Death with Dignity Laws or Legal Euthanasia

[Magnetic Poles]

Mitch, thanks for your lucid, on topic response.

 

[donnA]

First you need to define death with dignity.

MURDER, with an excuse

 

[OldRegular]

MURDER, with an excuse

donnA!:love2: donnA!:love2: donnA!:love2: was that nice?

 

[OldRegular]

OR, you are spamming the thread with your inane comments to keep the discussion from occurring. I ask again that you cease this. The phrase is the name of the law. The topic is clearly laid out in the OP. It is about the issues, NOT the name of the law. You are purposefully ruining the thread and acting troll-like.

"You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."- Daniel P. Moynihan

 

[targus]

Why is it your business what another person chooses in their own circumstances? That is germaine to the point.

You started the thread with a number of questions which have been answered by several - myself included - with no response or recognition by you.

Instead of addressing those opinions which differ from yours you either ignore them or lecture others to stay on topic.

You now seem to have baited and switched us to this new question which I suspect was your real motive for this thread.

Before I answer your question as to what business of it is it mine that another person wants their doctor to kill them please clarify your position.

1. Must a person be terminally ill to qualify for this dignity? Does a person who is in chronic pain but not terminally ill also deserve this dignity?

2. Must a person be in chronic pain or loss of physical capacity to qualify for this dignity? Does a person who is terminally ill but not in pain qualify?

3. Must the illness be physical in order to qualify for this dignity? Could someone who is psychologically or emotionally ill qualify for this dignity? If so, in the case of a bi-polar person - would they only qualify for this dignity when they are in a down cycle?

4. Why is only a doctor allowed to deliver this dignity? Why would someone be denied dignity just because they have no doctor to dignify them? Why couldn't a friend or family member give them their dignity? Or perhaps an entrepreneur could fill this niche market?

5. Would emotional pain qualify one for this dignity? If one were very sad and disappointed over a job loss for example - would one qualify to regain their dignity with your prescribed method?

In as much as you started this thread it would be interesting to have you answer at least some of these questions - not just with a yes or a no but with your rationalization as well.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

You started the thread with a number of questions which have been answered by several - myself included - with no response or recognition by you.

I recognized several for their lucid responses. You obviously choose to ignore that fact.

Instead of addressing those opinions which differ from yours you either ignore them or lecture others to stay on topic.

You now seem to have baited and switched us to this new question which I suspect was your real motive for this thread.

Baloney. Again, reread the thread. I have been trying to get folks to stay on topic and answer the OP questions. You also have no idea of my motives, and your last statement makes no sense.

My hope had been to stimulate some meaningful dialog based upon people's answers, without this turning into an yet another abortion thread. But you and OR are hell-bent on derailing with ridiculous comments about defining the words in the name of the law, which I have said is not the issue, and . "Death with Dignity Law" is merely the common name of the law. The OP is very specific for a reason. The discussion was not to be about what is dignified or not. It could be called the "Early Exit Law" or even "Suicide is Fun Law". I don't care. That is not the point.

Before I answer your question as to what business of it is it mine that another person wants their doctor to kill them please clarify your position

Again, you load your questions with this idiotic idea of focusing on the word "dignity". However, you do raise some legitimate questions. Most of these are covered in the law. For example in Oregon:

Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed by a physician with a terminal illness that will kill them within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life. Use of the law is voluntary and the patient must initiate the request. Any physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider opposed on moral grounds does not have to participate.
The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, one of whom cannot be related to the patient, be entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, be the patient's physician, or be employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to not suffer from a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time. Should either physician have concerns about the patient’s ability to make an informed decision, or feel the patient’s request may be motivated by depression or coercion, the patient must be referred for a psychological evaluation.
The law protects doctors from liability for providing a lethal prescription for a terminally ill, competent adult in compliance with the statute restrictions. Participation by physicians, pharmacists, and health care providers is voluntary. The law also specifies a patient's decision to end his or her life shall not "have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy."

All that said, I will give my personal opinion on these:

1. Must a person be terminally ill to qualify for this dignity? Does a person who is in chronic pain but not terminally ill also deserve this dignity?

