Slashdot Mirror
Terry Pratchett Considers Assisted Suicide
cHALiTO writes "Beloved science fiction and fantasy writer Terry Pratchett has terminal early-onset Alzheimer's. He's determined to have the option of choosing the time and place of his death, rather than enduring the potentially horrific drawn-out death that Alzheimer's sometimes brings. But Britain bans assisted suicide, and Pratchett is campaigning to have the law changed. As part of this, he has visited Switzerland's Dignitas clinic, an assisted suicide facility, with a BBC camera crew, as part of a documentary that will include Britain's first televised suicide. Pratchett took home Dignitas's assisted suicide consent forms."
Well shit that sucks.
Half of me wants to cheer him on in the name of "the good fight." The other half wants to cry. I read a hell of a lot, but Discworld has given more joy than probably any other series.
It is every person's right to decide how they die. Not the governments.
If I were in his situation, I'd do about the same thing. I'd fill out the forms to be carried out in a few months. That way if he stopped progressing he could just do whatever, but if he kept progressing he may not be lucid so they could do their thing.
We'll miss you, Terry, but you have the power over your own life and I respect that.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
The powers that be do not like individuals making such important choices for themselves. They know what is better.
It's one thing to have a live news camera on scene when a crazy person jumps from a ledge or immolates themselves, but it's quite another when a show is being created with the purpose of people profiting (non-profit? Ha!) off a man's death. Western civilization is going down fast; I remember a time when this very scenario was the nightmare end of a slippery slope argument...
Conan the Barbarian and most of the characters of discworld would disapprove. If you're going to die, do it AWESOMELY.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I was deeply saddened by the news last year when i heard of his illness. Terry Pratchett is still one of my favorite authors and i wish him a lot of time left.
But i have to confess that i understand his reactions 100%. Rotting away with Alzheimer is my personal worst nightmare. Though i am not allowed to vote in the UK, i will give his initiative my full support whereever i can.
I believe that, if you have don't have the right to end your own life, you are not free at all. My life belongs to me, but to no goverment, to no society and to no god.
Yours, Martin
http://catholicexchange.com/2011/06/14/154594/
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
I've often wondered if it would be possible to set up a legal suicide service. Put checks and balances in, as well as a cooling off period, and let people who choose to die, die with grace, We are going to have large amounts of death due to climate change, and some people who survive will suffer. Countries have had policies on who would live/die in disasters for years. We need to stop thinking of a life as sacred and see it as it is.
Maybe he was saying homeopathy is legal assisted suicide?
Your post makes just as much sense as your sig... which means, none. How many people need to die in a horrible, unfree manner, because of paranoiacs like you, before we finally can move on to something resembling civilization?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Speaking as a libertarian:
Unless the government is claiming ownership of your body (which apparently the UK government is), you should be able to terminate yourself any time you want - especially if you're faced with a terminal illness. By not allowing him to commit suicide the government is basically making Mr. Pratchett the property of the queen. What year is this? 1772?
"The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law." - Judge Mansfield, Queen's Bench.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
It may be "Britain's first televised suicide", but PBS made a documentary on this topic before:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/suicidetourist/
Note that it was widely slammed as being some manner of disguised snuff movie. Watch it and make up your own mind.
Personally I think such statements are more indicative of the taboo that still rests on euthanasia (and death in general) than that they have any basis in the film's content or presentation.
In (not only) my opinion he should rather try some weed.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
I visualize dementia as slipping deeper and deeper into a dream-fog. At some point I would stop caring about things. At some point I'd be incapable of executing something as complicated as a suicide. There is an intermediate state where the patient can get very frustrated and angry at not being able to do things. And possibly paranoid at the strange new things happening around them.
It is horrific to you loved ones and care givers. They'd experience you disappearing and require lots of care. If you were not rich, then any inheritance would go away too.
Late stage dementia you forget the basic functions of life like eating, coughing, defecating, breathing, etc. These cause medical complications which eventually kill you.
Incorrect. Or at least missing the point.
For all of its failings, in the United States a hospital is required to do anything within their power short of "experimental procedures" to stabilize a person, regardless of their ability to pay, legal status, race, gender, or status as a wanted criminal. This doesn't help with things like cancer or such, as treatments for the cause are all experimental, and the treatments for the symptoms are superficial.
But if you are say, in a car crash and suffer nerve damage, the ER will attempt to save your nerves before they check your insurance. Basically, in the United States, you cannot be denied treatment for conditions for which we understand the root cause because of your ability to pay. And this fact has actually caused ERs in some parts of the country to shut down occasionally, as illegal aliens sometimes bring come in to the ER for things like an ear infection because they cannot be denied treatment, and without any sort of paper trail they also cannot be billed.
FanFictionRecs.net
Recently there have been lots of positive and promising developments in this area. May be he could help fund the lab battling the disease. Some examples:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110602122250.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601075126.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110531135714.htm
As was made all too clear in the Jack Kevorkian trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian) assisted suicide is not legal in the states either. (Though it is allowed in specific circumstances: Terri Schiavo, Death and Dignity Act, etc.)
It would be hard for him to do once he has advanced Alzheimer, and it would be hard to find a doctor willing to do it while it's still illegal. Moreover this way he gets to stand up for a cause and make his death meaningful which might be important to him right now.
Since so many of the people who disagree with assisted suicide also (inexplicably) support the death penalty, all we have to do is make suicide a crime, and make it punishable by death.
Ironically, just this week I finished the audiobook of Joseph Ellis's Founding Brothers, about the American revolutionary generation, which included a passage from one of Jefferson's letters to John Adams written toward the close of both their lives. I thought about Pterry's Death when I heard it:
(I wonder if Death came for Jefferson holding a kitten in his hand?)
Suicide is not immoral and those governments who are the harshest against human rights always outlaw abortion and suicide right off the bat. Abolishing suicide is just another attempt at government control of citizens.
Once deportations and the systematic mass murder of Jews began in WW2, SS guards severely punished individuals attempting to commit suicide as it was an expression of self- determination that ran counter to the Nazi total claim over the lives and bodies of the inmates.
You use the word suicide, yet I don't think it means what you think it means.
And what is this "As has always happened in the past". If you are referring to anything that the Nazi's did, then that was not Legal or even assisted suicide. It was simple and plain murder.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
You mean like throwing him off a boat?
Yeah, that would probably be effective.
I stole this Sig
My knee jerk was that he is a coward. Having a family member suffer through dementia, I then thought perhaps it's a selfless act, to spare the agony of one's friends and family. I can empathize, even if I don't necessarily agree with the premise.
But then I realized that it's a public announcement of the preplanned televised event of one's own death. That's a motivation of twisted proportion that I hope to never understand.
Suicide is mans attempt to keep control of what he never had any control of. Himself.
I guess I'll assume you're speaking for yourself... Because I have pretty much full control of myself.
Legal suicide is an invitation for the 'state' to decide who is worthy to live and die because it immediately puts law makers in the position of deciding who's life is worthy of being required to live.
Right... Because legalizing marriage put law makers in the position of deciding who I have to marry, right?
Which explains why there's so much opposition to legalizing gay marriage - if that happens we'll all be required to marry same-sex partners.
it will be used as an excuse to not take care of those people who choose not to use the 'option' when they are no longer 'worthy' of support.
We already do that here in the US.
If the insurance company decides your treatment costs too much, you're on your own. And if you aren't wealthy enough to pay for it out-of-pocket, you're as good as dead.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
How long must we endure every liberal arts student's interpretation of "civilization" as being the one and only correct one?
