Right to euthanasia for children approved in Belgium.

[kvg]

In Belgium assisted suicide was already legal for people 18+ and now 10+. This would be impossibly hard for a parent. Personally if my child was in intolerable pain from a terminal condition and my child asked for it, it might break me, but I would.


Discuss

http://www.newsweek.com/should-sick-child-be-allowed-choose-death-belgians-think-so-223851

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/insanity-belgian-senate-passes-bill-permitting-doctors-to-euthanize-childre

[Modelexis]

This is the most important point to that article IMO:

death won’t just be a matter of the child uttering his fiat mortem. The law requires statements by psychologists and doctors confirming the child’s ability to make the decision. The child’s doctors must also inform him about medical options that may ease his suffering and maintain a dialogue about his preferences.


This law does not mean it's a free for all murder fest on children, although some opponents to the law would like to have you think that.

Having the right to end you own life or the life of a family member at their request or at the combined judgement of a doctor and an adult family member is always going to be better than having a law preventing it.

Having the government tell you what you can do with your life is absolutely ridiculous.

[xnvy]

Nice to see that Belgium is ahead of the game in regards to the 18+ demographic. I was not aware it was legal there already.

I'm not sure how I feel about euthanasia for those under 18. I get for some kids with painful and terminal conditions it is probably best but I can't help but feel that some of those kids will be asking for it not realizing that at that age, they usually get better but more importantly, without realizing the plethora of experiences and life that they are passing up on.

[revelations]

Glad we as a society can move forwards with this.....leaving the religion out of it.

[Env-Consultant]

Originally posted by xnvy
Nice to see that Belgium is ahead of the game in regards to the 18+ demographic. I was not aware it was legal there already.

I'm not sure how I feel about euthanasia for those under 18. I get for some kids with painful and terminal conditions it is probably best but I can't help but feel that some of those kids will be asking for it not realizing that at that age, they usually get better but more importantly, without realizing the plethora of experiences and life that they are passing up on.

Based on the articles and what they're proposing, the kids would be "passing up" a period of horrible suffering and an extremely low, if any, quality of life, all while waiting to die. As for the kids that "usually get better", terminally ill patients don't get better - if there was a slight chance of it there is no way the doctors would support it.

The law is for children who are going to die and are living a horrible existence. +100 to Belgium for being proactive with this and like Revelations said, keeping religion out of it - if your god supports children suffering an unbearable existence waiting to die, I suggest you find a new god, or just allow your own children to suffer while not imposing on mine/other children.

[cancer man]

Matthew 11:28

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Has to be some religion in this thread.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by xnvy
I can't help but feel that some of those kids will be asking for it not realizing that at that age

I can't help but notice you didn't read the article, or the piece I quoted in my post.

[GoChris]

From one day to the very next when you turn 18, you don't magically receive the gift of maturity. I've met many kids under 18 more mature than some people on here. It's just a number.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Modelexis
Having the government tell you what you can do with your life is absolutely ridiculous.

It's well beyond ridiculous.

Now what of the people who are suffering but can't communicate? For example, 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.

[mr2mike]

I know my grandpa was able to mutter the words "I'm done" on his death bed. But really there was nothing we could do and we all heard it. They basically take the person off being fed through the IV and give him high levels of morphine until it's over. It's a terrible way to go and to see someone go this way is inhumane.
So I'm pro-assisted suicide or mercy kill, whatever you call it. But in my case, would they grant this? Probably not because they'd say he wasn't of able mind and body.

[Melinda]

I support euthanasia and assisted suicide for terminally ill people of any age. Rules and regulations need to exist of course, as there are some who would try to do this to family members to ease a burden or gain an inheritance, but at the first sign of disease in animals, most are destroyed. Why do we make people suffer so much, especially if they're able to request it. And I don't know that I would only support terminally ill people requesting it either. I think people who end up paralyzed or badly crippled have a right to (rationally and coherently) decide they don't want to live like that. Somewhat like the main character in million dollar baby.

Kudos to belgum.

[Seth1968]

It's well known to many at Beyond, that I despise our governmental system. My concerns are mainly due to blatant violations of human rights and freedoms.

....waiting for the ludicrous comment of, "If you don't like it, then leave".

I've read thousands and thousands of user comments from blogs all across Canada on the subject. Virtually EVERY comment refers to being appalled that you can't die with dignity, even when you're begging for it. The very few exceptions were from hypocritical religious nut jobs.

The sickening and repulsive human rights violation, is in the fact that our government won't even "look at it".

We don't have freedom, we have the illusion of freedom.

[KRyn]

Originally posted by Seth1968
We don't have freedom, we have the illusion of freedom.

At least it's better than the illusion offered in many other countries. :dunno:

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by KRyn


At least it's better than the illusion offered in many other countries. :dunno:

That's similar to the "If you don't like it, then leave" argument.

