Scott Adams: I Hope My Father Dies Soon

[01RedDX]

.

[Unknown303]

:eek: Pretty to the point there. I really don't understand keeping people alive for ages when even they don't want to be. And that's somehow humane.

[DeleriousZ]

That's rough man. I can't imagine how painful it would be to sit there and watch your Father or any other family members waste away like that. Assisted suicide is goddamn touch subject though, there are so many grey areas and moral pitfalls that even thinking about bringing the issue up for debate could be bad news for whoever does in a political forum.

[Supa Dexta]

My grandmother lost her mind nearly 15 yrs ago, shes blind, deaf and went from an over weight old lady to nothing left of her.. Ive been hoping she will go for quite some time. Because she's not alive really, (in her 90s) On the other side of that - my grand father made it to 98, he then got sick and a couple days later was dead. That was the way to go.

[jsn]

Definitely a tough situation and hard to gauge when it's appropriate. If legalized, I could definitely see the potential of its abuse. However, I think in some cases, it's definitely appropriate. A family friend of mine, her grandmother lost her mind probably about 10 years ago. Hardly recognized her own children. On top of that, she was bed ridden for the past 10 years as well. That's not much of a life and personally, if that was me I'd rather pass away If I was stuck in a bed and couldn't even recognize those closest to me.

[M.alex]

From what I've seen, people are stupid for the most part. Most seem to think they'll grow old, putter around, then die of a heart attack in their sleep. Truth is most will grow old, lose their body and mind over the course of years, all the wile wishing they could die.

[AndyL]

I'm with Scott Adams.

While I believe it needs some checks/balances... It needs to be resolved once and for all. Especially with the soon to be explosion in persons going into long term care...

Before anyone jumps on me for that - My father is likely in a similar state to Mr Adams' father. I can only hope the alzheimers took his mind long ago - and the body just doesn't know better... As I can only imagine the torture if his mind is still working in there somewhere.

And yes - he's now been occupying a space in long term care coming up on a decade...

[Seth1968]

I'm in total agreement with Adams on all counts.

It's not that hard to fucking understand!

If my body is on the verge of death and I'm suffering both physically and mentally, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU to tell me I can't die and have to continue suffering. FUCK YOU!

Again, democracy my ass!

Sorry for the expletives (well, not really lol), but this is just one reason why I DESPISE our government.

[woodywoodford]

Yep, add me to the list in favor of it. It's hardly even a touchy subject to the general population these days - I haven't heard a single person argue against it (not that I've went looking for that)

The fact is, there's absolutely no good reason not to give the person a choice. So fucking stupid. I know that once I'm in that position I'll be looking into moving to other country's. Don't know what it would take, but if euthanasia's legal in say Switzerland, guess I'll be moving there in my old age.

[403Gemini]

I agree with him. If i was dying slowly like that, I would want to just go as well rather than slowly withering away in pain.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by woodywoodford
Yep, add me to the list in favor of it. It's hardly even a touchy subject to the general population these days - I haven't heard a single person argue against it (not that I've went looking for that)

The fact is, there's absolutely no good reason not to give the person a choice. So fucking stupid. I know that once I'm in that position I'll be looking into moving to other country's. Don't know what it would take, but if euthanasia's legal in say Switzerland, guess I'll be moving there in my old age.

I have gone looking for it, and have only found people as pissed off as we are about the subject. Ok, there were about 2 exceptions out of the thousands, but they were religious nutcases with the laughable argument of, "This is God's will".

Virtually everyone wants Euthanasia to be legal, but our government refuses to even look at it. WTF?

Some argue that keeping a person alive, even though they are suffering and want to die, is a vast money maker, and that's why the government doesn't address it.

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by Seth1968
this is just one reason why I DESPISE our government.

+1, this and about 1000 other restrictions to freedom.

[botox]

Couldn't have said it better. Wifes grandma is in that state and everyone is just waiting for her turn to go. There has been constant arguments with who should be taking care of her because nobody wants to and the son she currently lives with is only doing it for her pension money. She's worse than watching a child and is stubborn as hell. I would rather die at my peak rather than live to 100 and be the burden that nobody wants to deal with.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by botox
Couldn't have said it better. Wifes grandma is in that state and everyone is just waiting for her turn to go. There has been constant arguments with who should be taking care of her because nobody wants to and the son she currently lives with is only doing it for her pension money. She's worse than watching a child and is stubborn as hell. I would rather die at my peak rather than live to 100 and be the burden that nobody wants to deal with.

