[raydan]

How can a judge "rule" that something "should"?

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

There's the rub, "If I choose". Once euthanasia is legal then the matter of the choice will become semantic and Canada will join the Netherlands in performing 'involuntary euthanasia' which is also known as murder.

Logical fallicy: Slippery Slope argument.

Nope, it's easy to see the 'hurry up and die Mom, I want the house/car/bank already'
crowd warming up.

In principle, I support the idea of doctor assisted suicide, but this
is one situation that needs to locked up iron tight to try and prevent ANY
interference from ANYONE except the patient and the doctor.

That's exactly the fallicy. The Judge gave this lady a specific Constitutional Exemption, that she could have a doctor assist her passing to make it as dignified and gentle as possible and the doctor will not face charges for anything related to her passing.

The children have no choice in the matter, the Judge specifically says it's a matter between a patient and their doctor. Just because assisted suicide is unconstitutional, doesn't mean every kid will be looking to speed up their inheritiance. Murder is still illegal.

And Boots - that reminds me of how I had to watch both my Mother and Father pass away. Slowly, painfully. After putting down the dog in January, I wished that had been available to them, and I hope it's available to me.

[Brenda]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Murder is still illegal.

Exactly. And any doctor not sticking to the rules, WILL be charged.

$1:

And Boots - that reminds me of how I had to watch both my Mother and Father pass away. Slowly, painfully. After putting down the dog in January, I wished that had been available to them, and I hope it's available to me.

Exactly.
It is not like you are being told you have a fatal illness and a doctor jumps up and puts a needle in your arm. Hell, we might just kill all babies then, the moment they are born. The one certainty of life: it ends.
It is only to shorten the pain, the agony.

A couple of the rules in The Netherlands are that the patient will only live a few more days, that death is inevitable at that point, that the patient is suffering unbearably and that 2 doctors agree. If you, as a doctor, cannot prove you stuck to those rules, you will be charged with murder.

[Gunnair]

As much as this seems to scare people that we are standing upon the precipice of a very slippery slope, I believe this will be a social good that will allow the pendulum to come back from the almost ridiculous extremes of what kind of capital and limited resources the state will expend in order to eke out a few more weeks as a semi-vegetable in a hospital bed while nurses scrub your arse and family sits and waits and waits and waits for the inevitable which got some reason, we wish to delay.

I seriously doubt we are anywhere near the Carousel Death Ritual once we hit 30.

[redhatmamma]

I don't get the 'discrimination' part, but I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to end their lives if they have a fatal illness or are living as a 'vegetable' on life support. I do worry about the slippery slope aspect though.

[Gunnair]

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

I don't get the 'discrimination' part, but I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to end their lives if they have a fatal illness or are living as a 'vegetable' on life support. I do worry about the slippery slope aspect though.

Why? What concerns you?

[Lemmy]

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

I don't get the 'discrimination' part, but I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to end their lives if they have a fatal illness or are living as a 'vegetable' on life support. I do worry about the slippery slope aspect though.

No, this is traction against the slippery slope. The slippery slope is our government that already interferes way too much in our private matters.

[DrCaleb]

Gunnair Gunnair:

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

I don't get the 'discrimination' part, but I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to end their lives if they have a fatal illness or are living as a 'vegetable' on life support. I do worry about the slippery slope aspect though.

Why? What concerns you?

If they were on life support, I'd have a problem for someone making that decision for another person. Living wills should be required before extreme measures are discontinued.

[andyt]

Like the Terry Schiavo case? I think the right decision was made. What do you think?

[Brenda]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Gunnair Gunnair:

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

I don't get the 'discrimination' part, but I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to end their lives if they have a fatal illness or are living as a 'vegetable' on life support. I do worry about the slippery slope aspect though.

Why? What concerns you?

If they were on life support, I'd have a problem for someone making that decision for another person. Living wills should be required before extreme measures are discontinued.

Just before my grandmother died (89 years old), the hospital where she was called my mother.
My grandma refused to eat because she thought the nurses were trying to poison her (she obviously had dementia), she pulled out all her IV lines, causing a bloody mess, and there was not much more anyone could do. Since she refused to eat, and they couldn't feed her through an IV, they called my mom and ask what they should do. They can't force her to eat. So they basically, with my mom's consent, stopped all treatment...

It was awful, but what else can you do?

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Like the Terry Schiavo case? I think the right decision was made. What do you think?

I didn't follow it. Googling it, yes. I think it was the right one. Her brain was never going to get any better, no matter how long they let machines keep her alive. It's sad though that she had to be starved to death. Even our pets we treat better than that.

Brenda Brenda:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Why? What concerns you?

If they were on life support, I'd have a problem for someone making that decision for another person. Living wills should be required before extreme measures are discontinued.

Just before my grandmother died (89 years old), the hospital where she was called my mother.
My grandma refused to eat because she thought the nurses were trying to poison her (she obviously had dementia), she pulled out all her IV lines, causing a bloody mess, and there was not much more anyone could do. Since she refused to eat, and they couldn't feed her through an IV, they called my mom and ask what they should do. They can't force her to eat. So they basically, with my mom's consent, stopped all treatment...

It was awful, but what else can you do?

Exactly the reason for a living will. Also, extremely sad. I'd never want to watch another human slowly die like that, let alone a parent. Well, actually .. .it took my dad nearly a month to die after his heart attack. That was hard to watch, as his organs slowly shut down.

Mom took 5 years, but the first few months and the last few were the hard parts. But she had a living will - 'no extreme measures' and all. But the amount of Morphine she was on daily would have killed a room full of junkies.

Again, sad that we treat our pets better than we treat our parents in their final stages of life.