Triple M Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Quebec doctors urge euthanasia debate I'm very surprised this is even being discussed seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seabee Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Not only is it time to discuss it seriously, but it is also time to legalize at least euthanesia and assisted suicide in certain, very clearly defined situations. And, of course, it must always be with the express desire and consent of the "victim". It is more dignified than seeing terminally ill people dying with a plastic bag over their head. When the time comes, I definitely want to have a choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Not only is it time to discuss it seriously, but it is also time to legalize at least euthanesia and assisted suicide in certain, very clearly defined situations. And, of course, it must always be with the express desire and consent of the "victim". It is more dignified than seeing terminally ill people dying with a plastic bag over their head.When the time comes, I definitely want to have a choice. 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. All the "your life is sacred" whackos can stick it where the sun don't shine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 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. All the "your life is sacred" whackos can stick it where the sun don't shine. a number of my European relatives have made the most of their right to die option...the most recent age 53 in Nov 08... a return of breast cancer, already previously undergone mastectomy, radiation, chemo she decided no more, that's enough...she had a MD assisted death with her family at her bedside... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 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. All the "your life is sacred" whackos can stick it where the sun don't shine. The one problem with that is that it opens the door wide open to making it harder to convict legitimate murderers. What about a possible scenario of a doctor roaming through a terminal cancer ward offing patients and saying in his defence "But they wanted to die". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) The one problem with that is that it opens the door wide open to making it harder to convict legitimate murderers. What about a possible scenario of a doctor roaming through a terminal cancer ward offing patients and saying in his defence "But they wanted to die". Well in order for it to be legal the Doc would have to provide evidence, such as a signed consent form or multiple family witnesses, or both. Edited October 16, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Well in order for it to be legal the Doc would have to provide evidence, such as a singed consent form or multiple family witnesses, or both. And I'm sure a consent form could be drawn up and forged/coerced. Anyway its up for the crown to prove that the doctor would have killed the patients. Not the doctor having to prove his innocence. One slip on the crown's part and the case is tossed out. By having nobody in the hospital allowed to get killed, it makes it easier to prosecute "death doctors" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Well in order for it to be legal the Doc would have to provide evidence, such as a singed consent form or multiple family witnesses, or both. in my cousins case it was reviewed by several MDs, I think there were Psychologists or Psychiatrists involved as well...there is process involved to eliminate abuse... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 The one problem with that is that it opens the door wide open to making it harder to convict legitimate murderers. What about a possible scenario of a doctor roaming through a terminal cancer ward offing patients and saying in his defence "But they wanted to die". The only problem here is the silly scenarios that people dream up in hopes of derailing a serious debate. For example... And I'm sure a consent form could be drawn up and forged/coerced. Anyway its up for the crown to prove that the doctor would have killed the patients. Not the doctor having to prove his innocence. One slip on the crown's part and the case is tossed out. By having nobody in the hospital allowed to get killed, it makes it easier to prosecute "death doctors" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 The only problem here is the silly scenarios that people dream up in hopes of derailing a serious debate.For example... I get it your poor and blame everybody associated with business and law and order for your plight. Anyhoo, there is a definite out for possible murder cases with assisted suicide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 The one problem with that is that it opens the door wide open to making it harder to convict legitimate murderers. What about a possible scenario of a doctor roaming through a terminal cancer ward offing patients and saying in his defence "But they wanted to die". I'm sure with adequate legal requirements, this should prove no more of a problem then a lawyer wandering through the wards and saying "But they wanted to leave me their estates." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 And I'm sure a consent form could be drawn up and forged/coerced. Anyway its up for the crown to prove that the doctor would have killed the patients. Not the doctor having to prove his innocence. One slip on the crown's part and the case is tossed out. By having nobody in the hospital allowed to get killed, it makes it easier to prosecute "death doctors" Why would this be any different than a DNR or any other legal instrument already in use in a hospital? This is a red herring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Why would this be any different than a DNR or any other legal instrument already in use in a hospital? This is a red herring. which is what my father did, actually more, he refused treatment that would extend his life and MDs respected that but he had to drown in his own fluids, not nice there are easier ways to die...it happens all across Canada let's bring it out into the open and create a format where we can avoid the suffering for those that wish it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) Assuming all individuals will attempt to sustain life, for themselves and others, for as long as is possible, and the law supports that attempt, why would you change the law to make it acceptable to terminate life. The problem here is that the