Of course there are better and worse countries when it comes to human rights and freedoms. but just because Canada isn't as bad as some, doesn't mean we should ignore our government's violations.

[Seth1968]

*BUMP*

Without wanting to go into details, suffice to say that for about the last 6 months, my mother has been terminally ill, and is in a great deal of emotional and physical pain. I found out yesterday that she has been repeatedly begging to die.

The religious people force our family at gunpoint to ignore her most fundamental and important human right. Our idiotic politicians cower to such ignorance.

To claim we have a right to live, logically means we should have the right to die. To not have the latter, means the former is an illusion, and we're just slaves to ignorance.

Have a look at the following debate. Note the illogical, self righteous comments from the religious people. These same people mercy kill their pets when they're in terminal distress, and would likely wish so on themselves if they experienced such.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/do-people-have-a-right-to-die

[JRSC00LUDE]

Sorry to hear your experience Seth, I do not envy your position but ultimately most of us will be in it in one manner or another during our lifetime.

[Seth1968]

Thanks for that JRS, but no need to be sorry. Heck, I'm indifferent to death. My only emotion is anger as I'll go to prison if I end her suffering.

[Masked Bandit]

Aren't there a handful of states in the US that allow assisted suicide? I fail to see what is stopping modern society from adopting the practice with some tight controls of course.

Seth, I don't know you in any manner, but wish you all the strength to handle your situation.

[mazdavirgin]

Want to die? Grab your shotgun, pills, noose or plug your car's exhaust.

Don't bring other people in the equation. Make the choice yourself. People have been managing to commit suicide for quite some time so what's the problem here exactly?

Oh right we want the ability to kill other people when they become inconvenient. Unless the person who is doing the dying is killing themselves there is always going to be the problem that someone else is pressuring them into the act or performing it against their will. Who are we to judge the quality of life of someone else or the worth of their existance?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
Want to die? Grab your shotgun, pills, noose or plug your car's exhaust.

Don't bring other people in the equation. Make the choice yourself. People have been managing to commit suicide for quite some time so what's the problem here exactly?

Oh right we want the ability to kill other people when they become inconvenient. Unless the person who is doing the dying is killing themselves there is always going to be the problem that someone else is pressuring them into the act or performing it against their will. Who are we to judge the quality of life of someone else or the worth of their existance?

I don't even...

[xnvy]

^I will admit that in 2013 I totally failed to read the article but I think in this case, mazdavirgin just saw the thread title and posted.

Sorry to hear about your mom Seth.

[kertejud2]

While a Living Will is limited on what it can do, it is better than nothing. Anybody concerned about being stuck in a bad situation like the ones described should definitely look into them.

Isn't the answer for all situations, but is at least the answer for some.

[masoncgy]

Originally posted by Seth1968


I don't even...

Neither do I...

mazdavirgin... WTF kind of comment was that anyway? My brain hurts.

[revelations]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
Oh right we want the ability to kill other people when they become inconvenient.

Not sure what kind of Coke you just drank before you read the original article but Belgium has a system that allows a child with terminal illness to choose to end their life with dignity at a time of their will - rather than slowly, painfully at the choice of the ailment.

Seth is going through something similar - our society clearly isnt advanced enough accept the fact that some terminally ill people want and deserve to die at their own choosing.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


Your lack of understanding is almost as great as that of Arash. One day, when you're faced with a situation that requires the conversation, your world will become more clear as it relates to this topic.

[Seth1968]

Jack Kevorkian.

From Wikipedia:


On the November 22, 1998, broadcast of CBS News' 60 Minutes, Kevorkian allowed the airing of a videotape he made on September 17, 1998, which depicted the voluntary euthanasia of Thomas Youk, 52, who was in the final stages of Lou Gehrig's Disease. After Youk provided his fully informed consent (a sometimes complex legal determination made in this case by editorial consensus) on September 17, 1998, Kevorkian himself administered Thomas Youk a lethal injection.

After a two-day trial, the Michigan jury found Kevorkian guilty of second-degree homicide.[2] Judge Jessica Cooper sentenced Kevorkian to serve 10–25 years in prison and told him:

In part...


we are a nation of laws, and we are a nation that tolerates differences of opinion because we have a civilized and a nonviolent way of resolving our conflicts that weighs the law and adheres to the law.

I've got two issues with that statement. First, "tolerating differences of opinion" is exactly what didn't happen. Second, "civilized" and "nonviolent". Are you kidding me? To not end one's terminal suffering, even when they are begging for it, is the epitome of violence and ignorance.

PSv0U94kiZ4

If that doesn't embed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSv0U94kiZ4

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968
It's well known to many at Beyond, that I despise our governmental system. My concerns are mainly due to blatant violations of human rights and freedoms.

