Scotland Assisted Suicide Legalization Bill Narrowed, Still Targets Disabled

[Brian Foley]

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?

Where have I refused it?

What is so biased about these sources that I have used on this thread ?

1) American Psychiatric Association

2) The British Journal of Psychiatry (2002) 181: 278-279

3) American Psychiatric Association

4) Herbert Hendin, M.D., "Suicide, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Lessons From the Dutch Experience," U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Oversight Hearing, April 29, 1996.

5) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392962,00.html

6) Fox News

7) American Medical News

8) BMJ Medical Publication

All of those above 8 arent pro Life, and I have only used 2 pro life sources on this thread.

You have hid behind the South Australian Bill and refused to come out and address the Dutch and Oregon experiences. That says something of your moral cowardice.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Brian when I accused you of jumping from one thing to another I was referring to what you posted here:

"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."

This statement is an exaggeration and does not represent the law nor the topic at hand. This link you have posted states this:

"The Dutch could also not deny assisted suicide or euthanasia to the chronically ill, who have longer to suffer than the terminally ill, or to individuals who have psychological pain not associated with physical disease. To refuse assisted suicide or euthanasia to these individuals would be a form of discrimination."

But the above doesn't give any examples of pertinent cases nor does it show the law as it is written. For these reasons I consider the link simply a stated opinion without any proof.

You say you are not interested in personal choices only in the law, but when you limit the law you also limit personal choices, this is not always a bad thing like limiting peoples access to firearms for example, but assisted suicide/euthanasia is still something that is requested from and only administered to the terminally ill so I don't see how you can further limit this without removing someones right to a dignified death.

This article you have posted on Oregon states

"Oregon doesn't cover life-prolonging treatment unless there is better than a 5 percent chance it will help the patients live for five more years — but it covers doctor-assisted suicide, defining it as a means of providing comfort, no different from hospice care or pain medication."

Well this sounds quite reasonable to me in a country that doesn't have universal health coverage.

 

[Asguard]

no actually what it says is that i dont know enough about the dutch health system and have no respect for the US one wether it includes VE or not. As i said (quite clearly) im willing to debate you in relation to RESPECTABLE health systems which i have some reference point for. That means Australia (and i mean any state), NZ, UK and Canada. Im not going to debate you on the implications that a US bill relating to a US health system which is compleatly incopatatable to our own would actually have on the introduction of VE HERE. It is loonacy because it has about as much relivence as wether the alians practice VE or not

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

You know I've just been thinking, what difference does it make if a terminally ill person also suffers from depression or some other psyche issue? If they are terminally ill they should have the same right as anyone else to assisted suicide. Its like saying its normal for a terminally ill but emotionally sound person to choose an early death by not for a terminally ill person who also suffers from mental issues. If they are suffering they are suffering, and if they were depressed before they certainly would have valid reasons to be depressed at that juncture. If we think about it the mentally or emotionally ill terminal patients are doubly afflicted and have more reasons to choose an early exit.

 

[swarm]

I thought I already gave an example of how the law has been expanded in Oregon, this gut was not even terminally ill.

Actually you gave a Faux "News" blip which I haven't been able to collaberate in the real news media.

 

[Tnerb]

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."

Are you serious? Why can't he have sex?

 

[Randwolf]

Its like saying its normal for a terminally ill but emotionally sound person to choose an early death by not for a terminally ill person who also suffers from mental issues.

Isn't that strange? I agree with you it seems somewhat absurd, as long as reasonable competency is present. Otherwise, it puts people in the awkward position of effectively stating: "It's OK to kill yourself as long as you're happy with your life", on the other hand, if you are depressed because you have a terminal disease, then "we need you to suffer through till the bitter end".

The concept kind of reminds me of the practice of sterilizing needles being used to execute a man condemned to death by lethal injection prior to using those needles to kill him.

If you follow through the underlying logic, there is some sense to it, but on the whole it just seems ridiculous...

 

[Brian Foley]

but assisted suicide/euthanasia is still something that is requested from and only administered to the terminally ill so I don't see how you can further limit this without removing someones right to a dignified death.

I provided you an example Doctors in the Netherlands may agree to requests for euthanasia from patients who are neither terminally ill nor suffering physically.

You know I've just been thinking, what difference does it make if a terminally ill person also suffers from depression or some other psyche issue?

