Scotland Assisted Suicide Legalization Bill Narrowed, Still Targets Disabled

[Randwolf]

On life sustaining medication which usually results in a healing of the symptoms.

So "life sustaining medication ... usually results in a healing of the symptoms" in the terminally ill? Brian, do you understand the meaning of "terminally ill"? The patient is not going to recover! The only question is how much pain and agony do you want them to endure to uphold your ridiculous concept of a "natural" death. Why does your reasoning stop at this point? As others have asked, why not deny all medical attention, after all, it's not "natural" is it?

I am not concerned with what you think, anyone told they will be dying of an untreatable disease would not be of any rational state of mind after hearing that to make any decision.

Of course you're not concerned with what others think, only what you think. Which is fine up to the point you start imposing your will on others' rights. I believe I have the right to take my own life, it is my life. Not yours. My decision, not yours.

Furthermore, you seem to be implying that if the person in question was in a "rational state of mind", perhaps it would be a different story, maybe then they would have the right to end their life? If you are truly concerned about competency, say so. I think you raise this objection simply as a smokescreen to cover your real agenda - namely, you want to reserve the right to decide when it is appropriate for others to live, procreate and die. The only life you should have control over is your own. No one is forcing you to end your life before you want to, when it comes time - feel free to suffer as long as want.

I know that’s what made me post the article, the whole idea is cold blooded, you’re a cost to the community, we know you don’t like being disabled, we don’t like spending the money so please kill yourself.

This is pure garbage. No one is suggesting that economics should be a determining factor in assisted suicide. In fact, as I believe Asguard pointed out, insurance companies (for example) would be prohibited from withholding benefits in these cases. If, hypothetically, you could somehow be guaranteed that money would not enter the equation, would your position on this issue change? Somehow, I don't think so. This is just another attempt to obfuscate your true agenda.

This suicide option is just that, giving up, and once we allow this assisted suicide to become common practice, we end up with a loosening of the rules, and eventually an imposed Euthanasia programme.

Brian, the slippery slope argument applies to just about every premise ever put forth. However, that is not the point of this discussion, we are talking about assisted suicide for the terminally ill. We are not talking about advocating involuntary euthanasia or Nazi eugenics.

"This suicide option" is not about "giving up", it is about dieing with dignity, avoiding senseless, fruitless pain. It is about freedom of the individual to make an informed decision regarding the only thing anyone can truly and absolutely possess - their own life. See above comments regarding your "smokescreens".



I find it interesting to note that everyone posting in this thread that has actually witnessed someone die a painful death from a terminal illness is united in their support of assisted suicide. Brian, I hope you never have to experience this first hand, but I imagine if you did that your opinion would change. Drastically.

My mother died from COPD (and other complications), and I promise you it was not pretty. Fortunately for her, she was able to simply refuse to be intubated on a respirator and essentially chose to end her life on her own terms. I can assure you that she was competent and not "clinically" depressed when she made this decision. She was a very intelligent and vibrant woman with many interests when she was healthy, she simply did not want to live life "chained to a machine" (as she put it). She was 78 at the time and still sharp as a tack. Who in the hell do you think you are, Brian, to force another entity to continue to live life on your terms? Go crawl back under whatever atavistic rock you came from and stop attempting to enforce your will on others. Good day.

 

[Brian Foley]

So "life sustaining medication ... usually results in a healing of the symptoms" in the terminally ill? Brian, do you understand the meaning of "terminally ill"?

I was discussing Doctors and the Hippocratic oath and the administering of medicines.

Of course you're not concerned with what others think, only what you think. Which is fine up to the point you start imposing your will on others' rights. I believe I have the right to take my own life, it is my life. Not yours. My decision, not yours.

I am frightened by people such as yourself who allow their emotions to rule their reasoning. I keep asking these questions perhaps you can answer them:

Can you guarantee society that this process will not be expanded in the future to include persons with mental retardation or senility who cannot make that decision?

Can you guarantee that this decision will not be left to the next of kin to decide?

Can you guarantee that the bar will not be dropped to allow assisted suicide simply by patient consent?

