Posted on 06/30/2017 12:09:42 AM PDT by Olog-hai
A total of 111 people in California took their own lives using lethal prescriptions during the first six months of a law that allows terminally ill people to request life-ending drugs from their doctors, according to data released Tuesday.
A snapshot of the patients who took advantage of the law mirrors what’s been seen in Oregon, which was the first state to legalize the practice nearly two decades ago. Though California is far more diverse than Oregon, the majority of those who have died under aid-in-dying laws in both states were white, college-educated cancer patients older than 60.
The End of Life Option Act made California the fifth state in the nation to allow patients with less than six months to live to request end-of-life drugs from their doctors.
Physician-assisted deaths made up 6 out of every 10,000 deaths in California between June and December 2016, according to state data. That’s much lower than the 2016 rate in Oregon, where lethal prescriptions accounted for 37 per 10,000 deaths.
But the findings have done little to calm the debate over whether allowing doctors to prescribe lethal medications is acceptable medical practice. …
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
If (IF) it were intentional suicide, he would directly want to DIE. And If (IF) he had survived the collapse of the building, he would have considered it an unsuccessful suicide because he didn't die.
Comparable in some respects to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his buddies. What he intends is not his own death. (It's foreseeable, but if (if) the grenade turned out to be a dud, he'd think it was great.)
UNLIKE the jihadi suicide bomber, rightly called "suicide" because he actually intends to die, enter Paradise, be kissed by Allah, indulge in eternal sensual vice as a reward: he intends, precisely, suicide. To him, it's not a glitch, it's a feature. In case of survival (unlike the self-sacrificing soldier) he'd be bitterly disappointed.
Self-sacrifice (fireman runs into collapsing building to attempt rescue of trapped person) is the moral opposite of suicide. Self-sacrifice is pro-life. Suicide is anti-life.
‘Dying people’ don’t generally want to eat....they have no need to.
The reference I was making to those who are dying.
Your comments on this thread are excellent. When it’s time to go, it’s time to go. I was with a few people when they left the world. It’s not a tragedy, we all have to go through that door. But the time of exit is up to God, and should be left in His hands. When my mother was a few days from death, or a week, she didn’t want to eat any more. I tried to tempt her with some easy to eat favorites, but she didn’t want any food. So we respected that, and gave her liquids as long as she wanted them. That is natural. No one should ever be deprived of nutrition unless they refuse (and are near death, not mentally ill).
Such a good explanation!!
Jesus described what you are referring to in John 15:13. And there is some allusion in Romans 5:7-8.
Yep....It’s quit natural not wanting to eat...they don’t need food as they won’t be using the body they are in when they go! In fact they often eat the little they do just to get people to stop bugging them about it. My mom would only eat tiny ice chips at the later stages, but that’s normal too.
The Terri S. case was nasty business all around by everyone involved. ... it never should have gone as far as it did. But it is true every situation is different and frankly I have a problem with people putting their family members on videos to show the world.. as they’re dying. Some things are simply intended for family members and friends..death is one of them.
That's double-talk.
Hey, lady. I provided a link to the chapter.
It wasn't the typical suicide, or even typical murder/suicide. Not that I recommending doing either --- God forbid.
But he did ask God that he die with the Philistines as it is written.
To Olog-hai I'll admit there remains possibility that the reference I had supplied was to one who was not truly righteous...
More generally, it could be further considered there was only one who qualifies for that descriptive ---and his death, although willingly submitted to, was not suicide on his own part, but Deiocide (killing God) on part of the "world" itself, so to speak.
What killed Jesus? It wasn't so much the Romans themselves, nor was it the Jewish religious authorities, even though they did do their duty and slayed the sacrifice --but in the way they did so-- Christ's resurrection judging & condemning their own ways among all the rest of sinful ways of man. From top to bottom the veil of Temple rent (was torn) revealing what was inside that holy of holies, the true meanings visible for those who come close enough to inspect, the multiple layers of the veil itself having meanings...