Now imagine a loved one in that situation, and they're begging to be put out of their misery.

"No", you must tell them. "Strangers WANT you, and the people that love you to suffer".

[Anomaly]

Originally posted by Seth1968

Some argue that keeping a person alive, even though they are suffering and want to die, is a vast money maker, and that's why the government doesn't address it.

It's the opposite here. As all the baby boomers start dying off, it's going to be extremely taxing on healthcare in canada. Trust me, the gubment isn't making money off that...

[Modelexis]

I'm okay with any citizen who opposes doctor-assisted suicide on moral or practical grounds. But if you have acted on that thought, such as basing a vote on it, I would like you to die a slow, horrible death too. You and the government are accomplices in the torturing of my father, and there's a good chance you'll someday be accomplices in torturing me to death too.

This is such an amazing token of truth.

This Scott Adams guy is so fucking on point it's incredible.
Too bad it took him such a personal experience to really get the true nature of government.

[civic_stylez]

I watched my dad die of cancer... there comes a certain point where they are dead in spirit, its just the drugs and medication keeping them going. I never thought I would want a family member to pass away but when you see how much pain and suffering they are in, you hope the end comes sooner than later. I was in a state of comfort the day my dad passed away because I know he wasnt hurting anymore. Its a tough subject but I think that people are in charge of their own life and if they want to go, they should be able to. Once you know there is no getting better... no way to stop pain and suffering. It should be an available option.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Anomaly


It's the opposite here. As all the baby boomers start dying off, it's going to be extremely taxing on healthcare in canada. Trust me, the gubment isn't making money off that...

I can see your point, so why are they torturing us to death?

[HiTempguy1]

I think the bigger over-arching issue is that MOST (as in greater than 50%) of people do NOT have their wills/end of life planning done. Which is bullshit, as it has been hammered into people non-stop for the past 20 years.

Even a DNR is sufficient to help end-of-life suffering. Lots of the people who are basically vegetables could have been let go long ago if they hadn't been resucitated. At the same time, I can see the argument for not allowing assisted suicide as even if the person has done the legal documentation to justify it, what happens if they have changed their mind when the time comes but can't express it?

[Isaiah]

The domestic laws are a result of religious, right wing conservative zealots in parliament who believe that life and death are God's domain alone.

In the case of abortion, the Conservatives would long have repealed the law if it were not such a polarizing subject that would inevitably see them defeated in the following election.

[m10-power]

Religion and drug companies are a motherfucker

As for changing ones mind, if your wishes are documented legally then that should be the end of it. Literally.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Isaiah
The domestic laws are a result of religious, right wing conservative zealots in parliament who believe that life and death are God's domain alone.


But the Liberals did nothing as well:dunno:

What about the amount of money the pharmaceutical companies make by prolonging someone's suffering? Or, the hospitals fear of funding loss due to less patients?

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by Seth1968


But the Liberals did nothing as well:dunno:

In the case of assisted suicide, I was not referring to small 'c' conservatives as a party but rather as an ideology.

[Seth1968]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Anomaly]

It's not just\necessarily the religious grounds; look at Robert Latimer. There are people and groups against euthanasia. Disability groups protested his sentence. A lot of disability groups feel it's a slippery slope and would allow for "mercy" killings of some disabled\mentally incapable people. The liberals\conservatives don't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. It isn't a big enough issue here (yet) to risk pissing off voters when the elections have typically been very close.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Anomaly
It's not just\necessarily the religious grounds; look at Robert Latimer. There are people and groups against euthanasia. Disability groups protested his sentence. A lot of disability groups feel it's a slippery slope and would allow for "mercy" killings of some disabled\mentally incapable people. The liberals\conservatives don't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. It isn't a big enough issue here (yet) to risk pissing off voters when the elections have typically been very close.

Mercy killing is obviously completely different than assisted suicide.

With that being said, I'll describe someone I met a few years ago:


- He was mentally incapacitated to the point that he could not communicate.

- He had no use of his legs, and his arms were curled stumps that constantly twitched.

- He had no control over his bowels or bladder.

- His tongue hung out of his mouth, and his facial expression was of torture and agony.

- He constantly let out haunting moans of pain.


Anyway, it was clear that this man was in hell.

If it wasn't for the law, I would have mercy killed him on the spot.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by Seth1968
So why are they torturing us to death? Because the loudest voice usually wins, whether it's due to a lot of quiet people or a few really loud ones.