....waiting for the ludicrous comment of, "If you don't like it, then leave".

I've read thousands and thousands of user comments from blogs all across Canada on the subject. Virtually EVERY comment refers to being appalled that you can't die with dignity, even when you're begging for it. The very few exceptions were from hypocritical religious nut jobs.

The sickening and repulsive human rights violation, is in the fact that our government won't even "look at it".

We don't have freedom, we have the illusion of freedom.
A few points need to be made.

Firstly, there are significant problems with invoking human rights, if they are being invoked as though they are inherent to all humans, if there is no God. If you disagree, then please state where you think inherent human rights come from. Secondly, as to human rights violations by the government, if you think being pro-euthanasia is going to solve anything, perhaps you need to read the articles more closely:

"Indeed, deciding who qualifies for life comes close to playing God, and that power has been taken to extremes before. In the Third Reich, German doctors killed more than 10,000 handicapped or incurably ill children. Unlike Belgium’s children, the German children were never asked whether they wanted to die."

Are we like the Nazis? Of course not. Is it ever possible that a country could become like them, including Canada? Yes, it is possible. Do not think that being pro-euthanasia and legally allowing it will somehow keep the government out of your decision of whether or not to live. Again, from one of the links:

"Since legalization of euthanasia in 2002, Belgium has seen a nearly 500 percent increase in deaths by euthanasia. Various studies have found that patients in hospitals are increasingly being killed without their consent or the consent of their families."

Thirdly, the phrase "dying with dignity" is nonsense. Since when does dignity include taking the easy way out, losing hope, or giving up? It's actually quite the opposite of dying with dignity. Fourthly, your continual ad hominems--"hypocritical religious nut jobs"--are pointless. Deal with the arguments that religious people give, if they are giving any, or ignore them. Calling people names doesn't mean they are wrong and only makes you look ignorant.

Fifthly, allowing euthanasia is a very slippery slope in many regards. Reading the articles and the results in Belgium show this to be the case. In addition to the quotes above from the articles, here are some more:

"In 2010, research published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) found that 32 percent of euthanasia deaths in the Flemish region of Belgium are done without an explicit request. A second study by the CMAJ the same year found that nearly 45 percent of euthanasia deaths involving nurses in Belgium were without a specific request.

Research published the same year by the British Medical Journal also found that only 52.8 percent of all euthanasia deaths were officially reported, as is required by the law.

According to some reports, there are increasing cases of elderly Belgians who are afraid of be hospitalized over the potential that they may be euthansized.

Mortier’s mother was euthanized by lethal injection in April 2012 by Wim Distelmans, the doctor most known for euthanizing in controversial situations. She had been suffering from chronic depression.

News that Distelmans had euthanized 45-year-old twins who were going blind made headlines around the world last Christmas, but that was just the tip of the iceberg. But despite his habit of pushing of the envelope, the Belgian government has Distelmans chairing the commissions that decide whether euthanasia cases have been carried out in accordance with the law. "

And you seriously think it is okay?

For all of you telling others that they haven't read the articles, I am wondering if any of you have.

[01RedDX]

.

[duaner]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


annnd the religious nut jobs are here. Your unbearable suffering? it's willed by god you see, and you're just gonna have to buck up and take it. Forget the medical experts who say it's only going to get worse, forget the constant pain, forget losing all control of your body, our imaginary god is saying you need to stay alive, because we say so, it's his body, not yours and you have no say in the matter.

You people make me fucking sick...
Ad hominems, the inability or unwillingness to address the actual points being made, and arguing against points that weren't made (straw man). Is this all I should ever expect on Beyond? It really doesn't change.

[01RedDX]

.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by duaner
Thirdly, the phrase "dying with dignity" is nonsense. Since when does dignity include taking the easy way out, losing hope, or giving up? It's actually quite the opposite of dying with dignity.

This might be your opinion, but that doesn't make it true for other people. There are many who would prefer to pass away while they are still in command of their bodies and not waste away, losing their cognitive functions or having to rely on others for basic tasks.

It boils down to the fact that people should have to right to decide what medical treatment they receive and how they manage their final days, all without fear that someone who honors those wishes will be punished.

Do you lump those people who have living wills in place to be taking the easy way out or giving up as well?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by duaner

Ad hominems, the inability or unwillingness to address the actual points being made, and arguing against points that weren't made (straw man).

Except you haven't made any relevant points.

Tell me this though. What gives the right for someone to tell another when they can and can not live?

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Except you haven't made any relevant points.

Tell me this though. What gives the right for someone to tell another when they can and can not live?

I think the better question he should answer is why he feels a doctor or a lawyer has the right to force someone to continue to endure a state of mental or physical suffering against their wishes.

