Scotland Assisted Suicide Legalization Bill Narrowed, Still Targets Disabled
- Thread starter Brian Foley
- Start date
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Brian I checked your link but it says nothing to the fact that these cases are options for euthanasia. If I missed something please point it out. The case they note of the 53 year old woman states that after many failed treatments she simply died.
As far as your criteria for abortions I have no problem with it except what if its shown that there might be negative psychological effects by NOT having an abortion? In other words that the woman is in no mental condition to carry a birth to term? You simply include that she may suffer from having one, when the opposite can also be true. I ask because I can't think of anything more horrible than being forced to carry a child to term if that is not what you want. Also your criteria doesn't point out that a woman risks her life carrying a child to term, it shouldnt be something she is forced to do. I don't understand why you would think this is your problem since you are not a woman and its not your child nor your body.
Brian: You simply have not met anyone who was an inmate of an Extermination camp
Have I not? I have met survivers thank you very much. But how can you say that the camps began with good intentions? That remark is simply wrong. Hitler intended to kill jews in camps period. The nazi movement was meant to bring back the glory of germany which they believed necessitated the removal of ALL jews, gypsies, people of various religious beliefs like Jehovah witnessess, certain birth defects etc
He didn't keep it a secret either it was all outlined in Mein Kampf before he had the power to carry it out.
So what good intentions do you believe they had?
Brian: I'm not infringing on anyones rights I am concerned for future generations safety and health, that makes me responsible.
Well I am sure you may think you have 'good intentions' but if you tried to take away my right to an abortion for any reason it would certainly be an infringement of my rights, same as if you tried to deny access to euthanasia. No one is asking you to be responsible for anyone else but yourself. I don't want nor expect you to be responsible for me. Remember that the road to hell is paved by good intentions, that would also include yours.
As far as your criteria for abortions I have no problem with it except what if its shown that there might be negative psychological effects by NOT having an abortion? In other words that the woman is in no mental condition to carry a birth to term? You simply include that she may suffer from having one, when the opposite can also be true. I ask because I can't think of anything more horrible than being forced to carry a child to term if that is not what you want. Also your criteria doesn't point out that a woman risks her life carrying a child to term, it shouldnt be something she is forced to do. I don't understand why you would think this is your problem since you are not a woman and its not your child nor your body.
Brian: You simply have not met anyone who was an inmate of an Extermination camp
Have I not? I have met survivers thank you very much. But how can you say that the camps began with good intentions? That remark is simply wrong. Hitler intended to kill jews in camps period. The nazi movement was meant to bring back the glory of germany which they believed necessitated the removal of ALL jews, gypsies, people of various religious beliefs like Jehovah witnessess, certain birth defects etc
He didn't keep it a secret either it was all outlined in Mein Kampf before he had the power to carry it out.
So what good intentions do you believe they had?
Brian: I'm not infringing on anyones rights I am concerned for future generations safety and health, that makes me responsible.
Well I am sure you may think you have 'good intentions' but if you tried to take away my right to an abortion for any reason it would certainly be an infringement of my rights, same as if you tried to deny access to euthanasia. No one is asking you to be responsible for anyone else but yourself. I don't want nor expect you to be responsible for me. Remember that the road to hell is paved by good intentions, that would also include yours.
Last edited:
Why are you even bothering to debate a Euthanasia Bill that is not even law? And why for the record I am entertaining your debate?
Im sorry I misread your question, you will find that malady available for Euthanasia in Holland.
The slope has been set now.
I am not a doctor, I can only express my belief of what constitutes a sensible abortion policy.
The road you travel has already been traversed before as in 1920 with Eugenics which progressed to Action T4.
you quoted it you moron
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Brian the definition of Eugenics is stated as follows:
"Eugenics is a "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."
Now don't you think this is naturally occurring? I mean we all practise eugenics when we choose someone to mate with. Eugenics in this sense isn't wrong. If an african were choosing a mate and decided to exclude anyone carrying the sickle-cell gene for example would that be wrong? The fact that religious or government institutions can take this to an extreme doesn't make the basic notion and practice of eugenics a bad thing surely.
"Eugenics is a "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."
Now don't you think this is naturally occurring? I mean we all practise eugenics when we choose someone to mate with. Eugenics in this sense isn't wrong. If an african were choosing a mate and decided to exclude anyone carrying the sickle-cell gene for example would that be wrong? The fact that religious or government institutions can take this to an extreme doesn't make the basic notion and practice of eugenics a bad thing surely.
You inexplicably brought up the SA Bill on page 1you dyslexic moron. But you are right I quoted a Bill, why I have no idea as it has never been law.
Yes.
No it would not be wrong.
