Yes, but fallacy or no fallacy, it's all they can argue. People act like that when they know they have no case for their position.It's a gross logical fallacy to claim someone is wrong because they've "got baggage".
Yes, but fallacy or no fallacy, it's all they can argue. People act like that when they know they have no case for their position.It's a gross logical fallacy to claim someone is wrong because they've "got baggage".
The Law
The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Initiative 1000, passed on November 4, 2008, and went into effect on March 5, 2009. This Act allows some terminally ill patients to request and use lethal doses of medication from qualified medical providers as part of their end-of-life care. A terminally ill patient must be eligible to use the Death with Dignity end-of-life care:
18 years of age or older
Can make and communicate an informed decision to health care providers
Diagnosed with an incurable and irreversible disease that will produce death within six months
Washington resident
Then it's a good thing nobody has done that, then.It's a gross logical fallacy to claim someone is wrong because they've "got baggage".
AFIAK what Canada has done is allowed people who are of a sound mind to make decisions as to what they want if they are no longer of a sound mind. They used to require a final consent just before the procedure, the patient now has the option to waive that if they are no longer of sound mind at that time.I've never met anyone who would do that. Instead, they try to keep grandma alive so they can use her SS check or exploit her savings, while not providing her with very good care. I've seen that more than a few times as home health nurse, but I've never seen anyone try to shorten someone's life in order to get their assets. Plus, you have to be in your right mind to choose euthanasia, so nobody can make that choice for you, at least not under any of the current laws I'm familiar with, although I know Canada has made it easier for people to make that decision recently. I just don't know enough about their law to have an opinion.Let me put it this way. How many people do you think actually treat their dying loved ones this way, and what empirical evidence do you have to back up whatever number you name?
Then too, I find it passing odd that a self-described Christian theist would not see that under your own doctrine, a swifter passage from this vale of tears, especially for those who are terminal and often in great and untreatable pain — which is the main subject of this thread, and the earlier thread that spawned it — would be a good thing, meaning quick relief from pain and meeting their maker all the sooner.
I'm sure the reference was to the guy who posted in the other thread.Actually, the only retired physician I know is my brother. He has told me of a man in terrible pain who committed suicide to escape it. My brother explained that the man had been taking medication that effectively controlled the pain, but the medical bureaucracy no longer allowed his physician to prescribe it.So, US, you have both a retired physician and a retired RN who have cared for people at the end of their lives, who have watched suffering that couldn't be relieved, and who support the right of others to choose to end their suffering in a humane way, yet you persist in telling us that we are wrong and you are right.
Better care is available like I've argued from the beginning. I am right. Concede it. And let's stop this shameful effort to profit from the deaths of the dying.
I'm already hurting, and I don't want the death you insist I can demand. One of the reasons I say no is because very obviously I know better than to trust people who think I--and they--would be better off if I was dead. People who want me to live and live well are the truly compassionate people, of course.Are you sure you wouldn't want to at least have the right to shorten your suffering if nothing was available to end it, other than death?
That's a bizarre question because I can't deny you anything. But if you are suicidal, then I urge you to contact:I've read many times that few people actually choose euthanasia but many are comforted knowing they have that choice. I want to have that choice. Why would you deny someone like me that choice?
Which is something Canada has fixed--they don't require an illness to be terminal.I'd also like to add that not all end of life is related to pain. In fact, based on some things I've read this morning as well as all the years I spent caring for older adults, I know that suffering can be related to many things other than pain, like shortness of breath, inability to tolerate food, other than liquids and total dependency. I've had patients who experienced all of those things. O2 didn't relieve the shortness of breath. Nothing helped the GI distress and if one is dependent secondary to a severe stroke or a disease like advance MS or one of the more rare neurological diseases, there's not much that can be done to relieve that suffering. I don't want to live if I'm totally dependent, so I can understand those who feel the same way as I do. But, unless one has less than 6 month of life left, legal euthanasia won't end that type of suffering.