Because of this:

The British Journal of Psychiatry (2002) 181: 278-279
There is a marked lack of clarity about the goals of mandatory psychiatric assessment in all patients requesting PAS. More worryingly, there are no clinical criteria to guide such an assessment — just as there are no criteria to assess the rationality of any person's decision to commit suicide. The development of standardised criteria is difficult owing to varying definitions of mental illness across cultures, ongoing debate about the possibility of rational suicide, and the inevitable complexity of each individual case. In the context of terminal illness, a patient's capacity to make decisions may be affected by both mental and physical illness, including chronic pain.

However that demonstrates your ability to me to make a rational judgement concerning the future use of assisted suicide.

no actually what it says is that i dont know enough about the dutch health system and have no respect for the US one wether it includes VE or not. As i said (quite clearly) im willing to debate you in relation to RESPECTABLE health systems which i have some reference point for. That means Australia (and i mean any state), NZ, UK and Canada. Im not going to debate you on the implications that a US bill relating to a US health system which is compleatly incopatatable to our own would actually have on the introduction of VE HERE. It is loonacy because it has about as much relivence as wether the alians practice VE or not

On this debate, as you are well aware from page 1, I and others have been debating global health systems which have assisted suicide programs. Your choice of limiting yourself to countries which at present do no have assisted suicide programs is of no use in this thread.

 

[Brian Foley]

Actually you gave a Faux "News" blip which I haven't been able to collaberate in the real news media.

Okay Ill hold your hand and show you how you conduct an internet search okay, first we take his name 'Randy Stroup' and where he is from 'Oregon' then we put this question into the google box 'Randy Stroup Oregon asssited suicide'. Then you click the Google Search tab and this comes up from Real Clear Politics

The Prices is (Not) Right
Now we have the next wave. Randy Stroup is a 53-year-old Oregon man who has prostrate cancer, but no insurance to cover his medical treatment. The state pays for treatment in some cases, but it has denied help to Stroup. State officials have determined that chemotherapy would be too expensive and so they have offered him an alternative: death.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Fantastic link.
What an appalling state of affairs.
This is where unregulated capitalism leads to.

 

[John99]

Okay Ill hold your hand and show you how you conduct an internet search okay, first we take his name 'Randy Stroup' and where he is from 'Oregon' then we put this question into the google box 'Randy Stroup Oregon asssited suicide'. Then you click the Google Search tab and this comes up from Real Clear Politics

Is there anything for unregulated stupidity?

Oregon doesn't cover life-prolonging treatment unless there is better than a 5 percent chance it will help the patients live for five more years

So now cancer kills people? When did this start happening?

My cousin died from cancer in her mid 30's. Had the best health care in the world, including chemotherapy and everything else. Chemotherapy is no picnic either and with 5 percent chance of living for only five more years at those odds hardly seems worth it for anyone. This guys situation fits the criteria above - terminal. Man you guys are dim.

 

[Randwolf]

However that demonstrates your ability to me to make a rational judgement concerning the future use of assisted suicide.

Brian:
Most of the issues in this thread would become moot if you were not "a priori" assuming the immorality of suicide. I still think that your primary motivation is "god" told you "suicide is bad".

Other than the pain of loved ones left behind, what makes any kind of suicide immoral? After all, if your life belongs to you, as opposed to God or society as a whole, shouldn't you be able to dispose of it anyway you see fit? Again, assuming mental competency is present.

What are your views on the more general topic, as opposed to the specific subset of "assisted" suicide? For this question, please ignore (for the moment) the "slippery slope" argument.

Somewhat off topic, but I'm curious.

 

[Brian Foley]

Fantastic link.
What an appalling state of affairs.
This is where unregulated capitalism leads to.

I know an absolute throwback to the unregulated Capitalist Holocaust killfest.

Action T4

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."

My favourite example of Capitalist barbarity:

1939-1945: The Reichsbahn in the Second World War and the Holocaust
"The Reichsbahn [the German state railway]was ready to ship in principle any cargo in return for payment. And therefore, the basic key — price controlled key — was that Jews were going to be shipped to Treblinka, were going to be shipped to Auschwitz, Sobibor …so long as the railroads were paid by the track kilometer, so many pfennigs per mile. The rate was the same throughout the war. With children under ten going at half-fare and children under four going free.

I mean you dont think they would done it for free, afterall it costs money to run a private railway. Thats the end run for this assisted suicide option save money for tax payers and save money for Insurance companies who can avoid paying for medicines and treatment.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

When you live in a country with a national health service, you take it for granted. The idea of Terminal Prostate cancer being anything but a progressive but treatable illness, is for the moment unthinkable in Great Britain.

He would get his medicine, chemotherapy, radiation treatment, whatever he needed. There are of course, limits to the amount that can be spent, but to leave him with no care and offer him the option of suicide is terrible.


