Age of Consent. Belgium's parliament votes through child euthanasia - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Txjake · #31 02-14-2014, 09:06 AM

Think I will put an adminstrative poison pill in my estate documents that will go into effect if I am forced to "consent" to a preplanned demise. I have seen way too much sick, "I want the money" behavior from families in all walks of life to trust my life to anyone but myself. Not sure just how I will structure it, but it will assure that by the time all the court is done, there won't be a cent left. **** 'em

MS Fowler · #32 02-14-2014, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

As to cost, it doesn't matter what the goal is if you cannot afford it or financially justify it.

It was also thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

So what is my motivation in terminating my dog when it is dying from inoperable cancer?

Your dog is not human. I recently had to put down a cat that had been in the family for 14 years. It was difficult, but it was the right thing to do.

aklim · #33 02-14-2014, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Your dog is not human. I recently had to put down a cat that had been in the family for 14 years. It was difficult, but it was the right thing to do.

The principle is the same. I do what is best for them not me.

davidmash · #34 02-14-2014, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I am unclear. Is this a moral issue, or a financial one?
I began to see the trend developing back in the 60s. With the demise of a cultural morality, the rise of social Darwinism, and the subjective, "if it feels good, do it" mentality, we began to view all issues through the lens of cost. First was abortion when the arguments were about the cost to society of allowing these children to be born. Now that we seem to have accepted that, its on to the next step. It used to be almost universally thought that God, alone has the power over life and death. Now that we have shaken off that idea, it is we who want that power. Now we can kill off the elderly and get our hands on their money--whoppeee. We can also kill off those who take too much of our time, or are inconvenient to our selfish desires.
I cannot see this as a good.

It's both for me. First off I do not think the state has any right to tell me that I must live. If for what ever reason I decided I have had enough that is my right. If I am termanally sick and/or in pain how can you or anyone else say I must go on. It's my life, am I in charge or you?

There are only so many beds and so much care to go around. We sentence people to death every day in this country. Insurance companies deny care, available organs are given to one person and not another, and the list goes on. Now people are wringing their hands because someone wants to end their own life? WTF?

Money is limited, isn't that the republican mantra? How much more money has the GOP voted to spend on medical care? My brother in law is 86. When he was 80 he had to have two valves replaced. There were complications and they had to do it again. A million dollars later and he will never be 100%. Given the limited funds we have for medical care was that the best way to spend a million dollars? As harsh as it seems I would say no. Now if you want to cut defense spending in half and give everyone the medical care they need, he'll go for it but I am pretty sure you and the GOP will not go for that. So why the hand wringing? Care and resources are limited. Make a decision. Can't have it both ways. It's like being against abortion and birth control. Just does not work.

Why is it conservatives want small government and government out of people's lives except when it comes to how I conduct my personal life?

Get the F out of my life.

kerry · #35 02-14-2014, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I am unclear. Is this a moral issue, or a financial one?
I began to see the trend developing back in the 60s. With the demise of a cultural morality, the rise of social Darwinism, and the subjective, "if it feels good, do it" mentality, we began to view all issues through the lens of cost. First was abortion when the arguments were about the cost to society of allowing these children to be born. Now that we seem to have accepted that, its on to the next step. It used to be almost universally thought that God, alone has the power over life and death. Now that we have shaken off that idea, it is we who want that power. Now we can kill off the elderly and get our hands on their money--whoppeee. We can also kill off those who take too much of our time, or are inconvenient to our selfish desires.
I cannot see this as a good.

I'd say that's the most accurate part of your paragraph, partly because it points to a medical fact. We as humans, can prolong life much more than we could in the 50's. It is us who invented life prolonging technology. God, apparently, wasn't interested in prolonging our lives so we had to step in and overrule his lackluster performance. Since we did that, it's also necessary that we take responsibility for our actions by saying death lies in the hands of the individual and not in the hands of the divinity. If he gets his panties in a wad about that usurption, there's always a bolt of lightning.

davidmash · #36 02-14-2014, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Your dog is not human. I recently had to put down a cat that had been in the family for 14 years. It was difficult, but it was the right thing to do.

I think it is sad that we will not let our animals suffer but we will make people suffer. Completely illogical.

aklim · #37 02-14-2014, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Why is it conservatives want small government and government out of people's lives except when it comes to how I conduct my personal life?

Special Interests. Plural. They have to satisfy one group that wants small government and the other group that wants to have religious control. Both groups paid money and want something out of it. It is more easily done if you answered to one master but all parties have their masters, plural again, to answer to.

Maki · #38 02-14-2014, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

There are only so many beds and so much care to go around. We sentence people to death every day in this country. Insurance companies deny care, available organs are given to one person and not another, and the list goes on. Now people are wringing their hands because someone wants to end their own life?

Correct. Go into any nursing home or assisted-living facility and you'll see many if not most of the residents wearing DNR bracelets. DNR="do not resuscitate." If one of those people stops breathing, the care staff will take no action to bring them back, even though lifesaving measures are probably just a step or two away.

The designation is part of the admission process in my state. The patient is asked if they want resuscitation, and the answer often is "no."