What I would like to see is checks of a different sort: Doctors in the relevant specialties (whatever ails the patient, not a fixed number) need to confirm there is nothing that can be done to reduce the suffering. The question isn't the degree of suffering (I believe only the patient can measure that and that it's a balance between good and bad--someone stripped of anything good has much less reason to put up with the bad), but whether anything can be done. And in that doing I would like to see safety standards relaxed--do what you need to relieve the suffering even if you risk killing the patient in the process.I agree that voluntary euthanasia can be abused just like anything else. If the protocols aren't followed exactly, it's possible that someone died unnecessarily. That doesn't always mean that someone died who didn't want that. It could just be that someone who chose end of life help, didn't get everything that was expected. For example, some countries require three different doctors to approve the decision, but maybe only two were used. Sometimes there is a requirement to be examined by a psychiatries to evaluate for depression etc. In the states, I think the person must say they want to have help with dying on two different occasions about two weeks apart, witnessed by different people. It's possible that's not always followed as it should be. That is something that needs to be improved. Like any other area of medicine, there will be mistakes, but as for me, I'd rather die than end up in a nursing home, especially now that most of them have been bought by large corporations, who cut back on staff in the name of profit.
I had read that article days before you posted it. I am a subscriber to Scientific American. I just have a very different perspective than you do. Nobody is going to force you to choose euthanasia. it's not even legal in your state. What I don't understand is why you can't accept that choosing to end one's life is often a choice to choose to end unrelenting suffering. And, if a person doesn't have the legal option, they will often find a way to end their own lives through other means, which are not as pleasant as taking a cocktail of drugs that will ease them out gently.I'm already hurting, and I don't want the death you insist I can demand. One of the reasons I say no is because very obviously I know better than to trust people who think I--and they--would be better off if I was dead. People who want me to live and live well are the truly compassionate people, of course.Are you sure you wouldn't want to at least have the right to shorten your suffering if nothing was available to end it, other than death?
Which raises the question: Did you read the attached article from Scientific American? That article explains that yes, better care is in fact available for those who are suffering. It's the older, nonprofit version of hospice care. So why not push for such care rather than this crazy idea of killing people to end their misery?
That's a bizarre question because I can't deny you anything. But if you are suicidal, then I urge you to contact:I've read many times that few people actually choose euthanasia but many are comforted knowing they have that choice. I want to have that choice. Why would you deny someone like me that choice?
988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline
Hours: Available 24 hours. Languages: English, Spanish. Learn more
988
I don't disagree and I haven't read all of the details of the newest version of Canada's law regarding euthanasia, but I do know it's received a lot of criticism for going to far in the other direction. I agree that suffering can only be defined by the person who suffers. My father suffered from extreme pain for the final 20 years of his life, but he would never have chosen euthanasia. In fact, after being diagnosed with cancer two weeks prior to his death, he wanted aggressive care, but my mom didn't permit that. She knew that it wouldn't do much at all to help him. The cancer was tumor had a huge blood clot in it, and he died suddenly, probably due to the DVT and not from the cancer itself. While my mother grieved, it was still a blessing for her that he died so quickly, as caring for him had become a tremendous burden. He was 87 years old when he died, so he had a longer life than most men of his era.Which is something Canada has fixed--they don't require an illness to be terminal.I'd also like to add that not all end of life is related to pain. In fact, based on some things I've read this morning as well as all the years I spent caring for older adults, I know that suffering can be related to many things other than pain, like shortness of breath, inability to tolerate food, other than liquids and total dependency. I've had patients who experienced all of those things. O2 didn't relieve the shortness of breath. Nothing helped the GI distress and if one is dependent secondary to a severe stroke or a disease like advance MS or one of the more rare neurological diseases, there's not much that can be done to relieve that suffering. I don't want to live if I'm totally dependent, so I can understand those who feel the same way as I do. But, unless one has less than 6 month of life left, legal euthanasia won't end that type of suffering.
