After approving the murder of babies, MD targets seniors...

luvmygdaughters

Well-Known Member
You know, you could make the same observation, but in a reverse manner. The people who overdose repeatedly and are given Narcam to bring them around, why do we do that? Its apparent that they do not want to continue living or they wouldn't continue to use. What right or responsibility do we have to stop someone from killing themselves?
 

Yooper

Socket 1, Intel 80486
PREMO Member
You know, you could make the same observation, but in a reverse manner. The people who overdose repeatedly and are given Narcam to bring them around, why do we do that? Its apparent that they do not want to continue living or they wouldn't continue to use. What right or responsibility do we have to stop someone from killing themselves?
I think it's due, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to an assumption that people who trying to complete what appears to be (or would end up being) the act of suicide are not in their right mind or that they lack perspective or that it was accidental (etc.). So they are given the benefit of the doubt.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Goldenhawk

Active Member
I think it's due, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to an assumption that people who trying to complete what appears to be (or would end up being) the act of suicide are not in their right mind or that they lack perspective or that it was accidental (etc.). So they are given the benefit of the doubt.
I think the fact that they're "using" is prima fascia evidence that they're not right in the head. Not disrespecting them - addiction is tough - but it messes with people's abilities to make good judgements about how to behave. It's a matter of saving them from themselves.
 

Yooper

Socket 1, Intel 80486
PREMO Member
I think the fact that they're "using" is prima fascia evidence that they're not right in the head. Not disrespecting them - addiction is tough - but it messes with people's abilities to make good judgements about how to behave. It's a matter of saving them from themselves.
Excellent point. Thank you.

This is a bigger deal than many would imagine. I was reading on a pro psych blog a few years ago that there is an on-going discussion regarding clients/patients with mental health issues like schizophrenia. We know that schizophrenics do better when they are on their meds, but that the side effects of the meds are such that many do not want to take their meds.

We also know that schizophrenics do better if they smoke (seems nicotine really does help in warding off the symptoms of schizophrenia).

So are we (doctors, specifically, society, in general) supposed to force them to take their meds? To force them to smoke?

If so, aren't we making a mockery of "personal autonomy"? But if not, aren't we failing in our role to "be our brother's keeper"? To save them from themselves?

I realize this comment was a little off-topic, but I make it to reinforce the point that issues like this thread's main topic are not at all as "open, shut" as many would have us believe.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

PeoplesElbow

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.
No, the government is giving the Doctor the legal path to give the person a painless, hopefully messless way to end their life vice jumping off a building and going splat everywhere or blowing brains all over the living room.

The law is not for the person wanting to end their life, or even their family, the law is for the doctor.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
No, the government is giving the Doctor the legal path to give the person a painless, hopefully messless way to end their life vice jumping off a building and going splat everywhere or blowing brains all over the living room.

The law is not for the person wanting to end their life, or even their family, the law is for the doctor.
Who, to have his license, has taken an oath to "first, do no harm". Happy to take any doctor's license that chooses to kill someone.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Who, to have his license, has taken an oath to "first, do no harm". Happy to take any doctor's license that chooses to kill someone.
The doctor isn't killing them, just giving them the tool to do it. No different than someone selling them a gun.

There are also many medical procedures that can be considered doing harm.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The doctor isn't killing them, just giving them the tool to do it. No different than someone selling them a gun.

There are also many medical procedures that can be considered doing harm.
So, why not sell them a gun?

I'm all for people killing themselves. I'm adamantly against their doctor doing it for them.

Because, then the doctor is in the business of killing. And, on whose orders? When is it ok to intentionally kill someone, and when is it not?

BAD, bad precedent. Leave doctors to help keep people alive, and let people decide if they want to change that - as demonstrated by THEIR actions.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
So, why not sell them a gun?

I'm all for people killing themselves. I'm adamantly against their doctor doing it for them.

Because, then the doctor is in the business of killing. And, on whose orders? When is it ok to intentionally kill someone, and when is it not?

BAD, bad precedent. Leave doctors to help keep people alive, and let people decide if they want to change that - as demonstrated by THEIR actions.
So would you be ok if you could just buy the pills on the shelf at Walmart next to the condoms?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So would you be ok if you could just buy the pills on the shelf at Walmart next to the condoms?
You CAN just buy the pills on the shelf at Walmart. You CAN buy the cleaning supplies a few aisles over to make it look like an accident when you were cleaning your tub (takes out the suicide issue). You can buy the knives a few aisles over from there, and you can buy guns a few aisles over from there.

You can accidently get in a car crash on the way to or from Walmart. You can accidentally electrocute yourself while "fixing" your toaster or a light switch.

You can slip out the back, Jack. Make a new plan, Stan. No need to be coy, Roy - just get yourself free. Hop in front of the bus, Gus - no need to discuss much! Doing it yourself is the key, Lee.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
You CAN just buy the pills on the shelf at Walmart. You CAN buy the cleaning supplies a few aisles over to make it look like an accident when you were cleaning your tub (takes out the suicide issue). You can buy the knives a few aisles over from there, and you can buy guns a few aisles over from there.

You can accidently get in a car crash on the way to or from Walmart. You can accidentally electrocute yourself while "fixing" your toaster or a light switch.