Those points are my concern, could you answer these points, I have asked 3 other posters to answer them none have, could you answer them.
As I stated earlier.

You may take it on a one case basis, but I see what happens down the road once this becomes routine. Very similar to abortion, at first strictly applied, now its on demand. Im sorry your reasoning leads to a very slippery slope from which their is no return, when you dont respect birth, life and death society implodes.

Why is this well founded fear so unreasonable?

Furthermore, you seem to be implying that if the person in question was in a "rational state of mind", perhaps it would be a different story, maybe then they would have the right to end their life?

I am not having Doctors who have no training in Psychiatry make or assist in decisions of persons in ending their lives. Death Row inmates are given through Psychiatric examinations before it is even considered imposing the penalty. As stated in the source I provided all terminally ill patients are suffering, understandably, depression.

This is pure garbage. No one is suggesting that economics should be a determining factor in assisted suicide. In fact, as I believe Asguard pointed out, insurance companies (for example) would be prohibited from withholding benefits in these cases. If, hypothetically, you could somehow be guaranteed that money would not enter the equation, would your position on this issue change? Somehow, I don't think so. This is just another attempt to obfuscate your true agenda.

That Bill doesn’t not guarantee nothing, if that insurance company decides not to pay out, then the plaintiffs have to take them to court, its an expensive procedure. If as Asguard claims they will do without Psychiatric involvement in the decision of assisted suicide the Insurance companies will use that as an excuse not to pay out, your playing into the hands of the Insurance companies.

I find it interesting to note that everyone posting in this thread that has actually witnessed someone die a painful death from a terminal illness is united in their support of assisted suicide. Brian, I hope you never have to experience this first hand, but I imagine if you did that your opinion would change. Drastically. .

My Mother spent 3 weeks on a Life Support Machine in an Intensive Care Unit, that was from a bungled operation, which resulted in a complete collapse of her body system through an acute Pancreatic collapse due to some shit the incompetent Doctors injected into her which resulted in a massive allergic reaction . She could not breathe or eat on her own, she had tubes everywhere, but she pulled through thank God.

Who in the hell do you think you are, Brian, to force another entity to continue to live life on your terms? Go crawl back under whatever atavistic rock you came from and stop attempting to enforce your will on others. Good day.

Who the Fuck do you think you are? I object to a system, based on real fears of future abuse, grounded on rael fears of what actually happened previously in the early 20th century’s experiment with Euthanasis, and I am the one forcing my self on others! Thank you but no thanks I want a rational society, not some emotional vacuum that leads to the pointless destruction of human beings.

 

[Randwolf]

I was discussing Doctors and the Hippocratic oath and the administering of medicines.

And? "On life sustaining medication which usually results in a healing of the symptoms." still implies that there will be a "healing". There is no "healing" for terminally ill patients, notwithstanding the hypocritical oath.

I am frightened by people such as yourself who allow their emotions to rule their reasoning.

My emotions? I submit, sir, that your entire argument is ruled by your emotions.

I keep asking these questions perhaps you can answer them:

Can you guarantee society that this process will not be expanded in the future to include persons with mental retardation or senility who cannot make that decision?

No. There are no guarantees in life.

I can guarantee you that unneeded suffering will be avoided with a successful implementation of an assisted suicide law.

Can you guarantee that this decision will not be left to the next of kin to decide?

No. There are no guarantees in life. Plus, why shouldn't it be left to the next of kin in certain circumstances? That's the status quo now, isn't it?

I can guarantee you that unneeded suffering will be avoided with a successful implementation of an assisted suicide law.

Can you guarantee that the bar will not be dropped to allow assisted suicide simply by patient consent?

No. There are no guarantees in life. What, in principle, is wrong with this concept anyway? God doesn't like it?

I can guarantee you that unneeded suffering will be avoided with a successful implementation of an assisted suicide law.

Those points are my concern, could you answer these points, I have asked 3 other posters to answer them none have, could you answer them.
As I stated earlier.

I just answered them. You, however, will not like the answers.

Why is this well founded fear so unreasonable?
I am not having Doctors who have no training in Psychiatry make or assist in decisions of persons in ending their lives. Death Row inmates are given through Psychiatric examinations before it is even considered imposing the penalty. As stated in the source I provided all terminally ill patients are suffering, understandably, depression.

