pharmer

Blowing your brains out with a hand gun is a pretty messy way to die, however, that is the only option available today. Doctors should be allowed to prescribe leathal doses of medication but the person in question must be the one who takes it. If someone is severely incapacitated then you can set up a IV that can be triggered with a button press. However, it should be the one dies that presses the button. Doctors prescribing lethal doses of medications actually contradicts the hippocratic oath. Assisited suicide could and should be done with a doc over-seeing the process. Assessment of the patient prior to and during the administration of drug should be done with scrutiny and sensitivity. This may be an option to avoid the painfully unecessary legal process after the fact.

Killing someone can never be legal because your always acting in their ultimate worst interest. I figure if they want to suicide it, we can't make this illegal (not much can be done when they are dead). But for anyone to help is most definitely murder. This lady thought about it, and then killed her son (yes, she put the bag over his head and tied it up). Didn't go seek help, didn't go seek legal advice, nothing. Just killed him. How do we really know he wanted to die, I'm sure he was on tons of meds for the pain and stuff. Absolutely agree. You could never know for sure if he wanted to live or die so the desicion the mother made to kill her son can never be justified. When does it cross the line between murder to mercy? Or is it all one large grey area?

Making dying illegal? If a person chooses to take their own life or asks a close friend to aid them in taking their life or, the most controversial, euthanasia. What place does the law have in these affairs? This is an induvidual's life and they should not be subject to opinion or criticism directed at their life or death? What to do with euthanasia? No blanket (one size fits all) law or penalty is just (case by case assessment?) as it is a subjective desicion it wouldn't be logical to apply the same penalty in all cases.

Sorry buddy, its not the system. The Commie bloc did it too. Our system is better. We have the freedom to choose another if it wasn't so good. They don't, they are oppressed using tools like rape, kidnappings and torture beyond anything we can comprehend. Can you tell me when a democratically elected government was removed and replaced with a puppet regime? A real democratic government, just one example, more if you can provide it. Haiti. Both communism and capitalism are material based. Neither will be stable over long periods of time. And your proposal to end capitalism and communism?? Uh huh... riiiigght. And thats right, I forgot in democracy you can have roaming street gangs that beat your citizens into submission. How silly of me? Haiti is a bad example, Haiti has never been a free democracy. Oh and I just thought of another example. Hitler was elected too, next time you should argue we should have respected Nazi Germany's soverignty. I respect what you saying, but you got to be more pragmatic. I'm open to hear your solution to capitalism and communism though. OKay 1) Haiti had elected (twice) Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who was twice removed by military forces. Haitian military trained by US army while under former US supported 'dictator' Duvalier. 2) Sure hitler was an elected leader. Why did the US not declare war until after he had conquered most of continental europe? When a nation imposes its policies and governance on other nations (such as US today) then it should be overthrown as such acts are violations of basic human rights. For example, when Hitler was extermenating german-jews and invading poland, that was an appropriate time to remove such a regime. Not when Hatitian farmers won't sell their land to US foreign investors, so it can in turn be developed to support agriculture which is ultimately for export (all the while exploiting cheap Haitian labour wages). 3) The problem with materialistic based systems is the simple fact that it only accounts for one type of capital. Economic capital is the sole source of capital in welfare economics. What about environmental, ecological and social capital? Ecological-economics has a measure for environment and ecological capital, it allows for a steady-state system, rather than infinite growth. http://www.ecoeco.org/

Sorry buddy, its not the system. The Commie bloc did it too. Our system is better. We have the freedom to choose another if it wasn't so good. They don't, they are oppressed using tools like rape, kidnappings and torture beyond anything we can comprehend. Can you tell me when a democratically elected government was removed and replaced with a puppet regime? A real democratic government, just one example, more if you can provide it. Haiti. Both communism and capitalism are material based. Neither will be stable over long periods of time.

The justification of american (and canadian for that matter) foreign policy is not responsible or even equitable. The need that this system (capitalism) requires for the stimulation of growth and consumption essentially forces nations (such as the G8) to impose their principles on sovereign, undeveloped nations. To remove democratically elected governments in order to install puppet regimes is not a responsible use of power even if such a nation is arrogant enough to believe its system is better. More often than not the end result is the exploitation and susequent marginalization of said undeveloped nation until a 'proper' business partner strategy is implemented in order to funnel money up and out of the country... back to the source.

ummmm...... You faithfully follow a system (capitalism) which is inherently unstable? Think about this; Welfare economics is based on a pool of resources which are infinite, hence the premise of increased wellfare through growth. My question is simple, where is this growth going to come from? We live in a finite world with a limited amount of resources, there is not adequate supply to sustain this existence. Energy resources in the US peaked in the 60s (re. energy shortages in the 70s) and now world energy sources will peak within the next decade or so. The exact date is irrelevant, the point remains that the end of cheap energy is inevitable and to rely on the ingenuity of capitalism to solve these global problems is beyond the systems capability. The neo-economic model relies on reversibilities (see newtonian calculus, the mathematical theory used for the theories' development) in the 'real world' there are IRreversibilities for which the model does not take into account. To blame starvation on politics really proves the entire point. These are politics bread from US foreign policy and they are fighting for the scraps that 'trickle down' from the capitalist machinery above.

