1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Death with Dignity Laws or Legal Euthanasia

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Magnetic Poles, May 29, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mitch, thanks for your lucid, on topic response.
     
  2. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    MURDER, with an excuse
     
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    donnA!:love2: donnA!:love2: donnA!:love2: was that nice?
     
  4. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."- Daniel P. Moynihan
     
  5. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    You started the thread with a number of questions which have been answered by several - myself included - with no response or recognition by you.

    Instead of addressing those opinions which differ from yours you either ignore them or lecture others to stay on topic.

    You now seem to have baited and switched us to this new question which I suspect was your real motive for this thread.

    Before I answer your question as to what business of it is it mine that another person wants their doctor to kill them please clarify your position.

    1. Must a person be terminally ill to qualify for this dignity? Does a person who is in chronic pain but not terminally ill also deserve this dignity?

    2. Must a person be in chronic pain or loss of physical capacity to qualify for this dignity? Does a person who is terminally ill but not in pain qualify?

    3. Must the illness be physical in order to qualify for this dignity? Could someone who is psychologically or emotionally ill qualify for this dignity? If so, in the case of a bi-polar person - would they only qualify for this dignity when they are in a down cycle?

    4. Why is only a doctor allowed to deliver this dignity? Why would someone be denied dignity just because they have no doctor to dignify them? Why couldn't a friend or family member give them their dignity? Or perhaps an entrepreneur could fill this niche market?

    5. Would emotional pain qualify one for this dignity? If one were very sad and disappointed over a job loss for example - would one qualify to regain their dignity with your prescribed method?

    In as much as you started this thread it would be interesting to have you answer at least some of these questions - not just with a yes or a no but with your rationalization as well.
     
    #45 targus, May 30, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2009
  6. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    I recognized several for their lucid responses. You obviously choose to ignore that fact.

    Baloney. Again, reread the thread. I have been trying to get folks to stay on topic and answer the OP questions. You also have no idea of my motives, and your last statement makes no sense.

    My hope had been to stimulate some meaningful dialog based upon people's answers, without this turning into an yet another abortion thread. But you and OR are hell-bent on derailing with ridiculous comments about defining the words in the name of the law, which I have said is not the issue, and . "Death with Dignity Law" is merely the common name of the law. The OP is very specific for a reason. The discussion was not to be about what is dignified or not. It could be called the "Early Exit Law" or even "Suicide is Fun Law". I don't care. That is not the point.

    Again, you load your questions with this idiotic idea of focusing on the word "dignity". However, you do raise some legitimate questions. Most of these are covered in the law. For example in Oregon:
    All that said, I will give my personal opinion on these:

    1. Must a person be terminally ill to qualify for this dignity? Does a person who is in chronic pain but not terminally ill also deserve this dignity?

    A: If someone is in excruciating pain and it cannot be controlled by meds, perhaps yes. Someone made the point about pain management vs. addiction. They were absolutely correct. Why worry about addiction to pain meds if it makes their life bearable. As neither you or I are in this position (otherwise we could not be posting here), I don't think we are in a position to judge.

    2. Must a person be in chronic pain or loss of physical capacity to qualify for this dignity? Does a person who is terminally ill but not in pain qualify?

    A: I tend to fall on the side of this is up to the individual, not society. I don't think this one is as justifiable since no suffering is involved, but I also believe strongly in personal liberty over one's own life.

    3. Must the illness be physical in order to qualify for this dignity? Could someone who is psychologically or emotionally ill qualify for this dignity? If so, in the case of a bi-polar person - would they only qualify for this dignity when they are in a down cycle?

    A: No, as the underlying mental illness should be treated. A person who is mentally incapacitated is not in a position to make a valid, irreversible decision such as this. Neither are minors.

    4. Why is only a doctor allowed to deliver this dignity? Why would someone be denied dignity just because they have no doctor to dignify them? Why couldn't a friend or family member give them their dignity? Or perhaps an entrepreneur could fill this niche market?

    A: Because laymen cannot properly diagnose and evaluate prognosis for recovery.

    5. Would emotional pain qualify one for this dignity? If one were very sad and disappointed over a job loss for example - would one qualify to regain their dignity with your prescribed method?

    A: Disappointment happens, and would not meet the test.

    Now how about your sticking to the topic. I had hoped we would get some lucid answers, then we could hopefully discuss them in a rational way. I may have been overly optimistic.
     
  7. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have yet to see any scripture posted allowing this pratice.
    If scripture isn't part of all of our lives it isn't really a part of any of our lives.
     
  8. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0

    Your position is contradictory.

    We are not in a position to judge for others...
    It is up to the individual...

    And at the same time

    Layman cannot properly diagnose...
    Disappointment does not meet the test...

    So we can not judge and it is up to the individual after a doctor judges for us and then only if it passes a test which someone else sets.

    Let me help you make this a little more simple.

    Does an individual have the right to employ another person to kill them if they so desire?

    Either we have such a right or we do not.

    If we do not have such a right all of your contrived qualifications are meaningless.

