What do you all think about Euthanasia?

[mom'sfolly]

BCE and CE were not in common usage in the late 1700s, but anno domini's direct translation is "year of the Lord". It is simply a normal date for the era. As for the supposed wording of the first amendment, The word Christianity did not get in. I wonder why if it was proposed?

Again, our's is a pluralistic society, and our laws are not based on a single religious idea.

An acceptable argument for the basis of laws in this country is not a religious one.

If your position is that PAS is murder, argue it on that basis, not the religious one.

 

[chickened]

One can speculate why but remember colonists were escaping England and king George and a religious persecution by the COE and its' long reach.

Even modern pluralistic societies are subject to conversion. Islam is growing in countries that never had it before as well as Christianity.

I have had this discussion with another atheist on here before and will not go into details but I will say that Christianity is ingrained in our history including our laws and there are biblical quotes on most of our public monuments built prior to about 1980. It is still on our currency. This is why PAS is only recently made law in a few states.

Folks a lot smarter than me have tried to circumvent religion and its connection to peoples laws in debates and it never strays far. They are too interconnected when it comes to human rights proven by the mere controversial nature of euthanasia.

 

[jak2002003]

One can speculate why but remember colonists were escaping England and king George and a religious persecution by the COE and its' long reach.

Even modern pluralistic societies are subject to conversion. Islam is growing in countries that never had it before as well as Christianity.

I have had this discussion with another atheist on here before and will not go into details but I will say that Christianity is ingrained in our history including our laws and there are biblical quotes on most of our public monuments built prior to about 1980. It is still on our currency. This is why PAS is only recently made law in a few states.

Folks a lot smarter than me have tried to circumvent religion and its connection to peoples laws in debates and it never strays far. They are too interconnected when it comes to human rights proven by the mere controversial nature of euthanasia.I

So are you saying that Euthanasia is a mere controversial issue? If so why have you been so active on this post about it? It does not seem a mere issue to you.

I was interested to talk about Euthanasia, not get into details about religions teachings. I also take it when you refer to 'religion' you are talking about you branch of Christianity? You would not want laws from the COE , Islam or some other religion then?

Also I am not atheist either, but I am also not Christian and so I don't see why my life should be governed by laws that are from a different religion. That is why I say religion needs to be kept apart from government and laws.

Its great you have your personal opinion but please don't try to tell others they are wrong to believe what they do.

I am going to stay away form this thread form now on as its getting a bit heated for me.

 

[OldGuy43]

Cleared the editor. Not going to go there. Like Jak, I'm going to bail. Even with my admittedly large ego I'm willing to admit that I do not know "the will of god", whoever he/she/it may be. I must have missed that memo.

What I do know is that I'm more into quality than quantity. Dum vivimus, vivamus!

 

[chickened]

So are you saying that Euthanasia is a mere controversial issue? If so why have you been so active on this post about it? It does not seem a mere issue to you.

I was interested to talk about Euthanasia, not get into details about religions teachings. I also take it when you refer to 'religion' you are talking about you branch of Christianity? You would not want laws from the COE , Islam or some other religion then?

Also I am not atheist either, but I am also not Christian and so I don't see why my life should be governed by laws that are from a different religion. That is why I say religion needs to be kept apart from government and laws.

Its great you have your personal opinion but please don't try to tell others they are wrong to believe what they do.

I am going to stay away form this thread form now on as its getting a bit heated for me.

Fair enough, I think I made my point. I meant that the fact that it is controversial was mere not the substance. I am curios though how exactly one goes about keeping laws and religions separate when the subject matter is the same like euthanasia, our government has tried it and failed as with most of the world. I think it is a good idea in theory just not practical.

Laws are based on many religious teachings... polygamy?? sodomy??, incest?? Laws are based in what is right to punish those that do what is wrong... I fail to see the disconnect from my belief that says I should do what is right as for that there is no law.

Telling someone my "personal opinion" does not equate the other party is wrong they are just another opinion, I am sorry if that offends you that was not my intentions..

 

[Garden Tamer]

I agree with many of the posts I have read here. . .if we can love & respect our animals enough to give them peace; why not a human family member who can express there needs??

 

[thaiturkey]

The issue for many people is why, in countries where suicide is no longer a crime, is assisted suicide illegal in the sense that the assistants may be charged with murder?

There's a case before the High Court in London awaiting a decision very soon:

16 August 2012 Last updated at 03:34 GMT
Tony Nicklinson: Right-to-die court decision due

By James Gallagher Health and science reporter, BBC News

Tony Nicklinson was paralysed by a stroke in 2005

A man paralysed from the neck down is to find out later whether his doctors will be free from prosecution if they help him to die.