[spikerS]

there are many things at play in this, but I honestly see the government only playing a small part in it.

reasons why it keeps being illegal:

1) the fucking church. Because it is labeled as assisted "Suicide", it is against the faith to take your own life and considered a sin, one that would exclude you from getting into heaven. Instead of being merciful, they are the meanest sons of bitches out there. Because the church is still very powerful in public opinion and sway, any changes to the law will be the death knell to which every party tries to bring it in.

2) the Hippocratic oath. Assisted suicide directly contravenes this line:

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.
then again, it should not be hard to bypass this, because this is also in the oath:

Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.
While these are from the original Hippocratic oath, it is my understanding that it still holds quite a bit of sway. Finding a doctor, especially in North America, willing to stray from the oath, and to not care about the legality of it, is going to be next to impossible.

3) should enough public support be made available to sway the law makers to allow assisted suicide, the checks and balances for this are going to be immense! And the financial burden to pay for the checks and balances are going to be through the roof! I imagine that there are going to be lawyers, courts and doctors up the ying-yang involved, and they don't work for free, and something tells me health insurance is not going to want to foot the bill in most cases. And if that is the case, this becomes an option for the rich only, and then it is discriminatory in the Canadian charter.

4) Drug companies and government lobbyists. I agree, there will be some opposition to this. Pharmaceuticals are big business, and worth a lot of money. Having said that, with enough public pressure, they could be rendered mute, but as long as the church remains against it, the drug companies can remain quiet on the subject. Additionally, the drug companies would still be profiting on this, as they would be providing the drugs that would end the life any ways.

5) Second only to the church in being vocal against it, are going to be long term care facilities. They don't like quick turn arounds, as that is not long term care, and looks bad on their books when patients that was to live as long as possible select somewhere to go. Flip side of this coin, is a new business segment will emerge as care facilities for those that are going through the process for assisted suicide.

This is a big and touchy subject. I don't blame the government as much as most people do, as with enough public pressure, these laws can be changed in fairly short order. Instead, people should be placing the blame squarely on the church, as they are the founder and voice for most of the laws on the book today. It was not that long ago when the government reported to the church, and federal law and church law were interchangeable. However to be fair, Science is to blame too. Science wants to extend life as much as possible, and does not take into account the quality of life. It is a very black and white subject in this field.


Another reason to remove church and state.

Just my 2 cents and my opinion, and I look forward to debating it.

[Seth1968]

I don't see how anyone could disagree with your points Spikers.

Now not debate, but rather comments:


I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.

In other words (said in a Home Depot voice), "We're only here to help". Except for that little matter of a soul in agony in which you REFUSE to help.

Could such an oath be more hypocritical?


the fucking church. Because it is labeled as assisted "Suicide", it is against the faith to take your own life and considered a sin, one that would exclude you from getting into heaven. Instead of being merciful, they are the meanest sons of bitches out there. Because the church is still very powerful in public opinion and sway, any changes to the law will be the death knell to which every party tries to bring it in.

I started to write a response to the above "nailed it" quote, but I was getting so pissed off I decided to just say this:

Are you sure you have a point Spikers? I mean, is there anything in the bible that CONDONES and ENCOURAGES the torture of innocent people?

Oh wait. Sky daddy does that shit all the time.

[whydontchathen]

Why can't he just move his father to Washington State, and then do the assisted suicide? I heard that it's legal there....

Maybe a bit difficult to move him, but this guy has enough $$ to pay whatever it takes to get his father there, and shorten his suffering....

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Are you sure you have a point Spikers? I mean, is there anything in the bible that CONDONES and ENCOURAGES the torture of innocent people?

Oh wait. Sky daddy does that shit all the time.

They don't condone or encourage torture to the best of my knowledge, however, it is considered a sin to attempt suicide.

quotes from the bible:
Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple. - 1 Corinthians 3:16-17

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. - 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Be not overly wicked, neither be a fool. Why should you die before your time? - Ecclesiastes 7:17

basically, the Christian faith believes that God has a plan for you, and if you take your life before God does, than you have sinned against god.

But then again, we all know that the bible is full of hypocrisy.

[Kloubek]

Basically, medicine (and by that, I mean doctor groups in general and the government that oversees them) need to get with the times. This means not to be bullied by activists of any kind and especially not by the church.

These are modern times, and that calls for modern rules of practice.... and I 100% support legal suicide. But to avoid those with depression, etc offing themselves, I would only support a doctor-assisted suicide which is authorized by a panel of doctors on a case-by-case basis.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Kloubek
Basically, medicine (and by that, I mean doctor groups in general and the government that oversees them) need to get with the times. This means not to be bullied by activists of any kind and especially not by the church.