I'm tired of the pro-choice, pro-life, vegetarians, vegans, assisted-suiciders, anti-death penalty groups and every other group insisting that we must adopt their own little viewpoint to be "civilized".
This doesn't help with things like cancer or such, as treatments for the cause are all experimental, and the treatments for the symptoms are superficial.
So... they have to pay to keep you alive, except in the cases of things that will actually kill you slowly enough for them to have time to refuse you?
From a pragmatic perspective I don't see much of a meaningful difference in your version vs. his.
IFF the legalization of suicide goes down the (arguably wrongheaded) path of trying to carve out a series of intricate categories about who is and who isn't eligible...
A simple "competent adults, should they so chose" cuts through that reasonably quickly. As for neglect, ugly little not-so-secret is that people already get neglected, up to and including the point of death, if they don't attract support. On the outpatient side, you can usually find some examples sleeping on the steam vents if you live in a reasonably urban area. Inpatient, let's just say that nursing homes and juvenile detention facilities don't write so many scripts for sedatives and antipsychotics with sedative effects because it makes life harder for the staff...
Wait what?
People choose to die all the time. Suicide by cop, suicide by stepping in front of a train, jumping off something high, pills, etc etc. The question is whether we give people the choice of death with dignity. The notion that allowing death with dignity is somehow giving governments permission to choose is... nonsensical. The government has already chosen -- to try to prevent suicide --- with no respect given to the individual. A sad and totally invalid government position.
Morality is relative. What is moral to you can be immoral to others. Morality depends on culture and society. There is no single and universal morality.
Just as important as the right to die in a dignified manner at a time of your choosing is the right to cryonically preserve your head (or your whole body) so that you can be either revived or downloaded when the technology for such things arrives. There's still so much for Sir Pterry to see and do, and it would be a shame for him to end it all without a backup plan.
Democracy means not having a choice in what you do with your own body.
The alternative to legal assisted suicide, and a 'mild death' of course, is a 'wild death': people jumping from buildings and in front of trains in order to end their lives. As long as it is at the specific request of the person itself, as long as it is voluntary, I am pro.
The moral problem is not that Terry Pratchett wants to kill himself. That is between him and God. Assuming that he has finalized his estate, he's welcome to off himself and suffer any consequences that might avail him in the life hereafter.
However, Terry Pratchett is a coward. He doesn't want to commit suicide. He wants someone else to kill him when it gets so bad he can't do it himself. That is the slippery slope that we want to avoid; having other people decide when you are no longer fit to live.
Be a man about it Terry. Take a knife and stab yourself. Get drunk and go swimming in a deep, cold lake. Overdose on pills. Get a shotgun; go in style (to quote Hania Lee). Just don't ask someone else to commit excused murder because you don't have the guts to bother to do the deed yourself.
In a world where 'suicide' is legal, the government decides who has a 'right' to die, and adopts laws to hurry you along and out of the way.
I find your argument to be non sequitur. The idea isn't that the government gets to decide who dies, the idea of assisted/legal suicide is that YOU and you alone get to make that decision, no one else. That's kinda the difference between suicide, and murder. I don't see the slippery slope that's implied here. The individual should get to make the choice. As it is however, the government decides who *isn't allowed* to die, in a manner of speaking.. at least, with dignity.
Certain inalienable rights are granted to citizens and people, and control of your own fate should be one more of them, where "of your own fate" is key.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
The point I was making was in reference to the idea that suicide laws would allow some of the currently available "no deny" conditions to be denied based on the premise that the person would no longer be of worth to society, such as someone who is completely paralyzed. (Not that I think that makes someone worthless but rather that a government entity could argue the utility of that person.)
All of that was in reference to the OP in this thread. Taken as a whole, we surely kill people now based on their ability to pay, but that represents a core truth: we do not have the technology and/or resources to treat everyone who contracts certain conditions, and we must find some way to either improve our ability to treat these things (which we do now with medical research) or to intelligently decide where to allocate those resources.
Insurance/money is a poor way of doing that, but within our society makes some sense. Using $2 million worth of human effort and resources to extend someone's life by six months may not be in the best interests of the rest of society, as dystopian as that seems.
FanFictionRecs.net
Mod parent -1, Irrational.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Suicide is mans attempt to keep control of what he never had any control of. Himself.
I'm not sure I see any factual statement in that. Wanting to die with dignity and sparing the lives of others around him is not related to lacking control throughout life.
Legal suicide is an invitation for the 'state' to decide who is worthy to live and die because it immediately puts law makers in the position of deciding who's life is worthy of being required to live.
Many states already do that with the death penalty, but yet we are still not allowed to chose to legally commit suicide. In fact, it's illegal in many states to even attempt to commit suicide and you can be charged criminally if you attempt (and fail) to do so. Allowing someone to voluntarily commit assisted suicide does not put the government in control of that person's life, it puts the individual in charge.
As has always happened in the past legal suicide will not be fully voluntary for long , because it will be used as an excuse to not take care of those people who choose not to use the 'option' when they are no longer 'worthy' of support.
Again, we're talking about voluntary assisted suicide, which means that the individual chooses, not the government or care-taker. While it's entirely possible that the Power of Attorney could invoke assisted suicide on another individual, there could be laws placed against that if assisted suicide were to be made legal.
Point being, if someone wants to die, it should be their choice. My father's life-long best friend committed suicide in his back yard the day after getting a terminal cancer diagnosis; while in his case it was a little selfish, he spared his family many years of grueling stress and granted them a positive feeling that he is in a better place now.
He needs to do it spectacularly.
While not a church-goer in the traditional sense, I do believe in God and I believe that killing yourself is the ultimate F-You to God so, if he does kill himself, it may as well be spectacular...
Like take part in one of the Mythbuster episodes in place of Buster.
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
Watch it, and make up your own mind.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1715802/
In a world where 'suicide' is legal, the government decides who has a 'right' to die, and adopts laws to hurry you along and out of the way. Those in 'charge' of the weak , the disabled, and children, decide if those vulnerable groups are wroth allowing to live.
How do you figure? People are asking for the right to have someone else help them die, without having to worry about what happens to that someone else when they're gone. That's got just about nothing to do with what you wrote.
The short of it is suicide is and should be illegal because it is immoral
Says you. Your morals are not everyone's morals. There are many cultures where suicide is/was accepted as an honorable and dignified way to go.
If the difference between a mans nose a pigs snout primarily accidental, why not butcher men like pigs?
Economics. The amount of time and effort to raise humans until they are old enough to yield a decent amount of meat dwarfs that which it takes to raise a pig.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Explain 'immoral'. If any part of your argument rests on the point 'the Bible said so', explain why the Bible is a more valid source than any other religious text with diametrically opposed views on the matter, and indeed why your religion's morals should be imposed on the nation.
Jesus also specifically said not to pray in public (maybe you should have actually READ that book you keep yammering about). Good luck trying to explain to him someday why you repeated defied one of the most prominent commands in the most important sermon of his career.
If you think Jesus was forbidding public prayer, perhaps you should read John chapter 6 where Jesus prays in public.
We cannot predict the future. Somebody may come up with an important breakthrough in treatment. As long as you have life, you have hope.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
People need to stop acting like Europe is a single country, first.
You're referring, principally, to France when it comes to 'illegality' of the hijab. This applies to public schools there, and also applies to e.g. wearing a cross. A hijab is still allowed in public, however, as it doesn't cover the face. You might be thinking of a burqa, or other clothing that conceals the face, being banned in public. Note that this also bans the wearing of skimasks, helmets (when not operating a vehicle requiring it), etc.
