No, it is true. In the final stages of cancer the pain is so overwhelming that if you are conscious you are in pain, not matter what drugs are given to you. Horrible, life destroying pain with no end.You would have to administer a general anaesthesia to stop the pain, but then the person isn't living any ways.
I sincerely hope you never learn the truth of this first hand, or due to a family member suffering so.
Administering enough analgesics to kill the patient is euthanasia.
Oregon has legal euthanasia. To the best of my knowledge the main controls are:
Must have a terminal illness, less than a handful of months to live
Must be of sound mind
Must be in intolerable pain
Must have three doctors signatures saying you meet all the requirements
So this prevents many of the abuses you brought up. I agree that you must guard against abuse, but I think that people should have the choice to end their lives when they stop being worth living, and there is nothing that can be done to fix it. I would not agree with helping someone who is depressed to commit suicide, for example, but would support it for someone with terminal cancer who is in great pain.
I fail to see how a fairy tale would make a rational, adult, person feel better. Wouldn't a sincere statement of sympathy without reference to obviously untrue statements, like "they are in a better place" be a much more ethical way to act? The world is a neutral place. Bad things do happen. You do want to comfort people who are dealing with tragedy, but we shouldn't have to resort to fairy tales to deal with life's slings and arrows.
Re:In b4 losers asking why he didn't kill himself
on
Jack Kevorkian Dead at 83
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Worrying that legal euthanasia may lead to trouble with insurance companies is only a problem in the very few, terribly uncivilized, western countries that do not have universal medical care paid for by taxes. Everywhere else the issues are to make sure the correct controls are in place so that only the truly terminal, that truly desire to die, and are competent to make that decision are euthanasized.
Oregon has a very reasonable law controlling euthanasia in that state, and to the best of my knowledge it has not caused any medical insurance to be denied.
If you know someone is doing wrong, the only right thing to do is to try to stop the wrong. I polite word may work for a friend, but more extreme circumstances do require going to the proper authorities or the press. Yes, I'm aware of loyalty, but only the good deserve your loyalty.
The people who think there will not be a Rapture have billions of years of evidence on their side. For billions of years there have been zero supernatural events. There is not one good bit of evidence for any supernatural event ever. This is pretty strong evidence that there will be no Rapture.
The "evidence" for the Rapture is a few ambiguous passages in a book written about 2000 years ago by ignorant villagers. This is not slur, just a fact as they were living in a time that was ignorant of a great deal of knowledge we take for granted about how the world, space, and time, really are.
Do to its large size and some quirks of USA history, Texas has a huge influence on text books used throughout the USA. Thus, the Texas issues with science are issues for all of the USA.
Science explains a lot of whys. It just isn't afraid to say "I don't know, yet". Science may never be able to explain some things that happened in the distant past, but it does in fact explain a lot of whys. I personally think it can explain a lot of oughts also. I'm certainly not going to use magic as my fall-back position.
The Catholic church has a long history of interpreting the bible as they see fit. For the longest time they were against translating the bible to local languages because it would break their monopoly on how to interpret and teach the bible. The protestant revolution was for the right to read the bible yourself and see what he "word of god" is.
Back to Galileo. The Catholic churches current interpretation of the bible conflicted with Galileo's findings and he refused to be play nice so they locked him up. The Catholic church has changed its official interpretation of the bible many times over the years. It wasn't that Galileo's finding conflicted with a literal interpretation of the bible, but with the current official church policy.
Anyone who keeps a loaded assault weapon in their home outside of a weapons safe, with the ammo locked in a separate safe is an dangerous idiot.
Anyone who things opening fire on people who identify themselves as the police is great way to "defend" their home is a dangerous idiot. Opening fire with a weapon that will easily penetrate the walls of your neighbors home is doubly stupid.
Anyone who thinks they need a firearm to "defend their home" living in a modern western country is a dangerous idiot.
Except for a few newspaper articles about fad diets no one was promoting high carb diets on the 70's. Too much coffee is bad for you. Eggs are high in cholesterol so they are healthy for everyone.
In the USA, short term thinking has killed off a lot of innovation that takes longer than a couple of quarters to pay off. Despite the wide spread myth that government spending is always an inefficient waste, in fact, most government spending is quite effective. The real problem is bizarre tax breaks for the super rich, dodgey technologies, farm subsidies, and other programs that directly transfer wealth from the middle class to big business and the rich.
Your deficit will go away as soon as you stop spending more than you collect in taxes. Unfortunately, magical thinking is currently rife in the USA, and there is a strange allergy to paying taxes that actually cover what you demand your government to do. These two things conspire to make government policy that pretends you can spend what you don't have indefinitely.
As I'm sure others will point out, a robust space program is much cheaper and more productive than bombing various foreign countries.
Sound was a gimmick when it first came out. Colour was a gimmick when it first came out.
All the TFA is saying is that the author prefers 2D movies, and some movies shot in 2D and made 3D in post production look terrible. This is not news to anyone.