My deepest sympathies for your situation. I know how hard it is to see a loved one in a terrible state and be powerless to do anything.

[duaner]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


You're the one who wants children to suffer. You are making it clear that you want to prolong the suffering of others as much as possible, you are also making the argument for taking away an essential human right because of something someone wrote 2,500 years ago, for something that resides only in your imagination... believe me, there aren't enough ad hominems for someone like you.
Read the articles.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Except you haven't made any relevant points.

Tell me this though. What gives the right for someone to tell another when they can and can not live?
You're bringing up rights again.

[Seth1968]

Dodge much?

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by duaner
Thirdly, the phrase "dying with dignity" is nonsense. Since when does dignity include taking the easy way out, losing hope, or giving up? It's actually quite the opposite of dying with dignity.

Obviously the main point of contention is this since everyone is quoting it.....and it's obvious why. What a short sighted thought.

When THERE IS NO WAY OUT BUT DEATH, how do you call it "losing hope" or "giving up"? You obviously put zero thought into that statement. Yes the topic is a difficult one and has many implications to be carefully weighed but come on, that particular statement is absolutely absurd.

I watched Parkinsons rob my grandmother of any physical functionality at all, watched her turn from an amazing and caring woman who was fiercely independent to an angry and hate filled lady that could no longer do a single physical thing for herself. Eat, drink, bath, walk, nothing. Helplessness and despair tend to do that to people's minds after awhile.

My mother took care of her every day and it was painful, for both of them. When my mom goes down that road I know what will happen, it's just a matter of time. She won't allow herself to exist that way once it's no longer possible to manage the losing fight. And if/when it's my turn, neither would I.

You sit there, gather your thoughts, and explain to me why that RIGHT should not be my mothers, mine, or yours to choose to exercise once all options are exhausted. Otherwise, explain to me why it isn't a right or why it shouldn't be. Stop hiding and answer the question clearly and openly from your perspective.

Don't take the easy way out.

EDIT AGAIN - Just because one country fucked it up doesn't mean another can't learn from their errors and make a better policy. Does it?

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Dodge much?
Speaking of dodging, perhaps you better re-read your previous post: "Except you haven't made any relevant points."

I made several points that you ignored. How about you address my points and then I'll address yours?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by duaner

Speaking of dodging, perhaps you better re-read your previous post: "Except you haven't made any relevant points."

I made several points that you ignored. How about you address my points and then I'll address yours?

I can't seem to muster up the desire to debate something which should not be a debate to begin with. But I will say this though, just because a a particular law may be being abused, does not mean that law shouldn't exist.

[duaner]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


Obviously the main point of contention is this since everyone is quoting it.....and it's obvious why. What a short sighted thought.

When THERE IS NO WAY OUT BUT DEATH, how do you call it "losing hope" or "giving up"? You obviously put zero thought into that statement. Yes the topic is a difficult one and has many implications to be carefully weighed but come on, that particular statement is absolutely absurd.
Short-sighted? Absurd? I'll show you absurd and we'll see who it is that isn't putting a whole lot of thought into my statement.

Let's just pretend there is a war going on somewhere. Let's further pretend that as one army advances on another that the fate of the one is sealed. Is it "dying with dignity" if those whose death is certain decide to take their own lives instead of facing the enemy to the bitter end?

Another scenario. Let's pretend that in the history of the world, there have been millions who have faced incredible pain and suffering, including those whose death was immanent. Are they undignified for not killing themselves? Did these millions die without dignity?

And since we're giving weight to personal experience, are you saying that my dad, who died many years ago after a year+ long battle with colon cancer, died without dignity?

What about my wife who struggles with chronic pain? Is she undignified for not wanting to take her own life or have a doctor do it?

To say that assisted suicide is dying with dignity, implies that everyone else who has faced terminal illness and suffering during their final days or months, didn't die with dignity. Refusing to face suffering head-on is taking the easy way out and the opposite of dignified.

Any who disagree must show just how it is possible then that both those who choose assisted suicide and those who don't, can be said to have died with dignity. To say they all died with dignity is truly absurd.

[01RedDX]

.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968


I can't seem to muster up the desire to debate something which should not be a debate to begin with. But I will say this though, just because a a particular law may be being abused, does not mean that law shouldn't exist.
Good point and I agree. However, the law needs to be justifiable and based on sound reasoning, and I don't think it is, which is why debate is necessary.

This really is the age of self and it is no wonder that only now has this become a big issue. Peoples' "rights" are held in higher esteem than sound reason (not only on this issue).

[Seth1968]

So again Duaner. Who are you, or others, to undermine the free will of others who want their suffering to end?