For euthanasia, you might be referring to Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg and (to lesser extent) Ireland. In all of these there's strict rules to follow. I.e. it's not like a patient can walk up to a doctor and say "kill me" and have the doctor pull out a gun on them and shoot them in the head.
Recent law proposals in other countries to make euthanasia legal have been shot down - see e.g. Spain and Italy.
In other news.. France's parliament today decided that same sex marriage would not be allowed.
The same applies to the United States where each State has its own laws as well.
So yes, they're different.. but by grouping their constituent (nation) states together, the differences may be highlighted with a bias toward the group(s), as your post's subject shows.
Suicide is mans attempt to keep control of what he never had any control of. Himself. Legal suicide is an invitation for the 'state' to decide who is worthy to live and die because it immediately puts law makers in the position of deciding who's life is worthy of being required to live. As has always happened in the past legal suicide will not be fully voluntary for long , because it will be used as an excuse to not take care of those people who choose not to use the 'option' when they are no longer 'worthy' of support.
Just because *you* have the darkness inside of you to force suicide and you see it in others, doesn't mean that the people who are in control will be doing so. "As has always happened in the past?" Please be mindful of your absurd absolute statements. I think that fear of abuse is real, but saying that it is inevitable is missing the point of free will and the good that is in many of us.
postmodernsideshow.com
"Beloved science fiction and fantasy writer Terry Pratchett has terminal early-onset Alzheimer's. He's determined to have the option of choosing the time and place of his death, rather than enduring the potentially horrific drawn-out death that Alzheimer's sometimes brings. But Britain bans assisted suicide, and Pratchett is campaigning to have the law changed.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUGGESTIONS. PLEASE UNDERSTAND HAVE A VERY BUSY SCHEDULE. I'LL GET BACK TO YOU WHEN I FIND THE TIME. BUT REST ASSURED I _WILL_ GET TO YOU.
Great example of the slippery slope logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). Going from me having that option to you, my family, or the government having the option to end my life requires much more than just an assumption that could occur.
Which is to say we already have socialized medicine in the US, it's just very badly managed. Putting in a proper system of socialized medicine would be much better and cheaper. The only other choice is letting people die in the streets.
transfer all you possession to who you want hem to go to right now. You rights everything. Make them the legal owner.
2 months later jump off a bridge. If the UK want's to arrest a dead man, the dead man certainly won't care.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
arguing about what 'should' or 'should not be' legal is vacuous, because thing only are or are not and there is no such thing as 'should be'.
What an ignorant comment. Before laws are written or repealed, people determine that they "should" or "should not" be laws, followed by legislation. The only laws which existed before someone thought they should are the laws of physics. Furthermore, the very definition of suicide implies that it is the person's choice, thus government mandated euthanasia would not be suicide.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
wait, what was i saying?
switzerland - islamic minarets are illegal, killing yourself is legal. hooray for the 'enlightened' nazi bankers who tried to put a whistleblower in jail (Christoph Mieli)
I wasn't referring to the Nazi's try ancient Rome, various 'native cultures' , and the modern Netherlands, where it is illegal to kill your own child if you 'feel' their life won't be worth living?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/11/author-pratchett-plans-his-own-suicide/
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
What are they going to do if he kills himself? Give him the death penalty?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
In a world where 'suicide' is legal, the government decides who has a 'right' to die, and adopts laws to hurry you along and out of the way.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure that legal suicide isn't a prerequisite for that type of government behavior.
He'll forget about it in a couple of minutes.
If you're talking about the Nazi euthanasia program, Action T4, it's worth noting that "euthanasia was still a criminal act in Germany during that time, and there is no record of doctors engaging in voluntary euthanasia or in physician-assisted suicide".
>>Right... Because legalizing marriage put law makers in the position of deciding who I have to marry, right?
>>Which explains why there's so much opposition to legalizing gay marriage - if that happens we'll all be required to marry same-sex partners.
Are you suggesting there would be an argument about "if'" same-sex marriage should be legal if the state was NOT the one deciding who was getting married ?
It is ONLY because the state IS deciding that there is an argument at all. If marriage was a purely private matter , as opposed to a legal issue , there would be no need for an argument. So YES the state decides who can be married and that is WHY there is an argument now. The state doesn't just prevent same-sex couples from getting married. It also prevents parents from marring children ( consenting adults or not) , it prevents first cousins from getting married and it would let you marry your Dog either. All of these things happen in other cultures.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
are you suggesting the neglect you are complaining bout is 'wrong' ... arguing for assisted suicide runs counter to your argument. rejecting assisted suicide gives better hope of countering the culture that allows for the abuse you are complaining bout.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
1. We should not permit ANY exceptions to a basic human right (the right to life). Exceptions are dangerous and can be exploited to legalize things like euthanizing "lives not worth living" (yes, that was a Godwin).
2. Suicide is a decision that is irreversible and often chosen in an unsound state of mind. Human beings are not as rational as we think we are, our emotions have a huge influence on the decisions we make. Rationalization comes into play after the fact. We must not allow people to commit suicide as a result of a short-term decision that they would not stand by later.
3. Terminal illnesses are a tough thing to define. A 100% probability of death due to a disease is rare, most have a high but not 100% chance to kill you, as long as there is a chance of recovery we cannot use the illness as a justification to permit suicide.
How can we define an absolute, incorruptible set of criteria for when it's acceptable to end a human life? And is it really worth doing?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
The problem is he wants the right to allow someone else to kill him on his behalf. That is not suicide. For it to be suicide you must commit the act your self.
So, by that logic, if I hire someone to kill my boss, I am not guilty of murder. That answer is far too simple. A suicide assistant could be someone who supplies the poison, who mixes it into your last glass of wine. It could be someone that gives you a trigger switch that will activate the suicide machine. It doesn't have to be someone who will hold a pillow over your face or inject you with large doses of barbiturates themselves because you asked them to.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The idea that just because people do it all the time it should be legal is ridiculous. people steal and murder all the time too.
To try and prevent suicide is the best way for the government to respect the individual and to ensure individual liberty. As you have pointed out , just because it is illegal , doesn't mean it doesn't happen. What it means is government is not in the position of deciding , who is worthy of living. It is much better for the government to have a built in preference for life, because otherwise it will have built in preference for death.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
"
and adopts laws to hurry you along and out of the way. Those in 'charge' of the weak , the disabled, and children, decide if those vulnerable groups are wroth allowing to live."
Thats jsut a treasure trove of logical fallacies right there.
It's not immoral to some people.
The loose knot society we have is a compromise to keep society as a whole together, because the best way humans know how to survive is to build societies.
"because thing only are or are not and there is no such thing as 'should be'."
I see you belief has left you bereft of logical thought.
Everything that is was once a should be.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"All men are equal but some men are more equeal than others"
there. is that an answer worthy of your "wit", pal? Cause you seem to be too smart for things to be said straight to you. Maybe a book quote will help you understand OP.
The shit one has to put up with.
Conan the Barbarian and most of the characters of discworld would disapprove. If you're going to die, do it AWESOMELY.
Cohen the Barbarian would probably be much more upset about you messing up his name, and for my money, dying on your own terms and in a method of your own choosing IS dying awesomely. I applaud you, Sir Terry
While we're at it, his full name is/was Genghiz Cohen the Barbarian (to wrap up as many simultaneous puns as possible), and he didn't exactly whimper off into that good night either. (Read The Last Hero if you don't know what I'm talking about.)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Your statements are based on the belief that death is not desirable in all situations and exerting control over ones life is not reason enough to kill ones self. Again these are statements of belief. Please respect the beliefs of others who disagree with yours. As for your concerns of a slippery slope: every culture has laws against murder if people cannot be prosecuted under the existing laws for actions you deem improper then try and change the law but do not try and prohibit others from making an informed choice concerning their own life because you either disagree with them or believe it is wrong.