I like well done 3D movies like Avatar. Blurry, muddy, messes are not fun to watch. Just like it took a while for directors to get the hang of sound and colour, it will take a while to get the hang of 3D.
I like elections, but some positions, like judges and police should not be elected. Up here in Canada we don't elect judges, anyone to do with the police, prosecutors, and most other bureaucrats. The police and local community don't get the funds from traffic tickets, they go into the Provinces general revenue. These policies cut down on police just trying to generate revenue via tickets, and lessen corruption.
Judges and Police chiefs should be appointed by committees looking for the best candidate.
You don't get any rights from your constitution. Your rights are an inalienable part of you. The constitution of the USA is simply a reminder to the government that you have these rights and they are not to pass any laws that infringe on them.
Why would anyone think making drugs legal will increase the number of addicts? Illegal drugs are EASIER for kids to get than legal ones as criminals don't check ID's. Most addicts started as kids.
The "war on drugs" has not stopped even one person form getting drugs. It has given free advertising, right in our schools, sponsored by the government, for these criminals product. Thats right, most anti-drug programs simply inform kids about a wide range of drugs they did not know existed.
The "war on drugs" keeps the price and profits high. The only real world effect pf the "war on drugs" is violence, super wealthy criminals, jails filled with people with medical problems, and making these drugs MORE attractive to kids due to cachet of being edgy and illegal.
This has nothing to do with a "collectivist" point of view. Some people are arguing that they "feel" safer when they are in control, as opposed to a machine or another person. This is an emotional, not "collectivist" appeal.
It is a well established fact that people do indeed feel safer when they are in control, but rational people make decisions based on facts and feeling, not just feelings. That is why I like well qualified pilots to fly my jetliners, despite my urge to "be in control".
Rugged individualism has been a myth since Ogg traded a stone arrow head for three chickens.
I enjoy driving. I don't want a machine to do it for me. But I'm not going to argue against a computer system based on any supposed right I have to be in control. The right of others to not have me crash into them over-rides my right to be in control.
I think a good compromise is a system that lets you drive manually if you wish, but will monitor your driving and take over if you are going to harm someone, ie crash.
That made NO sense. You are saying you prefer a situation where more deaths are likely because you will personally be responsible for death? Are you saying when you fly you insist on piloting the craft, despite having a perfectly good pilot on board, because you feel safer when "you are in charge" despite any evidence to the contrary?
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is true. In the final stages of cancer the pain is so overwhelming that if you are conscious you are in pain, not matter what drugs are given to you. Horrible, life destroying pain with no end.You would have to administer a general anaesthesia to stop the pain, but then the person isn't living any ways.
I sincerely hope you never learn the truth of this first hand, or due to a family member suffering so.
Administering enough analgesics to kill the patient is euthanasia.
Oregon has legal euthanasia. To the best of my knowledge the main controls are:
So this prevents many of the abuses you brought up. I agree that you must guard against abuse, but I think that people should have the choice to end their lives when they stop being worth living, and there is nothing that can be done to fix it. I would not agree with helping someone who is depressed to commit suicide, for example, but would support it for someone with terminal cancer who is in great pain.
Religion wins when there is a tragedy?
I fail to see how a fairy tale would make a rational, adult, person feel better. Wouldn't a sincere statement of sympathy without reference to obviously untrue statements, like "they are in a better place" be a much more ethical way to act? The world is a neutral place. Bad things do happen. You do want to comfort people who are dealing with tragedy, but we shouldn't have to resort to fairy tales to deal with life's slings and arrows.
Worrying that legal euthanasia may lead to trouble with insurance companies is only a problem in the very few, terribly uncivilized, western countries that do not have universal medical care paid for by taxes. Everywhere else the issues are to make sure the correct controls are in place so that only the truly terminal, that truly desire to die, and are competent to make that decision are euthanasized.
Oregon has a very reasonable law controlling euthanasia in that state, and to the best of my knowledge it has not caused any medical insurance to be denied.
Why is "snitching" bad?
If you know someone is doing wrong, the only right thing to do is to try to stop the wrong. I polite word may work for a friend, but more extreme circumstances do require going to the proper authorities or the press. Yes, I'm aware of loyalty, but only the good deserve your loyalty.
The people who think there will not be a Rapture have billions of years of evidence on their side. For billions of years there have been zero supernatural events. There is not one good bit of evidence for any supernatural event ever. This is pretty strong evidence that there will be no Rapture.
The "evidence" for the Rapture is a few ambiguous passages in a book written about 2000 years ago by ignorant villagers. This is not slur, just a fact as they were living in a time that was ignorant of a great deal of knowledge we take for granted about how the world, space, and time, really are.
There is a guy who is taking money to look after peoples pets after the Rapture.He has a strict no refunds policy.
This is informative - should be modded up.
The parent article is well written and should be modded up.
I don't agree with everything, but it is well though out.
Do to its large size and some quirks of USA history, Texas has a huge influence on text books used throughout the USA. Thus, the Texas issues with science are issues for all of the USA.