[duaner]

Originally posted by 01RedDX

Ok duaner, I'll address your points. A quick search shows that all your quotes and talking points come from religious sites like "lifesitenews.com" and religious blogs and facebook groups. Nothing even remotely resembling a legitimate credible news source.
Lol! Great minds think alike? ;) What about the points I made that were based directly on quotes from the articles linked to in the OP, the ones that everyone but me hasn't actually read?


Originally posted by 01RedDX
That is not to say it's not possible that at some point, somewhere, somehow, a mistake might be made. The problem with your reasoning is that secularists have to be right all the time, every single time, but you people have to be right only once. Isn't that right?
I don't understand your point here but either religious people are right in their reasoning or they are not regardless of their beliefs.


Originally posted by 01RedDX
You've demonstrated time and time again, your inability to think for yourself. You have been taught "what to think" quite well, but have yet to prove that you know "how to think." So again, quit dodging everyone's questions and quoting religious material and prove that you are able to think for yourself.
That really is quite a nonsense argument, being an ad hominem and a double standard. Nearly everything we learn we learn from others and this in no way whatsoever means that one does not think for themselves nor that what they believe isn't true. Either the claims being made are true or they are not, regardless of who makes them.

Only my first point came from a religious site. Points two and five were based directly on the articles from the OP. Point three and four were my thoughts.

Just because I am religious does not mean that my points are automatically somehow invalid. It would be bigotry to claim otherwise.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968
So again Duaner. Who are you, or others, to undermine the free will of others who want their suffering to end?
You first need to prove people have such rights in the first place.


Edited: Give me some time to put more thought into it.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by duaner

You first need to prove people have such rights in the first place.

And at the same time, you're arguing that doctors and lawyers should have the right to force someone to live in pain, regardless of any other desires.

It boils down to the fact people should be allowed to choose how they deal with a terminal or crippling illness. If you want to wait on the infinitesimally small chance of some miracle cure, go ahead. But don't say that someone can't choose to end their life while they are still in command of their own body just because you don't feel it's morally right.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Seth1968
So again Duaner. Who are you, or others, to undermine the free will of others who want their suffering to end?



Originally posted by duaner

You first need to prove people have such rights in the first place.

I give up.

You dodge simple questions, go off on tangents, and as someone else put it, have short sighted views.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968


I give up.

You dodge simple questions, go off on tangents, and as someone else put it, have short sighted views.
I just edited my post.

However, you began the dodging. I have not gone on tangents and have addressed the erroneous short-sighted claim. You haven't addressed a single thing and don't even seem to have read my posts nor the articles from the OP. :dunno:

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by duaner

Short-sighted? Absurd? I'll show you absurd and we'll see who it is that isn't putting a whole lot of thought into my statement.

Let's just pretend there is a war going on somewhere. Let's further pretend that as one army advances on another that the fate of the one is sealed. Is it "dying with dignity" if those whose death is certain decide to take their own lives instead of facing the enemy to the bitter end?

Another scenario. Let's pretend that in the history of the world, there have been millions who have faced incredible pain and suffering, including those whose death was immanent. Are they undignified for not killing themselves? Did these millions die without dignity?

And since we're giving weight to personal experience, are you saying that my dad, who died many years ago after a year+ long battle with colon cancer, died without dignity?

What about my wife who struggles with chronic pain? Is she undignified for not wanting to take her own life or have a doctor do it?

To say that assisted suicide is dying with dignity, implies that everyone else who has faced terminal illness and suffering during their final days or months, didn't die with dignity. Refusing to face suffering head-on is taking the easy way out and the opposite of dignified.

Any who disagree must show just how it is possible then that both those who choose assisted suicide and those who don't, can be said to have died with dignity. To say they all died with dignity is truly absurd.

Seriously? None of those "examples" are parallels actually. And your final two thoughts are proof that you have not actually put a whole lot of real thought into it.

The onus is on YOU you're obviously just incapable or, unwillingly, to properly argue your viewpoint.

I'm done, you're Arashing the fuck out of this argument.

[duaner]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


Seriously? None of those are parallels actually.
You must be joking.

[Seth1968]

Hi duaner.

I basically said that I found your arguments ludicrous, and wouldn't pursue them any further. With some further thought, let's do it.


Originally posted by duaner

Just because I am religious does not mean that my points are automatically somehow invalid. It would be bigotry to claim otherwise.

The term "Bigotry" is ambiguous. But in the right to die regard, YOU'RE the one is who is the bigot. Your position is self righteous, arrogant, and the epitome of bigotry.


Originally posted by duaner

You first need to prove people have such rights in the first place.


Edited: Give me some time to put more thought into it.

You had a flurry of posts, yet you need more thought into the simple question I posed?

[duaner]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Hi duaner.

I basically said that I found your arguments ludicrous, and wouldn't pursue them any further. With some further thought, let's do it.
I would much prefer you show me precisely why you think each argument is ludicrous. Simply calling them ludicrous doesn't mean that they are.


