:
You're not trying to decide who stays and who goes, you just want to decide who I should or shouldn't trust with my life?


No again, only you could decide that too. If you don't trust it, don't use it. I ain't trying to say you gotta use a system you don't trust. I'm just saying give other people that option to have a system for those who would trust it.

quote:
Any doctor who would directly and willfully violate the oath they took to "do no harm" certainly can't be trusted to exercise the kind of power you want to give them.


I guess this is the big fork in the road. You see it as harming people, where as I see it as helping people. Killing ain't always a bad thing. "Thou shalt not kill" that's easy for god to say, he was never human and didn't have lung cancer. He never had a disease that was robbing him of all his bodily functions and his dignity.

quote:
And please don't be shocked, badboypoet, but apparently doctors can be deceitful and wrong. Not all of them, of course, but enough to warrant maybe just a little bit of caution?


No fooling. Well I'll be! I learn something new everyday. And now you hold on to yer hat too Mr. Ron, cause I don't want to shock you out of yer slippers, but apparently doctors can be honest and right. Not all of them, of course, but enough to warrant maybe just a little bit of trust?

quote:
People sometimes ask for the relief of death for all the right reasons. But people also ask for death for all the wrong reasons, the latter greatly outnumbering the former, and we don't have anyone we can fully trust to tell the difference.


No, you don't have anyone you can trust. Just cause you don't trust anyone, don't make it right to stop others from trusting in it. Because you lack so much trust in the medical system, you'd rather have these people you don't trust, drug a dying, in pain person up so badly that they're in and out of consciousness, screaming and moaning until they die (and that ain't living), instead of allowing that person to be helped on to the sweet hereafter in a dignified manner.

quote:
In war, if you shot someone, they didn't die, but you knew you couldn't get em medical help, but you also knew they'd live a day in excruciting pain, and they begged for you to help them into the afterlife, would ya finish them off or just let them suffer? What would be crueler? To let them live, or to help em die? Or would ya just tell them we are all "terminable" and in "pain".

If ya'd show such mercy to an "enemy", why couldn't ya show it to a friend?


I noticed no one answered the above?
badboypoet
Junior Member
since 03-11-2008
Posts 45


40 posted 04-04-2008 06:29 AM       View Profile for badboypoet   Email badboypoet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for badboypoet

quote:
So to you, eating a cheesburger as essentially no different than a murderous theft?  Please don't invite me to dinner.


Well you might not agree with me, but I'm sure I'll get the cows vote on that one. Cows don't belong to us, they belong to themselves, we just enslave them and eat them. But like I said, it's all situational. I'm sure in the right situation, you'd kill me for a cheeseburger. I'm sure if we were trapped in a desert, and I found a big old bottle of water, enough to last me till I got to civilization, and I decided not to share it with you cause if I did, I'd dye (and I wouldn't share it cause you wn't even eat cheeseburgers with me). I'm sure you'd have more than cuss words to share with me, even though "legally" the water is mine. And as you fought to get at my water, I'd remind you of the legislation and how it was right that you can't take my water from me. Then of course you'd tell me I was right, that the law says you can't, and then you'd say enjoy the rest of your life while I die in the dessert here with my legislation. But I gotta say, you'd have every "right" to kill me for my water, just as I would have every "right" to let you die so I could live. But neither of us could be "right" cause what we're doing to each other is "wrong".

quote:
Does that mean there's no such thing as a real right and wrong?  Weren't you just arguing a bit ago that it was wrong to force someone to die with pain and without dignity?


I sure was, but as you can see others disagree with me. So if I know that I'm right, and you disagree, but know that you are right, and I disagree, well then, where are we at other than we're both right about something we're wrong about. And there ain't no real right or wrong, at least not for this kind of stuff, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a moral compass to make our lives more managable. Just like there ain't no real borders except for the ones we make and change all the time. They're real cause you have gaurds there, but they ain't real cause you need gaurds there and no one can agree on them. Like the rules kids use playing superheroes and such, or the Emporer's New Clothes.

quote:
What does that have to do with this question?  We already know there are dying people for and against Kervorkian-style Euthanasia.  The question (in this thread) still boils down to what is the right thing to do legislatively.


