Posted on 01/29/2007 5:09:42 PM PST by neverdem
Remember Jack Kevorkian? He's the American euthanasia doctor behind bars for second-degree murder. He's also the one who wanted to look into the eyes of those in the process of dying for his "obitiatric research".
Despite his ghoulishness, Kevorkian is revered by those such as Derek Humphry, co-founder of the pro-euthanasia group the Hemlock Society, who described Kevorkian's incarceration as "a tragedy for an honourable man". Kevorkian assisted or lethally injected at least 130 people, mostly middle-aged women. More than 70 per cent were not terminally ill. Most were disabled or depressed.
Recently, the Swiss group Dignitas, which has assisted hundreds of suicides and promotes euthanasia, has petitioned the Swiss Supreme Court for permission to assist the suicides of the chronically depressed and mentally ill.
In Australia, our most vocal euthanasia advocate, Philip Nitschke, is on record for advocating a suicide pill for the depressed, the elderly bereaved and troubled teenagers.
At the heart of this issue is the belief that everyone should have the right to die on their own terms: when, where, and how they want, with social, legal, and medical support from the state. While in the first instance this would take the form of legislation for difficult cases, it would not stop there.
As we have learnt from the Netherlands, legislating for hard euthanasia cases cannot be contained. Once the state legislates for the killing of any of its innocent members, even upon their request, it has breached a principle that protects us all. When the state legalises euthanasia, all are at risk.
In the Netherlands, assisted suicide soon turned to euthanasia. At the outset, only for the terminally ill. Now the chronically ill. Initially for physical illness. Now for psychological distress. At first, strictly upon voluntary request. Thousands of cases of euthanasia now occur without a request from the patient. Some doctors just know best. The Dutch recently legislated to permit euthanasia for 12- to 16-year-olds, and dozens of disabled babies have been illegally euthanased at Groningen Hospital, by doctors who are now pressuring the Government for permission to terminate infant lives.
Despite the rhetoric about strict criteria, mandatory reporting and tight regulation, it is impossible to safely manage legalised euthanasia. As Herbert Hendin, medical director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and professor of psychiatry at New York Medical College, puts it: "One hardly knows which is more chilling, the widespread flouting of the scant and effectively toothless legal regulation of euthanasia in Holland, or the sangfroid with which it is defended by the Dutch practitioners."
This is why every major body of inquiry worldwide has rejected voluntary euthanasia, and why modern communities should continue to do so.
Greg Pike is director of the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute.
Honest question, looking for insight on your stance here. Given that you have worded this as a universal right for "everyone," would you bar timely lifesaving intervention if:
If death is preferable to inconveniencing them, I dare not even try.
This will be the Left's answer to the Social Security problem that will appear in 10 to 15 years. The problem is, those targeted for euthenasia (60 and above) are well armed. I have 3 primary weapons and can hit a target at 500 meters with my .308. If the Gov tries to take any of my aging family forcibly, they had better bring a lot of body bags.
Don't tread on me.
~ thank you ~
Truth is, I would sacrifice myself in a heartbeat for anyone on this thread,
as well as my family, but I would never expect anyone to sacrifice their life for me, especially if I were permanently disabled.
And I also don't expect anyone would really understand unless they walked in my shoes.
Assuming I could walk.
The only situation justifying interference is when A owes B, say, $100, and wants to get out without paying the debt first. It has absolutely nothing to do with intended A's suicide, and everything to do with the obligations A still owes.
No, ma'am, they are not. They have been legally tailored in all 50 states to facilitate the killing of those who cannot decide for themselves. This is done under the supposed rubric of privacy- and liberty-rights to refuse medical care. But the laws were altered to make feeding tubes "life support" and to include water and food as "medical care." When a guardian, not the patient, makes the choice to refuse care, the patient is dehydrated and starved to death. That is the whole point of the state laws -- getting rid of inconvenient patients whose right to life must otherwise be respected. Upwards of 11% of patients with assorted mental problems are put to death in this manner every year and the figures are rising.
Dehydration is a terrible way to die.
Just to get this clear: you're saying that police and ER personnel, as well as others, should desist from saving lives, even if the suicider is a child, mentally impaired from drink or drugs, or an otherwise-healthy person suffering from a treatable condition like depression?
Absolutely true.
Pardon me once more: so, all a murderer (or an assertively impatient heir or a cost-managing "health" "care" "provider") would have to do, to make sure a vulnerable person ended up well and truly dead and to forestall any awkward investigation, is to craft a suicide note deemed plausible by GSlob?
(Or maybe not even a note, eh? Just "Well, she did talk about being tired of living"; "I recall now she said she'd rather be dead under the circumsances"; a belated memory, however vague... hey, it worked for Michael Schiavo...)
...can always commit suicide.
When you're left quadriplegic after a car wreck, you can't even wipe the drool off your chin. Suicide is only easy with a functioning mind and body.
Catholic dogma that suffering is holy.
On the other hand, you might want to get in touch with a better class of cripples--- the ones who do more than boohoo about how nobody will help them kill themselves. People like quadriplegic organizer/activist Duane French, quadriplegic attorney Andrew Batavia, quadriplegic NBC news correspondent John Hockenberry, and many, many others whom you could contact through Not Dead Yet. But watch out: it's not an organization for quitters.
Mrs. Don-o, I have a question for you.
You've heard stories of soldiers who have fallen on grenades, thereby saving their comrades ~
do you consider it suicide, and would you call them "quitters?"
Good question; and the answers are No and No.
This is because of the soldier's non-suicidal intentionality. In this case, though death from the exploding grenade is foreseen, it is not intended (by the heroic soldier.)
In other words, if it were possible to shield his comrades by some other means (e.g. somehow dropping a 500-lb weight on the grenade) he would have done it; and if he threw himself on the grenade and it was a dud and did not go off, he would not try to find some other means of killing himself; and if it did go off and he were not killed but, say, had his legs mangled, he would still appreciate being medivac'ed out rapidly and put in the care of a skilled emergency medical- team to save his life.
This is what we call a case of "double effect," usually illustrated by a large letter
where the vertical part of the Y represents the action, and the two branching parts represent 2 effects, in this case (1)saving the lives of his comrades, and (2) dying. If only one of these effects is actually intended, and the other, though foreseen, is not intended and would be avoided if at all possible, then the soldier's action is not suicide.
Thank you, Mrs. D.
Your reasoning is much appreciated.
You must be an excellent mom.
We eat animals, too. Wanna legalize cannibalism?
Interesting that you presume to know what God will think and do.
If my neighbor's trade is aerospace engineer, does that mean she'll build me a space shuttle?
You're welcome, doodlelady.
Not as interesting as your not recognizing a pretty famous quote. Hope you're not a literature teacher.
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.