Scotland Assisted Suicide Legalization Bill Narrowed, Still Targets Disabled

[John99]

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

"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"

 

[John99]

another thing is that i dont think you know what this treatment involves. your putting your cart in front of your horse here brian.

 

[Brian Foley]

"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"

And it followed..........

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.

"It's chilling when you think about it," said Dr. William Toffler, a professor of family medicine at Oregon Health & Science University. "It absolutely conveys to the patient that continued living isn't worthwhile."

Isnt that 'forcing ones hand'?

another thing is that i dont think you know what this treatment involves. your putting your cart in front of your horse here brian.

What Horse and whose cart?

Oregon voters have upheld the "Death with Dignity" law three times, and Sattenspiel says it is the state's duty to inform patients of all their legal options.

For Stroup, however, suicide was never an option. He fought back, and the Oregon Health Plan eventually reversed its decision and is now paying for his chemotherapy, giving him hope he'll be around a little longer for his 80-year-old mother and five grandchildren.

Its all about choice.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Brian who would have paid for this treatment that had a 95% chance of failure? there is no universal health care in this country and if his insurance won't cover it who is responsible for payment?

 

[Brian Foley]

Brian who would have paid for this treatment that had a 95% chance of failure? there is no universal health care in this country and if his insurance won't cover it who is responsible for payment?

Randy Stroup was uninsured:

Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon's state-run health plan for help.

And this outfit paid for his treatment:

the Oregon Health Plan eventually reversed its decision and is now paying for his chemotherapy

So according to the above there must be some form of free medical treatment available Lucy.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Well yes I think there should be some form of national health care.

 

[Asguard]

as mad would say, in the US life and death are just comodities to be bought and sold. why do you think i refuse to debate brian based on the US model. its because its incompadable to the health care models that VE would work under where we both live.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

And that would be true for all western first countries. The U.S is a mercenary state.

 

[Brian Foley]

Well yes I think there should be some form of national health care.

There is it states in the article "he applied to Oregon's state-run health plan for help", so there is a socialized system of healthcare availible in America for those who cannot afford Insurance.

why do you think i refuse to debate brian based on the US model. its because its incompadable to the health care models that VE would work under where we both live.

The Dutch healthcare system is like Australias, its free, you can always start there.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

The slippery slope is finished.
We are right at the bottom of it.
Either be productive or you are a criminal.
The punishment for said crime is a lethal injection.

 

[Asguard]

And that would be true for all western first countries. The U.S is a mercenary state.

um no your wrong about that. all westen countries (to my knowlage) EXCEPT the US have at least some form of universal health care system. ie all the other countries know that health care is a human right not a comodity

 

[Randwolf]

Originally Posted by Randwolf
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...

Oh Really?

While the Bible neither explicitly condemns nor explicitly condones it, historical interpretations vary.

Suicide being committed for a noble cause?

The Roman historian Josephus Flavius recorded one account of mass suicide, where in AD 73, the Romans besieged the desert fortress of Masada, trapping 967 Jewish men, women, and children, who belonged to a group of rebels - or terrorists - known as the Sicarii. Upon breaching their defenses, the Sicarii burned their belongings and either killed one another, or committed suicide, rather than be captured alive. ... Even early Christianity celebrated virgins who preferred suicide to dishonor. Saint Pelagia, who feared the loss of her chastity and jumped from a roof to escape a Roman soldier, was later canonized for her suicide.

What does the Bible say about suicide?

Very few would argue with the fact that suicide is a direct breaking of the Sixth Commandment which is, "You shall not murder." We are not to murder each other or ourselves.

What is the Christian view of suicide?

The Bible views suicide as equal to murder, which is what it is—self-murder. God is the one who is to decide when and how a person should die. To take that power into your own hands, according to the Bible, is blasphemy against God. ... According to the Bible, suicide is murder; it is always wrong.

Let's take a look at a few contemporary examples:

Today, both Judaism and Islam teach that human life is sacred and they forbid Suicide and Euthanasia under any circumstances, while Christian denominations are somewhat divided:

• Jewish Law (in summary) forbids euthanasia and regards it as murder. There are no exceptions to this rule and it makes no difference if the person concerned wants to die.
• Muslim Law (in summary) states that suicide and euthanasia are explicitly forbidden. All human life is sacred because it is given by Allah, and Allah chooses how long each person will live.
• With the exception of the United Church, Methodist Church, and Unitarian Church, who to some extent support the principle of assisted dying for the terminally ill, most other churches offer very similar views against suicide, physician-assisted suicide, and euthanasia
• The Evangelical Lutheran Church (1992), adopted the following "End of Life" decisions (in part): All forms of suicide and euthanasia remain strictly prohibited...
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2003) states (in part): All forms of suicide and euthanasia remain strictly prohibited...
• The Greek Orthodox Church states (in part) that it "is opposed to suicide in any form and regards it as a grievous sin and has taught that we do not have the right to take our own lives, since life is a gift from God which we are called upon to preserve and enhance. Hence, suicide is the most serious kind of murder, because there is no opportunity for repentance.