I said it started with good intentions as you outlined but within 5 years sterilization programs were introduced for mentally handicapped individuals. Within 10 years abortions of those deemed genetically inferior, then the Nazis got a hold of it and progressed it to Euthanasia of retarded children and elderly with dementia, killing some 275,000 persons. By 1940 the Nazi office of Racial Hygene began a full scale program of extermination.
My whole point of this thread as to why I am against this assisted suicide bill is as to where it leads. You cannot guarantee me, in light of the expansion in Holland and Oregon programs of whom qualifies for Euthanasia that it will not lead to this program.
That human being in that poster had no say in how he was to be born, we have no right to end his lfe as I see it.
This poster reads: "60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money too. Read '[A] New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP." (about 1938)
And that as I wrote as an Introduction to this thread is my concern:
See the similarities between that poster and my newslink?
Can you assure me 100% that there will be no abuse?
Its all economics the bottom line save a penny in assisted suicide spend a trillion killing Iraqis in a war.
Death, death, death and more death no life its an awful concept, so as you may not like it to read what I think, but for the sake of protecting future generations I have to disagree with assisted suicide.
And they are often the most vulnerable and susceptible to coercion by doctors, nurses and greedy family members. I'm all for voluntary euthanasia, but I can understand where Brian is coming from.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Well first I have to say I am not bothered by the fact that you disagree with assisted suicide, I just wouldn't want to be denied the choice simply because you disagree with it.
Brian: I said it started with good intentions as you outlined but within 5 years sterilization programs were introduced for mentally handicapped individuals.
Is this the nazis you refer to? I ask because as mentioned before that was a particularly perverse regime and can hardly be used as a standard of government behaviour, that aside is it so wrong to infertilize a mentally handicapped person who may not have the ability to care for a child? Especially when are not even able to consent to sex.
Brian: Within 10 years abortions of those deemed genetically inferior,
So if a couple decided to abort a child they discovered would have a terrible defect you would think this wrong? Many couples do this naturally on their own without there being a standard law.
Brian: then the Nazis got a hold of it and progressed it to Euthanasia of retarded children and elderly with dementia, killing some 275,000 persons. By 1940 the Nazi office of Racial Hygene began a full scale program of extermination.
Again this was a very brutal regime built on a crazy destructive notion of social progress and racial purity.
Brian: You cannot guarantee me, in light of the expansion in Holland and Oregon programs of whom qualifies for Euthanasia that it will not lead to this program.
Well unless something radical happens to drive them towards genocide no I dont' think its likely that it would lead to a nazi style nazi style T-4 program. The nazis were fascist, what they did with eugenics was incredibly radical it would take a lot more than a simple expansion of a law to drive those nations towards a fascist system.
Brian: See the similarities between that poster and my newslink?
Well there is a difference. The poster advocates killing a disabled but otherwise healthy individual so that society doesn't have to carry the cost of care. This I am wholeheartedly against. The poster is not advocating euthanasia which is built on the consent of an ill person (whether disabled or not) based on the criteria below which comes from the newslink:
"That includes those with a progressive, degenerative conditions; people who have suffered a trauma such as accidents or injuries and that left them dependent on others for care; and people with terminal illness."
See the above doesn't apply to those who are disabled but otherwise healthy, and it doesn't apply to those who are ill but are not interested in assisted suicide.
My whole point of this thread as to why I am against this assisted suicide bill is as to where it leads. You cannot guarantee me, in light of the expansion in Holland and Oregon programs of whom qualifies for Euthanasia that it will not lead to this program.
Brian: I said it started with good intentions as you outlined but within 5 years sterilization programs were introduced for mentally handicapped individuals.
Is this the nazis you refer to? I ask because as mentioned before that was a particularly perverse regime and can hardly be used as a standard of government behaviour, that aside is it so wrong to infertilize a mentally handicapped person who may not have the ability to care for a child? Especially when are not even able to consent to sex.
Brian: Within 10 years abortions of those deemed genetically inferior,
So if a couple decided to abort a child they discovered would have a terrible defect you would think this wrong? Many couples do this naturally on their own without there being a standard law.
Brian: then the Nazis got a hold of it and progressed it to Euthanasia of retarded children and elderly with dementia, killing some 275,000 persons. By 1940 the Nazi office of Racial Hygene began a full scale program of extermination.
Again this was a very brutal regime built on a crazy destructive notion of social progress and racial purity.
Brian: You cannot guarantee me, in light of the expansion in Holland and Oregon programs of whom qualifies for Euthanasia that it will not lead to this program.
Well unless something radical happens to drive them towards genocide no I dont' think its likely that it would lead to a nazi style nazi style T-4 program. The nazis were fascist, what they did with eugenics was incredibly radical it would take a lot more than a simple expansion of a law to drive those nations towards a fascist system.
