Quebec doctors urge euthanasia debate

[ToadBrother]

really a moment ago you called me a monster and exhibited quite unambiguous hatred towards me personally... You also think that 6 million jews are much more important then 7 to 10 million Ukrainians... since many times you have justified, where you have not outright praized the gaping double standards in the treatment of the Holodomor and Holocaust.

what specifically have I wrote that is racial hatred?

I don't know why you persist in trying to insinuate that I'm a delusional moron. Just about every exchange you have reveals your racism, your fear and just generally your irrationality.

Not only that, but your first paragraph is a lie. So on top of being terrified of different skin colors, believing all kinds of absurd psuedo-historical and pseudo-scientific crap, you're capable of an extraordinary amount of dishonesty.

[lictor616]

Not only that, but your first paragraph is a lie.

from thread: "the old double standard still"...

ToadBrother

Today, 07:26 AM

Post #158

Full Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1654

Joined: 1-December 08

Member No.: 4507

QUOTE:

"You're a lying little monster, Lictor."

see you did call me a monster

[lictor616]

I don't know why you persist in trying to insinuate that I'm a delusional moron. Just about every exchange you have reveals your racism, your fear and just generally your irrationality.

Not only that, but your first paragraph is a lie. So on top of being terrified of different skin colors, believing all kinds of absurd psuedo-historical and pseudo-scientific crap, you're capable of an extraordinary amount of dishonesty.

again can you name on exchange specifically?

as for pseudo science.... do you believe black people are "black" for ... genetic reasons? or because of racism and poverty?

Edited October 23, 2009 by lictor616

[Pliny]

Euthanasia is a biological necessity of preventing dilapidation of the genome through the blunder of preserving defective offspring. A coyote female will fight to the death to protect her puppies, but she will also herself kill one of her few offspring if she senses that it is in some way inferior. The sordid complexity of human genetics ensures the birth, in every social and ethnic class, of children who are irremediably defective. A rational society will destroy at birth children that are misshapen or maimed or psychically degenerate.

There is a difference between a coyote and a human. A coyote is an animal that realizes it is the effect of it's environment and does not adapt it to his needs. A human does his best to adapt the environment to his needs.

We may compare ourselves to animals but we need not equate ourselves with them.

Do you believe a coyote rationally makes the decision to euthanize their offspring? Instinctually they might know if the environment is too much of a challenge for one of their offspring but they never consider their offspring might be able to adapt the environment to his needs.

[GostHacked]

Euthinasia should be considered.

Let the famliy and patient decide what is best and get the lawyers involved to change the laws and allow it. If you follow procedure and get all parties signed off on it, then that will result in less abuse/murder.

As for Lictor's eugenics, I don't know where I stand on it. For the most part I am against it. There are special cases that demand individual review.

Kill them all, and we never may have someone like Stephen Hawking again.

[Pliny]

Euthinasia should be considered.

Let the famliy and patient decide what is best and get the lawyers involved to change the laws and allow it. If you follow procedure and get all parties signed off on it, then that will result in less abuse/murder.

As for Lictor's eugenics, I don't know where I stand on it. For the most part I am against it. There are special cases that demand individual review.

The State doesn't need to be involved unless a crime has been committed. Health professionals do need to be involved and that should suffice. If you can't trust a doctor who has sworn to the Hypocratic oath who can you trust? Doctors may have wrong information or lack information in their practice of medicine (we don't know everything yet) but they will follow the oath to "Do no Harm". The odd unscrupulous character involved with malpractice for what ever reason would be rare but not non-existent.

Involve the State and they enact laws for economic or social expediency and their own sanctimony, not out of any consideration for the welfare of individuals. If they are involved they may initially exercise restraint, with heavy regulation and oversight but eventually they trash their restraints, the American Constitution is an example as well as their tendency to centralize power, and the excuse for shedding those restraints is generally because it has been deemed necessary for the collective good.

Kill them all, and we never may have someone like Stephen Hawking again.

Exactly. If it had the power, the State would have okayed euthanizing Stephen Hawking. Not so certainly with only family involved and a high regard for the sanctity of life; however you may define "life". As much should be done as can be done to favour life and that's all that can be expected. It's a very difficult area and motivations to justify it must be questioned to the core. It helps if the individual concerned is of sound mind but is anyone facing death of sound mind?