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..

How can you be so sure? Early childhood experiences can sometimes have a profound affect on adult behavior...

...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.

Good to hear you have changed your mind on this:

I want no part of a society that allows mass abortion on demand, Euthanasia and assisted suicides programs
We were put here, born, we have to see it out to the end, whats 8 more days to wait for death by natural causes.

Allowing an individual to die a natural death, I cant see how a doctor who takes a Hippocratic Oath can administer a lethal cocktail of chemicals to end a life is humane.

Thats why I cant go with assisted suicides.

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.

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.

Because I do not want myself or any loved ones or anybody in my community to be euthanized...

“ Originally Posted by Randwolf
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.

Which part of "Other than the pain of loved ones left behind" did you not comprehend?

“ Originally Posted by Randwolf
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.

And this has what to do with my question?


Brian, is your stance that assisted suicide should be permitted if society takes precasutions against the practice evolving into state sponsored eugenics / abuse? If that is the case, than all these pages of discourse really should be redirected to question "what precasutions against abuse are reasonable", right? Is that all that is left of your argument? If so, than I feel considerable headway has been made...

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

um no your wrong about that. all westen countries (to my knowlage) EXCEPT the US have at least some form of universal health care system. ie all the other countries know that health care is a human right not a comodity

That's what I said Asguard

 

[Brian Foley]

Oh Really?While the Bible neither explicitly condemns nor explicitly condones it, historical interpretations vary.

If you want a religious ethics debate your ringing the wrong number here cupcake.

How can you be so sure? Early childhood experiences can sometimes have a profound affect on adult behavior...

Im no different from 99% persons of my generation who grew up with some religious experience, however Im a Socialist.

Good to hear you have changed your mind on this:

No I was very clear from the start as my opinion on this:

Post 64

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.]

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.............

I don’t condemn people for a personal choice, I am more concerned with the wider implication as a whole on society.

Brian, is your stance that assisted suicide should be permitted if society takes precasutions against the practice evolving into state sponsored eugenics / abuse? If that is the case, than all these pages of discourse really should be redirected to question "what precasutions against abuse are reasonable", right? Is that all that is left of your argument? If so, than I feel considerable headway has been made...

Well tell you what start here :

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.

Do you agree with what I quoted here?

 

[Brian Foley]

EXCEPT the US have at least some form of universal health care system.

Americas state-run health plan isnt that a universal health care ?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

No they are not.

 

[Asguard]

no brian they ARNT universal health care. A country where the elderly tend to go bankrupt to pay for there health care is NOT a sociaty with universal health care. Thats what i keep trying to beat into your brainless head, ITS NOT A RELIVENT COMPARISION

 

[Randwolf]

If you want a religious ethics debate your ringing the wrong number here cupcake.

Well, that's a relief, if you can believe that there are no vestiges of that early influence left. The last thing I wans to do is debate with someone whose god whispers morality in their ear...

No I was very clear from the start as my opinion on this:I don’t condemn people for a personal choice

You have also been clear from the start that you don't want assisted suicide legalized, therefore your support of "personal choice" is a farce, at best.

Well tell you what start here:

Originally Posted by Brian Foley
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.

Well, that's a lot of ground to cover, so let's start with Oregon.
All quotes from Oregon.gov "Death with Dignity" FAQ's page
Specifically:

"On October 27, 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act (the Act) which allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose."

It has nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia:

"Q: Does the Act allow euthanasia?

A: No. Euthanasia is a different procedure for hastening death. In euthanasia, a doctor injects a patient with a lethal dosage of medication. In the Act, a physician prescribes a lethal dose of medication to a patient, but the patient - not the doctor - administers the medication. Euthanasia is illegal in every state in the US, including Oregon. The Act has been legal in Oregon since November 1997."

It meets the "majority" criteria outlined in your post #134:

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.

"The Act was a citizens' initiative passed twice by Oregon voters. The first time was in a general election in November 1994 when it passed by a margin of 51% to 49%. An injunction delayed implementation of the Act until it was lifted on October 27, 1997. In November 1997, a measure was placed on the general election ballot to repeal the Act. Voters chose to retain the Act by a margin of 60% to 40%."

It is not a "state ran" program:

"There is no state "program" for participation in the Act. People do not "make application" to the State of Oregon or the Department of Human Services"

There are somewhat stringent safeguards in place (IMO):

"Q: How does a patient get a prescription from a participating physician?