A: If someone is in excruciating pain and it cannot be controlled by meds, perhaps yes. Someone made the point about pain management vs. addiction. They were absolutely correct. Why worry about addiction to pain meds if it makes their life bearable. As neither you or I are in this position (otherwise we could not be posting here), I don't think we are in a position to judge.

2. Must a person be in chronic pain or loss of physical capacity to qualify for this dignity? Does a person who is terminally ill but not in pain qualify?

A: I tend to fall on the side of this is up to the individual, not society. I don't think this one is as justifiable since no suffering is involved, but I also believe strongly in personal liberty over one's own life.

3. Must the illness be physical in order to qualify for this dignity? Could someone who is psychologically or emotionally ill qualify for this dignity? If so, in the case of a bi-polar person - would they only qualify for this dignity when they are in a down cycle?

A: No, as the underlying mental illness should be treated. A person who is mentally incapacitated is not in a position to make a valid, irreversible decision such as this. Neither are minors.

4. Why is only a doctor allowed to deliver this dignity? Why would someone be denied dignity just because they have no doctor to dignify them? Why couldn't a friend or family member give them their dignity? Or perhaps an entrepreneur could fill this niche market?

A: Because laymen cannot properly diagnose and evaluate prognosis for recovery.

5. Would emotional pain qualify one for this dignity? If one were very sad and disappointed over a job loss for example - would one qualify to regain their dignity with your prescribed method?

A: Disappointment happens, and would not meet the test.

Now how about your sticking to the topic. I had hoped we would get some lucid answers, then we could hopefully discuss them in a rational way. I may have been overly optimistic.

 

[donnA]

I have yet to see any scripture posted allowing this pratice.
If scripture isn't part of all of our lives it isn't really a part of any of our lives.

 

[targus]

1. Must a person be terminally ill to qualify for this dignity? Does a person who is in chronic pain but not terminally ill also deserve this dignity?

A: If someone is in excruciating pain and it cannot be controlled by meds, perhaps yes. Someone made the point about pain management vs. addiction. They were absolutely correct. Why worry about addiction to pain meds if it makes their life bearable. As neither you or I are in this position (otherwise we could not be posting here), I don't think we are in a position to judge.

2. Must a person be in chronic pain or loss of physical capacity to qualify for this dignity? Does a person who is terminally ill but not in pain qualify?

A: I tend to fall on the side of this is up to the individual, not society. I don't think this one is as justifiable since no suffering is involved, but I also believe strongly in personal liberty over one's own life.

3. Must the illness be physical in order to qualify for this dignity? Could someone who is psychologically or emotionally ill qualify for this dignity? If so, in the case of a bi-polar person - would they only qualify for this dignity when they are in a down cycle?

A: No, as the underlying mental illness should be treated. A person who is mentally incapacitated is not in a position to make a valid, irreversible decision such as this. Neither are minors.

4. Why is only a doctor allowed to deliver this dignity? Why would someone be denied dignity just because they have no doctor to dignify them? Why couldn't a friend or family member give them their dignity? Or perhaps an entrepreneur could fill this niche market?

A: Because laymen cannot properly diagnose and evaluate prognosis for recovery.

5. Would emotional pain qualify one for this dignity? If one were very sad and disappointed over a job loss for example - would one qualify to regain their dignity with your prescribed method?

A: Disappointment happens, and would not meet the test.

Now how about your sticking to the topic. I had hoped we would get some lucid answers, then we could hopefully discuss them in a rational way. I may have been overly optimistic.

Your position is contradictory.

We are not in a position to judge for others...
It is up to the individual...

And at the same time

Layman cannot properly diagnose...
Disappointment does not meet the test...

So we can not judge and it is up to the individual after a doctor judges for us and then only if it passes a test which someone else sets.

Let me help you make this a little more simple.

Does an individual have the right to employ another person to kill them if they so desire?

Either we have such a right or we do not.

If we do not have such a right all of your contrived qualifications are meaningless.

If we do have the right then how can one place restrictions on that right so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Your position is contradictory.

We are not in a position to judge for others...
It is up to the individual...

And at the same time

Layman cannot properly diagnose...
Disappointment does not meet the test...