If you value the citizens of your country, you value them in sickness as well as health.

 

[Brian Foley]

Brian:
Most of the issues in this thread would become moot if you were not "a priori" assuming the immorality of suicide. I still think that your primary motivation is "god" told you "suicide is bad".

God has nothing to do with it, in fact in the Bible suicide is not a sin, I have had 3 Friends commit suicide I believe they are with God, I believe in a respect for life. I have already related that yes I am a Christian but I have not been to Church since I was 7 years of age. No Religious dogma rules my opinion on this subject of assisted suicide, if someone is in great pain and is going to die in a matter of weeks I have no objection.

Other than the pain of loved ones left behind, what makes any kind of suicide immoral? After all, if your life belongs to you, as opposed to God or society as a whole, shouldn't you be able to dispose of it anyway you see fit? Again, assuming mental competency is present.

Your life belongs to you, when you have a wife and children you have to be responsible as your life becomes shared, as they are a part of you and rely on you.

What are your views on the more general topic, as opposed to the specific subset of "assisted" suicide? For this question, please ignore (for the moment) the "slippery slope" argument.

Somewhat off topic, but I'm curious.

From what I have read from accounts in Oregon and Holland as well as from US Congressional and British Goverment inquiries that at present there is lax enforcement of procedures. From Psychiatric opinions I have read that at present it is their opinion that many cases have been rushed through without adequate patient preparation. I have also read and presented sources where persons without insurance cover have been given the suicide option or having to endure inferior healthcare.

I would like to see a separate legal charter for patients heathcare rights where steps for assisted suicide are clearly layed out. Such as 3 separate Psychiatric evaluations, 3 separate medical opinions to confirm the Patients mental and terminal state. Conditions that full medical treatment will continue if Insurance runs out or Patient opts for no suicide. Legal advice from Lawyers, Family rights etc, etc. I have only seen empty and easily manipulated 'death with dignity' Bills that allows expansion.

 

[Brian Foley]

If you value the citizens of your country, you value them in sickness as well as health.

Agreed Kremmen, respect for the health and wellbeing of the individuals lives leads to a good caring society. I want no part of a society that allows its citizens to live on streets and euthanize those who they believe are less or a financial burden on society.

Article 25.

* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

[Captain Kremmen]

This is the philosophy of death with dignity
http://www.deathwithdignity.org

The greatest human freedom is to live, and die, according to one's own desires and beliefs. The most common desire among those with a terminal illness is to die with some measure of dignity. From advance directives to physician-assisted dying, death with dignity is a movement to provide options for the dying to control their own end-of-life care.


But what if you live in the richest country in the world, and you don't want to kill yourself? What if you just want treatment and medicine? The same as people in Cuba get.

 

[Baron Max]

.... I want no part of a society that allows its citizens to live on streets and euthanize those who they believe are less or a financial burden on society.

But, Brian, no one is asking for the "society" to euthanize anyone at any time!! What people here are asking is for the right to die and to be assisted in carrying out that suicide. No one is asking the state or the society to do that!!

You're carrying this thing far too far, Brian. You're losing any and all credibility in your silly arguments ....which actually amount to wanting to control the lives of all others, even if they want suicide.

Baron Max

 

[John99]

He would get his medicine, chemotherapy, radiation treatment, whatever he needed. There are of course, limits to the amount that can be spent, but to leave him with no care and offer him the option of suicide is terrible.

If you value the citizens of your country, you value them in sickness as well as health.

your lies are becoming more creative, this is nothing to be proud of. To your credit you sneak in some truth though.

 

[Brian Foley]

But what if you live in the richest country in the world, and you don't want to kill yourself? What if you just want treatment and medicine? The same as people in Cuba get.

I agree with you 100%, yet in Oregon they are actually offering assisted suicide as an alternative to spending some several years on medication.

But, Brian, no one is asking for the "society" to euthanize anyone at any time!! What people here are asking is for the right to die and to be assisted in carrying out that suicide. No one is asking the state or the society to do that!!

I havent any problem with somebody wanting assisted suicide, I keep pointing out over and again I am concerned with the follow on effects of expansion and abuse. How about YOU prove to me that this will not happen under an assisted suicide program. What is wrong with a patient Bill of Rights to be drawn up independent of a death with dignity Bill?

You're carrying this thing far too far, Brian. You're losing any and all credibility in your silly arguments ....which actually amount to wanting to control the lives of all others, even if they want suicide.

Again I am pointing out that it is you and your personal concern with your own lives and disregard for other lives at the present is that it will eventually end up with people losing control over their own lives.