No one is advocating "uninformed consent". What I am saying is that an individual has the right to determine their own fate. As far as the whole "depression" argument goes, wouldn't you be depressed if you knew your death was imminent? That doesn't make someone incapable of making sound and rational decisions. Besides, I believe that a patient looking to avail themselves of "assisted suicide" should be required to get multiple medical and psychological assessments. I also think you don't give one whit how many opinions are offered, your god said this is bad, so let's take away others right to choose. Run along now and consult your god - no need to listen to reason...

That Bill doesn’t not guarantee nothing, if that insurance company decides not to pay out, then the plaintiffs have to take them to court, its an expensive procedure. If as Asguard claims they will do without Psychiatric involvement in the decision of assisted suicide the Insurance companies will use that as an excuse not to pay out, your playing into the hands of the Insurance companies.

Oh geez - see above comments for "guarantees" in life. I think your use of double negatives shows the calibre of your thinking: "doesn’t not guarantee nothing". Calm down. Look up guarantee...

My Mother spent 3 weeks on a Life Support Machine in an Intensive Care Unit, that was from a bungled operation, which resulted in a complete collapse of her body system through an acute Pancreatic collapse due to some shit the incompetent Doctors injected into her which resulted in a massive allergic reaction . She could not breathe or eat on her own, she had tubes everywhere, but she pulled through thank God.

Yeah, no thanks to modern "unnatural" medicine, right? Anyways, she obviously was not terminal, was she? A whole different kettle of fish...

Who the Fuck do you think you are? I object to a system, based on real fears of future abuse, grounded on rael fears of what actually happened previously in the early 20th century’s experiment with Euthanasis, and I am the one forcing my self on others! Thank you but no thanks I want a rational society, not some emotional vacuum that leads to the pointless destruction of human beings.

Then perhaps you should present a rational argument against assisted suicide, not defending strawmen. Involuntary euthanasia? Nazi eugenics? Please...

Do what you want with your own life, leave others to have the same rights.

 

[Brian Foley]

No. There are no guarantees in life.
No. There are no guarantees in life.
No. There are no guarantees in life.
I just answered them. You, however, will not like the answers.

I dont mind your answers thats exactly what I wanted to read, and thats why I am against the inception as it leads to an expansion.

[Just for the record I have no problem with someone electing assisted suicide I dont blame them.]

Involuntary euthanasia? Nazi eugenics? Please...

As I said from the start:

I would prefer a little more reason and commonsense in deciding what you think is good for an individual must also be good for the Gander. I know what steps eventuated when Eugenics was evaluated as good for society it went from sterilizations and selective abortions in the 1920’s to complete extermination programmes of the Nazis.

Thats all I am worried about, when Eugenics was introduced in the 1910/1920's it was set off with much propaganda of how good it was, little did they know.............

 

[Asguard]

brian your stupid,
a) we ALREADY have doctors deciding to end pts lives. the ONLY difference is that its passive through the withdraw of treatment or as a side effect of the massive doses of analgisics rather than quickly

b) yes i can garrentie there will be no unprocuted non or invollentry use of these laws. why? because the law ITSELF would need to be changed to alow this

c) you know dam well that the goverment regulates insurance and that the goverment would PROCUTE insurance companies who broke the law and refused to pay out

randle, my sypathy to you about you mum. COAD is a horible way to die.

on your point about shrinks though, are you really concerened about the pt or even there family making a decision like this. After all we are talking about a difference of less than a week. if the pt choses this they die in no pain in say 1 hour. if the family puts a DNR on your talking less than a week of agony. wouldnt it be better to get it over with either way?

 

[Randwolf]

randle, my sypathy to you about you mum. COAD is a horible way to die.

Thank you, Asguard. Much appreciated. :wave:

on your point about shrinks though, are you really concerened about the pt or even there family making a decision like this. After all we are talking about a difference of less than a week. if the pt choses this they die in no pain in say 1 hour. if the family puts a DNR on your talking less than a week of agony. wouldnt it be better to get it over with either way?