Well it has everything to do with it if ya use it like I said it. Situationally, when the reaper is at your door, you might ask for a heck of a different legislation then the one you are aiming for now. Just like I might do the same. We don't know. But what we do know is that some people in that situation right now are asking for help dying, so since they are in the know, I'm gonna say maybe they have a more valid point than us and that should be taken into consideration. I just can't see how everyone of them who asks for assisted suicide is wrong in asking for it when they are the ones dealing with that situation, not you or me. So if some of them are right, isn't it wrong not to help them? But you're a nurse, so you are dealing with it everyday so I'm sure you know better how they feel then they do. And I can't trust you no how. Ron told me that, and don't you be shocked too, but doctors are sometimes wrong. I know, Iknow, it was a shocker to hear that for me too. But all that is odd cause doctor's also are against assisted suicide. So I shouldn't trust that opinion either. So who should I trust? A philosopher named Ron, a nurse named Stephanos, a doctor, a politician, or myself? We can't legislate it, cause that would have to come from a doctor's opinion, and they are known to be wrong. Gosh it's all so confusing.

quote:
okay, dude is a bit too "eighties" anyway don't you think?


Yeah I guess it is. But I ain't allowed to use amigo either which is pretty timeless. Tell ya what, I promise to stop using dude, if you promise to stop using tired old smiley faces that way we can get the pop culture police off both our tails.

quote:
Actually there's a complication of diabetes called "diabetic neuropathy" which involves nerve damage that can be painful and debilitating especially when coupled with PVD (peripheral vascular disease), which can render a patient unable to walk, cause them to lose their legs, and live very much like a paraplegic.  

So seeing that these are complications of diabetes (not to mention renal failure, gastroparesis, and blindness from retinopathy) ... Yes.


Well, that's an eye opener. I'll just add diabetes to my list of people who can kill themselves. Or you could just say that nowadays, most people with diabetes live a fairly long and somewhat "normal" life and most of the severe complications happen when they are getting on in years or if they aren't taking proper care of themselves. You are either a parapeligic or you are not, but having diabetes does not mean you are a parapeligic anymore than having parapeligia means you are a diabetic. So no, falling down the stairs and breaking your neck and finding out your are never going to walk again, ain't the same as diabetes. Now go ask a doctor at your hospital if diabetes is the same as parapeligia and see what they say. Or ask a diabetic and a parapelegic what would they rather have, diabetes or a completely useless body? Then after they both choose diabetes, you can tell them it doesn't make a difference cause they're both the same.

quote:
What you keep evading is the fact that "Terminal" may be widely interpreted in the field of medicine.


Okay then, lets use the phrase "He's a Goner" instead. That's the new phrase for a little past terminal but not quite at death, like Jesus couldn't even come down and save this soul. Like you could ask a million doctors and they'd all say he's a goner. Then we could get those million doctors to vote on an official "He's A Goner" assembly who then can decide who's acceptable for "He's A Goner" legistlated suicide assistance program. And then the families of the deceased could get group rates and fridge magnets.  

quote:
  There are patients with "End Stage COPD" who live for years with considerable breathing difficulty.  Are they terminal or not?  Should they be able to get a shot of death upon request?  Not so clear anymore?

Maybe, maybe not. That I don't know about cause I don't know much about it. But I do know that dismissing it for one thing, doesn't dismiss it for another. Just like allowing it for one thing, doesn't mean you should allow it for another. That would be like saying all diseases and the people who have them should be treated the same way. That's fine if you're a gingerbread man in a cookie cutter world, but don't work well in the real world.

quote:
For many, this may not be true.  Dr. Assisted Suicide will never be presented as suicide (with all the connotations) by its advocates, but as "ending the pain", and "choosing dignity".


And don't forget "He's A Goner" too. Maybe suicide ain't wrong all the time. No one calls someone a coward or says they are wrong for jumping to their death to avoid being burned alive for a minute when they're trapped on the twentieth floor of a burning building. So if that ain't "wrong", then there are "right" reasons to kill yourself. And if there are "right" reasons to do it, then it can't be all that "wrong" to help.

quote:
And maybe what you don't get, is the question of "what in the world does that have to do with doctors and nurses"?

Well in the situation someone is dying, and it hurts something fierce, and they know they ain't getting better, and they given it some thought as to what they would like to happen, maybe they know better than a doctor as what's best fer them now and again no matter what the legistation says.

quote:
Because they are not acting in the best medical interest of someone.  It is not within the scope of medicine to kill.


Well not usually, but there are a lot of dead piggies, frogs, and worms who might say different. What about when there is a complication in birthing and mother and baby will die during labor unless they abort the birth? And the mother chooses to abort. Is that in the medicine scope to kill? I know it ain't the same as what we are talking about, but just wanted to tell ya that it is in the scope of medicine to kill.