These are modern times, and that calls for modern rules of practice.... and I 100% support legal suicide. But to avoid those with depression, etc offing themselves, I would only support a doctor-assisted suicide which is authorized by a panel of doctors on a case-by-case basis.

I agree with you whole heartedly.

But that will never happen in government as the number one focus is how to hold power and keep it. That is the problem with the party system in it's entirety. MPs don't necessarily vote the way their constituents want and vote according to party lines. Since very few people actually check to see how their particular MP voted on a given subject, and rather vote for the party color instead of the candidate, this will never change.

Having said that, I feel that each person should have the ability to decide for themselves. If someone is not of sound mind, or can not communicate, how can we be sure what they want?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Kloubek

These are modern times, and that calls for modern rules of practice.... and I 100% support legal suicide. But to avoid those with depression, etc offing themselves, I would only support a doctor-assisted suicide which is authorized by a panel of doctors on a case-by-case basis. [/B]

Again, who are you to decide the fate of another?

[baygirl]

In this case the doctor's woke up the patient to ask him what he wanted:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/06/injured-hunter-chooses-death-over-paralysis/3461259/

I wonder if they should have given him more time.

[ekguy]

going through the early stages of this with my dad and it's extremely hard to go through. I totally understand his anger.

it's never easy to see a parent go like that. it's hard for everyone involved no matter what.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Again, who are you to decide the fate of another?

Who said *I'm* deciding anything? It should be the individual in question to decide if he or she feels their condition is so very dire that they would require such a service. Under my suggestion, they would then be allowed to ask their doctor for assisted suicide, and the doctor could then refer the patient to a 3-doctor panel. If those doctors also decide it is in the patient's best interest to end it, then they do so in the most humanely way possible after the patient signs a waiver or otherwise get any potential legal implications out of the way.

Should the individual not be of sound mind, then the request of service is given to the executor of the estate, who then goes through the 1 and 3 doctor process.

The "doctor code" or whatever it is - is rewritten, and those doctors who feel this is against their morals or religion are not obligated to perform any such procedures if they do not wish to.

I dunno... call me crazy, but I really think a system like this would work. It would noticeably reduce the strain on the medical system and loved ones close to the patient alike, as well as end a lot of pain and suffering people sometimes go through near the end of their lives.

[Supa Dexta]

People CAN use a work around of sorts though. If you know ahead of time that you wish to go.. Wait til mid winter, pound a bottle of whiskey and pills and go sit outside. Or have someone push your wheel chair out and park it.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Kloubek


Who said *I'm* deciding anything? It should be the individual in question to decide if he or she feels their condition is so very dire that they would require such a service. Under my suggestion, they would then be allowed to ask their doctor for assisted suicide, and the doctor could then refer the patient to a 3-doctor panel. If those doctors also decide it is in the patient's best interest to end it,

Who are these people that have some magical ability to override an individuals decision and fate.? Do they have some god like magical insight?

If one chooses to commit suicide and they have the physical ability to do so, then NO ONE has the right to intervene.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Who are these people that have some magical ability to override an individuals decision and fate.? Do they have some god like magical insight?

If one chooses to commit suicide and they have the physical ability to do so, then NO ONE has the right to intervene.

I agree with you.

But I am going to play devil's advocate here, just to stir some more discussion on this.

Our set of laws in the area of suicide is set up in such a way to preserve life. (again, based on church doctrine).

One of the issues with suicide, is that you force someone else to have to deal with your actions after the fact, and that really is not a fair thing to do.

What if there was a place that you could go and be euthanized, instead of you committing suicide and being a burden. Should there be a cooling off period?

Could you imagine how many emo teens might take this offer up? The consequences of making it legal and accessible?

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by spikers


Could you imagine how many emo teens might take this offer up? The consequences of making it legal and accessible?

And would this be good, or bad for society as a whole?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by spikers
One of the issues with suicide, is that you force someone else to have to deal with your actions after the fact, and that really is not a fair thing to do.

If someone chooses to be distressed because another utilized their free will, well...that's just fucked up. If anything, they should be happy.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Seth1968


If someone chooses to be distressed because another utilized their free will, well...that's just fucked up. If anything, they should be happy.

Chooses? give your head a shake.

Let me tell you a true story.

