black dog
Free America
Why should someone be forced to live even if life and health are excellent?
After approving the murder of babies, MD targets seniors...
- Thread starter Bird Dog
- Start date
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
This_person
Well-Known Member
So, the government is telling you that they need to be involved and will tell you who must help you, and you accept that?
No one actually needs someone else involved. Whether the government thinks so or not.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
All I was doing was answering your question with the factual reason why.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Do you agree with what you said, that a person needs a doctor’s buy-in?
All I was doing was challenging that assertion.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
If one wants to follow the law, yes.
I agree be can, and do, off themselves without the doctor giving a thumbs up.
So if I commit suicide without a doctor’s buy in.....what am I going to be charged with and who comes to arrest me?
This_person
Well-Known Member
I have been under the impression that you are more like-minded with me that challenges to the existence of such laws is the problem which would generally lead to not arguing in favor of such laws.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
This is where we disconnect.
Providing facts about a bill related to a thread someone else started is not "arguing in favor" of it.
This_person
Well-Known Member
It feels like you’re doing more than answering questions about the law. It seems like you are advocating.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I missed this previously. I am very sorry you had to go through that, but glad for your father he had you to support him.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I can agree with the premise without beingtied to the law in question.
I agree with the premise that people can choose to live and die. Can't get any more free than that. I agree that the drugs they give you in hospice can easily be taken in bulk and that'll be your last dose. I also agree that governmentwill always, always, find a way to screw up something that should be easy to implement. But maybe that's why I'm just a worker bee and not in Annapolis.
Another aspect people should worry about, or at least acknowledge, is life insurance. Unless there's a suicide clause, your family is getting jack crap.
This_person
Well-Known Member
People have the option to stop eating. People have the option to accidentally mix cleaning supplies and breathe in the fumes.
Laws that regulate citizens’ options are inherently bad.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Apparently the state wants to give people another option. Take a few pills and go to sleep well before your body withers away from whatever disease it has. These other options talked about essentially have to happen once you;re on your death bed. I believe this law is intended to be an end of life option that exists before you start to lose your bodily functions or body decay.
It sounds like the state isn't regulating the options (as it's been pointed out, there are other options), but offering another.
Auntie Biache'
Well-Known Member
Stand by. You'll probably be paying for it.
“Proponents claim that this is an issue of personal choice and that those who object to assisted suicide don’t have to utilize it, but taxpayers will be forced to pay for it through NJ’s Medicaid program which is a state taxpayer funded program,” it said. “This means that all taxpayers will be complicit in funding state sanctioned physician assisted suicide if this bill becomes law.”
“Proponents claim that this is an issue of personal choice and that those who object to assisted suicide don’t have to utilize it, but taxpayers will be forced to pay for it through NJ’s Medicaid program which is a state taxpayer funded program,” it said. “This means that all taxpayers will be complicit in funding state sanctioned physician assisted suicide if this bill becomes law.”
luvmygdaughters
Well-Known Member
I'm all for it. Why, if there is no possibility of cure, would you put such a burden and strain on your family? Its sad to think about losing a loved one regardless, but, to watch a person who may have been very healthy, active, vital, waste away from a terrible disease, that in all honesty, has already claimed the "life" of the person you once knew is heartbreaking. We don't allow our pets to suffer, why would we allow our loved ones to suffer.
Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
I wish I had kept the reference handy, but news out of the Netherlands (and maybe Belgium?; I can't remember) about physician-assisted suicide hasn't been as rosy as advocates would like to paint it.
According to this article (I believe it was quite well-sourced and "non-partisan," a journal article I'm thinking) the "take a few pills and go to sleep" doesn't always quite go as planned. What with people not dying (but becoming vegetables), people dying in a far more violent way than either the end-of-lifer and/or attending family members/friends were led to believe to expect, and "force suiciding" against the wishes of either (or both) the terminally ill and family....
Government gets involved..., could be great. But I'd watch my wallet (so to speak). Government is the ultimate master of over-promising and under-delivering. It's also great at sticking its nose in where there's "profit" to be made and often where it's not wanted.
--- End of line (MCP)
This_person
Well-Known Member
Again, given the number of physically healthy people who kill them selves every hour, I’d say there’s no need to wait until one is on their deathbed.
The implication of the government offering “another option” implies that it’s up to the government to give options, which has the obvious corollary that the government has the authority to take options away.
There’s no need for “another option”, and any credibility given to the concept of the government offering options is inherently problematic.
Auntie Biache'
Well-Known Member
I read that article.