Incorrect. Or at least missing the point.
For all of its failings, in the United States a hospital is required to do anything within their power short of "experimental procedures" to stabilize a person, regardless of their ability to pay, legal status, race, gender, or status as a wanted criminal. This doesn't help with things like cancer or such, as treatments for the cause are all experimental, and the treatments for the symptoms are superficial.
But if you are say, in a car crash and suffer nerve damage, the ER will attempt to save your nerves before they check your insurance. Basically, in the United States, you cannot be denied treatment for conditions for which we understand the root cause because of your ability to pay. And this fact has actually caused ERs in some parts of the country to shut down occasionally, as illegal aliens sometimes bring come in to the ER for things like an ear infection because they cannot be denied treatment, and without any sort of paper trail they also cannot be billed.
That's true for ER treatment, but it's not true for anything other than things which require immediate attention. If you want to get treated for Alzheimers with drugs that will slow down the progress of the disease and you don't have insurance, you're screwed. If you have cancer and you're having symptoms for which you need to be stabilized, they'll help you in the ER. You won't get chemotherapy to actually give you a chance to be CURED, unless you can pay for it though.
Which religion do you know of that would ensure a person committing suicide is in a better place?
In general judeo-Christan philosophy assumes someone committing suicide has greatly endangered their chances of salvation and is likely not in a better place.
Hindu and Buddhist don't believe a suicide is better off.
Atheist believe the person is just plan gone ( i guess you might say that is better , but they are not in 'a place' of any kind).
in general the term 'in a better place' is a Christan euphemism for heaven. Most Christians believe suicides is a overt rejection of God's plan for your life that if you are fully responsible for ( aka not suffering from insanity or significant duress from say fear of pain) and unrepentant of ( possibly while laying in a pool of blood at the last moments of death) you have chosen to separate yourself from God by committing suicide and will wind up in hell.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
No ER has ever shut down because of illegal aliens with ear infections. Ever. The cost of treating such cases is the cost of band-aids and aspirins, and spare time of doctors (which there is a lot of in an ER, when there aren't critical patients around, and when there are, the earaches do not get priority). Those costs get shifted to the other emergency cases, and take a small percentage of the massive profit margins that the hospitals, doctors, medical supply, and drug companies charge on them already.
Anyone who told you ERs are shutting down because illegals use them as clinics is full of bigoted political misinformation. It's bullshit promulgated by people who've forgotten the point of America is accepting those whose nations have failed them, not becoming just another one of those nations.
Not just can occur, usually does occur, read some history or look at the Netherlands.
Already in this country a 'living will' is written for people who are 'wards of the state' in nursing homes , in the state of Minnesota , that ensures that if they suffer from depression and refuse to eat , they are very likely to die, because they will not be given food involuntarily and will never be given anti-biotics ( they are both 'life support'). I'm not just talking about what 'might' happen, I'm talking about what has and is happening as well.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
> How can we define an absolute, incorruptible set of criteria for when it's acceptable to end a human life? And is it
> really worth doing?
Each person gets to chose for himself. You're making the same choice by trying to legally prevent it. If someone is suffering and wants to kill themselves, it doesn't have anything to do with anybody else.
In a world where 'suicide' is legal, the government decides who has a 'right' to die,
See, that's the basic flaw in the arguments you keep making. In the world where suicide is legal, the government has decided that it will not interfere with *any* individual's right to die as they see fit. Somehow, though, you keep making that into variations of the government picking and choosing who must die, without every explaining how you got from point A to point B.
The short of it is suicide is and should be illegal because it is immoral , if you don't believe in morality then there is no foundation for any law
There are two arguments here, and both are incorrect. First:
The short of it is suicide is and should be illegal because it is immoral
Immoral according to whom? Second:
if you don't believe in morality then there is no foundation for any law
That's just silly. Law is how an orderly society is best maintained - all agree to the same social contract that is law, and abide by those rules. Attempting to codify your morality into law is certainly not uncommon, but don't confuse it with law - and don't try to connect the two without any proof beyond your say-so.
"Suicide is a decision that is irreversible and often chosen in an unsound state of mind."
How do you know? Anybody interviewed people with successful suicides?
Are you afraid for their soul? That they'll miss a few sunsets and rainbows?
It's their decision and they also have the right to be wrong.
re: marriage - The government certainly structures taxes in a manner which encourages certain kinds of family structures and discourages others. Even if nothing is done intentionally, there might be some unintended consequences with regard to tax treatment of dependents, etc. even before you get into whether legal guardians would have the authority to make such decisions on behalf of their wards.
Prior to the deportation of the Jews the Nazi's wiped out all of the disabled people in their country with the preported 'right to die with dignity'
The 'right to die' has been a common euphemism for 'right to state assisted murder' of the eugenics supports of Nazi , communists, fascist, and for years.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
I love Terry Pratchett and his writing. I love how his writing -- which started out pretty good -- has got even better and deeper over the years.
From his books, and interviews, and essays, it's pretty obvious that he's a pretty smart person, and probably values his intellect and personality.
Like him, I'd be pretty damn terrified of losing that. There are a lot of things I could live with, but losing my mind, actually losing my mind, that is terrifying. I too would NOT want to go through years of.. really, not being myself, not really being a /person/ anymore.
It's a hellish concept, and it's not like you get better eventually. I seriously hope that if it ever comes to that I'd be able to end my life in a calm, comfortable and, above all, dignified manner of my OWN choosing, rather than be subjected to a literal fate worse than death.
Hell, if my DOG ever gets to a place where she can't really be herself and wouldn't be able to actually be happy, I'd be able to do that for her.
I certainly hope that Terry Pratchett, who's brought so much joy and happiness to so many people, will be able to leave this world in a comfortable, painless and dignified manner of his own choosing. He deserves it. Everyone does.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
Foster has a hypothesis that's it's a certain gene, and in the presence of aluminum, Alzheimer's happens. He explains his theory in great detail with all the genetics and biochemistry here: http://hdfoster.com/sites/hdfoster.com/files/users/user6/Foster_Alzheimers.pdf
The treatment seems to be "take moderate doses of zinc". Zinc and aluminum are antagonists, whichever one you have more of chases other one out. Zinc is an essential element that is a component of many (most?) of the enzymes in our body that facilitate the tend if not hundreds of thousands of different biochemical reactions that take place every second. The body does not need and cannot use aluminum. Guess which one shows up in our diets in great abundance and which one is nearly always at below normal levels?
This is supposed to abate, but not reverse the ailment. Fosters record is above average, he was one of the leading explorers in the biochemical origin of disease.
The other thing is this report from a doctor whose husband had Alzheimer's, she heard about a coconut oil therapy, put him on it and he got better by the standard tests. http://coconutoil.com/AlzheimersDiseaseDrMaryNewport.pdf another report that speculates that the current (and possibly misguided, see Lustig's video on sugar ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM ) that was recently highlighted here) trend to low fat is causing all sorts of problems due to the shift in fatty acid profiles this entails: http://www.coconutdiet.com/alzheimers.htm
Both coconut oil and zinc are cheap, natural, essential with no side effects. Seems to me one has little to lose by trying it, and everything to gain. By Pascal's wager, it's worth a shot, no?
Can somebody pass this on to him?
(Pratchett, not Pascal. He's dead, Jim.)
Need Mercedes parts ?