My best friend growing up had a wonderful grandad. He was awesome! probably one of the smartest guys I know. Never wanted for anything, and made his millions and was able to save it up with his wife. Constantly on the go hiking, camping, fishing and generally just being outdoors in his retirement. And then he had to go in for hip a hip replacement. It went off great, but he had lost a lot of his mobility.

This is the part that I will never forget. On sunday afternoon, we were headed over to grandad's house to work on his truck with him. My friend got there before I did, and walked in and started to chat with his grandma as she said grandad was downstairs getting supplies. A few minutes later, they hear a blast. My friend runs down stairs to find what is left of his grandad who had just put an old double barreled shotgun in his mouth and put 2 rounds out the back of his head.

He never chose to see that, and it devastated him for quite some time, to have that image his his grandad's brain matter all over the ceiling and walls. It put him into a dark place for a very long time, and I am thankful I was able to help him through it, because I then had to have the suicide talk with him. It took him quite awhile to get over that, and I firmly believe that he was able to get over it because he is one of the most mentally strong people I know.

He didn't choose to be "distressed" at all, he was a victim of the "free will" of another person.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by GTS4tw


And would this be good, or bad for society as a whole?

:rofl:

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by spikers


Chooses? give your head a shake.


No way man. That's how I got this way in the first place:)

Seriously though. You know what I meant, and that incident is a tangent that has nothing to do with my point.

[Feruk]

The only time I see a "panel of doctors" (or anything of that sort) in play is when a patient is not in a state to make a conscious decision about ending their life (coma for example). Anyone else should be able to decide their own fate.

Unfortunately, that also means that 16 year old who took a video of herself with signs last year (that got national attention) before offing herself would've been allowed to commit suicide. So there might be some room for arguing you need to be 18+ to decide to kill yourself. No different than what we do with booze, smokes, and porn (and voting).

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Who are these people that have some magical ability to override an individuals decision and fate.? Do they have some god like magical insight?

If one chooses to commit suicide and they have the physical ability to do so, then NO ONE has the right to intervene.

Where's the god-like insight involved? Is a panel of doctors not the *perfect* entity on deciding whether a patient's condition is so dire that they should be deemed suitable for self-euthanasia? These are the people that are kinda trained in the field. It's not rocket science... it's the field of medicine.

Do you really think sweeping legislation that anybody can kill themselves as they see fit would EVER pass in this country? Be realistic.

People who are totally curable with mental illness *can* be saved. And those who are will generally say they are glad they never committed suicide. However, when someone is deep in depression they don't have the mindset whereby they are capable of making that decision logically because it seems so hopeless for them at the time. While I may not TOTALLY agree with the concept, I think there IS an argument to be said about an impartial entity stepping in and making that decision.

Further to all this, I think the story Spikers told us is entirely true... depending on how the suicide plays out, it can be incredibly traumatic for some of the loved ones. While in your opinion and my opinion the person should have the right to do what they want with their life, does that also afford them the right to traumatize those around them?

It isn't that I disagree with your mindset. I too don't think anyone should be telling anyone else what they should do with their life. But the reality is that IS the world we live in. And let's face it, individuals still have the option of killing themselves regardless of whether it is deemed legal or not. It just means that if that is the route they wish to take if it is not deemed a legal suicide, then their family and estate bear the repercussions of such.

[Seth1968]

The only time I see a "panel of doctors" (or anything of that sort) in play is when a patient is not in a state to make a conscious decision about ending their life (coma for example).

In such an instance, you're saying that a vested interest person should make that decision instead of the immediate family? Seriously?


Unfortunately, that also means that 16 year old who took a video of herself with signs last year (that got national attention) before offing herself would've been allowed to commit suicide.

Again, that's her perogative.

Who is to say that death doesn't lead to paradise? Oh wait, religionists do, but you're not allowed to take a short cut to paradise. They tell that you NEED to be tortured.

BTW-Why the fuck isn't God paying child support?

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Seth1968
In such an instance, you're saying that a vested interest person should make that decision instead of the immediate family? Seriously?
I'd be more worried about the immediate family having the vested interest. It'd be a check to ensure someone isn't trying to get grandpa in the ground as fast as possible to get the inheritance.


Originally posted by Seth1968
Again, that's her perogative.

Who is to say that death doesn't lead to paradise? Oh wait, religionists do, but you're not allowed to take a short cut to paradise. They tell that you NEED to be tortured.

BTW-Why the fuck isn't God paying child support?
Brain doesn't fully develop until a couple years into adulthood. I would argue that an emotionally charged teen is never "in the right mind" to make the decision.