What about the stories I've heard for war doctors? Some of em, for really badly hurt fellas who they couldn't get to a hospital to treat, would slip em some extra morphine to help them along to the pearly gates. Are these stories made up, or are these doctors not real? Or are they just murderers playing a mean game of god? I think if it was my buddy on the ground with his guts hanging out, screaming like the devils fire was roasting his nuts, and there was no hospital for a hundred miles, and enemies all around, I'd do right by him and slip him a micky.

quote:
How many times have I mentioned that I'm a Registered Nurse?  Remember what they do?  They administer pharmacological agents ordered by MDs.  Yes it would affect me directly.


Well don't get your nurses uniform in a knot. No offense, I have a lot of respect for nurses, but I don't think they would allow nurses to administer "death cocktails", especially not ones who think diabetes is the same as parapeligia. Plus, how many times have I mentioned that I don't think anyone who doesn't want to assist in it, should have to. We ain't talking about asprin or gravol. You could keep your hands nice and clean. It's a heavy burden to ask but thank god some people out there are willing to pay the price. Yeah, I poached that last line from Mr. Ron.

quote:
However, even if it didn't, I don't think your insistence upon direct proximity is valid.  There are people who care about nearly extinct animal species, the loss of which would have no immediate or remarkable affect on them personally.


Just cause you care about something doesn't mean it "affects" you. Did you lose any sleep last night knowing another homeless person died on the streets? Or is it ya just don't care enough to bat an eye? I'm sure you, like most of us, have done our fair share of looking at the sky when a homeless guy asked ya fer money. Most people's lives wouldn't change much if there was assisted suicides. Just like your life don't change much everytime a homeless guy dies, even when it's just down the block from you. Even if he killed himself. And even if he had help killing himself.

quote:
That's a fallacy.  Would it be more noble to sneak into your room at night and inject you with a lethal dose of Potassium Chloride, or to flay you open with a knife?  While one example is more grusome, neither is more noble than the other.


The big difference is, someone's gotta find yer body and the state its in. So is it more noble to die by choice peacefully in a hospital bed with a dose of nevermore, or have a loved one find you hanging in the closet, OD'd in the tub, or you and your brains and the family gun making a right old mess of the living room walls?

quote:
And if what is right were simply "what people want", then you would have won the argument.


And if what is wrong were simply "what people don't want", then you would have won the argument. I don't know what yer getting at. We ain't talking about kids asking for cocaine. Were talking about sane adults, dying of a terminal disease with no hope for being saved, and their quality of life has been reduced to a daily rampage of inescapable pain and suffering. But I guess they ain't smart enough to know what's best for them.

quote:
I don't agree with any abortion,

Ya, figured as much. I'm sure there's some raped pregnant teens who might not take kindly to that. Or some janitors who find dead babies in the trash or stuck in the toilet.

quote:
You guessed it ... legislation is the only reason that half-born babies can't be killed by physicians.

Is that much like vampires CAN'T be killed by bullets? Cause they can kill full term babies if they want, but they might get in trouble with the law.
badboypoet
Junior Member
since 03-11-2008
Posts 45


41 posted 04-04-2008 06:35 AM       View Profile for badboypoet   Email badboypoet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for badboypoet

quote:
People sometimes ask for the relief of death for all the right reasons. But people also ask for death for all the wrong reasons, the latter greatly outnumbering the former, and we don't have anyone we can fully trust to tell the difference.


Ain't you just sorta quantified it? Maybe not an exact number, but ya must have some sort of calculation to be able to say the latter greatly outnumber the former. Some ball park figures. At least a good idea to be able to so confindently make that statement. But I ain't figured it out yet, how you can tell the difference between the two, but a trained doctor couldn't?
Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


42 posted 04-04-2008 12:52 PM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

quote:
   In war, if you shot someone, they didn't die, but you knew you couldn't get em medical help, but you also knew they'd live a day in excruciting pain, and they begged for you to help them into the afterlife, would ya finish them off or just let them suffer? What would be crueler? To let them live, or to help em die? Or would ya just tell them we are all "terminable" and in "pain".

    If ya'd show such mercy to an "enemy", why couldn't ya show it to a friend?

I noticed no one answered the above?


I give you my answers to you if you tell me your experience of war.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


43 posted 04-04-2008 01:15 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I'm gonna steal a quote and say, "there are things worse than death." Otherwise people wouldn't kill themselves to escape it. I don't know yer background, or what you've seen, maybe a lot, maybe a little. So my next words aren't meant as a willy measuring contest, But I've been in some hairy situations where I was looking at the wrong end of a gun or knife. And if I had the gumption to declare my freedom from their oppression, then I probably wouldn't be here.