A: The patient must meet certain criteria to be able to request to participate in the Act. Then, the following steps must be fulfilled: 1) the patient must make two oral requests to the attending physician, separated by at least 15 days; 2) the patient must provide a written request to the attending physician, signed in the presence of two witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the patient; 3) the attending physician and a consulting physician must confirm the patient's diagnosis and prognosis; 4) the attending physician and a consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself; 5) if either physician believes the patient's judgment is impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder (such as depression), the patient must be referred for a psychological examination; 6) the attending physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives to the Act including comfort care, hospice care, and pain control; 7) the attending physician must request, but may not require, the patient to notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. A patient can rescind a request at any time and in any manner. The attending physician will also offer the patient an opportunity to rescind his/her request at the end of the 15-day waiting period following the initial request to participate."

As to insurance:

"Q: Will insurance cover the cost of participation in the Act?

A: The Act does not specify who must pay for the services. Individual insurers determine whether the procedure is covered under their policies (just as they do with any other medical procedure). Oregon statute specifies that participation under the Act is not suicide, so should not affect insurance benefits by that definition."

Your concern over family members and others making the decisions on behalf of the patient:

"Q: Can a patient's family members request participation in the Act on behalf of the patient (for example, in cases where the patient is comatose)?

A: No. The law requires that the patient ask to participate voluntarily on his or her own behalf."

Click here for the statutes.
Click here for the administrative rules.


Now, without resorting to your slippery slope argment, what do you see that's wrong with Oregon's version of "Death with Dignity"?

It would seem that it counters most, if not all, of your objections.

If you resort to the "proper enforcement" fear, that can apply to many situations and should not be sufficient grounds to dismiss this act out of hand. Enforcement of any law or regulation is going to incur exceptions where peoples lives are adversely affected.

Take dispensation of medications in general. You have US Federal statutes, regulations and enforcement agencies, coupled with any number of state and local laws and rules - all regulating and proscribing what can and can't be dispensed. In addition, health care professionals (Doctors, pharmacists, nurses, etc) all are subject to stringent licensing requirements. The net effect? There are still occasional mistakes in filling prescriptions, resulting in sickness or even death. Does that mean we shouldn't dispense medications at all?

Once again, at least in the case of Oregon, I find it hard to see where your objections lie if we are to take your previous posts at face value. On the other hand, if you are following some other agenda...

 

[Brian Foley]

No they are not.

no brian they ARNT universal health care. A country where the elderly tend to go bankrupt to pay for there health care is NOT a sociaty with universal health care. Thats what i keep trying to beat into your brainless head, ITS NOT A RELIVENT COMPARISION

Are you sure?

Role of government in health care market
Numerous publicly funded health care programs help to provide for the elderly, disabled, military service families and veterans, children, and the poor,[59] and federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay;[60] however, a system of universal health care has not been implemented nation-wide.

Massachusetts has adopted a universal health care system through the Massachusetts 2006 Health Reform Statute. It mandates that all residents who can afford to do so purchase health insurance, provides subsidized insurance plans so that nearly everyone can afford health insurance, and provides a "Health Safety Net Fund" to pay for necessary treatment for those who cannot find affordable health insurance or are not eligible.[61]

The cost impact of a mixed public-private system is subject to debate. Free-market advocates claim that there is direct correlation between government's health care spending and intervention in the health care market and increases in health care costs. Government intervention contributes to a "dysfunctional system of third-party payments" that removes the patient as a major participant in the financial and medical choices that affect costs.[62] Increased utilization is indeed the primary driver of rising health care costs in the U.S., according to a recent study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers.[63] The study cites numerous causes of increased utilization, including rising consumer demand, new treatments, more intensive diagnostic testing, lifestyle factors, the movement to broader-access plans, and higher-priced technologies.[63] The study also mentions cost-shifting from government programs to private payers. Low reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid have increased cost-shifting pressures on hospitals and doctors, who charge higher rates for the same services to private payers, which eventually affects health insurance rates.[64] On the other hand, advocates for single-payer health care often point to other countries, where national government-funded systems produce better health outcomes at lower cost.

As an example of how government intervention has had unintended consequences, in 1973, the federal government passed the Health Maintenance Organization Act, which heavily subsidized the HMO business model — a model that was in decline prior to such legislative intervention. The law was intended to create market incentives that would lower health care costs, but HMOs have never achieved their cost-reduction potential.[65] Piecemeal market-based reform efforts are complex. One study evaluating current popular market-based reform policy packages concluded that if market-oriented reforms are not implemented on a systematic basis with appropriate safeguards, they have the potential to cause more problems than they solve.[66]

Not a universal program as we would know it, but the Goverment does pay for healthcare for those who cannot afford it.

 

[Asguard]

god sake, where the hell did you get that artical? right wings r us? 7 lines of text on the anti UHC argument and 1 small line on the other side of the argument