So we can not judge and it is up to the individual after a doctor judges for us and then only if it passes a test which someone else sets.

Let me help you make this a little more simple.

Does an individual have the right to employ another person to kill them if they so desire?

Either we have such a right or we do not.

If we do not have such a right all of your contrived qualifications are meaningless.

If we do have the right then how can one place restrictions on that right so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others?

I answered yours...now answer mine first. I am not being interviewed.

 

[targus]

I answered yours...now answer mine first. I am not being interviewed.

Society has a compelling interest in not encouraging people to end their own lives. As a member of society I share in that compelling interest.

Society has a compelling interest in upholding the value of each and every individual life. Assisted suicide laws convey the notion - intentionally or unintentionally that some lives have more value than others. Such a notion is contrary to the public good. I share in the public good and therefore it is my obligation to promote it.

Now - please go back to my prior post and answer my questions as to whether there is a RIGHT to employ someone to kill ones self.

 

[OldRegular]

What started as voluntary euthanasia in Holland is now involuntary euthanasia. How would you like to go to a doctor not knowing when he is going to give you a lethal dose of something?

If we go to the socialized medicine that "bho" and other leftists/democrats are espousing then we are well on the road to involuntary euthanasia.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Your position is contradictory.

We are not in a position to judge for others...
It is up to the individual...

And at the same time

Layman cannot properly diagnose...
Disappointment does not meet the test...

So we can not judge and it is up to the individual after a doctor judges for us and then only if it passes a test which someone else sets.

Not contradictory at all. In one case, it is a suffering individual. IN the other hypothetical, you are talking about a company set up to make the doctor's determination. In case 1, we assume the doctor has weighed in.

Now while I do think the safeguards in the Oregon statute are appropriate ones, ultimately I tend to believe that a person does have the final determination on their own destiny. Do we disagree? Yep. So what?

Let me help you make this a little more simple.

Does an individual have the right to employ another person to kill them if they so desire?

Either we have such a right or we do not.

If we do not have such a right all of your contrived qualifications are meaningless.

If we do have the right then how can one place restrictions on that right so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others?

In the Washington statute, the doctor prescribes the pills, but the individual takes them at the time of their own choosing. No doctor there at all.

Situations are not contrived. You posed the hypotheticals, not I. But I believe there is an actual difference between someone who is in a treatable clinical depression, but can be helped; and someone who is suffering excruciating pain that even morphine cannot help, with no end to it.

Ultimately, the law matters not. People can commit suicide easily, and the law can do nothing about it. I don't see how society is benefited by forcing the dying to suffer needlessly. I respect those whose opinions differ, but I believe they are wrong. It gets down to your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

What started as voluntary euthanasia in Holland is now involuntary euthanasia. How would you like to go to a doctor not knowing when he is going to give you a lethal dose of something?

Source please. Not saying you are wrong..just asking for something other than your say so.

If we go to the socialized medicine that "bho" and other leftists/democrats are espousing then we are well on the road to involuntary euthanasia.

This is a fallacious slippery slope argument. I do not believe anyone with any degree of rational thought, of any political stripe would support this.

 

[webdog]

Washington and Oregon have Death with Dignity laws that allow a person to gain physician assistance in ending their suffering from a terminal and painful existence.

I don't see how this supports death. Isn't basically giving morphine or inducing a coma the same thing? I have no problem easing someone's excruciating pain through drugs that render them unconscious if that is what the patient wants...but leave the dying in God's hand.

 

[targus]

Not contradictory at all. In one case, it is a suffering individual. IN the other hypothetical, you are talking about a company set up to make the doctor's determination. In case 1, we assume the doctor has weighed in.

No, I am not talking about a company to make the decision in place of a doctor. I am talking about someone carrying out the wishes of the person who wants to die. Why is it necessary for a doctor to do the killing?

Now while I do think the safeguards in the Oregon statute are appropriate ones, ultimately I tend to believe that a person does have the final determination on their own destiny. Do we disagree? Yep. So what?

You seem to be saying that a person has a right to employ someone to kill them? Am I understanding you correctly?

If there is such a "right" then why the qualifications?