[lictor616]

There is a difference between a coyote and a human. A coyote is an animal that realizes it is the effect of it's environment and does not adapt it to his needs. A human does his best to adapt the environment to his needs.

We may compare ourselves to animals but we need not equate ourselves with them.

Do you believe a coyote rationally makes the decision to euthanize their offspring? Instinctually they might know if the environment is too much of a challenge for one of their offspring but they never consider their offspring might be able to adapt the environment to his needs.

The human genus is not at all different, except that it has by intelligence obtained the ability to destroy most of its non-human enemies, and is menaced chiefly by predators of its own specie.

To weed out detrimental members to a society is a essential, but a civilized society, by collectively assuming responsibility for the survival of its members, protects individuals from a need to fight for themselves, and thus permits the thoughtless to entertain illusions about the world and to imagine that the precarious security given them by the nation is something that occurs automatically and that they can abuse and exploit at will.

We are as much as part of nature as animals... we are subject to its very same rules.

In this case we know that Julianna's environment is far too much for her to handle.

[Leafless]

Having watched a very close relative slowly slip into dementia, all I can say is law or no law, if I'm every diagnosed with such a disease, I'm not going to end up a near-vegetable in a bed. quote]

There already exist a form of euthanasia where family members agree to terminate the life of a very sick family member.

It is called DNR or 'do not resuscitate'.

[wyly]

Euthinasia should be considered.

Let the famliy and patient decide what is best and get the lawyers involved to change the laws and allow it. If you follow procedure and get all parties signed off on it, then that will result in less abuse/murder.

As for Lictor's eugenics, I don't know where I stand on it. For the most part I am against it. There are special cases that demand individual review.

Kill them all, and we never may have someone like Stephen Hawking again.

how do you figure a right to euthanasia would eliminate Hawkings? has Hawkings ever expressed interest in an assisted death?...no one has even considered euthanasia for the unwilling... people are coming up with illogical excuses for scenarios that do not exist...

Edited October 26, 2009 by wyly

[wyly]

in the Netherlands any competent person over the age of 16 can request euthanasia since 1985

for infants who cannot make that request they follow this protocol...

The Groningen Protocol

[Pliny]

There already exist a form of euthanasia where family members agree to terminate the life of a very sick family member.

It is called DNR or 'do not resuscitate'.

Is this different from euthanasia? Euthanasia is actively participating in a proactive manner in the bringing about of death.

Is not resuscitating someone the same as proactively bringing about their death? Compassionately ending suffering resulting in death would be euthanasia. Someone deciding who should live and who should die is euthanasia.

[Pliny]

in the Netherlands any competent person over the age of 16 can request euthanasia since 1985

for infants who cannot make that request they follow this protocol...

The Groningen Protocol

The Groningen Protocol sounds like it is in practice in North America from my perspective.

[Pliny]

To weed out detrimental members to a society is a essential, but a civilized society, by collectively assuming responsibility for the survival of its members, protects individuals from a need to fight for themselves, and thus permits the thoughtless to entertain illusions about the world and to imagine that the precarious security given them by the nation is something that occurs automatically and that they can abuse and exploit at will.

The differentiation must be made between those who make the choice to abuse and exploit at will and those who by whatever circumstance find themselves faced with insurmountable obstacles to survival. The former are possibly criminals at worst or politicians at best. The latter must be given every consideration.

We are as much as part of nature as animals... we are subject to its very same rules.

Not quite. Or we wouldn't bother having this discussion.

In this case we know that Julianna's environment is far too much for her to handle.

Left to her own devices, I agree, but that could be said for most of us. Especially, those with a public education. (Had to get that dig in there )

[ToadBrother]

Having watched a very close relative slowly slip into dementia, all I can say is law or no law, if I'm every diagnosed with such a disease, I'm not going to end up a near-vegetable in a bed.

There already exist a form of euthanasia where family members agree to terminate the life of a very sick family member.

It is called DNR or 'do not resuscitate'.

Which doesn't help if your brain is basically melting with no chance of recovery, but they've got to wait until you die of kidney failure or obstructed bowel or some other ailment only ancillary to the loss of rational and cognitive powers.