Your statement only makes sense if YOU are at least in practice an atheist. I am not and respectfully disagree. The statement 'There is no single and universal morality' is a soft phrase for 'there is no such thing as morality'. Because a morality that is not universal is not a morality at all. One thing is clear of all non-atheist, we may disagree about what specifically is moral, but we all agree there is such a thing as morality.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Well, Norbert Elías defined civilization as the continuous addition and modification of self-restraints, about a century ago, and is pretty much uncontested.
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html
Not exactly the situation you described, but close. An Oregon woman with advanced breast cancer received a letter informing her that she was denied coverage for the chemotherapy, but that the assisted suicide would be covered. The insurance company denying coverage? Oregon's state-run, "Universal" health care. True, the presumably non-repressive Oregon government wasn't *requiring* her to commit suicide. But when you are denied the chance to fight for survival, I'd say the "option" of legal suicide has become a defacto requirement.
Redundancy is good And also good.
I wonder if Terry Pratchett has considered cryonic suspension. It might go well with what he is considering. Except that for an optimal cryonic suspension one probably needs to be in Arizona, where euthanasia is not currently legal.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
My mother in law is currently dying of cancer, in Oregon, with probably a few weeks to live. She's pretty depressed about it, though isn't considering suicide. My personal goal is to have her take the right medication so that she's as pain-free and comfortable as possible. Hospice is also covering 100% of all medical fees.
I guess what I'm saying is that legislating who can or can't commit suicide based on depression isn't necessarily the solution. Taking care of people so that they can be as high-functioning, pain-free, and financially secure is perhaps a more practical solution.
I don't get it; his argument makes perfect sense. If we give ourselves any rights, the evil government will just hijack them, so we mustn't have any rights whatsoever. What could possibly be irrational about that?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
In more ways than the obvious ones. My mother has it, so I've had no choice but to learn about it. She can't really do chores any more though she still tries. She confuses clean and dirty dishes. She puts them in the wrong cupboards. She can't operate the washing machines any more, but she can and does still open the doors, stopping them. So we've had to either stand guard, or wash by hand, or use them at night when she is asleep. She's always thinking that people are coming over, or that we have to hurry up and go somewhere to meet people. She's beginning to have trouble remembering people. She really took to email, and was our family's big communicator. But about 2 years ago she stopped using it. Now she can't write anything but the most banal fluff. They say an early warning sign is difficulty with finances, and it was about 3 years ago we had to take over all the bill payments. The trigger was being 3 days late with a credit card payment. First time that ever happened, and the credit card company (Chase) wouldn't give an inch. I suppose the crisis made them hard ass. I paid the late fees and interest, and the entire bill, then I cancelled that credit card. A year later I finished cutting all ties with Chase, and closed my savings account with them.
How and when do you take the car keys away? We saw suspicious paint marks on the bumpers and doors, and knew we couldn't let her drive much longer. Dreaded having an ugly scene where we forcibly took her driver's license away. Making it harder was that her daily trips to the mall got her out of our hair so we could work. But we found a neat way around it. She was always misplacing her purse, with keys, credit cards, and all. In March last year, she got paranoid that thieves might break in, and hid her purse. Took us a week to find it that time. We used that to end her driving. Told her she couldn't drive until she found her license and car keys, and she didn't blow up and come down hard on us as it was obvious to her that it was her fault she'd lost her purse. We did not tell her when we finally found it.
Doctors, curse their greedy hides, are unable to do anything constructive about it. All they do is profit off our problems by selling us expensive prescriptions that may do nothing whatever. Aricept is a waste.
All that is pretty typical. It will get worse. I read that in the advanced stages, victims no longer have enough of a brain to coordinate walking, even if their bodies can still do it. So they have to use wheelchairs. We may ultimately have to put her in a nursing home. But I haven't yet told of a less obvious horror.
What I didn't know is how happy Alzheimer's victims are. She was always a moody person, prone to rampages over essentially trivial faults. She's a "sundowner", meaning that late afternoon is her triple witching hour so to speak. Her blood sugar bottoms out, and she becomes a hell of a grouch, more ready than usual to explode at any provocation whatever, and so ready to see provocation where there wasn't any. Got to feed her to calm her down and get her back to being just merely touchy and thin skinned. And then around 10 years ago, that changed. She became a much more pleasant, happy person. I took it as the wisdom of age. Thought she'd resolved to turn over a new leaf, and was succeeding. Everyone who met her told me how cool she was. And it gave me hope that people really can change, that genetics and formative events in our childhoods don't have to be our destinies. Now I understand that was the beginning of Alzheimer's. How can I express it? Horrifying to see that these improvements were thanks to irreversable brain damage, and that achieving happiness in life is perhaps not a worthy goal and not a real improvement.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
As a side note, your hatred for people who aren't like-minded caused you to entirely dismiss relevant and accurate description of an issue and position that actually agrees with yours, (that illegals should not be treated as inhuman). I would carefully consider why that is if I were you, because that is how I have always improved myself as a person, and I feel that others can also accomplish that by doing the same thing.
FanFictionRecs.net
Wyatt, I usually agree with your posts, but your first sentence here -- "governments who are the harshest against human rights always outlaw abortion and suicide right off the bat" -- is essentially just selection bias.
Counter-examples are just as abundant as examples. China, for example, has no problem with abortion. In fact, just the opposite: in some circumstances it has been mandatory. In 1920, the USSR became the first country to provide for free, on demand abortions with their "Decree on Women’s Healthcare."
v/r,
- aj
Actually, illegal immigrants are indeed the reason 75% of ERs in San Diego have gone bankrupt. Talk about how wonderful EMTALA is all you want, but it kill people every day in my home town because they can't get to an ER on time.
EMTALA is indeed socialized medicine, but it is completely unfair, putting the burden on hospitals, who then go rent-seeking and end up screwing citizens that can pay and don't have insurance.
You are taking my sentence out of context. There is no 'should' if there is no morality. Ethics is the science of defining 'should' and 'should' not , aka 'right' and 'wrong'. And as you pointed out all laws first begin with a discussion of ethics.
There is no such thing as atheistic ethics no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' without God, because that implies laws that extend beyond what physically exists.
so there can be no valid argument from a non-religious standpoint for or against a law.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
i agree, but assisted suicide sure makes it a lot easier for those in power to eliminate those they don't value.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
I saw exactly that list while double-checking on Google if I was right before posting. Show me where it says that illegals with earaches shut those ERs. Next time don't pretend to bring proof, bring proof.
The fact is, it's never happened. The cost margins of low-criticality clinical care is bupkis compared with the the profit margins on real-emergency care that ERs give, which are reasonable compared with the profit margins on inpatient care ($6k per day to stay in a hospital room, and that doesn't technically count the rent and maintenance of the room itself; that's another $600/day; even if there's nothing really wrong with you). It's the base costs of keeping ERs open when they don't have many real-emergency patients that closes them down.
I've been to the hospital a few times in the past decade. ER twice. The $20 band-aid is still there, and pays for three kids with sore throats who have no insurance.
If you want to know why medicine costs so much, ask doctors how much they're making; check with insurance company profits and hospital-corporation profits and drug-company profits. How many of those were threatened with bankruptcy during the massive financial collapses of the past 12 years? Every other sector of the economy has been hammered, while they keep growing and making assloads of money.
It's not about snot-nosed kids whose parents have accents.
If your argument is that we should listen to God, you'll have to make a pretty convincing point about why we should listen to your chosen God over anyone elses'.
a common way for gangsters, thugs, criminals, and various corrupt officials to 'do away' with those who get in their way.
if suicide is not, at some level, regulated, then every murder will overnight become a 'suicide'.
Because we have no way to tell a murder and a suicide apart today...