government is involved in the debate, even if only as a third party as yet. I would support the decision to euthanize as an option but I would not allow any government agent or agency or contracted agency of government to ever participate in making the final decision, under socialized medicine that would include medical professionals paid for by the State to perform euthanasia. If the law is changed and all life, no matter the condition, is not held sacrosanct by the state through legislation it will eventually not be held sacrosanct by the people. Make it a law and pretty soon the situation evolves into euthanizing "useless eaters". Keep it a private concern between close friends and family members with absolutely no government paid authority overseeing the procedure and you don't risk it running amock due to it being ensconced in law and susceptible to the abuses of the collective conscience and what is deemed by authority to be right for the common good. I do hope that no one would argue for euthanasia from the viewpoint of what is best for the "common good" or the "collective welfare" of the people. Even if the thought entered your head that euthanasia would be a side benefit for the society you should give your head a shake. We need to have private medical services in Canada and not just the public medical system for these types of services. One thing is certain; the State, as an agency, should have no other consideration in law than the sanctity of life. Euthanasia is occurring in hospitals as we speak. There is no use being naive about it, that fact is probably why the debate is rearing it's head on public forums. The guilt must be assuaged by the ultimate authority in the land - the law. There is in certain cases of euthanasia, I think, always a doubt that something could have been done and that makes life difficult for those involved who continue their lives after the fact, which I suppose, could be presented as an argument against it. Tomorrow could provide a cure for someone euthanized today - a horrible thought to those participating in the final decision. Ultimately, it's a private decision. There should be no regrets about the decision. The big question is how do we keep the criminal element, or even the consideration of economic expediency (such as social do-gooders doing society a favour), out of the euthanasia equation, and allow for compassionate death with dignity for those who face the decision. Edited October 16, 2009 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Quebec doctors urge euthanasia debateI'm very surprised this is even being discussed seriously. It sort of needs to be and it, unfortunately; has to be put down to rest. One thing is assured, the State, once large enough and suffering from lack of resources will always precipitate it's reincarnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Well, it seems this thread died a horrible death. Was it something I said? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) Quebec doctors urge euthanasia debateI'm very surprised this is even being discussed seriously. 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. Otherwise we end up with cases such as these: Edited October 21, 2009 by lictor616 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) Euthanasia is a biological necessity of preventing dilapidation of the genome through the blunder of preserving defective offspring. I think you mean eugenics. 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. Since many genetic conditions do not effect animals at an early age, this would be of rather limited utility. But more often in animals, not feeding one or more of the offspring (the usual cause of mortality in offspring born alive other than predation) has to do with insufficient capacity to feed the entire litter. 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. Wow. Imagine that. We have to get rid of the misshapen and the "psychically" degenerate. The latter is really interesting, because it's so wide open. Could you defeine "psychically" Otherwise we end up with cases such as these: Or cases like you. Edited October 22, 2009 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 The big question is how do we keep the criminal element, or even the consideration of economic expediency (such as social do-gooders doing society a favour), out of the euthanasia equation, and allow for compassionate death with dignity for those who face the decision. There are lots of other ways to seize control of estates without killing people. We have laws to deal with those who would use their capacity as legal representative or power of attorney, so why not the same for this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Wow. Imagine that. We have to get rid of the misshapen and the "psychically" degenerate. The latter is really interesting, because it's so wide open. Could you defeine "psychically" physically degenerate is what was meant there... anyhoozle! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 physically degenerate is what was meant there... anyhoozle! And what about mental degenerates like yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 I'M 1000% behind his right to die, especially if the person has cancer or another disease that they can't survive. We let our pets die rather than suffer but not our loved ones. My mother was told in July 2007 she had cancer and couldn't be helped and she finally died at home Jan. 2 2008 and I will NEVER forget the way she looked, the way the cancer ate up her muscles and left a skeleton and skin. It would have been easier for me and my 5 other siblings, to have her go when she look like our mother and not a mass of skin and bones. It would be the best thing for the person dying and for the people being left behind. My mother inlaw also, who died of Alzheimer disease spent age 55 to 71 in a nursing home and that's like being in prison especially once she didn't know anyone and couldn't talk, this is another sad disease that takes a number of years for people to have peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 And what about mental degenerates like yourself? What makes you think i'm a mental degenerate.. specifically what exactly makes me one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 What makes you think i'm a mental degenerate.. specifically what exactly makes me one? Your racial hatred and fear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Your racial hatred and fear. 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.