If I'm diagnosed with Alzheimers, I'm not going to wait around until I can't remember my name. I could care less about anyone's moral objections or the law or anything else. I own me, nobody else does.

[Pliny]

There already exist a form of euthanasia where family members agree to terminate the life of a very sick family member.

It is called DNR or 'do not resuscitate'.

Which doesn't help if your brain is basically melting with no chance of recovery, but they've got to wait until you die of kidney failure or obstructed bowel or some other ailment only ancillary to the loss of rational and cognitive powers.

If I'm diagnosed with Alzheimers, I'm not going to wait around until I can't remember my name. I could care less about anyone's moral objections or the law or anything else. I own me, nobody else does.

You should do what is best for the common good though. The government could do that for you, if you feel they could do a better job and it is hard for you to make a decision. Ohhh... but then you wouldn't own you.

[ToadBrother]

You should do what is best for the common good though. The government could do that for you, if you feel they could do a better job and it is hard for you to make a decision. Ohhh... but then you wouldn't own you.

I remember years ago my neighbor was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and when treatments didn't seem to be helping and the clock started kicking, he took his boat out into a bay, tied rocks to his feet and jumped in. He simply did not want to die in a bed in grave suffering. He owned himself, and I don't care what your moral views are, what he did was what he wanted. He certainly didn't do wrong by the common good, because he had a death sentence already. He simply shortcircuited the long drawn out part where they keep you alive with pointless interventions, and finally just start pumping massive amounts of morphine into you so disappear into a haze of pain and drugs.

That's the way I want to go out if I'm diagnosed with such an illness. I want to be in control of myself until the end, and screw your common good.

[Pliny]

I remember years ago my neighbor was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and when treatments didn't seem to be helping and the clock started kicking, he took his boat out into a bay, tied rocks to his feet and jumped in. He simply did not want to die in a bed in grave suffering. He owned himself, and I don't care what your moral views are, what he did was what he wanted. He certainly didn't do wrong by the common good, because he had a death sentence already. He simply shortcircuited the long drawn out part where they keep you alive with pointless interventions, and finally just start pumping massive amounts of morphine into you so disappear into a haze of pain and drugs.

That's the way I want to go out if I'm diagnosed with such an illness. I want to be in control of myself until the end, and screw your common good.

Aren't you the one that prefers the State to decide from whom it should take and to whom it shall give - in the name of the common good?

[ToadBrother]

Aren't you the one that prefers the State to decide from whom it should take and to whom it shall give - in the name of the common good?

In a limited fashion, as per taxes to build highways, help the less advantaged, etc. But a man's body is his own, and the State has no business dictating what he can and cannot do to it.

[wyly]

I remember years ago my neighbor was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and when treatments didn't seem to be helping and the clock started kicking, he took his boat out into a bay, tied rocks to his feet and jumped in. He simply did not want to die in a bed in grave suffering. He owned himself, and I don't care what your moral views are, what he did was what he wanted. He certainly didn't do wrong by the common good, because he had a death sentence already. He simply shortcircuited the long drawn out part where they keep you alive with pointless interventions, and finally just start pumping massive amounts of morphine into you so disappear into a haze of pain and drugs.

That's the way I want to go out if I'm diagnosed with such an illness. I want to be in control of myself until the end, and screw your common good.

I'll keep my dual(EU) citizenship so if the day comes I have to make that choice I'm only a plane ride away from a peaceful painless death...tying rocks to my feet isn't very appealing there are more pleasant methods...

[wyly]

The Groningen Protocol sounds like it is in practice in North America from my perspective.

I don't see it...

[seabee]

In Québec, now general practitioners support euthanasia too. Link:

Euthanasie Québec, omnipraticiens

[Pliny]

In a limited fashion, as per taxes to build highways, help the less advantaged, etc. But a man's body is his own, and the State has no business dictating what he can and cannot do to it.

So that's where you draw the line? Well, I happen to think that the government is funding things I don't believe it should be funding so it is therefore placing me under servitude, not dissimilar to slavery, to pay for what it deems is necessary, not to mention all the waste and inefficiency. Almost half your income goes to taxes you don't see it as dictating what you can and can't do? If it enacted Euthanasia it would be making the decisions - is it the State's business to do this or is it dictating what a person can and can't do?