Put a "Suicide Booth" on every street corner and make it cost $1. Melancholic robots need not apply. Of course, the antidepressant manufacturers will probably take a hit.
re: marriage - The government certainly structures taxes in a manner which encourages certain kinds of family structures and discourages others. Even if nothing is done intentionally, there might be some unintended consequences with regard to tax treatment of dependents, etc. even before you get into whether legal guardians would have the authority to make such decisions on behalf of their wards.
Marriage laws are most certainly written to encourage certain types of marriage. But the OP was suggesting that just because assisted suicide was legalized, it would be mandated in some cases. Which falls outside the scope of current marriage laws.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
The states certainly do pass laws regarding who you can and can't marry. That much is true.
However, your original post implied that if assisted suicide was legalized, it would then be mandated in some cases.
Which is why I made my sarcastic comments that the current legality of marriage allows the state to dictate my specific partner, and the idea that legalizing gay marriage would therefor cause the state to force me into a gay marriage.
We have all sorts of rules and regulations regarding what kind of motor vehicles are allowed on the road, too. But I'm not actually required to drive one.
Similarly - if assisted suicide were legalized it would, presumably, be regulated in some way. But that does not necessarily mean that it would be mandated.
Legalized != Mandated.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Why are you working so hard to paint me as a bigot while I try to have rational conversation? I will look for proof and get it notarized if possible. But again, this discussion has little to do with the point that was being made.
FanFictionRecs.net
Not a good example - that episode deals with government-mandated suicide, not personal choice.
it should be entirely unlawful for an insurer, provider, or any other person or entity with a duty of care to the patient to bring up or suggest assisted suicide.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
So you think it should be legal to kill your own child if you feel their life won't be worth living?
Putting in a proper system of socialized medicine would be much better and cheaper. The only other choice is letting people die in the streets.
The scary thing is, the Republicans know that and they are OK with it. Better dead then Red.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7651.pdf
As I noted several times, I never said they were the sole reason, but one of the factors. And I also never said that denying them care was the right reaction. The contrary I diagnosed the issue as being their lack of access to other forms of health care.
FanFictionRecs.net
Dignitas and so forth are fairly thorough in making sure it's not a spur of the moment decision, but a carefully thought out and planned one knowing all that's involved. That handles most of your point 2 already.
It is often the case that those who suffer from Alzheimer's Disease live a happy life. My wife has recently been accepted in a home and for most of the time she seems quite happy with the life that she is living there. As a patient of Alzheimer's Disease you realize less and less what is going on when the disease progresses. But depressions and periodes of anxiety do occur. But it is often the people around the patient that suffer far more than the patient her/himself. I can testify this from first hand experience with respect to me, my children and our friends. In case I would be diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease that would be a reason for me to want to terminate my life and sparing the people around me the prolonged sufferings of having me see go backwards.
I think it should be possible to state that you want your life to be terminated when the disease has been progressed to a certain spcified level. There are some 'objective' milestones in the progress of the disease. Already dementia is one of the most expensive diseases in the western world, and especially in Europe, where the population is no longer growing, these costs are going to get much higher in the coming decades. Especially the last years are very expensive. That too would be a reason for me to consider early termination of my life, not wanting to put an unnecessary burden to society as a whole. But I also feel that people who do not want to terminate their life early, should get the best possible care.
"...rather than enduring the potentially horrific drawn-out death that Alzheimer's sometimes brings"
This seems to be a sentiment that is widely accepted. But, mainly by family & loved ones. ... is it painful? Or not? Or somewhat?
I wonder how the "sufferers" feel
I am not saying that it's one way or the other...terrible to watch; terrible to endure?
I don't know, myself. I hope that I never do.
"Ignorance is bliss"?
Don't want to offend, just asking.
A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
First, I am in full support of a person's right to choose their time and place of death when confronted with certain death anyway (I voted for Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law - both times it came up.)
Second, I fully understand the debilitating effects of Alzheimer's, having multiple relatives who have succumb to it late in life.
However, since when is Alzheimer's itself "Terminal"? I have yet to have a relative die "because of Alzheimer's".
According to the latest statistics (http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/yr13-tbl-1.pdf ,) the most common underlying illness that has prompted people to take advantage of Oregon's law is, by far, cancer. (Or, "Malignant neoplasms" as it is phrased in the report.) 80.8%. Next is ALS (aka "Lou Gehrig's Disease",) with 8%. Next Chronic lower respiratory disease (which covers lots of lung issues other than cancer,) with 3.8%, then AIDS at 1.5%, and "Other" rounding out the rest. They detail "Other" in the footnotes, and no Alzheimer's.
So, while I fully understand the desire of someone who is used to major functionality not wanting to succumb to the depths of Alzheimer's, to call it a Terminal Illness is lying to yourself.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Paint you as a bigot?
You brought up the illegal aliens. By expressly not calling you personally a bigot, I deliberately gave you an opportunity to blame those who misinformed you,
You missed the rational bus when you posted that list without checking to see if it supported your statement about illegals.
And I wouldn't feel right leave digressions alone when they are as disruptive to health and safety as the "illegals are fucking up healthcare" canard. Lives are at stake there. You can't lob that into the room and expect nobody to try to throw it back out at you.
Mandated was far too strong a word for the poster to use, but the general concern about likely results (intended and unintended) is legitimate. Legalizing assisted suicide would definitely open up some related questions about competence, conflict of interest, and general social policy for both public entities (courts, legal guardians, tax entities, etc.) and private interests (family, insurance companies, etc.).
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7651.pdf
Small percentage of the uninsured.
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf
Takes a guess, gets lucky, comes up with the same small percentage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
You do realize that says that the federal government is paying for anything not covered by insurance for illegal aliens, right? Which means that any ER that has those costs can file a form to the feds and get their money back, right? Which means that I was wrong. Illegals are not a tolerably small portion of the costs of an ER. They are zero cost to the ER, and the way hospitals are run by grifters they are possibly a huge profit center for ERs. Clinic vists cost very little, and the ER can bill the government their usual profit-bloated price.
So I was right. No ER has ever closed down because of illegal aliens using them as clinics, because no ER should be losing money on them.
The short of it is suicide is and should be illegal because it is immoral , if you don't believe in morality
I believe in morality. I do not believe in YOUR morality.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
What's hilarious is that you are using the wikipedia article on EMTALA to support your point, when it contradicts your point.
Hint: 120 million is less than 6 billion.
There is no such thing as atheistic ethics no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' without God, because that implies laws that extend beyond what physically exists.
Why should the laws of man extend beyond what physically exists?
there can be no valid argument from a non-religious standpoint for or against a law.
Circular reasoning. You have declared only religious arguments to be valid, therefore only religious arguments can be valid.
Consider, for instance, that I consider someone stealing my wallet from me to be wrong because it decreases my score as measured in dollars. From this measure springs forth nearly the entirety of Property Law, without having to resort to the Ten Commandments.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I hope he forgets all about it.
I own every book that Sir Terry Prachett has written since he saw his fist dead body (being a cub reporter in them days really meant something,) and want to read every word he crafts into his great novels.
His passing will be a great tragedy.
Hopefully it will not come to pass before he finishes his next DiskWorld®© story.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
So the US is harshest against human rights because suicide is illegal in most states. Yes it is a crime to kill yourself in most of the United States. Wow I didn't realise that the US was as bad as China, Cuba, Iran or any of those other countries on the human rights watch lists.
Your assertion is not supported by the data.
Promise hospital is the only ER closed in san diego in the last 10 years. Three (20%) closed in the last 20 years. That is just facilities though, the total number of ER beds has increased.