It was sin that killed Jesus ---
He knew it would, and so did His Father who sent Him -- the lamb slain from foundation of the world: https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=Revelation+13%3A8.
3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh
Amidst what I'm not alone in assuming was excruciating pain, among his words spoken from the cross;
Father, forgive them they know not what they do
To have compared Samson to soldier throwing himself upon grenade, sacrificing himself for his fellows ---was in the neighborhood, but a bit wide of the mark -- not even *quite* on the paper, Mrs. Don-o.
You got the wrong guy.
But in blindness, a form of blindness, I do fear that a greater Samson, one of larger dimension, of greater number thus of great strength in numbers, a people & nations(?) may again do somewhat as what was done before...and it seems like we're already part-way there. We do love us some Delilahs. As a nation and a culture too much -- we do.
Samson was blinded as recompense in his own flesh for his love of worldly realm of beauty, and of flesh. She proved deceitful.
The jihadi loves him some Delilahs too, and thinks he is entitled to them all for his own carnal pleasure promised (falsely so) to continue in heavenly paradise, guaranteed to himself if he'll go murder those Delilah lovers. Is that guy blind -- or what?
I knew too that this nation's reaction to the events of Sept. 11 2001 would be bad, mixed up, probably make things worse (Bin Laden had a plan - though I learn of that aspect, what it really meant, how it worked in their heads, what that one man's name was, only later) even prior to Sept 11, 2001 ---for I heard the curse in the Spirit come to me one day, late February of that year I think it was, the Lord later confirmed to me the basics (hijacked airliners, both buildings would be destroyed) of what was to occur ---and His grief over those things was deep & profound.
When he shared that -- what He felt, doing so wordlessly, I was stunned.
It was not only about those who would die in NYC in the ways they did. When I realized that part -- oh no! This is going to be bad. I was at a loss of what to do to do, who to tell WHAT TO SAY. How to explain these things? (I'm still struggling with it)
I told only a few -- and only one of those I told even remembers that I did. I'm powerless to change some things that will be the future...can do only so much. Very little, as it turns out --and nothing much very much "good" at all, not without some fire of inspiration from Him, anyhow.
That was then, this is now. It's too late to talk about predicting it, and it's far too late to change what's now already happened. But I'm not sure what to do next. Abide until He returns? All right, what choice do we have? Bear all things, believe all things, hope all things, endure all things(?) Aaw, man. Do I have to?
I'd rather be fishing. Yet as always, as then anyway, without Him, will catch nothing.
If ever I'm afforded grace and funds to set up a round-haul boat -- somebody remind me to set it up favoring circling to starboard instead of port. Ambidextrous (capable of reversing the set) might be best...
First, there's the paradox that Samson was, from even before his birth, set as part to be holy and purely dedicated to the Lord. That's the meaning of his being a Nazirite.
Yet his whole career shows that he was ruled by his passions. You know the episodes of his wayward wilfulness, and his regular violation of the purity of his calling.
In the end, his act can be interpreted as the sheer passion of revenge. He says he wants to bring the pagan temple down, not to honor the God of Israel, not to discredit the pagan deities, not even to strike a blow for his people, but simply as revenge for having been blinded by the Philistines. He is --- as he says --- avenging his eyes.
But is this the whole story? If this is the case ---if he was a lifelong slave of his passions, desiring at the end only revenge and his own death --- it's hard to see why he'd be highlighted in the Hebrews 11 Hall of Fame, as a righteous man among the OT saints of God.
I propose the possibility that
(1) Samson implicitly intended the destruction of the Philistines' temple as a blow for Israel and for the true God --- in accordance with his calling as a set-apart holy Nazirite; and
(2) that his cry, "Let me die with the Philistines," might be understood to mean, "Give me the strength to do this even if it means I'll die with the Philistines."
Much as a young American soldier at Normandy might have prayed, "Here I go. God give me strength. I'll likely die. Let me die for my country!" Not because he desires his own death, but because he desires the strength to go forward even if his deathn is solidly probable.