Yes, I agree it would be better to get it over with in the situation(s) you describe. Especially if there is a DNR already in place. However, I would prefer some system that allows for death with dignity, even if that means compromising with certain factions of society (read Brian and ilk) in order to get something moving. Perhaps I am capitulating to the argument too soon, but something is better than nothing.

Also, I was thinking more of the cases where the patient was still in the early stages and all hope was not yet lost. I guess to an extent I was agreeing with Brian that we don't want people who may still have some hope of recovery over reacting to the initial news that, say, they have some form of inoperable cancer. I can see where some people might slip into clinical depression and make a decision to end it now (assuming the laws permitted this) where they may have several quality years of life ahead. Perhaps this is where the concept of a "cooling off" period may come into play.

In summary, I guess if I was tasked with writing the legislation I would have to give a lot more thought to the details and try to contemplate many different scenarios. (I have some limited experience with crafting legislation, in fact a current US federal regulation governing certain aspects of marketing actually contains a couple sentences that I penned. It took a lot of work just to produce those few lines, so maybe I came off half cocked here in the post you are questioning.) If you are interested in refining some of the points in contention, I am certainly open and invite discussion in this area.

Meanwhile, I just need to chill out from dealing with some people's asinine attempts to impose their misguided concepts on other's lives. It did get my blood boiling, and I believe that the whole premise presented by the main antagonist was simply a thinly veiled attempt to say "god says it is wrong, therefore stop". I have little patience with this line of reasoning, but I am working on being more tolerant of such ignorance.

 

[Asguard]

i compleatly agree with you in regard to the when. thats why im surportive of the phrase "terminal phase of a terminal illness". thats the important bit not all the shrink reports ect that we put in to satisfy the brians of this word.

yes this still conflicts with the right to refuse treatment and in some cases this will prolong some level of distress untill they get to that terminal phase but that is something i do belive is important.

 

[Brian Foley]

brian your stupid,

Or Health Insurance companies will advise assisted suicide to save costs.

"California Compassionate Choices Act" (AB 374)
# AB 374 would give government health programs, managed care programs and HMOs the opportunity to approve prescriptions for suicide to cut costs.

# AB 374 Family notification is not required, only recommended. [Sec. 5282 (6) and 5286] The patient's family doesn't need to be notified until after the patient is dead.

# AB 374 Would permit doctors to help mentally ill or depressed patients commit suicide.

Vermont's Assisted Suicide Proposal AN ACT RELATING TO PATIENT CHOICE AND CONTROL AT END OF LIFE

#H. 44 would give government health programs, managed care programs and HMOs the opportunity to approve prescriptions for suicide to cut costs.

# H. 44 would permit doctors to help mentally ill or depressed patients commit suicide.

#H. 44 does not require that family members be notified when a doctor is going to help a loved one commit suicide.

#H. 44 has no provisions to track abuse or the number of deaths from assisted suicide.

You cant guarantee nothing.

 

[Asguard]

thats not australia, the private health insurance inderstry us a) compleatly under the control of the fed gov (to the point that even there fees need gov aproval)

b)they are rarly even involved in end of life issues. its mainly the public health system and the aged care system (also compleatly regulated by the fed gov) which tend to care for the dying

 

[takandjive]

No sane person wants to die, it is our instinct to live.

I wonder how often the pain suffered by those who choose to die would be ameliorated by visits of friends, family, or just people who give a shit.

Hi, Brian. My ex has MS. He is so fucking miserable he doesn't even want to continue living some days. We will never have a family. We'll never do all the things I'd hoped we'd do, but he doesn't get to choose a pain free death. He was an artist. He lost that. He lost his ability to have sex. He lost his ability to feel things the way he used to.

As Stephen King wrote, "Sometimes dead is betta."

You have a lot of fucking nerve to call someone like that "insane."

 

[Asguard]

takandjive my sympathy, MS is a terible disease. a family friend was diognosed with it a couple of years ago and even at her early stage its awful

 

[takandjive]

Thank you, Asguard. It's a cruel disease, and NO ONE is insane for wanting assisted suicide with it.