Science explains a lot of whys. It just isn't afraid to say "I don't know, yet". Science may never be able to explain some things that happened in the distant past, but it does in fact explain a lot of whys. I personally think it can explain a lot of oughts also. I'm certainly not going to use magic as my fall-back position.
The Catholic church has a long history of interpreting the bible as they see fit. For the longest time they were against translating the bible to local languages because it would break their monopoly on how to interpret and teach the bible. The protestant revolution was for the right to read the bible yourself and see what he "word of god" is.
Back to Galileo. The Catholic churches current interpretation of the bible conflicted with Galileo's findings and he refused to be play nice so they locked him up. The Catholic church has changed its official interpretation of the bible many times over the years. It wasn't that Galileo's finding conflicted with a literal interpretation of the bible, but with the current official church policy.
Anyone who keeps a loaded assault weapon in their home outside of a weapons safe, with the ammo locked in a separate safe is an dangerous idiot.
Anyone who things opening fire on people who identify themselves as the police is great way to "defend" their home is a dangerous idiot. Opening fire with a weapon that will easily penetrate the walls of your neighbors home is doubly stupid.
Anyone who thinks they need a firearm to "defend their home" living in a modern western country is a dangerous idiot.
And where did you get these "facts"?
Except for a few newspaper articles about fad diets no one was promoting high carb diets on the 70's. Too much coffee is bad for you. Eggs are high in cholesterol so they are healthy for everyone.
Moderation is often a good policy.
In the USA, short term thinking has killed off a lot of innovation that takes longer than a couple of quarters to pay off. Despite the wide spread myth that government spending is always an inefficient waste, in fact, most government spending is quite effective. The real problem is bizarre tax breaks for the super rich, dodgey technologies, farm subsidies, and other programs that directly transfer wealth from the middle class to big business and the rich.
Your deficit will go away as soon as you stop spending more than you collect in taxes. Unfortunately, magical thinking is currently rife in the USA, and there is a strange allergy to paying taxes that actually cover what you demand your government to do. These two things conspire to make government policy that pretends you can spend what you don't have indefinitely.
As I'm sure others will point out, a robust space program is much cheaper and more productive than bombing various foreign countries.
Sound was a gimmick when it first came out. Colour was a gimmick when it first came out.
All the TFA is saying is that the author prefers 2D movies, and some movies shot in 2D and made 3D in post production look terrible. This is not news to anyone.
I like well done 3D movies like Avatar. Blurry, muddy, messes are not fun to watch. Just like it took a while for directors to get the hang of sound and colour, it will take a while to get the hang of 3D.
It isn't technically stealing, it is copyright infringement.
If you steal my car, I can't drive it. If you copy my book, I don't get my royalty.
Yes, the rest of the world has noticed how much the USA is in favour of free markets, except when the rest of the world out competes it.
I like elections, but some positions, like judges and police should not be elected. Up here in Canada we don't elect judges, anyone to do with the police, prosecutors, and most other bureaucrats. The police and local community don't get the funds from traffic tickets, they go into the Provinces general revenue. These policies cut down on police just trying to generate revenue via tickets, and lessen corruption.
Judges and Police chiefs should be appointed by committees looking for the best candidate.
You don't get any rights from your constitution. Your rights are an inalienable part of you. The constitution of the USA is simply a reminder to the government that you have these rights and they are not to pass any laws that infringe on them.
Why would anyone think making drugs legal will increase the number of addicts? Illegal drugs are EASIER for kids to get than legal ones as criminals don't check ID's. Most addicts started as kids.
The "war on drugs" has not stopped even one person form getting drugs. It has given free advertising, right in our schools, sponsored by the government, for these criminals product. Thats right, most anti-drug programs simply inform kids about a wide range of drugs they did not know existed.
The "war on drugs" keeps the price and profits high. The only real world effect pf the "war on drugs" is violence, super wealthy criminals, jails filled with people with medical problems, and making these drugs MORE attractive to kids due to cachet of being edgy and illegal.
Sadly, this is NOT funny. The head of one of the big Mexican cartels once said exactly that in an interview.
This has nothing to do with a "collectivist" point of view. Some people are arguing that they "feel" safer when they are in control, as opposed to a machine or another person. This is an emotional, not "collectivist" appeal.
It is a well established fact that people do indeed feel safer when they are in control, but rational people make decisions based on facts and feeling, not just feelings. That is why I like well qualified pilots to fly my jetliners, despite my urge to "be in control".
Rugged individualism has been a myth since Ogg traded a stone arrow head for three chickens.
I enjoy driving. I don't want a machine to do it for me. But I'm not going to argue against a computer system based on any supposed right I have to be in control. The right of others to not have me crash into them over-rides my right to be in control.
I think a good compromise is a system that lets you drive manually if you wish, but will monitor your driving and take over if you are going to harm someone, ie crash.
That made NO sense. You are saying you prefer a situation where more deaths are likely because you will personally be responsible for death? Are you saying when you fly you insist on piloting the craft, despite having a perfectly good pilot on board, because you feel safer when "you are in charge" despite any evidence to the contrary?