Tony Nicklinson, 58, from Melksham, Wiltshire, communicates by blinking and has described his life as a "living nightmare" since a stroke in 2005. His High Court case goes further than past challenges to laws in England and Wales on assisted suicide and murder. Any ruling is expected to be subject to an appeal.

'Misery'

Father-of-two Mr Nicklinson was left paralysed with locked-in syndrome after a catastrophic stroke while on a business trip to Athens. He was unable to attend court for the four-day hearing in June because of his complicated care needs. In an email he said: "Legal arguments are fine but they should not forget that a life is affected by the decision they come to. A decision going against me condemns me to a 'life' of increasing misery."

The case differs from other "right-to-die" cases which have focused on assisted suicide. Mr Nicklinson would be unable to take lethal drugs, even if they were prepared by someone else. For someone else to kill him would amount to murder.

In June, his barrister Paul Bowen QC told the High Court: "Tony has now had almost seven years to contemplate his situation. With the continuing benefits of 21st Century health and social care his life expectancy can be expected to be normal - another 20 years or more. He does not wish to live that life." Mr Bowen added: "The claimant, who has made a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to end his own life with dignity, is too disabled to do so. The current law of assisted suicide and euthanasia operate to prevent him from adopting the only means by which he could practically end his life, namely with medical assistance."

'Untenable'

David Perry QC, who is representing the Ministry of Justice, said Mr Nicklinson's "tragic and very distressing circumstances evoke the deepest sympathy". "Notwithstanding the distressing facts of his situation, the defendant submits that the claim for declarations is untenable. The law is well established," he added.

The case is being contested on the issue of "necessity" arguing that the only way to end Mr Nicklinson's suffering is to allow him to die. This was used in 2000 when conjoined twins were separated, saving one even though doctors knew the other would die. Mr Nicklinson's team will also argue that his case is covered by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which deals with the right to respect for private and family life.

The judges will also publish a determination in the case of another paralysed man with locked-in syndrome, named only as Martin, who is 47. Part of his case involves a challenge to the Director of Public Prosecution's policy on assisted suicide.

Tony Nicklinson has died of pneumonia. He was refusing to eat after the High Court turned down his appeal.

RIP

 

[oldrooster]

Haven't read all the posts here yet but many people who argue the against are afraid of the government will step in and if you wish to live tell you nope sorry it's your turn to die, or someone supposedly acting on your behalf might do that. but I do not wish to argue over those points, but it's my understanding in the USA you may refuse food and water and legally end your life that way. I knew someone dieing of cancer he refused to eat or drink and spoke to his doctor about it before he started (he was in the hospital and they knew he wouldn't live long either way) the doctor told him all the options and told him that he'd support him in his choice but he told him to give him pain meds (had to be given in IV form due to his decision) they would have to occasionally irrigate his veins to make sure the meds got to where they needed to go he told the doctor he understood, and it was okay with him since it might prolong his life (although it would be negligible a few hours to a day or so).

 

[chickened]

Tony Nicklinson has died of pneumonia. He was refusing to eat after the High Court turned down his appeal.

RIP

Funny how things work out.

 

[Mattemma]

My friend had a step dad.She just found out he had cancer.Should have lived another 6 months to a year.Step dad has *friends* who shipped him off to hospic once he was extremely drugged up.Told hospic he had no family.He had a brother and my friend(step daughter).He was shipped off on a Friday night.Satuday the *friends* were in and out of his apartment..My friend found out he was moved to hospic on Sunday.She had just seen him Thursday and he was ok despite the cancer.After that some *friend* always answered his phone.

She went there on Snday.Told them who she was and that he had family.He had no will or medical directive,but she was given temp legal rights.He had not been given water or food since arriving at hospic.Just more drugs which in combination was actually killing him.A *friend* was there 24/7 talking to other *freinds* on his phone.By Monday 5am he was dead.The *friends* refused to hand over his apratment keys or phone saying it would be given to the office at 9am.Well shoot if those people did not have 2 pick ups at the place at 8am loading up the poor mans stuff.They even stole his truck.

My point in all this is have your legal papers ready now.Do not wait till you are sick.I am still shocked that strangers can essentially take over a person and get hospic to just accept whatever they say since the man was drugged.You would think they would stop the drugs long enough to get some coherent information out of him. I still think people have the right to die when they want too,but it scares me to think someone could kill me when I DON'T want to die.....like my friends step-dad.