Originally posted by Seth1968
The term "Bigotry" is ambiguous. But in the right to die regard, YOU'RE the one is who is the bigot. Your position is self righteous, arrogant, and the epitome of bigotry.
But if my position is based on sound reasoning, then it has nothing to do with being self-righteous or being arrogant. Whereas calling someone names and dismissing their arguments solely on the basis that they are, or may be religious, cannot be anything but bigotry.

Just because we have opposing opinions on the matter doesn't mean that we're bigots when we don't change our opinions at the drop of a hat, or a quick online discussion. This is a significant issue with long drawn out opinions on both sides by people much smarter than either of us.

And, for what it's worth, I really am sorry to hear about your mom. Twenty seven years ago I was in a similar position to yours, watching my dad waste away from terminal cancer over the course of a year or more. He was always in pain and had great difficulty, along with the embarrassment of a colostomy bag. This week it will be two years since my mom died, suddenly and unexpectedly, with no suffering on her part. It's unfortunate that we all won't get that "luxury".


Originally posted by Seth1968
You had a flurry of posts, yet you need more thought into the simple question I posed?
The points I gave and those I addressed were simple--the slippery slope of legally allowing assisted suicide and the nonsense phrase "death with dignity" as it is popularly used. Your question--Who are you, or others, to undermine the free will of others who want their suffering to end?--is not quite as simple as you think.

Contrary to what you and others might think, I don't just shoot from the hip; I do try and put serious thought into such things.

[Seth1968]

80% of Canadians support the right to die and have blatantly logical and moralistic reasons for such. The 20% opposed, have no defence other than, "I say so". So much for the will of the people.

This notion of a "slippery slope" that you keep raising, is a weak argument at best. What you're saying is, "Someone might abuse this law, so the law shouldn't exist". I find that to be a narrow and short sighted position. Especially when the law would be in place to honour an individuals free will and end their suffering.

The following site is the authority on the facts of the matter.

http://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/learn/the-debate-the-key-arguments

It addresses the "slippery slope" argument, but there wasn't any logical need to do so, as it can be as simple as what I wrote in the second paragraph. That argument can be found under the heading, "Responses to Common Concerns".

You might also want to go here on the site: About>People>Moral and Religious Leaders. They briefly explain their pro voluntary euthanasia stance from a general moralistic and/or religious viewpoint.

[Moonracer]

Seth, sorry to hear about your mom I know how you feel and I'm with you all the way, people should have a choice.
My mom passed away a few years ago and I'm certain she would have chosen to "go" sooner than she did naturally if she had the choice. She had a stroke which disabled one side of her body, she had cancer and then she had a mild heart attack etc..etc.. I went to see her before she passed, in another province, and it destroyed me to see her in such pain.
Sometimes I think religion is evil. I don't believe in religion or or hell, but simply that there are good people and bad people.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Seth1968
These same people mercy kill their pets when they're in terminal distress, and would likely wish so on themselves if they experienced such.



I'll give my 2 cents since this issue isn't just about religious people that say "I say so", and I quoted the above section because it best illustrates my point. This isn't a simple issue, when dealing with controlled death there are considerable financial, scientific, and medical interests all in play.

Those who are for this are making emotional and metaphysical statements. And in doing so, most of them assume human beings are the kind of beings that have intrinsic value. And so when comments are made like "if a person wants to decide to commit suicide and take their own life, they ought to be allowed to do so" or "they have the right to choose". This shows us that we are not mere animals, but are beings that have a substantial self that has value and ought to be respected.

Rights that allow us to choose aren't based on our mere physical bodies, our rights our elevated much beyond that. So when you say someone should have the right to do something, this is to respect their freedom and liberty. Animals don't have those rights so this is exactly why the above statement falls flat on itself. You can't apply the same kind of argumentation towards animals as you would with with humans...unless of course your PETA.

But once you can come to terms with the fact we aren't mere animals, and humans have intrinsic worth because we are human beings and not just animals, than the argument to help end another life in the case of assisted suicide is contradictory in nature.

Because when you introduce Euthanasia and assisted suicide, human life is no longer valuable in itself. Value becomes whether or not you can produce something good, like health or well being or making a contribution to society. It has instrumental value to produce this. Then when the life isn't able to produce this other thing that is valuable, the life is then forfeit. Then we can take the life. You see, once we do that though we make the statement that there is a human life that is not worthy to be lived. Say a human life that is in pain, or one that is a burden on society financially or that can't get better, or any of a number of things that are related that this kind of question. Then you've made a definitive statement, a metaphysical statement about human beings. And you know something? That statement stays and it begins to eat away at other things as well, so that pretty soon, remember this other metaphysical argument, "that people ought to be free to choose what they want?" Pretty soon, that argument, which is at odds with this one, gets eaten up. There conflicting ideologies and when taken to their logical conclusion they can't work together.

