By: bill_crany
8/05/2008
6:39 pm Yahoo! Profile:
bill_crany Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| should doctor advocating euthanasia on the old Nuzzi quality and worthiness of life grounds lose their license and be jailed? |
|
By: bulldoost
8/05/2008
9:35 pm Yahoo! Profile:
bulldoost Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| please clarify? |
|
By: bobbythebat
8/05/2008
9:53 pm Yahoo! Profile:
bobbythebat Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I know it's true that cats & dogs get a better death
than humans. Most are given an injection by a vet whereas
humans are given a kind of torture & forced to suffer till
the bitter end. |
|
By: bill_crany
8/05/2008
10:34 pm Yahoo! Profile:
bill_crany Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I am suggesting that although the assurances of a quick humane death is desirable when the time comes its just not possible because of the problem of eugenics and the loons who want to start euthanasia everyone "unfit". stuff doctors i don't trust them with that responsibility and they have a tendency to want to be the architects of evolution. The risks of euthanasia outweigh the acknowledged benefits. there are things we can do like do not resuscitate or removing a person from life artificial support on request but euthanasia is for the gene fanatics. |
|
By: bobbythebat
8/05/2008
10:44 pm Yahoo! Profile:
bobbythebat Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
QUOTE bill
"a quick humane death is desirable when the time comes its just not possible because of the problem of eugenics "
This has nothing to do with eugenics.
This is about the state not forcing people to die in
torturous agony for some obscure idea. |
|
By: bill_crany
8/05/2008
10:57 pm Yahoo! Profile:
bill_crany Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
This has nothing to do with eugenics.
This is about the state not forcing people to die in
torturous agony for some obscure idea."
Euthanasia is eugenics, I trust myself to make the humane and right decision for my K9 and feline friends as far as euthanasia goes - but States, bureaucracies and corporations are not humane institutions. the twentieth century proves we can never give up vigilances as far as controls on the power of the state to decide over life and death matters. they have a tendency to weed out the economically, socially and genetically. As far as I am concerned you have a right to kill yourself and so do I, these are things the state needs to stay the hell out of. life and death decisions are the most private of matters. Assisted suicide is a different matter - you are asking the state to kill you and thats dangerous. |
|
By: peaceleo69
8/05/2008
11:32 pm Yahoo! Profile:
peaceleo69 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
but euthanasia is for the gene fanatics.
><><
you mean the 80% of Australians who want to avail themselves of this option; if they may one day need it!
Glad you are one of those kind people who advocate the horror of a lonely death by suicide; as opposed to a peaceful ,dignified ,death; surrounded by thier loved ones.
Hope you can avail yourself of the first option ;if the need ever arises for you.
For me-like the majority of Australains;I will take the second option!
Recommended reading for interested people-just released book by Dr Rodney Syme.
A Good Death-An arguement for voluntary euthenasia.
reading the case histories of people he has helped, will help you understand the reasoning behind those who prefer this option ;to a slow painful death or lingering ,trapped, frightened ,useless life.
Wonderful, kind, compassionate man-hope if I ever need that kind of help;I can find a Dr just like him.
Better still;hope by that time-voluntary euthenasia is legal-and I wont have to jump through the hoops, these people had to or linger over my useful time;to make sure my DR doesnt become an accessory to suicide.
So much red tape, to prolong suffering ;long after lives should be ended peacefully-all for the same result!
Just ;needless suffering and money wasted-to achieve the end result! |
|
By: bobbythebat
8/05/2008
11:56 pm Yahoo! Profile:
bobbythebat Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Thanks Peace - well written.
Bill seems to think that doctors would turn into
murderers for some Na.zi type thrill.
Laws could be framed to stop that e.g.
3 doctors & a Justice of the Peace all have to agree &
they must make a serious attempt to contact any family
members for approval.
What would be wrong with that? |
|
By: bill_crany
9/05/2008
4:50 am Yahoo! Profile:
bill_crany Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
#### reasoning behind those who prefer this option ;to a slow painful death or lingering ,trapped, frightened ,useless life.####
I understand the reasoning, it is founded in flawed logic and discredited psuedo science. Doctors who talk like this about human life are exactly my concern. The most horrific acts of eugenics Policy in Nuzzi Germany, the USA and Australia in the 20th century were all framed in the language of altruism - they can go to h e l l - they cant kill me I refuse to die I tell you! I intend to live a long long time. |
|
By: corky1939
9/05/2008
1:38 pm Yahoo! Profile:
corky1939 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
There are no rights without corresponding duties. If society goes down the path of legalised euthanasia, this right to die will lead to its corollary, the duty to kill. Once a society has said that its citizens have the right to die, it will be forced to provide the means to do so. That is, if a state says there is a legal right to die, logically, anyone can bring suit to ensure that governments comply. Just as today society tells us a woman has a right to abort her own child, so it provides, via medicare and tax-payer funding, the means to carry out this activity.
Indeed, once legalised, it is possible that doctors may one day face lawsuits if they violate someone's rights by not killing them. As one commentator put it, "Imagine doctors purchasing malpractice insurance that covers `denial of death' suits. That day may not be far away."
For all the talk about choice, about freedom to choose, about giving people options, the legal and social legitimisation for assisted suicide will effectively eliminate one option, namely, staying alive without having to justify one's existence. With legalised euthanasia, the burden will be upon people to justify being alive - we will have to prove that we ought to be allowed to live. Lest that sound too far out, consider the words spoken in 1984 by the then Colorado Governor Richard Lamm who said, "Elderly people who are terminally ill have a duty to die and get out of the way." Or recall the comments made here by the then Governor-General Bill Hayden who, thinking of his own advancement in years, spoke of "unproductive burdens" which we need to be "disencumbered" of via euthanasia.
But as Simon Leys (Pierre Ryckmans) has noted, why is Bill Hayden as a senile, incoherent old man in a wheel chair (one day) any less of value and worth than Bill Hayden was as Governor-General? A society that allows such distinctions is one that has "simply forsaken the very principle of civilisation and crossed the threshold of barbarity".
Th |
|
By: corky1939
9/05/2008
1:38 pm Yahoo! Profile:
corky1939 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| The unanimous report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics has recommended that there be no change to law in the United Kingdom to permit euthanasia. More and better palliative care was instead recommended. |
|
By: working_bloke
9/05/2008
7:16 pm Yahoo! Profile:
working_bloke Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<If society goes down the path of legalised euthanasia, this right to die will lead to its corollary, the duty to kill.>
That is like saying that the refusal to allow assisted death will lead to the suspected suididal being forcibly detained and kept in drug induced comas for the rest of their lives.
It makes as much sense. |
|
By: working_bloke
9/05/2008
7:22 pm Yahoo! Profile:
working_bloke Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<The unanimous report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics>
The thing about the House of Lords is that it is filled with a bunch of peers who owe their membership to the fact that great granddaddy was a more successful robber baron than most of the other robber barons. They have no requisite qualifications, and due to their selection from the aristocrat class, no frame of reference in common with 90% of the population, who have no say at all in their appointment to their positions.
Since they have to wait until daddy dies to take their seat they tend to be a bunch of old men, completely out of touch with modern society. |
|
By: kane_u_pain
9/05/2008
8:21 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kane_u_pain Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5-BJY00nHI |
|
By: bobbythebat
10/05/2008
12:29 am Yahoo! Profile:
bobbythebat Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
QUOTE: corky
"With legalised euthanasia, the burden will be upon people to justify being alive - we will have to prove that we ought to be allowed to live."
This is just nonsense and you know it. |
|
By: aussie_aa
10/05/2008
2:06 am Yahoo! Profile:
aussie_aa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
euthanasia should be a right i agree.. its ones persons right to choose what they want to do with themselves and their body...
On the other hand.. from personal experience myself...
that is being in ICU for a month and on my death bed, i can say that most suicides are related to "usually someone else being on some sort of medication in the first place"
and its usually more than one med..
Though in saying that, i am glad that i survived and lived. because (even though i might not of made a full recovery) i can at least say that i feel better knowing i can help others from my own experiences.. try help make a better community.
If Doctors really wanted to help the community.. . they would not be allowing drugs that do more harm then good and contradict themselves into the country and then make up excuses to keep it on the market... Re: anti depressant that make you more depressed and so on... It does not matter how "RARE" it might happen.. fact it is does and should not be on the market...
People should think before actually wanting to do something like that, i was under the influence of medication and other things... though im still glad they saved my life.. even though someone else might not of been.
Hey sometimes it might feel like lifes not worth even a pinch of salt, though when you look at the wider picture in a clearer and natural way... life becomes different... |
|
By: aussie_aa
10/05/2008
2:13 am Yahoo! Profile:
aussie_aa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
one of the hardest things i ever faced recovering from. was not my epilepsy. though the depression that came from it... it was almost 8 and a half years ago that it happened to me.. and it was not just drugs and alcohol that made me do that, it was the fact that the very people that classified me with epilepsy in the first place.. re the authorities... helped me get to that point.. they actually made things worse and the bad part about it. they were to naive to see it...
Cheers |
|
By: working_bloke
10/05/2008
9:30 pm Yahoo! Profile:
working_bloke Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<It does not matter how "RARE" it might happen.. fact it is does and should not be on the market...>
There are side effects to ALL medication. You would have us return to the dark ages and prohibit all of modern medicine.
What needs to be done is to make sure that doctors are aware of the possible side effects, so they can look for them.
This requires changes to the way drugs get approved.
It is not feasable for the government to do the exhaustive testing required to bring a drug to market.
Given theat we need to rely on the drug companies themselves to do the testing, it is insane that there is no requirement on these companies to publish negative results. If the company runs 3 trials and 1 shows a side effect, the company is free to simply ignore that one and publish the other two.
Since the peer review can only be based on published papers, all reports tend to be glowing. |
|
By: aussie_aa
16/05/2008
5:48 pm Yahoo! Profile:
aussie_aa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
working_bloke
It is not feasable for the government to do the exhaustive testing required to bring a drug to market.
------------------------- -------
We are not talking about the feasibility of governments testing drugs.. what i am talking about is the fact that yes, "ALL DRUGS have certain side effects" though would you take a drug that has a "side effect" that does the the same thing as what the drug given to you is supossed to treat??
In otherwords would you take a drug that claims to stop seizures though is also known to bring on the same kind of seizures???
or would you take a drug that contradicts itself in almost everyway??? .. how can a drug that does exactly the same thing its claimed to help fix, do the person any good???
I cant see the sense in having a drug that is totally useless and is really still only very experimental..
I have been classified with epilepsy since i was 18 months old, after checking out the drug i used to take and the side effects and that it is clearly admitted that tegretol can bring on seizures, it leaves me scratching my head wondering how the drug thats claimed to stop these seizures and yet brings them on, can be of any "REAL VAUE" to a community let alone a person that does not really benefit from it at all...
I asked the Prime Minister how a drug that contradicts itself can be of any use to the community.
the answer i got from a Dr L Hunt on behalf of the Minister for health and ageing was a a pice of paper stating what the drug is used for (which i already knew anyway) and an information sheet on the drug itself (to which i already have read 20 or more times previously before this info sheet was sent)
We have people with with high certificates and uni degrees and all that and they still cant answer a direct question??? what does that tell you about the people that run this country???
Be careful what you say. because if its the truth.. government in australia will hold it against you and and bash t ... |
|
By: aussie_aa
16/05/2008
5:50 pm Yahoo! Profile:
aussie_aa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Be careful what you say. because if its the truth.. government in australia will hold it against you and and bash t ...
--------------
Will hold it against you and bash the c rap outta you*** |
|
By: aussie_aa
16/05/2008
5:58 pm Yahoo! Profile:
aussie_aa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
by the way, sorry for the late reply, i just got back from the hospital after a police officer broke my leg for sitting in a public place.
Thats australia for ya... |
|
By: working_bloke
16/05/2008
8:24 pm Yahoo! Profile:
working_bloke Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<In otherwords would you take a drug that claims to stop seizures though is also known to bring on the same kind of seizures???>
Why not? The fact that for SOME people seizures are induced does not mean that for OTHER people, seizures aren't stopped. In fact, given that the drug is working on teh same biological pathway as is causing the problem, it is to be expected. Many symptoms can be caused by a number of different mech *** ms, and it may be necessary to eliminate the potential causes one at a time.
The point is that you try the medication, if there is no change or it makes things worse, then you change the medication. The important thing is that you KNOW what the risks are. |
|
By: aussie_aa
17/05/2008
1:03 pm Yahoo! Profile:
aussie_aa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Well lets just say we have different logical opinions.
its all good i hope |
|
By: working_bloke
17/05/2008
6:50 pm Yahoo! Profile:
working_bloke Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<Well lets just say we have different logical opinions.>
The wonderful thing about a free society is that unlike many others, all are free to state their opinions and beliefs. Where they are based on logical, reasoned arguments, this should be encouraged. Where the person expressing opinions is prepared to listen to those of others, it should be applauded.
<its all good i hope>
Of course. I applaud you ability to accept that my viewpoint can differ from yours, and still be worthy of consideration. An individuals point of view is exactly that, the point of view chosen by the individual concerned. Where that selection is made after due consideration of reasonable alternatives, so much the better. |
|
