He did not want to die he wanted to live, you have this mindset that everybody who is told they have a terminal illness wishes to immediately end it all.
I just fear how it is going to end up.
I have already provided several examples of assisted suicide abuse and you still carry on with blind faith in this program. What is wrong with you why cant you admit there has been abuse and expansion over the last 10 years. The basic fact is that the general population are sheep and do as they are told, someone tells them assisted suicide is beneficial and persons such as myself who express concerns are explained away as conspiracy nuts.
You cant see the forest for the trees, that is very obvious seeing Eugenics started in America and ended up with the Nazi T4 program.
A legal system that oversaw the introduction of the Patriot Act, enjoy your world, unfortunately your in the majority so I have to endure your Utopia
uke:[/URL]
I KNOW HE DIDN'T WANT TO DIE!! I am saying why not advocate U.H.C so he wouldn't have to have been denied treatment instead of YOU in this thread advocating the denial of assisted suicide. I know you fear how this is going to end up but instead of focusing on having a properly enforced law you are seem to think having the law in place itself is enough to lead to your worse fears and that seem a tad bit paranoid.
The general population are sheep but you are free and intelligent and knows what's best for the rest of the herd? So I guess you are the sheep herder
Again the examples you outlined didn't show any abuse, as a matter of fact the 53 year old man who wanted treatement was granted that treatment eventually so it would seem that the system worked to protect his wishes and the news covered the story. So why do you fear the system when the checks and balances seem to have worked in his situation?
Dont be a patronizing you infant by telling me I can't see the forest from the trees, it is you who have skewed history by linking eugenics and the nazi regime as if it is a natural extension and outcome of eugenics and its not. Nazi germany my obtuse friend was an extreme, twisted fascist State that hardly mirrors what is possible in most democracies. Fascism can happen which is why populations in a free society have to be ever vigilant but you assume that this is not possible so you, the sheep herder who knows all like moses has to protect society from themselves and a system you find inherently corrupt. George Bush had the patriot act and now we are rid of mr. Bush and the new government elected by the people has modified the patriot act. Now this is a sign of a system that can alter and fix itself. Why do you have so little faith in this system that seems to have worked even given the examples you gave?
All your book shows is that the author is against assisted suicide and euthanasia. He isn't unbiased on the issue, he like yourself would make it criminal. And the book isn't about Holland but asssisted suicide/euthanasia everywhere and its an attack on the idea fundamentally which doesn't reflect the Holland where THE MAJORITY of Dutch people, medical practitiones and legislatures support euthanasia and assisted suicide, fine tuning a law is not the same as denying the law outright which is what you advocate and what the author advocates. The Future of Assited Suicide by Gorush is not an objective piece of work In princeton's review they say
"After devoting a chapter to each of these issues, Gorsuch constructs, explains, and tests out his principle of the inviolability of human life as an argument against legalization of PAS. He also suggests questions about the constitutionality of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act" He wrote the book to support his position so its not an unbiased exploration."
They go on to add that
"its not that the problems of the ll or gravely ill people are easy to solve, or even that some policy permitting physician assistance is an appropriate answer to their problems. It is just that a book about public policies that affect dying in America ought to be anchored more in an effort to address the problems of people than of legal doctrine or philosophy. Gorsuch is not insensitive. But his book is too abstracted from the realities of the complex problems that his argument is meant to address. " Kind of like you.
But this is probably the most glaring critique of all
"But the primary weakness of the book is that its approach, while not insensitive at all, is nonetheless too detached from the realities to which its ideas are meant to apply. THE FUTURE OF ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA is too abstracted from context. Despite its occasional references to particular cases and to the problems of a few categories of people with end-of-life care issues, Gorsuch’s book is more focused on solving an interesting doctrinal and philosophical problem than on solving the problem of dying people in need of physicians’ assistance. After all is said and done, we are given a significant and fundamentally conservative argument that may justify criminalizing PAS and prohibiting “suicidal” decisions to refuse life-sustaining treatment. But that policy leaves us with an unfortunately large group of people for whom there is no help – those who are terminally or grievously ill, suffering great anguish and pain not adequately managed by the healthcare system, and desirous, for whatever reason, of giving up the struggle against death."
You told me to 'have a good read' perhaps you should learn to think through the information you recieve, and read between the lines of what you read.