Here's a reference so you can get educated and avoid public misstatements about this topic:
http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-hospital-closure-study-2011,0,4855566.story
The reason people can't get to an ER on time is because the city has decided to spend its money on retirement benefits, major league ball parks, and redevelopment rather than on fire stations or ambulances. That has nothing whatsoever to do with illegal aliens.
I agree that EMTALA is unfair and that hospital rate setting for the uninsured is also unfair but don't agree those two things are connected. I do think if people were left in the street to die because they were poor and uninsured we'd be a lesser nation. I think it would be more fair if the government explicitly acted as a single-payer insurer to cover emergency treatment and people were taxed to cover the expense. The current system is just stupid.
THC and Melatonin?
DOES
...
NOT
HAPPEN
Anyone who'd read "Nation" knows the aforementioned lines actually mean the opposite to the common wisdom and are thus very supportive to Terry's choice, even though they actually convey the continuation of life on terms of one's will, not some deity's one.
Quite a book that was, typical Pratchett, but without the Discworld guise, pity it is not as famous as the rest of the bunch, read almost all of them.
Kudos for Terry, btw, in any way possible.
Now, Make Your WISE Move...
Terry Pratchett isn't asking for suicide to be legal, or in other words to be allowed to kill himself. That isn't what he wants. He wants it to be legal for someone to help him kill himself. Said another way he wants it to be legal for someone to kill him at his supposed request.
Ok so assisted suicide becomes legal. I go to court as a family member and get the courts to say your not legally competent to handle your own affairs. The judge eventually agrees, and I become your legal guardian, power of attorney legally and medically and all that stuff. I then announce that you told me if this ever happened that you wanted to die because clearly you would have lost your mind. There is no way to prove what you said. You might even say you don't want to die now but your not competent any more. So do I get to kill you being legally an assisted suicide? Don't think this will happen? We see similar type of things with families putting people in mental wards, shuffling them off to nursing homes where they don't have to deal with them, etc. You legalise assisted suicide and it will be abused. People will abuse anything they possibly can for a whole host of different reason.
More to the point. I want you dead so I kill you by knocking you out then injecting air into your bloodstream. When the police show up I wave a piece of paper that I forged your signature on or had you sign without you knowing what exactly you signed. I show this to the police and say hey he wanted to die so I just helped him. I say, he told me he had some really messed up disease and didn't want to die in pain and without dignity from it, so I helped him. Police say he was healthy I respond well I don't know what to tell you other than what he told me and this paper he signed saying he wanted to die and needed my help to do it. I could even come up with some other sob story about why you said you wanted to die.
The fact that people have already mentioned well if we allow you it you need to sign something...no that won't work....you need to see a judge....no that might not work either. They are clearly admitting once it is allowed it will be abused as much as people can get away with.
Do we allow assisted suicides for anyone who wants them or just specific cases? Who gets to decide the specific cases and why can't other people in different situations decide when they want to die? If we let anyone decide when they want to die without trying to stop them, then all the people with serious clinical depression will be free to kill themselves simply because they don't want to live any more. So where do you draw the line and who gets to decide where the line is drawn and why do they get to decide where the line is draw rather than each person themselves?
Guess what....welcome to euthanasia decided by the state for who gets to live and who gets to die. If you put any kind of limit on it at all then someone must decide what the limit is and the state will always say they have the last and final word on it. The state will then get to create guild-lines that cover when your not able to decide for yourself, all in the name of personal dignity. Soon the state will say you can die when your going to leave the family with a financial burden. The state will then say that such an important matter can't be handled by the family because they are too close to it and too emotional so the state must decide. The state will change the reasoning over and over until the state decides whatever it wants. It will all be done and promoted as doing what is best for the person and society. So the state ends up saying who lives and who dies. I sure don't want the state to decide who gets to live and die, that is worse than the position we are in now.
If someone wants to kill themselves then just do it. They don't need someone else to help them if it is a planned and rational decision. A couple of boxes of sleeping pills will do the trick and it won't hurt at all. Just go peacefully to sleep and die. You don't need someone to help you for that. If your ser
That was very sneaky. You claim that the phrase "There is no single and universal morality" is atheist code for there bring no morality at all, yourself claiming that morality must be absolute or not at all. You then closed by claiming that we all agree that morality exists ergo morality must be absolute.
There is no basis outside of dogma and scripture to claim that morality is inherent to our universe, let alone that it was put in to place by a divine arbiter of right and wrong. I have just as much evidence and justification in the claim that a dance can only be a dance if it's a tango.
Granted many morals are common, but it requires far fewer assumptions to cite culture and biological similarity than it does to postulate some improbably powerful architect. It should be painfully obvious that Christians appear unable to agree on this universal morality.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
and don't try to connect the two without any proof beyond your say-so.
Why can't he? Haven't you just got through saying that right and wrong are merely people's opinions?
Pratchett is a successful author -- this has gotten him on God's good side, and it is why all of us supported him throughout his life and career. It is a shame to see Satan's work take hold late in the man's life, and with nothing to be done about it. The medical establishment cannot treat his affliction -- it is obvious to any good Catholic like myself that he has been possessed with demons.
If Pratchett is allowed to take his own life, he will be lost to us, and nothing but an eternity in hell will await him. We cannot, and must not condemn one of God's favored sons to this fate. I will roughly enumerate the path he must be forced to take in order to stand the best chance of safeguarding his soul:
He must be placed into a full-time exorcism program. Loosen the demons' seductive grip, and he will have the choice of retaking his own reins; this will be evidenced by him regaining complete faculty of his mind. The stages of this process are of an increasing yet necessary intensity.
1. He is to be kept in isolation for a fortnight, or however long the deacon sees fit. Only purified fluids are to be given to him -- they shall burn the unholy presence out just as it is starved of its sustenance.
2. He must proselytize to as many as his platform will allow him. This is a gambit forced upon the demon: either you release him, or Satan is sure to lose many future souls.
3. He will be scourged for long months by the greatest inventions of pain the deacon can think up, under God's guidance. No creature of Satan is beyond the temptation to sell short his master to avoid agony. This phase will escalate as necessary, and for the remainder of his life if he is still not free. The little remaining time he has is as nothing compared to the eternity that lies beyond, and while some would object to this kind of moral calculus, we must do it to be truly moral. "Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)
Turmeric's not curry. In fact, where I come from, meals with curry and meals with turmeric are often mutually exclusive.
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
He's stated his being pro assisted suicide before. That doesn't meant it doesn't still break my heart when I think about it. Great man.
Five words: separation of church and state. If it's illegal to commit suicide in the US because God hates you for sparing others pain, then I'd say there isn't separation of church and state. If it was made legal, then people could use their own religious beliefs in determining whether to commit suicide.
Recent studies have revealed that regenerative capabilities of the brain and spinal cord are actually not that bad. Given that things are improving on the regenerative front and possibly being able to stop alzheimer progressing, may mean that people like TP could be living a life worth living for a much longer period, or even have the disease go into remission. They may not get back to the level of their 18 year old self, but catching the disease early and being able to stop it could be feasible in the not so distant future.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
the best way to do yourself in is to buy a tank of nitrogen and seal yourself in a small airtight room with it and turn the knob. 'air' is mostly nitrogen, so unlike putting a plastic bag over your head, a mostly nitrogen atmosphere will make you black out without warning or breathing discomfort. I don't know why 'they' don't use this instead of lethal injection for executions...
Ask Me About... The 80's!