Why do I make all these assumptions of virtue which do not appear in the text of Judges? Because the are implied in the text of Hebrews.
If Samson wanted to just get revenge against those who maimed him, and die, he was not acting as as a dedicated holy man, but was simply a slave of his self-destructive passions to the end. No hero, no saint, really, no Nazirite.
But if, despite his weaknesses, he was simply accepting (not desiring) his death for the sake of God and God's people --- then it's fitting he should be in the Hebrews Honor Roll. He exemplifies the heroism of self-sacrifice, not the sin of suicide.
Did I present it as if it was?
Yet it was still form of suicide, by even Samson's own words.
Nothing among the rest you touch upon is anything new to my understanding.
At one point you say;
Of course not, though perhaps there's too much to cover in forum comment comboxes. That much, and more is easy enough to grasp.
But if, if, if...
Except that ---it was still a suicide, nonetheless. He did not ask to live, but asked to die with them in setting and way whatever 'suicide' factor there was, was not clear cut-and-dried commentary about suicide, one way or another. I did not intend for it to be some kind of cut-and-dried example. That would have been impossibility. If any considered that I had -- or were concerned it would taken wrong by somebody -- not my problem, lady. Tell somebody else.
There was one poster on this thread who asked for example of suicide among the righteous. I posted comment to them.
Samson didn't exactly "exemplify the heroism of self-sacrifice" either, due to his own seeking of revenge (here again you get in the neighborhood, make some mention of that, but in doubling back, trying to have too many things both ways at once, didn't quite break the paper due to talking too much both sides of things) even though what Samson did, did serve as comeuppance for the Philistines, demonstrating too that the gifts and calling of the Lord are without repentance.
Being example used of the Lord is humbling. It seems like He makes certain there is always something of that in the mix -- lest men get too full of themselves, or else begin looking elsewhere than Him, trying to get to Him (or obtain something from Him) too fully second-hand, thus in ending result not be His own children, but someone else's.
That word-- hero. For myself, heroes are examples one may follow (even unto death), rather than paths taken by those be paths better avoided.
I get the impression that unless what is said to you conforms to your own preferred narrowization of possible meanings (which may appear so sophisticated and complete to yourself) -- you may not understand what was said to you at all.
Pulling temple of the world down on our own heads (in order to destroy it, and the occupants) I gather is not the Lord's preference ---or else He'd likely as not have smoked this entire place (mankind) by now & done so long ago.
He drowned them all, once. All but 8 souls...
Though I will tell you -- if all there was available to me was the mish-mash of what comes out of your mouth, and the mouths of your cohorts (with a few exceptions) I would possibly contemplate suicide just to get away from you people.
Your commentary is in many ways wise and instructive to me. I presented only opinion, not doctrine: and I always stand ready to be corrected in my notions and speculations.
As for your last comment, it shocked me. I beg your pardon that I have so offended you.
No so drugs can’t kill pain only puts brain in limbo seen 4 family member go and begged for death
How greedy of you thinking of not seeing people suffer but it must be something you approve of.
Ever see a cancer patent die a slow painful death? I have and they knew death is near they bed for it to end.
False equivalence. Suicide (and/or state-approved murder) is not a moral option open to one who believes in God. Relief of pain is, however. Please do not argue like a left-winger.
Don’t confuse Suicide with mercy don’t be left.
With all due respect, you seem to be the one doing that.
If the state wants it, it is yet another evil to be rejected, on top of all that.
Yes, actually. And old friend and my mother.
Neither begged to be killed. They were peaceful. A lot depends on care and who is around them. They were both at home being care for by relatives and friends and hospice nurses.
Evil is to let one suffer.
Never saw a peaceful death it appears so when the brain is dead some in a coma look as such.
Return to false equivalence. And man does not get to define evil.
Again, if the state wants it, it is a grave evil. Considering which state it is, doubly so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.