And the obvious corrollary to your quote is "there are some things more important than life." Yet, you would seemingly argue otherwise?

quote:
Because, as you say, the failure to exercise your human rights is always a choice. If a person can't choose death, can't get by the notion, won't grasp it, and so terrified of it and won't accept that as an option, then it falls short of being a choice. It ain't a choice if you can't choose the unchooseable. And if there are only two options in a situation, do as someone says or die, then really, is it a choice if you just can't choose death? Again, your idea looks good on paper and sounds good in speeches, but it ain't always practical or realistic.

Practical or realistic? I think what you mean to say is that it isn't always easy.

You're mostly right, though. Novelist Theodore Sturgeon might even put a percentage to it for you. However, for all those who would agree with you that a hard choice is no choice at all, history has always given us a few who refused to agree. A few who refused to submit.

When everyone who tries to climb a sheer cliff wall fails, it's reasonable perhaps to argue the impossibility of the task. Some mountains just can't ever be conquored, and it's neither practical nor realistic to think otherwise. If you can find one man in ten, though, or even one in a thousand, willing to accept the pain and hardship, just one man in a million who makes it to the top of the mountain, I'm sorry, but it's no longer reasonable to call the task impossible. It's just hard. I don't think we should be afraid of hard.

I know it's probably not very practical or realistic, but I've always preferred to set my clock by the few rather than the many, by the possible rather than the easy. When you accept that some have made the choice, it's perhaps easier to see that there really is a choice to be made.


badboypoet
Junior Member
since 03-11-2008
Posts 45


44 posted 04-04-2008 02:12 PM       View Profile for badboypoet   Email badboypoet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for badboypoet

quote:

I give you my answers to you if you tell me your experience of war.


Ain't all that sure what it has to do with a tough question. Before I answer that, I'm liking to ask you another question. Where'd ya learn about God? A book or in heaven?

I ain't never been in a war, and I can rightfully say I hope I never have to. That's not to say there ain't things I wouldn't fight for, just a lot things I'd prefer not to.

I don't think the first hand account stories I've read aobut war were written by liars, so I don't think my question is unreasonable.
Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


45 posted 04-04-2008 04:30 PM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

badboypoet,  I just knew that the tale was not your life experience but you asked a quite judgmental question.

War or not war, the question is that if we shall kill for relieving other's pain.

Why do you think that killing is the only way to stop pain? in your war story? since you took in the word mercy, it has become an issue of humanity.

badboypoet
Junior Member
since 03-11-2008
Posts 45


46 posted 04-04-2008 05:21 PM       View Profile for badboypoet   Email badboypoet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for badboypoet

quote:
And the obvious corrollary to your quote is "there are some things more important than life." Yet, you would seemingly argue otherwise?


I had to look up corrollary, and I think I know what yer saying, but there were a few definitions. I'm figuring you meant this one, "something that incidentally or naturally accompanies or parallels". But not to be a sticky turd on yer shoe again, but I have to say no as well. The corollary to "there are things worse than death" would be "there are things better than death". I don't know if we're both just trying to be Robin Hood and split arrows, but I see a difference between worse, better, and important. But yeah, maybe them words are the same. But there are things better than death, just as there are things worse than death and same goes with life. And maybe the two does seem interchangable because they are part of each other. And I do believe that depends who you are and what the situation is. Not what a second or third party thinks how you should feel or what you should want. And I ain't saying other opinions don't matter. For us to live together it has to on some level or we'd always be at each others throats with knives and daggers and that just ain't good business for no one. Just like when ya say I shouldn't call you amigo cause you think its rude. I may not care for that you think I'm being rude, but if I want you to respect what I'm saying, I gotta respect what your saying. Ain't nuthin wrong with that cause mostly it works out well for us people. But too many meddle where there ain't no meddling to be had. I don't want to force anyone to do what they don't want to, be it a doctor or a patient, but I'd like everyone to have a decent choice espeically concerning how they meet the Maker. Ain't that probably the biggest and nicest choice ya can give someone. We all gotta go sometime, why shouldn't we have a bit of say in it, and why is it so wrong to ask for some help in it from people who want to help. I know you say a doctor ain't helping no one, no how, by killing. But killing ain't always bad, sometimes it is just a thing that needs to be done. In war, on the killing floor of a slauterhouse, and maybe even by a doctor. And I know you know that killing has to be done sometimes, and it ain't always bad. If ya don't want medical people involved in mercy killing cause it goes against the Hypocratic Oath (more like the hypocritical oath when they help insurance deny you treatment) then lets fetch someone else to do it. Train a marine to inject a dose. Or a serial killer, two birds one stone with that one. Quell a kooks desire to kill, and a dying persons need to be killed. Course I'm fooling with that one so don't think me a nut. Or think me a nut but not cause of that.