What I would like to see is checks of a different sort: Doctors in the relevant specialties (whatever ails the patient, not a fixed number) need to confirm there is nothing that can be done to reduce the suffering. The question isn't the degree of suffering (I believe only the patient can measure that and that it's a balance between good and bad--someone stripped of anything good has much less reason to put up with the bad), but whether anything can be done. And in that doing I would like to see safety standards relaxed--do what you need to relieve the suffering even if you risk killing the patient in the process.I agree that voluntary euthanasia can be abused just like anything else. If the protocols aren't followed exactly, it's possible that someone died unnecessarily. That doesn't always mean that someone died who didn't want that. It could just be that someone who chose end of life help, didn't get everything that was expected. For example, some countries require three different doctors to approve the decision, but maybe only two were used. Sometimes there is a requirement to be examined by a psychiatries to evaluate for depression etc. In the states, I think the person must say they want to have help with dying on two different occasions about two weeks apart, witnessed by different people. It's possible that's not always followed as it should be. That is something that needs to be improved. Like any other area of medicine, there will be mistakes, but as for me, I'd rather die than end up in a nursing home, especially now that most of them have been bought by large corporations, who cut back on staff in the name of profit.
It's not a matter of whether there is a cure (there almost certainly is not), but rather what can be done at a palliative level.
You are attacking a strawman. Nobody has suggested that you, or anyone else should be encouraged or made to feel like they need to end their life. Nobody! You are attacking a strawman because you have no argument against people having the legal right to end their own life if they so choose. That is all you do here - attack people and blow smoke in the wind.I'm already hurting, and I don't want the death you insist I can demand. One of the reasons I say no is because very obviously I know better than to trust people who think I--and they--would be better off if I was dead. People who want me to live and live well are the truly compassionate people, of course.
Yes, I read the article, and have pointed out in a previous post that it does not say what you had claimed it said in an earlier post. Nobody disagrees that better hospice care for the terminally ill, end of life patients is a good thing. Better care would be better, for the patients and for their families. The question is, how do we get there? Perhaps you should focus on potential solutions, taking positive actions to make this a reality instead of constantly berating people and attacking them and repeating your simple-minded slogan like a mantra.Which raises the question: Did you read the attached article from Scientific American? That article explains that yes, better care is in fact available for those who are suffering. It's the older, nonprofit version of hospice care. So why not push for such care rather than this crazy idea of killing people to end their misery?
I should have mentioned in the thread against capital punishment that people have built all kinds of means to "ease out gently" those who are to be put to death. That includes the guillotine, the electric chair, the gas chamber, and lethal injection. So far there's been little luck doing so. Death is a horror, and it's utter foolishness to see it any other way.And, if a person doesn't have the legal option, they will often find a way to end their own lives through other means, which are not as pleasant as taking a cocktail of drugs that will ease them out gently.
Exactly. Suicide/euthanasia is never a good choice--but sometimes there is no good choice and you have to choose between bad options. It's clear that many people will choose the easier death--just look at what happens when people are trapped in high places by fire. When rescue is clearly impossible and the fire is closing in quite a few jump.I'm not suicidal. I actually would prefer good hospice care at the end of life, but if hospice can't keep me comfortable, then I want the choice to be eased out of life comfortably. I've seen too any people suffer as they die. There should be other options. Sadly, hospice organizations are also being bought up by corporations. I knew of one locally that provided excellent care to my former patients,
Yes, the way that the death penalty, which is not the same as voluntary euthanasia is often cruel, but I disagree with you that death is always a horror. The most peaceful death I ever witnessed was a woman who had Alzheimers and could no longer swallow, which is what happens when when your brain reaches the point where even simple things like swallowing are no longer possible. Luckily, her brother found her Advanced Directive, which clearly stated that she didn't want a G-tube or any type of artificial feeding or hydration. What a lot of people don't understand is that dying while dehydrated is usually a very peaceful way to go. There is no fluid buildup in the lungs to cause shortness of breath and what is often referred to as "the death rattle" is absent. Instead, the person gradually eases out over a course of several days or maybe a week. My former patient had good hospice care, her lips were kept moistened for comfort, and because she was a retired music professor, they brought in musicians to sing to her. She had a faint smile the last time I saw her and she died without any struggle or discomfort according to the staff in the facility, where I worked until retiring. If you're nearing death, my advice is to refuse fluids and allow nature to take its course or make sure your wishes are clearly stated in your Advanced Directives.I should have mentioned in the thread against capital punishment that people have built all kinds of means to "ease out gently" those who are to be put to death. That includes the guillotine, the electric chair, the gas chamber, and lethal injection. So far there's been little luck doing so. Death is a horror, and it's utter foolishness to see it any other way.And, if a person doesn't have the legal option, they will often find a way to end their own lives through other means, which are not as pleasant as taking a cocktail of drugs that will ease them out gently.
