Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Well no, Bart has shown that in Belgium (or was it Holland) someone with a long term chronic illness was killed and it was deemed legal.

Not much diff between assisted suicide and euthanasia when the person involved has to be of sound mind to agree to it. Just who pushes the button or what have you. Say someone physically incapable of pushing that button, doc does it for them, really no different than if they had the means to do it themselves.

Euthanasia becomes a problem only when the person involved doesn't consent or is incapable of giving consent.

Bart's beginning to sound like the abortion shooters. In fact worse. To kill somebody who enables a person who wants to die to in fact do so is just insane. More of the "we had to destroy the village to save it" type of thinking.

   

There is a huge difference, namely 'consent'. With Assisted Suicide, the Doctor can rig everything up and even 'push the button' so to speak, but it's done with the consent, assistance and knowledge of the patient.

Euthanasia is what Bart described - there was no consent from the patient and the patient was not going to die from their condition. The Doctor decided to end that person's life out of some sort of sense of compassion and 'quality of life' perspective, and that was deemed legal in the Netherlands. The patient was not consulted. This is the circumstance in which Bart would intervene. Without the patient having a written living will, I can't say I blame him either.

   

   

Ignorance is bliss when it suits ones agenda

I thought ALL articles posted made clear consent is key.

   

Thanks for not conflating my words with something else. Much appreciated.

   

And thank you for abundantly illustrating this point.

   

You might want to read up on the Alkmaar case. There was no consent, and the Supreme Court of the Netherlands said that it was permissible if there was a "irresistible compulsion or necessity" deemed by the Physician alone. in 1985 they determined that for patients in Vegetative states, Euthanasia could also be justified.

   

I`m surprised at the level of ignorance, although it`s likely wilful in andy`s case. The trial of Capt. Semrau was an excellent example of euthanizing someone wounded beyond saving.

   

Which is what I object to.

But don't let that stop you from smearing me like Brenda does.

   

Read the definition of euthanasia. If you're talking about involuntary euthanasia you have to make that clear. Brenda certainly isn't talking about involuntary, nor is the article. So if you want to take the discussion in a new direction, you need to be more clear about what you're talking about.

The case of the Canadian mercy killing the Taliban - would you shoot that man? I wouldn't, in fact I agreed with his actions, tho I can see the slippery slope argument applying here.

   

What about locked in syndrome. Wouldn't you want somebody to kill you in that case without your consent? I sure would.

   

"Why?" is the most powerful question. Whenever I see anyone posting something out of the ordinary for them, I ask 'why?'. Sometimes it's just a simple thing that leads to clarity, but going off before understanding the response is usually what gets me in trouble.


Commas save lives.jpg [ 20.01 KiB | Viewed 146 times ]

   

What, you are against MURDER??
Yet, you have no problem with shooting to kill when someone steps foot on your lawn. Huh, funny.

   

The woman was 95 years, had suffered for decades. You make it sound like the dr just make her OD on morphine just for the fuck of it.

Didn't happen that way.

   

In a heartbeat. Well, not one, but a few. Once I realized it was more humane than letting someone try to save him and having him die slowly and painfully anyway.



No. I would not want to live that way, but if I was thoughtless enough to not leave a living will stating my wishes (which I have), then it's my own damn fault and I should suffer a long and healthy life like that.

   

Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  Next