BTW, a lot of the patients have a designated power of attorney for health care to a guardian, and in that case, it's the "greedy" relative who makes the decision whether lifesaving care should be denied.

davidmash · #39 02-14-2014, 11:12 AM

My wife is a hospice nurse. She has relayed countless stories of families who have not come to grips with the fact that their relative is dying. Her job is to make their passing as painless as possible. Families see movement (Shivo) and think.... Oh she is getting better..... no she is not. She is terminal. Let her pass. Here is 5mg of xxxxx .... rest easy now.

Death is part of the cycle of life. Why are people so scared of it and why do they feel they have the right to tell someone else when they can or can't die. It's my life. Butt out!!!!!!

MTI · #40 02-14-2014, 12:02 PM

I often wonder what the compelling state interest is to prevent end of life decisions by individuals. I suspect that roots in religious doctrine are at play. In the US most states have repealed their laws that criminalize suicide, however they severely criminalize assistance, counseling or advising such action. Oregon and Washington have statutes that set out a formal process for the terminally ill that seems to have survived judicial scrutiny to this point.

MS Fowler · #41 02-14-2014, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

It's both for me. First off I do not think the state has any right to tell me that I must live. If for what ever reason I decided I have had enough that is my right. If I am termanally sick and/or in pain how can you or anyone else say I must go on. It's my life, am I in charge or you?

There are only so many beds and so much care to go around. We sentence people to death every day in this country. Insurance companies deny care, available organs are given to one person and not another, and the list goes on. Now people are wringing their hands because someone wants to end their own life? WTF?

Money is limited, isn't that the republican mantra? How much more money has the GOP voted to spend on medical care? My brother in law is 86. When he was 80 he had to have two valves replaced. There were complications and they had to do it again. A million dollars later and he will never be 100%. Given the limited funds we have for medical care was that the best way to spend a million dollars? As harsh as it seems I would say no. Now if you want to cut defense spending in half and give everyone the medical care they need, he'll go for it but I am pretty sure you and the GOP will not go for that. So why the hand wringing? Care and resources are limited. Make a decision. Can't have it both ways. It's like being against abortion and birth control. Just does not work.

Why is it conservatives want small government and government out of people's lives except when it comes to how I conduct my personal life?

Get the F out of my life.

David, you need to think and stop reading the talking points..
We do NOT put people to death "every day". It gets harder and harder to carry out a death sentence. Many, if not most states have either banned capital punishment, or put so many things in the way that it is effectively banned.
Money is limited, isn't that the republican mantra?
You got that completely backwards. Democrats believe in a closed system, and when one person earns a dollar, it comes from someone else. The Republican/Conservative view is that opportunity expands the pot for everyone. In the words of JFK, " A rising tide lifts all boats" ( Makes me think JFK would not be allowed in the democratic party of today)

As far as government intrusion, I am closer to your view than you probably think. I believe government should defend the defenseless---other than that, stay out of private lives, and bedrooms.

MS Fowler · #42 02-14-2014, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Special Interests. Plural. They have to satisfy one group that wants small government and the other group that wants to have religious control. Both groups paid money and want something out of it. It is more easily done if you answered to one master but all parties have their masters, plural again, to answer to.

Just to be clear, I am a small government guy, but I reject the idea that I should impose my religious views on anyone by force. Its a dangerous, two-edged sword, and one that is used by modern Muslims. I don't want to see that happen here.

Jim B. · #43 02-14-2014, 12:07 PM

A ieighbor here who's a retired Philosophy professor and software engineer and a good friend or mine wrote me an email just now with this remark:

There is a lot of unnecessary suffering because of the idiotic idea that the state knows better than an individual whether his life is worth living. The laws don't prevent suicide attempts. They just result in failed attempts that make people even more miserable,

Anyone brain dead enough to be conned into euthanasia cannot be having such a wonderful life.

It is just absurd that the compassion we show a pet is not given to people, not even allowing them to decide for themselves.

I think at bottom there is a strong resistance to the idea that human life should be judged not worth living, since it implies humans are not worth living with. Suicide, except in the case of terminal illness, is a strong No vote on the value of our contemporaries. No surprise they want to outlaw it.

Jim B. · #44 02-14-2014, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Just to be clear, I am a small government guy, but I reject the idea that I should impose my religious views on anyone by force. Its a dangerous, two-edged sword, and one that is used by modern Muslims. I don't want to see that happen here.

Roger that.

I totally agree.

davidmash · #45 02-14-2014, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

David, you need to think and stop reading the talking points..
We do NOT put people to death "every day". It gets harder and harder to carry out a death sentence. Many, if not most states have either banned capital punishment, or put so many things in the way that it is effectively banned.
Money is limited, isn't that the republican mantra?
You got that completely backwards. Democrats believe in a closed system, and when one person earns a dollar, it comes from someone else. The Republican/Conservative view is that opportunity expands the pot for everyone. In the words of JFK, " A rising tide lifts all boats" ( Makes me think JFK would not be allowed in the democratic party of today)

As far as government intrusion, I am closer to your view than you probably think. I believe government should defend the defenseless---other than that, stay out of private lives, and bedrooms.

I'm not talking about state sanctioned executions. I'm talking about denial of service by health care providers and insurance companies.

Liberals want an open system (like every other advanced nation on the planet) where everyone has access to health care.