No you just indicated the people must suffer because of your paranoia.Another example of derail goading.
Did I mention God or religion?
Why are you trying to change the subject?
Why cant we just have an interesting secular discussion without the bait-and-switch?
Wait, why are you getting to make the choice for yourself and everyone else?I'm already hurting, and I don't want the death you insist I can demand.Are you sure you wouldn't want to at least have the right to shorten your suffering if nothing was available to end it, other than death?
You are aware of living wills, right? Your (and other people's) wishes can be put forth in one. It is binding. Your rights are protected. Now that we have already solved this problem you keep worrying about, can we get back to people who can't be treated to alleviate their suffering?One of the reasons I say no is because very obviously I know better than to trust people who think I--and they--would be better off if I was dead. People who want me to live and live well are the truly compassionate people, of course.
Because you can only stop suffering so much without knocking a person out. You keep talking but you don't seem to know what you are talking about. My Dad was fortunate to land himself in a palliative care wing at the local hospital. He had the absolute best care he could have ever really hoped for. But they were always chasing the pain. They didn't want to dope him up to unconsciousness, but really, that is what was needed. It was awful having to let him sleep, rather than spend waking moments with him. It was what he wanted, what he needed. His last few days were awful. Watching a person's body shutdown is arduous and painful. But some people don't want to allow to push them pass quickly and with less needless suffering.Which raises the question: Did you read the attached article from Scientific American? That article explains that yes, better care is in fact available for those who are suffering. It's the older, nonprofit version of hospice care. So why not push for such care rather than this crazy idea of killing people to end their misery?
Are you for real? Are you incapable of understanding their context?That's a bizarre question because I can't deny you anything. But if you are suicidal, then I urge you to contact:I've read many times that few people actually choose euthanasia but many are comforted knowing they have that choice. I want to have that choice. Why would you deny someone like me that choice?
988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline
Hours: Available 24 hours. Languages: English, Spanish. Learn more
988
I don't like Brussels Sprouts.
Forcing me to eat Brussels Sprouts would be cruel; Tricking me into eating them would be evil. I don't expect that I shall ever, under any circumumstances, want to eat Brussels Sprouts, and nobody should be permitted to make me do so.
Therefore nobody should be allowed to have Brussels Sprouts, because offering them to people is immoral, and there are always alternatives. If somebody asks for Brussels Sprouts, then we should ignore their request, and offer them some nice Peas or Carrots instead.
Those people promoting the idea that we should let people choose Brussels Sprouts should instead be working to ensure that the widest possible range of alternative vegetables are on the menu.
If anyone is thinking of ordering Brussels Sprouts with their dinner, I urge them to seek help.
Did you read the article in Scientific American that nonprofit farms might be able to grow better tasting Brussel Sprouts? Therefore, anyone who doesn't eat Brussel Sprouts is a poopeyhead and a member of the Sprouted Poopeyhead Cult.I don't like Brussels Sprouts.
Forcing me to eat Brussels Sprouts would be cruel; Tricking me into eating them would be evil. I don't expect that I shall ever, under any circumumstances, want to eat Brussels Sprouts, and nobody should be permitted to make me do so.
Therefore nobody should be allowed to have Brussels Sprouts, because offering them to people is immoral, and there are always alternatives. If somebody asks for Brussels Sprouts, then we should ignore their request, and offer them some nice Peas or Carrots instead.
Those people promoting the idea that we should let people choose Brussels Sprouts should instead be working to ensure that the widest possible range of alternative vegetables are on the menu.
If anyone is thinking of ordering Brussels Sprouts with their dinner, I urge them to seek help.
The context is deliberately ignored so US can take an underhanded dig at the poster and disrupt the discussion. No reasonable person would read the post US was responding to and believe that the poster was suicidal. An insult provokes an angry response and takes our attention away from the fact that US doesn't have an argument to support his position.Are you for real? Are you incapable of understanding their context?