16 Feb 17
Originally posted by sonhouseAnd one step closer to state mandated termination of anyone deemed a drain on resources better utilized for the young and healthy.
Eligibility
a resident of California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington; and.
18 years of age or older; and.
mentally competent, i.e. capable of making and communicating your health care decisions; and.
diagnosed with a terminal illness that will, within reasonable medical judgment, lead to death within six months.
So a few states so far.
I wonder what the cost is to euthanize compared to the millions of dollars spent by the state on appeals by convicted murderers awaiting execution.
16 Feb 17
Originally posted by josephwAh, the good old slippery slope again. When will you fanatics realise that "assisted dying" is the right to have a Nembutal prescription written for you, and that's absolutely it?
And one step closer to state mandated termination of anyone deemed a drain on resources better utilized for the young and healthy.
I wonder what the cost is to euthanize compared to the millions of dollars spent by the state on appeals by convicted murderers awaiting execution.
When my pain becomes unbearable and I know there's less than 6 months left to me, I don't want anyone using stupid "slippery slope" games to stop me from sparing myself from suffering any longer. It's my choice, not your choice or anyone else's choice. Butt out.
16 Feb 17
Originally posted by KewpieI'm sorry Kewpie. I had no intention of adding to your pain and suffering by my apparent callus disregard for your personal situation. That was not my intention. Please accept my sincere apology.
Ah, the good old slippery slope again. When will you fanatics realise that "assisted dying" is the right to have a Nembutal prescription written for you, and that's absolutely it?
When my pain becomes unbearable and I know there's less than 6 months left to me, I don't want anyone using stupid "slippery slope" games to stop me from sparing myself from suffering any longer. It's my choice, not your choice or anyone else's choice. Butt out.
I pray I never find myself or any of my loved ones in similar circumstances. If it came down to that I'm not sure what I'd do. Be certain I'll be holding you up in my prayers.
16 Feb 17
Originally posted by josephwAre you, then, against her having the choice?
I'm sorry Kewpie. I had no intention of adding to your pain and suffering by my apparent callus disregard for your personal situation. That was not my intention. Please accept my sincere apology.
I pray I never find myself or any of my loved ones in similar circumstances. If it came down to that I'm not sure what I'd do. Be certain I'll be holding you up in my prayers.
16 Feb 17
Originally posted by josephwSo giving people the freedom of choice on this does or does not bring us "...one step closer to state mandated termination of anyone deemed a drain on resources better utilized for the young and healthy", can you be clear?
I'm not against freedom of choice as long as it doesn't conflict with the absolute standard of morality.
16 Feb 17
Originally posted by sonhouseHow can suicide be illegal?
Eligibility
a resident of California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington; and.
18 years of age or older; and.
mentally competent, i.e. capable of making and communicating your health care decisions; and.
diagnosed with a terminal illness that will, within reasonable medical judgment, lead to death within six months.
So a few states so far.
17 Feb 17
Originally posted by josephwIs someone who is dying a slow and painful death of cancer ethically allowed to end their own life? Similarly, is someone who cannot get the psychological help they need extended the same opportunity?
How can homicide be illegal? Essentially the same thing.
Question is, is euthanasia and suicide the same thing?
Furthermore, shouldn't one have the right to end their own life regardless of circumstance? After all, it is their life to end.
17 Feb 17
Originally posted by FMFClearer than you. Most of the time. 😕
So giving people the freedom of choice on this [b]does or does not bring us "...one step closer to state mandated termination of anyone deemed a drain on resources better utilized for the young and healthy", can you be clear?[/b]
In my opinion, the "state" exists to maintain military and police forces, and infrastructure.
After that the state infringes on the autonomy of its citizens. That's as clear as I'm going to get on that subject in this forum.
17 Feb 17
Originally posted by MarshallPriceGood questions. I have an opinion, but it wouldn't answer the questions.
Is someone who is dying a slow and painful death of cancer ethically allowed to end their own life? Similarly, is someone who cannot get the psychological help they need extended the same opportunity?
Furthermore, shouldn't one have the right to end their own life regardless of circumstance? After all, it is their life to end.
Because this topic is being discussed under a "spiritual" heading I'm inclined to appeal to a higher authority other than man's to draw a conclusion.
How can we know purely on a human level the moral or ethical rightness of our decisions? I think in doing so makes any conclusion arbitrary because it excludes the idea that there is a moral baseline that exist by which we measure the rightness of our decisions.
I believe that such a moral baseline exists, which states that life is sacred, and that decisions made about life and death are not within the purview of human authority.
Having said that, my answer is this, when a person is suffering from debilitating physical pain due to a terminal illness, everything possible should be done to elevate the pain. When all has been done, then it is in our power to do the mercy, and may God have mercy on us for doing it.
I have another opinion concerning psychological issues though.
"Furthermore, shouldn't one have the right to end their own life regardless of circumstance? After all, it is their life to end."
Our lives, our bodies, our very existence belongs to our maker. If that is true, and it's my firm conviction it is, then the question assumes an authority over life and death man has no right to.
17 Feb 17
Originally posted by josephwSo you condone and support a person's right to carry out voluntary euthanasia?
Clearer than you. Most of the time. 😕
In my opinion, the "state" exists to maintain military and police forces, and infrastructure.
After that the state infringes on the autonomy of its citizens. That's as clear as I'm going to get on that subject in this forum.
17 Feb 17
Originally posted by josephwWould you seek to impose this notion of an"authority over life and death [that] man has no right to" [which you happen to believe "belongs to our maker"] on people whose beliefs are different from yours?
Our lives, our bodies, our very existence belongs to our maker. If that is true, and it's my firm conviction it is, then the question assumes an authority over life and death man has no right to.