We should allow for the reincarnation of authors. If the Dali Lama can pull it off why not arrange for a pregnant woman to stay in the same room he commits suicide in. To preserve some cognitive data, EEG scans before death and after birth can be compared. We might have to wait for the first trimester to complete in order to determine the baby's gender. You have 50/50 odds of reincarnating as the opposite sex your next time around. It is too soon to create a replicant body for him. :-(
And if that doesn't work, he can still try Voodoo.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So you're with the homeopathy guy on top?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I am in fact an atheist but it doesn't matter. You seem to forget christianism is not the only religion on Earth. To you having two wifes is immoral, to muslim it's perfectly OK. The best part is: there is no way to tell which morality is better. There are some people that think eating their enemies is morally acceptable and you have no right to force your morality upon them.
You seem to behave like religious fundamentalist. You think "there is no god but Allah". It's just your Allah is called slightly differently.
My life is my life, so I must be the one to choose to live and for how long. Not any church, government, expert body, nor anyone else. If we follow this rule as firmly as we follow the current rule of "no right to die", then we will not go down the path that the Catholic Exchange suggests.
That's my definition of "right to life": The right to decide about one's own life.
As it is...
People die in all sorts of ways, including suicide. We can't stop those tragedies.
People live though great suffering with no living way out. We can stop those tragedies... but we're not permitted to.
The law against the right to die by one's own choice is immoral.
Supposedly Alzheimer's is extremely rare in Asia
I'm no expert but I saw an article saying Asia was expected to overtake the west soon, if it hasn't already, as the population age.
..you lose your Good Shepherd credentials.
I remember reading somewhere that Alzheimer's is caused by Herpes sores inside the brain.
Here it is: http://science.slashdot.org/story/08/12/07/1954229/Cold-Sore-Virus-May-Be-Alzheimers-Smoking-Gun
So, let's continue listening to religious idiots and keep placing bans on medical research, shall we?
True, the presumably non-repressive Oregon government wasn't *requiring* her to commit suicide. But when you are denied the chance to fight for survival, I'd say the "option" of legal suicide has become a defacto requirement.
Of course, if you read the article, the reason they wouldn't cover the cancer treatment drugs is because said drugs wouldn't actually increase her chances of survival. As the article says, there's a lot of modern, "innovative" and very expensive cancer drugs that can only increase lifespan and can't actually cure it. What it doesn't mention is that the claimed lifespan extensions are tiny, the studies demonstrating them are funded by the pharmaceutical industry and generally highly questionable, and the patients' quality of life is fairly awful. The reason they're still profitable is that cancer in particular is a very emotive topic, and both patients and the press seem to support any treatment that claims to help, no matter how expensive and ineffective it is or how nasty the side-effects are.
It's hard to evaluate exactly what your chances are to come out the far side intact, but a dip in liquid nitrogen (after being loaded with antifreeze) offers better than zero chance. I presume Terry knows about it, if not, perhaps someone who knows him could suggest he check it out. Cryonic suspension following assisted suicide would provide excellent preservation of structure (http://www.merkle.com/cryo/).
Disclosure: I have been signed up with Alcor since 1986, and have helped with the processing of 19 of their patients, including several of my friends, one last December.
End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain
... If he thought that anyone would believe him.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Are you saying that 5.88 billion ERs have closed?
No he can't.
Homoeopathic remedies get more effective the lower the dose.
Therefore, once he starts to take a homoeopathic remedy, should he stop then the dose of the homoeopathic remedy, it's dose remaining in him will decrease. thus any subsequent course of (for example) Voodoo that he takes will simply claim a cure because of the lingering, strengthening effect of the homoeopathic remedy as it is flushed from his system.
QED, homoeopathy works.
For my next trick, I shall prove that homoeopathy kills all it's users once they stop buying their fix. Or do you want to take that one on? I'll get the cymbals ready.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
The part of fascism that survives to this day is a desire for totalitarian control of society. The term comes from the Italian Fascist party and use of the term has become to embrace other parties (most notably the German National Socialist Party).
You'll note that I use the term "neo" in front of "fascist" to describe both the religious-whack-jobs-right that wants to control how you live your life and the progressive-left-wing-whack-jobs that, amazingly, also want to control how you live your life.
The Progressive Party in the U.S. was responsible for that disaster known as Prohibition. These days Progressives and religious conservatives are in the fore-front of telling people how to live their lives. Both are totalitarian control freaks -- hence "neo-fascist".
If you look at their positions, its almost comical.
You get the idea ... each position seems staked out based on the opposite of what the other group has staked out with the only consistent thread is that they know better than you how to live your life.
Homoeopathic remedies get more effective the lower the dose.
So, essentially by extrapolation, the best dose is ... none?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I see where you're coming from, but wanting to permit some things and prohibit others is hardly unique to fascists, fundies or progressives. I'd argue that outside of a certain small set of things explicitly delimited in the Constitution as always allowed/always denied, it's the job of the legislature to permit unless explicitly denied, hence party platforms centered on denying certain things.
In any case, I think this comes down to a matter of definitions... You mean totalitarian, so why not just say totalitarian? Fascism and neo-Fascism both have specific characteristics other than totalitarianism - Romanticizing an imagined idyllic past, militancy and particularly (in Mussolini's words) "the merger of state and corporate power" - which are anathema to progressives.
Also it's worth noting the differences in how progressives and the religious right oppose things... Progressives want what amount to sin taxes on pot, soda and junk food, the fundies want to throw you in jail for doobies, booze or having an abortion.
What I'm saying is that a hilariously small percentage of the unpaid fees to ERs from illegal immigrants was covered by the bill.
This makes me think of Richard Egan, one of the founders of EMC. Beautiful quote from The Register:
Richard Egan, the colourful and vigorous co-founder of EMC, went into a linen cupboard of his home at the Four Seasons condominiums on Boylston Street, Boston, and shot himself in the head with a shotgun on Friday, ending his fight against terminal lung cancer.
Egan had an amazing life, encompassing involvement in the Apollo space programme, the US Marines, starting and building the most successful storage company on the planet, and becoming the US ambassador to Ireland. Finally, aged 73 and facing a lingering death, he ended the battle decisively and on his terms. He was never a shrinking violet.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
and don't try to connect the two without any proof beyond your say-so.
Why can't he? Haven't you just got through saying that right and wrong are merely people's opinions?
Right and wrong are a what a given society agrees to be right and wrong. This had nothing to do with the basic logical fallacies present in his argument; nor his statement as fact the opinion of hs Catholic subculture.
You mean totalitarian, so why not just say totalitarian? Fascism and neo-Fascism both have specific characteristics other than totalitarianism
Today's modern Progressive have more in common with the National Socialist party than they'd probably care to admit. They have similar views on nationalized health care, the environment, and controlling corporations via regulations.
Progressives want what amount to sin taxes
Not really. Prohibition was brought to you by the Progressives. Luckily it was enough of a disaster that everyone is running away from it now. If you look at Hillary-Care, it had very draconian things for doctors that didn't tow the line (it's been long enough I don't remember if she was advocating prison time or just bankruptcy). It's also the Progressives that are making streaming videos on the net a felony (welcome to prison).
You'll also note that the idiot George W was a piker when it came to domestic spying compared to the current [Progressive] administration. If you've been following along with /. I'm sure you've seen the articles on using airport scanner technology to spy into people's houses. It is the Progressives that are advocating putting GPS location devices on everyone's car so that big brother can know where you are at all times.
The previous time that the Progressives were in power [Clinton] they brought us Carnivore and massive domestic spying on e-mail.
Mussolini and Hitler would have salivated to have the domestic spying power that the Progressives have already brought us and are actively seeking. So, yes. The Progressives are totalitarian control-freaks that would make the Fascists proud.
Please note that you had been a fundie, I would have argued against their position.