He's right.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I can’t think of an easier way for Medicare to cut the $600 billion put required by Obamacare and the democrat party, than to kill off lots of expensive old people with euthanasia.
Those who are in love with death never explore and publish the centuries of experience with the exertion of undue influence upon the ill and elderly. Go to your probate cases for myriads of examples.
I wouldn’t even stipulate that they have to be terminal. We need to thin the herd, particularly in liberal meccas.
Just let the docs write a script and send you to a dark room so you can do it yourself. Only be sure to pay your co-pay first and schedule a follow-up. Those doctors have procedures.
It's not a far step from that, to "Anyone who does want to prolong their life is just being selfish, and is only using up valuable resources."
What about those who find they are terminal, there is no turning back, and they decide that they don't want to go, ever? Do they have that right?
It's ludicrous to call something a "right" when there is no choice about it. We can choose not to exercise our right to free speech, or our right to have firearms, but, as far as I know, it is impossible to choose not to die. Ergo, dying is not a right.
There is no such thing as a “right” to die. There is free will where someone can choose to kill himself, but it’s not a right.
If someone wants to off themself, they should go ahead and do it and not make a big production number out of it by dragging the damn government and voters into it with an “act” and ballot proposition.
“It didnt take Roy Almeida more than a minute to shape an opinion”
Sounds like a genuine intellectual giant. I wish my mind worked that quickly.
If I’m able, and if the S doesn’t HTF by then, I plan to go as far back up in the mountains as I can by vehicle, then keep walking until I can neither go on nor go back.
Then of course you also run into the issues of whether the declaration of wanting to die is coerced, whether financial or family matters are coming into play, and it just gets really ugly. Bottom line: do it yourself if you want to do it, but strongly reconsider before you do. I can't think of a case where it's worth it.
-------------------------------------------------------
But here is the real kicker -- I saw a study once that said more than two-thirds of terminally ill people with suicidal ideations were suffering from moderate to severe physical pain. That is immoral. Doctors are reticent to prescribe too many painkillers for terminally ill patients (who often require very large doses) because they are afraid of running afoul of state and federal (DEA) drug regulation authorities. As a result, pain patients suffer. In places like Oregon, the first to pioneer so-called "death with dignity", terminally ill patients receive a lethal dose of barbiturates (similar to painkillers) from their doctor, but they can't get their hands on enough PAIN MEDICATION for their PAIN. If these poor patients didn't have any PHYSICAL PAIN, their urge to kill themselves would be diminished in many cases.
Why is it that we have legalized abortion in this country but we throw doctors in jail for treating pain patients? I realize that pill-mills exist and corrupt doctors should be punished, but doctors who only have the best interest of the patient in mind should be IMMUNE from prosecution for prescribing painkillers.
I disagree completely.
And this comes from experience, and from a wife in the profession.
Hospitals, dealing with people in their final stages of disease go out of their way to ensure that they are as pain free as possible.
This statement makes it sound like the folks in the hospital are heartless animals.
And if you think people are not given increasing doses of morphine at the end, you are not paying attention.
in·alien·able
adj
Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
Those who think there is a “right to die” don’t know the first thing about right, rights, or what America even is.
A lot of “traditional” liberal societies defend their policies by saying they follow an older(no pun intended) order of things-a time when infanticide was considered normal and older people were treated as precious and priceless.That people are born weak and get stronger and wiser as they get older.
That children are burden and that the old provide wisdom as they get older on the proper running of a society and following authority.
Realistically you are just either so much expenses or so much revenue to these people,aborting the unborn means less kids in school.........more money for the government and who work for them.
Liberal society does indeed have a special place for the elderly in the future much like it has a special place for the unborn these days.
It is always like that.
the New England Journal of medicine has been pushing this since 1988, and it has been taught as okay in some of the medical schools since that time, according to one of my prolife friends who taught at Harvard.
What slowed them down was the Christian doctors, not the Catholic ones. We wrote the Cardinal (Law) about what was going on to urge him to alert the church about it, and all we got was a letter from one of the secretaries and a vague article in the church newspaper that didn’t come to the point. My friends said the bishop probably never saw the letter.
Which makes me think similarly his staff hid much of the pedophilia problems from him (especially of one priest who was popular with the liberals for his work with the poor).
I was happy when he was “kicked upstairs” to a vague Vatican post, although I think a stint nursing lepers or HIV cases in Africa would have been a better penance for the guy.