Brian: See the similarities between that poster and my newslink?
Well there is a difference. The poster advocates killing a disabled but otherwise healthy individual so that society doesn't have to carry the cost of care. This I am wholeheartedly against. The poster is not advocating euthanasia which is built on the consent of an ill person (whether disabled or not) based on the criteria below which comes from the newslink:
"That includes those with a progressive, degenerative conditions; people who have suffered a trauma such as accidents or injuries and that left them dependent on others for care; and people with terminal illness."
See the above doesn't apply to those who are disabled but otherwise healthy, and it doesn't apply to those who are ill but are not interested in assisted suicide.
My whole point of this thread as to why I am against this assisted suicide bill is as to where it leads. You cannot guarantee me, in light of the expansion in Holland and Oregon programs of whom qualifies for Euthanasia that it will not lead to this program.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
copernicus:And they are often the most vulnerable and susceptible to coercion by doctors, nurses and greedy family members. I'm all for voluntary euthanasia, but I can understand where Brian is coming from.
I have never heard of an elderly person being coerced by a doctor to go through assisted suicide, within the profession its considered unethical. Doctors inquire what their patients want but they don't coerce them, a patient has to bring it up as an option.
In this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5056326.stm
You will find a doctor who advocates involuntary euthanasia when it comes to patients who are 'incompetent' this means brain-dead patients who are basically supported by life support but otherwise have no chance of survival.
But even euthanasia advocates disagreed with his stance. One is quoted as saying
"People who may later lack capacity to make decisions for themselves can choose to enforce their wishes by making a living will (or advance directive) and we do not agree with Professor Doyal that the law needs to be changed for non-competent patients."
I truly believe there is a sense of responsibility among those who are advocates for assisted suicide
I have never heard of an elderly person being coerced by a doctor to go through assisted suicide, within the profession its considered unethical. Doctors inquire what their patients want but they don't coerce them, a patient has to bring it up as an option.
In this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5056326.stm
You will find a doctor who advocates involuntary euthanasia when it comes to patients who are 'incompetent' this means brain-dead patients who are basically supported by life support but otherwise have no chance of survival.
But even euthanasia advocates disagreed with his stance. One is quoted as saying
"People who may later lack capacity to make decisions for themselves can choose to enforce their wishes by making a living will (or advance directive) and we do not agree with Professor Doyal that the law needs to be changed for non-competent patients."
I truly believe there is a sense of responsibility among those who are advocates for assisted suicide
Double wow, why dont you find an 'unbiased' source that contradicts my source.
Im sorry but before persons such as yourself rush for assisted suicide I would like a vote where such a program is endorsed by %60+ of the community. With a social compact guaranteeing society that those who opt for suicide are those who are of sound mind who make that choice with strict regualtions and guidelines with an independent committee that monitors each case. And those who cannot make that choice are protected and cared for. Because I do not want myself or any loved ones or anybody in my community to be euthanized simply because people who support euthanasia rushed into it.
It is what it leads to, if we say it is ok in this case of mental handicap persons, then it can be applied to those deemed criminally insane, then Fathers who dont pay child support because they wont look after their children, females who are deemed habitual drunks etc,etc.
Hold it mate we were discussing womens rights to abortions I gave an adequate answer above. Stop expanding the argument to emotional levels in some attempt to pidgeon hole me.
As I have already shown with in Holland where the law has expanded from a responsible program to where it is now being made available to people who have Psychiatric disorders and physical disabilities. Not only that but the State of Oregon is now offering assisted suicide to patients who never asked for assisted suicide. Cant you see whats happening the longer we have this Euthanasia the authorities will expand it over time.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Brian: Im sorry but before persons such as yourself rush for assisted suicide I would like a vote where such a program is endorsed by %60+ of the community. With a social compact guaranteeing society that those who opt for suicide are those who are of sound mind who make that choice with strict regualtions and guidelines with an independent committee that monitors each case. And those who cannot make that choice are protected and cared for. Because I do not want myself or any loved ones or anybody in my community to be euthanized simply because people who support euthanasia rushed into it.
Well first of all I can happily say that I am not in need of assisted suicide, but if I were I would be really disturbed if my personal decision rested on what 60% of the population wanted. It would be my sole decision would it not? And none of their business I may add. I don't think you have to worry about others being euthanized without consent, there are already careful regulations governing assisted suicide. If there were not Kervokian wouldn't have spent so much time in jail.
Brian: It is what it leads to, if we say it is ok in this case of mental handicap persons, then it can be applied to those deemed criminally insane, then Fathers who dont pay child support because they wont look after their children, females who are deemed habitual drunks etc,etc.