The people who jump to their deaths to save themselves the pain of burning. Ain't no fault in that. But for some, they'd tell ya that person is going to hell cause they killed them self. If it were up to them, they'd rather see that person die a painful death just to protect what they believe in. I've even heard someone tell a sick person if they don't hurry up and find Jesus, they'll go to hell when they die. Man, like that fella ain't had enough to worry about, he looked as if he just moved three doors down from death and was in a wheeled chair. God gave him the disease so I'm sure God will understand if he ain't none too happy with the Lord. Maybe that God up there should start asking us for a bit of forgiveness now and again. By my count, he ain't so perfect. But I'm getting lost down a path to a place we ain't talking about.

badboypoet
Junior Member
since 03-11-2008
Posts 45


47 posted 04-04-2008 05:52 PM       View Profile for badboypoet   Email badboypoet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for badboypoet

quote:
You're mostly right, though. Novelist Theodore Sturgeon might even put a percentage to it for you. However, for all those who would agree with you that a hard choice is no choice at all, history has always given us a few who refused to agree. A few who refused to submit. [quote]

And thank god for that cause the world is a better place cause of the brave. Well it's also a worse place cause of it too, don't think anyone rightfully called the Germans cowards for fighting us. I don't like Nazis but I read they were a fierce and brave bunch of soldiers. Guess ya'd have to be with one small country fighting the world.

But I think you could say, for people who choose differently than the "easy" way, they didn't find the choice as hard as others cause they made the choice that seemd "right" for them. We can only make the choices that seem "right" for that reason or this, even if it's bravery or cowardice. It seems like we have to do it, so we do it. I hate to keep sounding like a pirates parrot, but it's all situational. Some people say, water takes the easiest path it can. But I don't think that's right. It only takes the path it does cause its just water. Sometimes it's around things, sometimes its through mountains. Depends where you are. Same goes with people. I'm not reckoning assisted suicide to an easy choice for doctors, patients and citizens. It's a hard choice, but like you are saying, we gotta sometimes let people have that hard choice cause maybe it needs to be done to be better people. Just cause I accept killing and dying, don't mean I think it's a carnival and cracker jacks. And I dont suspect many doctors will skip down the hospital with glee over helping someone die, but I reckon there are a few of em who will make that hard choice, that brave choice and assist a sick person in passing on.

[quote] know it's probably not very practical or realistic, but I've always preferred to set my clock by the few rather than the many, by the possible rather than the easy. When you accept that some have made the choice, it's perhaps easier to see that there really is a choice to be made.


Well I'm calling you on that one. You don't always prefer to set yer clock by the few rather than the many. By your count, the few want assisted suicide. By your count, the few are right in asking for assisted suicide. The few want genocide. The few often do the most damage as well as the most good. But I like what you say by the possible rather than the easy, cause I figure that is what makes us unique little creatures. We dream of being better then we are. And sometimes we succeed in that.
badboypoet
Junior Member
since 03-11-2008
Posts 45


48 posted 04-04-2008 06:01 PM       View Profile for badboypoet   Email badboypoet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for badboypoet

quote:
Why do you think that killing is the only way to stop pain? in your war story? since you took in the word mercy, it has become an issue of humanity.


I ain't said nuth'n like that. I ain't said the only way to stop pain. Sure ya can drug em into a coma so they ain't got no life, and still no hope, but not being a part of life no how, ain't living either. Taking away everything from a person that makes life be life, ain't letting someone live. Drugging someone up till they ain't dead or alive don't solve nothing. You won't let em live, and you won't let em die. What's the point in that.

quote:
War or not war, the question is that if we shall kill for relieving other's pain.


Hey fella, you going to answer the question or not. Stop pussy footing around it. You said you'd answer it if I answered you. I done that but your end of a bargain ain't been uphold. I thnk my question is just fine fer discussing should we kill to relieve others pain, cause the question was about a situation where you had to decide to kill to relieve pain. And you done said you'd answer but ya haven't.
Seoulair
Senior Member
since 03-27-2008
Posts 776
Seoul S.Korea


49 posted 04-04-2008 06:25 PM       View Profile for Seoulair   Email Seoulair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Seoulair

badboypoet,
the first question,
Shall we kill the half killed enemy to relieve his pain?
No. If you you have the heart to save him but has no time, then let his sides to save him.

So to friend, of course we will try the best to prolong his life and try all available method to cure him.  

quote:
You won't let em live, and you won't let em die. What's the point in that.

?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> The Right to Die   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors