toldailytopic: Assisted suicide. Is it wrong?

[BabyChristian]

I am actually suffering, or didn't you know? Second, my opinion is what I am stating and you are wrong about the 'drug addicted' concept; when someone is that far gone, one would never need to deal with it, they are kept out of pain and it is usually a short time.

She is suffering big time, I guarantee this.

 

[Ktoyou]

Having seen people die of terminal cancers while receiving being given palliative care (including large doses of various painkillers) I can tell that you certainly are not on :cloud9: during the weeks or months before death. The drugs available are strong but all too often they aren't strong enough to remove the pain without quickly killing the patient.

You know what you know, but that is not all of it, I assure you.

 

[Persephone66]

This is because the 'emo' boys you have described are more like girls than fetish transvestites, who think they should be female. :dizzy: Most of those heterosexual men who at age 35 think they should be have been women have a history if fetish cross-dressing, although they attempt to deny it. No married man, who is a father, is thinking sane when he thinks he is a female, that is an extension of a psychological problem with intimacy.

I seen cases of both and am quite sure on this one; those who are able to slip into mainstream life and never bring up the past, are the little sissy types.

Drag queens, fetish transvestites, and emo's are 3 entirely different things and we have moved on from talking about them here as they are irrelevant. I was merely answering Nick's question, try to follow along. If you would like to dicuss the differences between Drag queens, fetish transvestites, and emo's in another thread, we can do that.

 

[BabyChristian]

Christians, Jews or Muslims that don't agree with assisted suicide or any kind and those atheists or agnostics that believe in it can do whatever they want.

Christians can't make people act like Christians think they should act and vice versa.

 

[Nydhogg]

My point exactly. 'S long as I'm *not* forced to conform to your values, you're completely entitled to live according to them .

 

[Granite]

I am actually suffering, or didn't you know? Second, my opinion is what I am stating and you are wrong about the 'drug addicted' concept; when someone is that far gone, one would never need to deal with it, they are kept out of pain and it is usually a short time.

Well we're all suffering, to put a fine point on it...but I am sorry for your troubles. That doesn't have a lot to do with what we're discussing here, I don't think.

So you're okay with stupefying someone with drugs and removing any semblance of actual living or cognizance, but for some reason you draw the line at allowing them to terminate their own life on their own terms when they wish. How exactly is any of this merciful, compassionate, or less than uncaring?

 

[Ktoyou]

Well we're all suffering, to put a fine point on it...but I am sorry for your troubles. That doesn't have a lot to do with what we're discussing here, I don't think.

So you're okay with stupefying someone with drugs and removing any semblance of actual living or cognizance, but for some reason you draw the line at allowing them to terminate their own life on their own terms when they wish. How exactly is any of this merciful, compassionate, or less than uncaring?

The main difference is taking life, and in doing so, when a person is able to live on, that being not terminal. You are waking a fine line, yet I believe your preconceptions are blinding from what I am telling you?

In the first place, your assumption 'stupefying someone' has no bearing on one dying of terminal illness, it is not as if the terminal illness is not really terminal. My point is the terminally ill have the right to be, in those last few weeks, or even months, without pain. Some go so far as to say, in terminal cases, the patient should be allowed to up the narcotic to take their life. This is the point of contention, not what you are assuming.

 

[Granite]

The main difference is taking life, and in doing so, when a person is able to live on, that being not terminal. You are waking a fine line, yet I believe your preconceptions are blinding from what I am telling you?

Not really. It's just that you're willing to step right up to the line but are unwilling to cross it.

In the first place, your assumption 'stupefying someone' has no bearing on one dying of terminal illness, it is not as if the terminal illness is not really terminal.

My point is that while drugging someone with, say, morphine might well relieve their suffering (or at least some of it), it certainly doesn't speak to the quality of their life as they linger in the grip of a terminal illness. Drugging someone so they don't know who or what they are anymore might relieve the pain, sure; but if they are willing to die and want to make that decision for themselves, you're telling me we should stand in their way and deny them that choice. I think that's merciless and bogus.

My point is the terminally ill have the right to be, in those last few weeks, or even months, without pain.

We agree to a point; I'm simply willing to go one step further and give them the right to die if they chose. Why is this decision anyone's to make other than the patient?

 

[lightbringer]

It's just that you're willing to step right up to the line but are unwilling to cross it.

if they are willing to die and want to make that decision for themselves, you're telling me we should stand in their way and deny them that choice.

go one step further and give them the right to die if they chose. Why is this decision anyone's to make other than the patient?

:thumb:

Many for some reason see a terminally ill person as being "not mentally competent"...how could they (the ill person) wish to terminate their life? Says more about those that are not ill than the one dieing.

My question to them is, how or why would you wish this person to suffer?

When I was being prepped for the cardiologist ( an emergency procedure to save my life...transit time to the hospital was 7 hours with no medical assistance ) I was flirting with the nurse in a joking manner...she looked at me and said, Mr... you don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation? My reply to her was, if I am to die, would you prefer that I do so having fun or crying like a baby?
She visited me in ICU and the next day on the ward, seems she had had a change of thought!

The final moments of ones life are theirs and no others, should we show them any less respect than we would while they were not ill?

Either way, let us not be selfish and only think of how we feel as they come to that final moment!

 

[Town Heretic]

You guys kill me...

:think: :shocked:

 

[lightbringer]

You guys kill me...

:think: :shocked:

:rotfl: Lets hope not!

 

[Ktoyou]

Not really. It's just that you're willing to step right up to the line but are unwilling to cross it.



My point is that while drugging someone with, say, morphine might well relieve their suffering (or at least some of it), it certainly doesn't speak to the quality of their life as they linger in the grip of a terminal illness. Drugging someone so they don't know who or what they are anymore might relieve the pain, sure; but if they are willing to die and want to make that decision for themselves, you're telling me we should stand in their way and deny them that choice. I think that's merciless and bogus.



We agree to a point; I'm simply willing to go one step further and give them the right to die if they chose. Why is this decision anyone's to make other than the patient?

You got it. If you look a little deeper, you shall see some crossing over. As to incapacity, one should have all this as a living will and through a 'power of attorney' in agreement with your wishes.

Where I do draw the line is when someone who is terminally ill, yet still able to live life, to receive lethal drugs.

 

[Sheila B]

Euthanasia and abortion devalue human life. When we devalue human life we open ourselves up to all types of moral decay.

When life is no longer valued.... nothing is valued.

POTD

 

[Granite]

You got it. If you look a little deeper, you shall see some crossing over. As to incapacity, one should have all this as a living will and through a 'power of attorney' in agreement with your wishes.

Where I do draw the line is when someone who is terminally ill, yet still able to live life, to receive lethal drugs.

And why/how is it your place to deny them that choice if that is indeed the choice they make?

 

[Sheila B]

How exactly is any of this merciful, compassionate, or less than uncaring?

These are topics can be too subjective.

There is objective morality that is truth for all times, places and peoples. Valuing life as the highest calling is one of them.

Being ignorant of the dignity of human suffering is possible to all but Christians. We have the Body upon The tree that displayed the highest form of love. Pick up your cross and follow Me. Without suffering we shall not see the Kingdom.

It is a theology of suffering the world will never comprehend. It is a harsh and dreadful love: calvary.

 

[Lighthouse]

I was never for sale. Technically, things that are not for sale can't be bought.

You've already sold your soul.

 

[Nydhogg]

I didn't sell a thing.

 

[Ktoyou]

And why/how is it your place to deny them that choice if that is indeed the choice they make?

I do not say it was my place to deny anyone anything. I am giving you my opinion, if you do not like it, there is not anything I can do to change it. Most states do not allow it, but Oregon and Washington does where one is terminally ill.

There also an issue of sin; however, you are free to do what you like. If one wants to die on his or her own terms, a little extra CO2, or better CO will kill anyone. The law cannot punish a dead person and if you do not believe in God, then what's the worry.

I see no sanity in suicide amongst the healthy, with terminal illness, there are ways to get through the pain without resorting to suicide.

 

[PyramidHead]

:hammer: Thread derail.

Back on topic: People wanting to off themselves is wrong. That's been stated a couple of times. The wrong is compounded when the suicidal person tries to draw another person into his actions through assisted suicide.

If someone doesn't want lengthy suffering, he does have the option of refusing treatment.

Refusing treatment? But if they were terminally ill, that would be like suicide. Shouldn't you force them to be treated? I mean, if it is so wrong to want to off yourself, and you believe we don't even have the right to choose to be offed, why would you let them deny treatment?

I never even got why people even got worked up over assisted suicide. For wanting the smallest government, conservatives sure do believe in telling us all the things we can't do with our body in the land of the free.

 

[Lighthouse]

I didn't sell a thing.

That's what you think.