Now you see how you jump from one thing to another? No one can predict whether a parent is going to care for a child so how can a child be aborted based on that, the same holds true for the criminally insane and alcoholics. This is a straw man argument.
Brian: Hold it mate we were discussing womens rights to abortions I gave an adequate answer above. Stop expanding the argument to emotional levels in some attempt to pidgeon hole me.
Don't start getting stroppy with me! I am not trying to pidgeon hold you I am simply saying that there are couples who abort a child because they discover in utero that the child would be severely dsibabled. All I asked is what is wrong with that!
Brian: As I have already shown with in Holland where the law has expanded from a responsible program to where it is now being made available to people who have Psychiatric disorders and physical disabilities. Not only that but the State of Oregon is now offering assisted suicide to patients who never asked for assisted suicide. Cant you see whats happening the longer we have this Euthanasia the authorities will expand it over time.
You didn't show me that, or at least I have yet to see that in the links you have presented. The only expansions I know of are directed towards those cases that would warrant such a action. Show me the information concerning Holland and psychiatric disorders and Oregon offing patients that didn't ask for it. Please do not include incompetent patients as they are already dead save life support.
Well first of all I can happily say that I am not in need of assisted suicide, but if I were I would be really disturbed if my personal decision rested on what 60% of the population wanted. It would be my sole decision would it not? And none of their business I may add. I don't think you have to worry about others being euthanized without consent, there are already careful regulations governing assisted suicide. If there were not Kervokian wouldn't have spent so much time in jail.
Brian: It is what it leads to, if we say it is ok in this case of mental handicap persons, then it can be applied to those deemed criminally insane, then Fathers who dont pay child support because they wont look after their children, females who are deemed habitual drunks etc,etc.
Now you see how you jump from one thing to another? No one can predict whether a parent is going to care for a child so how can a child be aborted based on that, the same holds true for the criminally insane and alcoholics. This is a straw man argument.
Brian: Hold it mate we were discussing womens rights to abortions I gave an adequate answer above. Stop expanding the argument to emotional levels in some attempt to pidgeon hole me.
Don't start getting stroppy with me! I am not trying to pidgeon hold you I am simply saying that there are couples who abort a child because they discover in utero that the child would be severely dsibabled. All I asked is what is wrong with that!
Brian: As I have already shown with in Holland where the law has expanded from a responsible program to where it is now being made available to people who have Psychiatric disorders and physical disabilities. Not only that but the State of Oregon is now offering assisted suicide to patients who never asked for assisted suicide. Cant you see whats happening the longer we have this Euthanasia the authorities will expand it over time.
You didn't show me that, or at least I have yet to see that in the links you have presented. The only expansions I know of are directed towards those cases that would warrant such a action. Show me the information concerning Holland and psychiatric disorders and Oregon offing patients that didn't ask for it. Please do not include incompetent patients as they are already dead save life support.
Last edited:
Funny I can't find that covered any where but Faux News and the echo chambers.
Sorry for the late reply I had an extremely drunken Easter break.
I keep reiterating on this thread, Im not concerned about personal choices, my concern is if it becomes legal it will be expanded and it will go from a personal choice to involuntary options.
Absolutely not! I have demonstrated under your demand for an example of abuse where in Holland the assisted suicide program went from strictly controlled medical cases of those who were terminally ill to those with acute depression. You just want to confine this debate, as with Asguard, about assisted suicide into acceptable parameters defined by yourself.
Im not getting stroppy I am attempting to keep this debate centered.
I thought I already gave an example of how the law has been expanded in Oregon, this gut was not even terminally ill.
But, Brian, that's true of almost any legal issue there is! Why make a big deal about it until it actually appears to be becoming a big deal?
Basically you're trying to control the lives and/or deaths of others simply because you're afraid that someone MIGHT abuse the law at some later date. Brian, that's being terribly controlling and over-protective of people who don't want to be controlled or protected.
Baron Max
Thats it ! I have already shown with the Dutch and Oregon assisted suicide laws how they have gone from strictly controlled in application to loose application. What I dont want is a system where eventually an involuntary application becomes the norm. Sure we all sympathize with suffering and patients wanting to end it all in a clean manner, but these is a double edge to this.
It really is not a simple case of 'any legal issue', its wholesale expansion, its scary.
why is it that you have either been unable or refused to use unbiased sources such as the various departments of health, the WHO and independent journals like cochrane?
Rather everything you have posted (excepting oviously direct and missquoted references to the actual legislation) have been from pro life groups?
And you call ME biased
Rather everything you have posted (excepting oviously direct and missquoted references to the actual legislation) have been from pro life groups?
And you call ME biased