This slippery slope happens every time human rights go from being valuable in itself, to a bunch of other metaphysical statements that conflict with that. Many of the human races atrocities have taken place when we devalue the worth of a particular group to make them seem less human.

Duane gave some stats on Belgium, which no one seemed to address but you can find these where assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal.

Holland
-Nearly 20% of deaths every year are from Euthanasia
-11.3% or 14,691 are killed by involuntary euthanasia, that means the patient didn't want to die but the doctors said "too bad"

From Liverpool

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9716418/Half-of-those-on-Liverpool-Care-Pathway-never-told.html

• In 44 per cent of cases when conscious patients were placed on the pathway, there was no record that the decision had been discussed with them.

• For 22 per cent of patients on the pathway, there was no evidence that comfort and safety had been maintained while medication was administered

• One in three families of the dying never received a leaflet they should have been given to explain the process

So all of a sudden this "right to choose" got overlooked because these human lives weren't valuable itself anymore. Value then turns into whether or not your capable of contribution. Ideas have consequences and emotions can't be the justification for our how we value human rights. Human rights need to be kept for ALL humans because they are human beings.

[Seth1968]

This is indeed a simple issue that is often made needlessly complex.

Whether or not an animal has "such rights" is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is if we see an animal in some painful throes of death, we compassionately expedite the process to eliminate needless suffering.

If such is occurring to a human (who is also begging to die) I find it appalling that a few would walk away saying, "I have no problem with you suffering".

It's only been recently that people and governments started getting their heads out of their ass on the matter. That's why 80% of Canadians support euthanasia, and there are now "Right To die" chapters across Canada.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by HuMz


Holland
-Nearly 20% of deaths every year are from Euthanasia
-11.3% or 14,691 are killed by involuntary euthanasia, that means the patient didn't want to die but the doctors said "too bad"

From Liverpool

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9716418/Half-of-those-on-Liverpool-Care-Pathway-never-told.html

• In 44 per cent of cases when conscious patients were placed on the pathway, there was no record that the decision had been discussed with them.

• For 22 per cent of patients on the pathway, there was no evidence that comfort and safety had been maintained while medication was administered

• One in three families of the dying never received a leaflet they should have been given to explain the process


All of this is misleading and/or irrelevant towards voluntary euthanasia.

[Seth1968]

And this too:


To be forced to continue living a life that one deems intolerable when there are doctors who are willing either to end one’s life or to assist one in ending one’s own life, is an unspeakable violation of an individual’s freedom to live—and to die—as he or she sees fit. Those who would deny patients a legal right to euthanasia or assisted suicide typically appeal to two arguments: a “slippery slope” argument, and an argument about the dangers of abuse. Both are scare tactics, the rhetorical force of which exceeds their logical strength.

(My underline)

http://www.current-oncology.com/index.php/oncology/article/view/923/751

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Seth1968
This is indeed a simple issue that is often made needlessly complex.

Whether or not an animal has "such rights" is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is if we see an animal in some painful throes of death, we compassionately expedite the process to eliminate needless suffering.

If such is occurring to a human (who is also begging to die) I find it appalling that a few would walk away saying, "I have no problem with you suffering".

It's only been recently that people and governments started getting their heads out of their ass on the matter. That's why 80% of Canadians support euthanasia, and there are now "Right To die" chapters across Canada.

I think its fairly obvious when looking at all of the abuses where thousands of people have died without a choice and sometimes against their will that this isn't just a simple issue. I would even suggest that not taking proper time to plan and put proper restrictions in place has lead to many of these abuses.

Your next point is contradicting itself once again. You are the one drawing the parallel between the "right to life" between animals and humans.

I've showed you that humans have intrinsic value, which puts us above the animal kingdom, which you indirectly agreed. Therefore there isn't an argument to be made in how we deal with the suffering of animals, in the context of how we deal with humans. Yet for some reason your still drawing the parallel between the two.

And this isn't just about those who are begging to die. Anyone who wants to prematurely end their life can do so willingly via suicide. This is about bringing in other people to subjectively decide the value of that persons life once the value is no longer grounded in that person simply being a human being.

Your last argument presents a problem between our worldviews. Popular opinion polls aren't arguments for or against something in themselves. It would hold weight if good and bad are merely subjective as to what society says, which is what you want to be true. The conflict comes in when you try and explain your point of view objectively for everyone, which is exactly what your doing. Your advocating for your subjective personal opinion that it is good, while at the same time discrediting and putting down the opposing view as if its wrong.

[Seth1968]

I think its fairly obvious when looking at all of the abuses where thousands of people have died without a choice and sometimes against their will that this isn't just a simple issue. I would even suggest that not taking proper time to plan and put proper restrictions in place has lead to many of these abuses.