    If we do have the right then how can one place restrictions on that right so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others?
     
  9. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    I answered yours...now answer mine first. I am not being interviewed.
     
  10. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Society has a compelling interest in not encouraging people to end their own lives. As a member of society I share in that compelling interest.

    Society has a compelling interest in upholding the value of each and every individual life. Assisted suicide laws convey the notion - intentionally or unintentionally that some lives have more value than others. Such a notion is contrary to the public good. I share in the public good and therefore it is my obligation to promote it.

    Now - please go back to my prior post and answer my questions as to whether there is a RIGHT to employ someone to kill ones self.
     
  11. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    What started as voluntary euthanasia in Holland is now involuntary euthanasia. How would you like to go to a doctor not knowing when he is going to give you a lethal dose of something?

    If we go to the socialized medicine that "bho" and other leftists/democrats are espousing then we are well on the road to involuntary euthanasia.
     
  12. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not contradictory at all. In one case, it is a suffering individual. IN the other hypothetical, you are talking about a company set up to make the doctor's determination. In case 1, we assume the doctor has weighed in.

    Now while I do think the safeguards in the Oregon statute are appropriate ones, ultimately I tend to believe that a person does have the final determination on their own destiny. Do we disagree? Yep. So what?
    In the Washington statute, the doctor prescribes the pills, but the individual takes them at the time of their own choosing. No doctor there at all.

    Situations are not contrived. You posed the hypotheticals, not I. But I believe there is an actual difference between someone who is in a treatable clinical depression, but can be helped; and someone who is suffering excruciating pain that even morphine cannot help, with no end to it.

    Ultimately, the law matters not. People can commit suicide easily, and the law can do nothing about it. I don't see how society is benefited by forcing the dying to suffer needlessly. I respect those whose opinions differ, but I believe they are wrong. It gets down to your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
     
  13. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Source please. Not saying you are wrong..just asking for something other than your say so.

    This is a fallacious slippery slope argument. I do not believe anyone with any degree of rational thought, of any political stripe would support this.
     
  14. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    I don't see how this supports death. Isn't basically giving morphine or inducing a coma the same thing? I have no problem easing someone's excruciating pain through drugs that render them unconscious if that is what the patient wants...but leave the dying in God's hand.
     
  15. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I am not talking about a company to make the decision in place of a doctor. I am talking about someone carrying out the wishes of the person who wants to die. Why is it necessary for a doctor to do the killing?

    You seem to be saying that a person has a right to employ someone to kill them? Am I understanding you correctly?

    If there is such a "right" then why the qualifications?

    If I have a right to employ someone to kill me then why would it be necessary to hire a doctor?

    If I a right to employ someone to kill me then why must I be terminally ill or suffering in order to exercise my right?

    Why is it necessary in such a case to involve a doctor? Anyone can kill themselves in any of a number of ways. It seems that you are making a doctor the arbritor of the life or death of another person. How does a doctor know how much suffering I should be able to endure before deciding that I have had enough and am thus entitled to his pills to kill myself?

    When these laws are written they are based on just such hypotheticals.

    You say that you believe such and such about treatable and untreatable - but you are not a doctor.

    The law does matter because this about employing someone else to kill you - not committing suicide. And it is about putting the power to end lives in the hands of doctors based on that doctor's opinion. What happens to public trust in doctors when they are the ones that decide who lives and who dies? Will very ill people decide not to seek health care because they are afraid that a doctor may decide that they should be put down?

    Which brings me again to my unanswered question.

    If there exists a RIGHT to employ someone to kill you - on what basis are there limitations or qualifications put on this right so long as they do not conflict with the rights of another.

    The exercise of a supposed right to employ someone to kill you should not be hampered by questions of health, state of mind, who you choose to carry out the act, etc.

    You are very inconsistent in your thinking on this matter.
     
  16. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,727
    Likes Received:
    873
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Two socially (?) acceptable forms of Legalized Murder:
    Front end - Freedom of choice:tear:
    Tail end - Death with dignity :tear:

    Anything in between is illegal!!! Go figure!
     
  17. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Speaking of euthanasia - this takes it to a whole new level!!

    The Saudi Killer Chip!!

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520331,00.html

    Someone, somewhere, will end up giving the patent - wouldn't surprise me if it ended up being the US that gives it. :tear:
     
  18. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    it's been a couple of hours since I asked for biblical evidence, no scripture yet?
     
  19. SeekingTruth

    SeekingTruth Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    1
    Amen!! MP and others do not like to call things what they are.

    "Freedom of choice" is another term for murder when performed on the unborn or partially born. It is still murder.

    "Death with dignity" is suicide, regardless of how it is painted. Assisting suicide is nothing more than assisting murder.

    God have mercy on the proponents of either.
    God have mercy on those who would compare mankind to an animal. God did not create animals a "little lower than the angels".
     
  20. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    3
    I agree with both Matt and you! Death with dignity is something all should support. There are some tricky situations, but that doesn't mean the ability to end one's suffering should not be available.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...