 

[Brian Foley]

thats not australia, the private health insurance inderstry

(2) A person is not obliged to disclose a request for voluntary euthanasia to an insurer, and an insurer must not ask a person to disclose whether the person has made a request for voluntary euthanasia.

Doesnt that clause open the way for a thrid party ie: the Doctor to inform the insurance company?

Isnt that a legal loophole?

According to the failed "Dignity in Dying Bill 2001" it would have made euthanasia and assisted suicide available to those who are "hopelessly ill."

A person is hopelessly ill if the person has an injury or illness
(a) that will result, or has resulted, in serious mental impairment or permanent deprivation or consciousness; or
(b) that seriously and irreversibly impairs the person's quality of life so that life has become intolerable to that person.

There is your expansion within your Bill, you dont have to be terminal to qualify.

Hi, Brian. My ex has MS. He is so fucking miserable he doesn't even want to continue living some days. We will never have a family. We'll never do all the things I'd hoped we'd do, but he doesn't get to choose a pain free death. He was an artist. He lost that. He lost his ability to have sex. He lost his ability to feel things the way he used to.

People have the power to commit suicide, suicide and attempted suicide are not criminalized. Assisted suicide is needed supposedly so patients won't be forced to remain alive by being "hooked up" to machines? The law already permits patients or their relatives to withdraw unwanted medical treatment even if that increases the likelihood that the patient will die. Thus, no one needs to be hooked up to machines against their will. Assisted suicide is not a private act, it involves one person facilitating the death of another. That is the matter of my concern, since it can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people among us.

What the Fuck is it with you people anyway that you cant see what I mean, are you just so conceited with your own problems that you have no regards to the future effects on others over your own actions done today?

You have a lot of fucking nerve to call someone like that "insane."

Anybody, myself included, who would be informed that they had MS or cancer immediately becomes depressed, maybe I should of used another word, but the meaning is still the same.

 

[takandjive]

People have the power to commit suicide, suicide and attempted suicide are not criminalized. Assisted suicide is needed supposedly so patients won't be forced to remain alive by being "hooked up" to machines? The law already permits patients or their relatives to withdraw unwanted medical treatment even if that increases the likelihood that the patient will die. Thus, no one needs to be hooked up to machines against their will. Assisted suicide is not a private act, it involves one person facilitating the death of another. That is the matter of my concern, since it can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people among us.

What the Fuck is it with you people anyway that you cant see what I mean, are you just so conceited with your own problems that you have no regards to the future effects on others over your own actions done today?

Anybody, myself included, who would be informed that they had MS or cancer immediately becomes depressed, maybe I should of used another word, but the meaning is still the same.

You know, when your partner has mobility problems, run your mouth. Until then, I don't think you have a right to say dick. Suicide by yourself is unpleasant, sans dignity, and has a lot of risks. You just think everyone should suffer to suit your own sick little view of "morality."

NO ONE is forcing a doctor to do it unless they agree with the patient. Frankly, you need to grow up and spend some time around chronically ill people. And I'm done with you and this conversation.

 

[Asguard]

a) health infomation is strictly confidentual

b) the cause of death eill be listed by the coronor as the underlying illness and there is nothing an insurance company could do about it

c) i never said the NT Act is perfect, if problems were found the act could have been ammended. in fact there aee a hoast of ammendments i would like to see even for the SA bill.

however that doesnt matter to you because as someone has already pointed out. your objection is not in the framing of the bill, its in YOUR desire to cintrol life and death for other people.

 

[Brian Foley]

a) health infomation is strictly confidentual

Dont Health Insurance companies keep records on their clients? You know such tell tale things as claimants on medicine prescriptions etc. It wouldnt take long for a company investigator to find out, and as I already pointed, which you ignored, the Bill excludes Third party information.

however that doesnt matter to you because as someone has already pointed out. your objection is not in the framing of the bill, its in YOUR desire to cintrol life and death for other people.

Get real, I have a mature and level headed approach to assisted suicide, even I can read from that Bill that for example, a newly diagnosed diabetic aged 18 years who found the idea of daily insulin injections intolerable would be eligible for legal euthanasia. Your the one shoving your concept of life and death onto me. This whole idea is ludicrous.