That same lame argument again. So here again is the rational rebuttal:


To be forced to continue living a life that one deems intolerable when there are doctors who are willing either to end one’s life or to assist one in ending one’s own life, is an unspeakable violation of an individual’s freedom to live—and to die—as he or she sees fit. Those who would deny patients a legal right to euthanasia or assisted suicide typically appeal to two arguments: a “slippery slope” argument, and an argument about the dangers of abuse. Both are scare tactics, the rhetorical force of which exceeds their logical strength.

http://www.current-oncology.com/index.php/oncology/article/view/923/751

Your next point is contradicting itself once again. You are the one drawing the parallel between the "right to life" between animals and humans.

The only contradiction is in your mind. My point is in regard to ending needless suffering. Period.

I've showed you that humans have intrinsic value, which puts us above the animal kingdom, which you indirectly agreed. Therefore there isn't an argument to be made in how we deal with the suffering of animals, in the context of how we deal with humans. Yet for some reason your still drawing the parallel between the two.

More dribble that doesn't address the topic.

And this isn't just about those who are begging to die. Anyone who wants to prematurely end their life can do so willingly via suicide. This is about bringing in other people to subjectively decide the value of that persons life once the value is no longer grounded in that person simply being a human being.

It's becoming more and more obvious that you know little about the topic. Have a look at my links to better educate yourself.

Your last argument presents a problem between our worldviews. Popular opinion polls aren't arguments for or against something in themselves. It would hold weight if good and bad are merely subjective as to what society says, which is what you want to be true. The conflict comes in when you try and explain your point of view objectively for everyone, which is exactly what your doing. Your advocating for your subjective personal opinion that it is good, while at the same time discrediting and putting down the opposing view as if its wrong.

The opinion polls just show that the vast majority believe that we have the right to die as we choose. There is nothing subjective about it. You insist on trying to justify needless suffering by means of weak arguments that lack rationality.

[HuMz]

That same lame argument again. So here again is the rational rebuttal:



http://www.current-oncology.com/index.php/oncology/article/view/923/751

Am I having a discussion with current-oncology.com or with Seth? I could link you to pro-life websites positions so that you could read their position's. Except that wouldn't be MY view, it's like when Arash tries to prove his point through Youtube videos. That quote doesn't even address my response in regards to your comment about this being a simple issue. I said that the facts show people are dying without even been given a choice, this wasn't the direct intention when the assisted suicide laws were enacted, but it has now become the result. And yet the only response you have given is that this is a simple issue, it is ridiculously clear that something has gone wrong. You don't just magically go from "assisted suicide will always be the choice of the one suffering and in stable mind" to people dying and losing the most important choice of their life.



The only contradiction is in your mind. My point is in regard to ending needless suffering. Period.

No, you clearly made the point that in how we deal with animal suffering should be an example of how we should deal with human suffering. The value of life as a human being would have to be equal to that of an animal to draw the parallel to how we deal with "putting down" because of suffering. And it clearly isn't the same value, so your argument doesn't work.


More dribble that doesn't address the topic.

Everything I said addressed the value of a human being and the right to life, which is exactly what this topic is about.


It's becoming more and more obvious that you know little about the topic. Have a look at my links to better educate yourself.

Well I seem to have made a few points on this subject, but I don't seem to be getting any responses for your actual view on what I've claimed. I've read those links and I don't think they are yours, nor does it answer the fundamental points I put forth.



The opinion polls just show that the vast majority believe that we have the right to die as we choose. There is nothing subjective about it. You insist on trying to justify needless suffering by means of weak arguments that lack rationality.

Were finally in agreement! I acknowledge completely that this poll showed exactly what 80% of those people thought on this topic. You didn't post this poll to simply inform us that though, you posted it as an argument as a reason why this is a morally acceptable position we should all take. Unfortunately though this poll does nothing to show us of that sort, it simply just informs us of what 80% thought on the matter just like you said above.

I'm not trying to justify needless suffering at all, I'm simply arguing for the basis that all humans have the right to life because they are human beings, and if it becomes about anything else than it is in direct conflict with what I just said. If my rational is somehow wrong I haven't heard anything rationally from you only appeals to outside sources which do nothing to address what I've said.

Simply attaching negative labels (lame, dribble, not educated) to what I've been saying and then claiming yours to be rational doesn't work and I'm sure most people can recognize that.

[Seth1968]

The dog example is a talking point. It's not a necessity for my position.

Myself and others have addressed duaner's and your points numerous times to no avail. I simply posted the link as the author(s) explain the position more thoroughly.

My main point is people should have the right to end their life at their own discretion. It's hard to imagine why anyone would have a problem with that.