If I have a right to employ someone to kill me then why would it be necessary to hire a doctor?

If I a right to employ someone to kill me then why must I be terminally ill or suffering in order to exercise my right?

In the Washington statute, the doctor prescribes the pills, but the individual takes them at the time of their own choosing. No doctor there at all.

Why is it necessary in such a case to involve a doctor? Anyone can kill themselves in any of a number of ways. It seems that you are making a doctor the arbritor of the life or death of another person. How does a doctor know how much suffering I should be able to endure before deciding that I have had enough and am thus entitled to his pills to kill myself?

Situations are not contrived. You posed the hypotheticals, not I. But I believe there is an actual difference between someone who is in a treatable clinical depression, but can be helped; and someone who is suffering excruciating pain that even morphine cannot help, with no end to it.

When these laws are written they are based on just such hypotheticals.

You say that you believe such and such about treatable and untreatable - but you are not a doctor.

Ultimately, the law matters not. People can commit suicide easily, and the law can do nothing about it. I don't see how society is benefited by forcing the dying to suffer needlessly. I respect those whose opinions differ, but I believe they are wrong.

The law does matter because this about employing someone else to kill you - not committing suicide. And it is about putting the power to end lives in the hands of doctors based on that doctor's opinion. What happens to public trust in doctors when they are the ones that decide who lives and who dies? Will very ill people decide not to seek health care because they are afraid that a doctor may decide that they should be put down?

It gets down to your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

Which brings me again to my unanswered question.

If there exists a RIGHT to employ someone to kill you - on what basis are there limitations or qualifications put on this right so long as they do not conflict with the rights of another.

The exercise of a supposed right to employ someone to kill you should not be hampered by questions of health, state of mind, who you choose to carry out the act, etc.

You are very inconsistent in your thinking on this matter.

 

[just-want-peace]

Two socially (?) acceptable forms of Legalized Murder:
Front end - Freedom of choice:tear:
Tail end - Death with dignity :tear:

Anything in between is illegal!!! Go figure!

 

[LadyEagle]

Speaking of euthanasia - this takes it to a whole new level!!

The Saudi Killer Chip!!

Saudi 'Killer Chip' Implant Would Track, Eliminate Undesirables
Monday, May 18, 2009

It could be the ultimate in political control — but it won't be patented in Germany.

German media outlets reported last week that a Saudi inventor's application to patent a "killer chip," as the Swiss tabloids put it, had been denied.

The basic model would consist of a tiny GPS transceiver placed in a capsule and inserted under a person's skin, so that authorities could track him easily.

Model B would have an extra function — a dose of cyanide to remotely kill the wearer without muss or fuss if authorities deemed he'd become a public threat.

The inventor said the chip could be used to track terrorists, criminals, fugitives, illegal immigrants, political dissidents, domestic servants and foreigners overstaying their visas.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520331,00.html

Someone, somewhere, will end up giving the patent - wouldn't surprise me if it ended up being the US that gives it. :tear:

 

[donnA]

it's been a couple of hours since I asked for biblical evidence, no scripture yet?

 

[SeekingTruth]

Two socially (?) acceptable forms of Legalized Murder:
Front end - Freedom of choice:tear:
Tail end - Death with dignity :tear:

Anything in between is illegal!!! Go figure!

Amen!! MP and others do not like to call things what they are.

"Freedom of choice" is another term for murder when performed on the unborn or partially born. It is still murder.

"Death with dignity" is suicide, regardless of how it is painted. Assisting suicide is nothing more than assisting murder.

God have mercy on the proponents of either.
God have mercy on those who would compare mankind to an animal. God did not create animals a "little lower than the angels".

 

[Robert Snow]

Matt has it dead on (no pun intended). If I am suffering with no hope of improvement, whose business is it if I can quietly and peaceably make my exit. Some pain cannot be managed. There is nothing either dignified or noble about a lingering, painful demise. With machinery able to keep people's body's breathing after they would have died naturally, why prolong it for the person, or their family.

I agree with both Matt and you! Death with dignity is something all should support. There are some tricky situations, but that doesn't mean the ability to end one's suffering should not be available.