Where do you think capitalism is finding the resources to produce these magical solutions? Could it be from the exploitation of the third world? Petroleum discovery peaked in continental usa in the late 60s and since then usa imports 60% of it's energy. American foreign policy- www.americanenterpriseinstitute.org It's no longer the continental US which is bearing the consequences of this expansion, it is now the southern hemisphere.

Population growth has specific implications on the overuse of fossil fuels, eg. petroleum, natural gas, coal. Forget about government programs, when cheap energy sources are used up government won't be able to provide much of anything... let alone social programs.

Perhaps cybercoma is missing the point. The idea is to balance economic capital with environmental/ecological capital. The problem really is a misunderstanding, or perhaps no understanding at all, of exponential growth. A paper that was written way back in the 70s that cybercoma should read- "Bartlett Forgotten Fundamentals" Everytime an election comes around there is no voice for steady-state economics and debate rarely, if ever, questions the current economic system to which we faithfully follow. Whether it be popular media refusing to cover it, or right wing economists denying the opportunity for scrutiny, the end result being that people don't recognize that a problem exists.

One of the goals of democratic socialism (the most significant in my opinion) is to ensure the world’s resources are used in a sustainable manner. This is a very simple definition of what such a government (democratic socialist gov’t) would work towards. What business, you might ask, does government have controlling the consumption of resources within a country? If one examines some of the negative effects of globalization (degradation of environment, unsustainable use of resources, human rights violations in developing countries) it can be suggested that private, multinational corporations are not being responsible for the manufacturing, distribution and consumption of their products/services. This is simply because they are not accountable to anyone BUT their bottom-line. Therefore, the incentive for sustainable, responsible use of resources and labour can be implemented by the government of the country from where such labour and resource are being obtained. The result would be a more conscientious private-sector which could still make a profit, but would also be accountable to the environment, labour laws and the *responsible* distribution and disposal of their products. If we leave this responsibility to multi-nationals the consequences will be grave as they will not stop to consider the repercussions of their practices. “Only after the last tree has been cut down Only after the last river has been poisoned Only after the last fish has been caught Only then will you find that your money cannot be eaten.”- Cree Indian Prophecy.

A prosperous economy is beneficial to everyone. When big business suffers, so do the rest of us. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When big business widens the gap between poverty and prosperity it is difficult to see the benefit a giving away coporate tax cuts. Perhaps a government that ensures big business becomes accountable for its practices and its exploitation of people and environment is what the NDP is all about.

The suggestion should be made that this new definition will not have the sweeping social impacts that are being discussed in this thread. There will not be a mad rush of young people to these swinger clubs and it is unlikely that we will begin to see, with alarming regularity, couples engaging in sexual intercourse on the bus-stop bench. The fact is, this type of sexual practice, and many others you could only envision in your worst adolescent dream, has been performed since the beginning of time. Now that society is beginning to recognize that these practices may be occurring in homes, and clubs, in our communities, social conservatives are envisioning the "degradation of society and... the disintegration of morals and personal values which destroy people and families." Why is it that some feel the need to invoke judgments on individuals because of their habits and social practices? What does this attitude accomplish and why are some pre-occupied by what takes place in the neighbours bedroom. MYOB "As members of a diverse society, we must be prepared to tolerate conduct of which we disapprove."-- http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...3fb1184&k=46743 As for the raising our children; a young person who recognizes what a swinger club is, who realizes what occurs at such an establishment, will feel less compelled to engage is such activities if that person understands that these are only superficial needs that are being satisfied in such a situation. Morals cannot be developed through fear, understanding facilitates good decision making. Honesty and enlightenment will always prevail above distrust and denial.

Paul Martin certainly has shown incredible excellence in his time as Finance Minister and now as Prime Minister... We were/are lucky to have him... I trust his judgement on this matter. Martin's argument is very clear: Harper seems to have contempt for our system of government, our laws and traditions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And you have contempt for the intelligence of people on this site if you think anyone's going to read that pap and not snicker at you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The entire argument of SSM is a moot point. It has already been voted on by the house and the fact that Mr Harper won't accept this reality is, quite frankly, scary. Although Mr Martin could be less arrogant when he argues this point, ultimately he is maintaining that Mr Harper cannot change a right which has already been written into the charter. For Mr Harper to even propose the elimination of a charter right demonstrates his arrogance. Why is this even an issue? This is the definition of arrogance.

It was interesting to see, and listen, to Mr Harper speak on his policies which, for the most part, he stood alone on for many issues. Over the course of the debate he was successful at communiticating the party's policy on each issue. Personally, this seemed like the best strategy as most Canadians wanted to see, first hand, what Mr Harper and the conservatives have planned. He showed good restraint in attacking Mr Martin which was impressive from my perspective. Mr. Duceppe always debates with passion and commitment to his cause and if only a federalist leader could show such emotion freely... The closest probably being Layton, on many issues he spoke with conviction and confidence. When Mr Martin tries to show emotion it seems forced and unconvincing (bad acting).