You can slip out the back, Jack. Make a new plan, Stan. No need to be coy, Roy - just get yourself free. Hop in front of the bus, Gus - no need to discuss much! Doing it yourself is the key, Lee.
So lets say one of your parents, wife, or children are dying from cancer and want to end their pain. You would rather see them swallow some drano or blow their brains out than receive something that is known to end their life peacefully?

I had a great aunt that begged her daughter to go get a rock and bash her head in when she was in a nursing home. My dad and I were visiting her, she started to ask me to do it (I was 12) when my dad grabbed me and took me outside and told me to go watch TV.

I also watched my own dad wither away with pancreatic cancer and the last week of his life only wake up to scream once and a while or puke up a gallon of blood about 5-6 times a day, the only time I ever seriously prayed was then for his pain to be over.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So lets say one of your parents, wife, or children are dying from cancer and want to end their pain. You would rather see them swallow some drano or blow their brains out than receive something that is known to end their life peacefully?

I had a great aunt that begged her daughter to go get a rock and bash her head in when she was in a nursing home. My dad and I were visiting her, she started to ask me to do it (I was 12) when my dad grabbed me and took me outside and told me to go watch TV.

I also watched my own dad wither away with pancreatic cancer and the last week of his life only wake up to scream once and a while or puke up a gallon of blood about 5-6 times a day, the only time I ever seriously prayed was then for his pain to be over.
I pretty much refuse to look at policy/legal decisions that way.
135948


I'm very sorry you had to go through those things. But, if I start to empathize I stop thinking logically. To make decisions like this, I have to think logically.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
I pretty much refuse to look at policy/legal decisions that way.
View attachment 135948

I'm very sorry you had to go through those things. But, if I start to empathize I stop thinking logically. To make decisions like this, I have to think logically.
See I think it is thinking logically, an adult of sound mind should be able to decide they want to end their life and someone with the knowledge to help them do it cleanly, peacefully and painlessly should be able to give them the tool to do it.

Isn't it logical to have a pet put down when it is only in pain? I think you are basing you belief off the Christianity taboo of suicide and that is not logical.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
See I think it is thinking logically, an adult of sound mind should be able to decide they want to end their life and someone with the knowledge to help them do it cleanly, peacefully and painlessly should be able to give them the tool to do it.

Isn't it logical to have a pet put down when it is only in pain? I think you are basing you belief off the Christianity taboo of suicide and that is not logical.
While I consider myself a Christian, in terms of what laws should be I consider myself an American. So, the fact that I've repeatedly said people should be able to kill themselves themselves (not someone for them) I would hope you would see that I think it's ok from a legal standpoint for people to kill themselves.

My problem is someone doing it for them. My problem is also the government getting involved at all. Suddenly there's a question as to what will be legal and not. Killing someone - especially a person whose job it is consists of trying to keep someone alive - is not ok. People killing themselves should always be ok.

Think of the legal ramifications. We have people being sued for not baking a cake, for goodness sake. Imagine a doctor who believes his/her job is to keep someone alive, because that's the oath they take, saying, "I won't help you die." Now they get sued. Imagine, now that the law is involved, a person who was misdiagnosed and is not of sound mind - should they be allowed to order someone to kill them? What if it's almost a "pull the plug" moment because of dementia, and the spouse or the kids are ordering it? Is that ok?

Getting someone else involved in killing yourself is just wrong. Getting a person whose job it is to keep you alive makes it far worse. Getting the government involved sinks the idea completely. Someone wants to die, let them kill themselves. There are painless ways to do it, and it really shows you want it done without there being responsibility given to someone else.
 

RodRugg

Active Member
When my uncle Stanley got his leg slammed in the car door he told the paramedics to just kill him right there. They said they would if they could but too bad he would have to go to the hospital and get his leg put in a cast. 8 months later he was back to normal and glad to be alive. When it happened again, he passed out so nobody's sure if he learned his lesson but I think so because why would he get his door fixed after that to keep it from ever happening again? Now he goes around curves and the door stays completely shut. To me that sounds like somebody who wants to live forever.
 

gemma_rae

Well-Known Member
When I fell off the scaffolding scrubbing the mold I screamed at them people until I was blue in the face, 'Just shoot me'! Wouldn't you know it, when I got back home none of them even bothered to set DVR.
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
Bill failed in the Senate...

Aid-in-dying legislation, which stalled in committee for the past four years, passed the House of Delegates last month, despite strong opposition from the Catholic Church and emotional misgivings from dozens of lawmakers. It was approved by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee last week — albeit with numerous amendments that advocates said would have made it the strictest such law in the country.
But the bill failed in dramatic fashion Wednesday when the full Senate deadlocked 23 to 23 on whether to advance it. Sen. Obie Patterson (D-Prince George’s) did not vote, saying he “could not bring myself to move right or left on the bill” after a 50-minute debate that largely focused on personal choice and the sanctity of life.
Sen. Pamela G. Beidle (D-Anne Arundel) initially voted in favor of the measure, which would have meant a 24 to 22 vote. She switched her vote to “No” just before the tally was taken.
Eight other states allow doctors to help patients end their lives, and New Jersey’s legislature approved an aid-in-dying bill this week.
Sen. William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery), the lead sponsor of the Maryland bill, said the tie vote marked significant progress, even though the legislation would not become law this year.
“Never before has this bill come out of the House and never before has it come out of the Senate committee, and we had 23 senators go along with it,” Smith said. “It definitely marks a lot of progress, and I can be proud of that.”

 
Top