 

[Asguard]

you know dam well that they can only keep files on what they are legally alowed to ask about and the law forbids them to ask about that. so it dooesnt matter how many envolopes are slipped under the door FOS wont let them denie based on that and nor will APRA or the federal health department\minister all who control the insurance comanies

 

[Randwolf]

Get real, I have a mature and level headed approach to assisted suicide, even I can read from that Bill that for example, a newly diagnosed diabetic aged 18 years who found the idea of daily insulin injections intolerable would be eligible for legal euthanasia. Your the one shoving your concept of life and death onto me. This whole idea is ludicrous.

Mature and level headed? You "get real" Brian. You're simply pushing a thinly veiled argument that suicide is "evil" and proscribed by your god. Therefore, it should be prohibited in all forms for everyone, including assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

In principle, even your example of a "a newly diagnosed diabetic aged 18 years" depicts a woman who should still be able to determine her own fate. Personally, I don't think it would be wise of the girl in question to seek euthanasia, but I am not going to try "shoving" this view on her.

This is my whole point - you may live and die as you choose, so allow others the same right. Permitting an act does not require force - prohibiting an act does. You arrogantly presume to prohibit others from controlling how they live, procreate and die.

Not to mention your whole concept of "natural death" is absurd garbage. I'm glad your mother recovered from her life threatening situation, thanks to medical intervention. Imagine if "Christian Scientists" had been in charge, and were able to impose their concepts of what is immoral and unethical. Your ailing mother would have had far fewer options:

Devout Christian Scientists do not use medications and usually eschew medical aid.

Christian Science, a religion that practices faith healing

Now, since you seem to consider it appropriate for you to decide what options should and shouldn't be prohibited, why wouldn't it be appropriate for others to make similar medical decisions for your mother? After all, presumably she would still have experienced a "natural" death. Perhaps this puts a slightly different perspective on enforcing one's will on others?

People have a right to die with dignity - to avoid needless pain and agony, especially in the "terminal phase of a terminal illness". Once again, govern yourself as you see fit and allow others to do the same. And stop hiding behind the "slippery slope" argument!!!

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

The idea that a law can end suicide is simply silly. The use of a law to prohibit or deny those who can no longer help themselves the right or the means to end their lives is simply sadistic.

And you are wrong Brian in certain countries it is illegal to attempt suicide. In Malaysia anyone who survives a suicide attempt must serve a prison sentence.

 

[Brian Foley]

In principle, even your example of a "a newly diagnosed diabetic aged 18 years" depicts a woman who should still be able to determine her own fate. Personally, I don't think it would be wise of the girl in question to seek euthanasia, but I am not going to try "shoving" this view on her.

Under the S.A Euthanasia Bill this is fully acceptable.

even I can read from that Bill that for example, a newly diagnosed diabetic aged 18 years who found the idea of daily insulin injections intolerable would be eligible for legal euthanasia

That is what I have been attempting to demonstrate all along, the absolute abuse of these social concepts. There it is right their the expansion of who is eligible for assisted suicide.

This is my whole point - you may live and die as you choose, so allow others the same right. Permitting an act does not require force - prohibiting an act does. You arrogantly presume to prohibit others from controlling how they live, procreate and die.

If you or anyone else wants to kill themselves go right ahead, I dont give a Fuck. Im only concerned that with weak minded saps such as yourself who have to have a law to make it legal, therefore acceptable to your conscience, we end up with a unilateral Euthanasia program. Thanks to your gullibility with crude concepts of 'dying with dignity' we will end up eventually terminating persons who are seen as a financial burden on society. Keep your world and stop shoving your 'good intentions' down our throats.

The idea that a law can end suicide is simply silly. The use of a law to prohibit or deny those who can no longer help themselves the right or the means to end their lives is simply sadistic.

So is a law that allows 18 year olds with diabetes to end their lives.

And you are wrong Brian in certain countries it is illegal to attempt suicide. In Malaysia anyone who survives a suicide attempt must serve a prison sentence.

Malaysia a nation verging on Sharia law, a nation where they executepeople for possessing an ounce of weed, great example.